Jump to content

Talk:Israel/Archive 107

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100←Archive 105Archive 106Archive 107Archive 108

Lead: paragraph on culture

Many people seem to feel the lede of this article focuses too much on the conflict rather than the country of Israel, and I have to say I agree. I think there does have to be another small paragraph, at the end of the lede, which summarises the culture section, although I'm not in a place to write it so if people agree I hope we can make one. It's also positive and offsets the negativity from the previous paragraphs so that the article is more in line with WP:NPOV Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my concerns seriously! FortunateSons (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
This should not be considered part of NPOV, but the basics of writing a proper WP:LEAD. It's not just Culture, the final paragraph squashes up Government, Economy, and Demographics, 3 of the 7 main sections (although there is a slight bit of coverage in the first paragraph too). These could all along with Culture use more fleshing out, currently everything is lopsided towards one section (History) taking up two paragraphs (including one massive one). CMD (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
It's just such a contentious and contemporarily relevant subject. I can start a new topic and we can work on trimming it down without ignoring the relevant content? Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's a productive use of anyone's time to start a new discussion on trimming when there is an active RfC looking to expand. Better to craft a new paragraph on Culture and other items. CMD (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay we'll do that first Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, we can only have four paragraphs max, so adding another whole paragraph is not a good idea. I also think maybe the Culture section of this article or all the Safed quarter subgroup communities could be trimmed if an editor once again decides to tag this article as being too long. Trimming the history was contentious, the other suggestions may be less controversial. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
We should add it into the 4th paragraph then, I was thinking something a little smaller than the second paragraph Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I do agree the Safed bit in the history section can be trimmed, however I really like the list of different communities. I think the sports section can be trimmed, otherwise the content of the article seems appropriate imo idk Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
My thinking for structure is to have a couple sentences summarising Jewish culture and the diversity/variety of traditions, and a few summarising or referring to the literature, music and dance, cinema and theatre, arts, architecture, cuisine, and sports sections Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The four paras is not ironclad, it can be five if justified. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, Wafflefrites says only 4 paragraphs. So cut down from paragraph 3, it is the size of all the rest combined. O.maximov (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Or add culture to the small 4th one? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a wish to trim 3 down, however that'd be after the RfC Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • We can obviously expand paragraph 4 to include culture. I would suggest each editor propose just one sentence to be added, we collate the proposals, vote on them and include the top one or two agreed upon sentences. starship.paint (RUN) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not the best placed to write this, but my proposal would be:
Israel's culture is synonymous with Jewish culture, with elements coming from within Judaism and also from interactions with various previous host populations, and others still from the inner social and cultural dynamics of the community. Israel has a diverse cultural mix, with cultural traditions present from from various Jewish diaspora communities intermingled with Arab influences.
I don't know what to put next Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
That does not read as a summary of the relevant section. To be fair, the relevant section is bleakly short (in full: "Israel's cultural diversity stems from its diverse population: Jews from various diaspora communities brought their cultural and religious traditions with them. Arab influences are present in many cultural spheres, such as architecture, music, and cuisine. Israel is the only country where life revolves around the Hebrew calendar. Holidays are determined by the Jewish holidays. The official day of rest is Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath.") before it gets into specifics too detailed for much summary. Nonetheless, working with that, you'd add something like "Israel has a diverse cultural mix, with cultural traditions present from from various Jewish diaspora communities intermingled with Arab influences." Ideally there would also be a word or two for each subsection, but that assumes they have been crafted with due weight and as with the lack of development in the broad coverage the subsections don't appear to have been carefully curated. That said, if there is something which talks directly about general Jewish culture (instead of alluding to it regarding holidays) that should be added to the Culture section and could be considered for a better lead. CMD (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay I'll add that to the proposal. I'm not sure how best to summarise each subsection Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The Jewish culture article needs to be summarised at the start of the culture section, and discuss traditions in Judaism, particular features from the diaspora, and national holidays imo Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I oppose any such mention as this does not summarize the lede, is too detailed in the body, and is never mentioned in any country WP articles. Again, the lede should be made of four well-composed paragraph per MOS:LEDE. The recent expansions are entirely out of place, and further expansion will only add to the current chaos. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Are you talking about culture? If so, many people disagree with you. Of course the culture section should be detailed in the body, if anything the opening paragraph in the body isn't detailed enough. MOS:LEDE specifies that the lede should summarise the body; the lede currently gives undue weight to the history section. Anything that we agree to add here to the lede will then be expanded on in the body and some of the subsections trimmed. To be clear, we are not talking about the history section here, but the culture section and how best to summarise it/have it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD is a summary and concise overview of the article. We have one entirely unrepresented body section, Culture. There's no reason why we cannot have at least one sentence on Culture. Lead paragraph 4 is short and there is space there. In fact, by failing to have any lead content on Culture, we would be giving credence to the notion that the lead lacks balance and fails WP:NPOV. starship.paint (RUN) 12:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
NPOV relates to different positions, not balancing positives with negatives. If Israel had wars and controversies for the entirety of its existence, then that's just how its WP article and by extension its lede will be. It's not up to us to do such "balance". Again, this is not done for any other country, and would overstretch the already overstretched lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
No other country has half of their lede dedicated to controversy Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Possibly because other countries do not have a 75 year record of controversy. In any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
There are many countries that have 75+ years of controversy, but not reaching a point of climax today Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
This may not be a good idea, but maybe we shouldn't discuss the wars or history in detail in the lede and instead go into detail in the body and in the lede just use pagelinks (including the nakba pagelink) and go into detail about the migrations in the body Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I think that's trying to do too much at the moment. We should simply focus on adding a sentence or two on culture. starship.paint (RUN) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed I was just spitballing Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I easily managed to find examples from every continent where their nations had content on culture in the lead. Sometimes it was one sentence, sometimes more.

Thus, discussing culture in the lede has wide precedent. There should not be any issue to have at least a sentence. starship.paint (RUN) 13:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It's the history section that is, and always has been, the main inappropriate hogger of space. The history section should begin with the rise of Zionism in the 19th century and mirror that in the lead. State of Palestine shows you how it's done. Everything before that is only present due to POV-pushing by editors along manifest destiny-type lines, but is actually the history of the region, not the modern nation state. Until this is adequately resolved, the lead will forever be a skewed summary. The description of all the bordering territories should also be heavily simplified. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. We can start a section on how to better organise this article after the RfC, however we need to include people of diverse opinion Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with most of that. The historical significance of prior cultures and countries (particularly jewish ones) is of great importance to modern Israel and it's self-perception, and reflected in both the (claimed) founding motivations and the RS coverage of the history. This is, among other, exemplified by the debate around borders and the status of groups as indigenous. FortunateSons (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes but surely the history before zionism can be summarised in a small paragraph, with pagelinks to the articles Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Israel is the only country to follow the Hebrew calendar and have Hebrew as an official language. Jewish culture is dominant in the culture of Israel, while Arab culture is also present. starship.paint (RUN) 14:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Good, but I think “elements of Arab culture”, so the two aren’t separated as culture can’t be compartmentalised Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Israel is the only country which follows the Hebrew calendar and has Hebrew as an official language. Jewish culture is dominant in the culture of Israel, while elements of Arab culture are also present. starship.paint (RUN) 14:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
It will be good to hear from actual Israelis on this. They would know the culture best. Also note, the above is 34 words. That's close to that of Japan's 32 words: Japan is a cultural superpower as its culture is well known around the world, including its art, cuisine, film, music, and popular culture, which encompasses prominent manga, anime, and video game industries. starship.paint (RUN) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Support as well, I really like this proposal, but I'm not Israeli, so...
I'm guessing that no-one wants to re-open the can of worms that is the question of "only jewish-majority country"?
Minor question: not being a native speaker, the first half of the second sentence in the suggestion sounds slightly clunky to me (double reference to culture). Is that just me? FortunateSons (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
My English isn’t the best! Anyone can propose a better version. We could always send it to the copyedit squad on-wiki. Jewish-majority country… that isn’t culture though? Its demographics? starship.paint (RUN) 15:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
It’s kinda both (with the overlap being the demographic impact on culture, through Jews who continuously lived there combined with the immigration, expulsion and flight of Jews from the diaspora to Israel), but yes, I’m guessing it’s closer to Demographics.
Your English is great, it’s quite plausible that it’s just me, don’t worry. FortunateSons (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence is reasonable, the second sentence isn't special as Arab culture is dominant in the culture of Saudi Arabia, it doesn't add anything of value really. I would support the first and oppose the second. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion for an alternative second sentence? FortunateSons (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Maybe: Israeli culture is often synonymous with Jewish culture with elements of Arab culture from citizens and previous host nations, also involving cultures of other ethnic minorities. (clause on Judaism, Islam, Druze etc., clause listing the subsections) Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The statements on culture are not at all ok to me. If anything, they already mildly fallacious, and at minimum, generalising. Israeli culture isn't the same thing as Jewish culture, and obviously we don't need a sentence saying Israel is dominated by Israeli culture. The ethnic division version is even weirder. Why would we follow the Israeli government's racialised dividing line of Jews and Arabs? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Now if you said something along the lines of "Israeli culture combines elements of European and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture" then you might actually be getting somewhere, while avoiding the subject of cultural appropriation. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
That’s probably nitpicking, but there is also non-European/ME Jewish culture with some pretty significant influence. FortunateSons (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
That's much better tbh, but needs to include the culture of the ethnic minorities, see my proposal above which has a bad start Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Israel is the only country which follows the Hebrew calendar and has Hebrew as an official language. Israeli culture combines elements of European, African, and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture. I am not so sure if we need to mention the Druze in Israel, Circassians in Israel or Armenians in Israel and Palestine. The Circassians and Armenians number at around 5,000 each, very few. not lede-worthy in my opinion. The Druze are much more (140,000+), but according to a survey from 2016, 71% of Druze identify as ethnically Arab. By mentioning Arab culture, we've in a sense already included the Druze. starship.paint (RUN) 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

How about mentioning that Israel includes lots of holy sites of different faiths? Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
You want it? You word it. I'm not sure how to. starship.paint (RUN) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I would also be opposed to mentioning this part about holy sites as it would be factually inaccurate and misleading, given that the Dome of the Rock and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre are within the occupied and annexed territory of East Jerusalem, and not within Israel, according to international law and the international community. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Israeli cuisine fuses Jewish cuisine and Arab cuisine. Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories also have a plethora of historical and religious sites important to many Abrahamic religions. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
If you look at a featured country article, like Japan, the way that the culture section is usually done is mainly as a list of culture, cuisine, music, etc. linked to the child articles. As you see, this allows for a summary of the culture without a granular focus on every separate aspect. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Maybe list the others after that? Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not western religions; and as mentioned before many of these sites are not located within Israel, so this would be misleading. Furthermore, it would be unbalanced to mention Israeli cuisine without mentioning the cultural appropriation controversies which has been extensively discussed by RS. So I would also oppose both of these sentences, and support the one about the Hebrew calendar. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
They are western religions? See western religion and eastern religion, the difference in nature is really interesting. It isn't misleading, look at the page linked to. I wasn't aware of such controversy, however the statement is still correct. The body can discuss the controversy. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned in the western religion article they are more accurately called Abrahamic religions; and again there are no prominent Christian or Muslim holy sites in Israel anyway, as the Dome of the Rock and the Church of Holy Seplechure are not in Israel. The lede should too as it is a summary of body including any prominent controversies per MOS:LEDE. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
How about Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories ? I think that works Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
This article geographically is about Israel and not the occupied Palestinian territories which has its own standalone article. The mention of occupation in this article only comes from the aspect that the Israeli state is the perpetrator. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The article is about the state of Israel, which controls the occupied territories Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
You are right indeed, it controls it, but does not encompass it. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why the distinction is made Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I think this is the point were we are at the “which parts of Israel does this article include” moment of the discussion again. It isn’t ideal that we consider it as covered for the claims regarding apartheid but not for the cultural parts, and would prefer if we did either both or neither. FortunateSons (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. Selfstudier (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
As already argued, the mention of the occupied territories and apartheid comes from the fact that the Israeli state is perpetrator, not from the perspective that the occupied territories are geographically part of the Israeli state. And again, by Israeli state, here we mean the 1948 borders, according to RS and international law. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
That’s not entirely true; while a minority opinion, some argue that the apartheid is between Israel proper and the occupied territories too. However, as this is indeed a view not supported by the overwhelming amount of scholarship, the outcome does remain the same.
International law does not make a conclusive statement on any specific borders (instead likely deferring to negotiations over the return of occupied territories), but this would go beyond the depth wanted for this article anyway. However, a majority of RS do, so this point is moot anyway FortunateSons (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Given that apartheid is also being used to describe 1948 Israel, of which the Israeli state is perpetrator, this is actually an additional point on why this should be mentioned here. International law is clear in saying that acquiring new territories by force is prohibited. Anyway, the point is clear: Israel article is about the Israeli state which officially exists geographically on the 1948 border and exercises further powers beyond to the 1967 occupied territories, which it controls but it does not encompass. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
That’s technically true, but not really the point here, as the masterpiece that is United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 is not clear on anything. In addition, the RS who consider Apartheid to apply to Israel proper are a small minority.
But as this is a question of article scope and not law, the actual point is the RS coverage, meaning: are some or all of the holy sites unambiguously considered part of Israel proper, to which I believe the answer to be no, instead being part of the West Bank and not Israel proper.
Regarding including the religious and cultural places, the question would be if long-lasting effective control is enough to include, along the lines of The territory controlled by Israel contains a plethora of places with great religious significance to all three Abrahamic religions. or something similar. FortunateSons (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Maybe Abrahamic instead of western would be more appropriate Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Yep, Abrahamic religions. Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I think the apartheid section needs to specify which laws amount to apartheid, or discuss the nature of it a bit, and then just summarise the accusation part Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
You mean in the article body? Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
See https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf and specify what you would like to add. I think the accusations are already summarized, no? Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it should probably focus on the substance of the allegations, rather than mostly on the legitimacy of the claims, I think that paragraph might be better as a list of bodies that affirm it, with preceding information on the specifics of Israeli law and enforcement.
This: These include the Law of Return, the 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, and many laws regarding security, freedom of movement, land and planning, citizenship, political representation in the Knesset (legislature), education and culture, as well as the Nation-State Law enacted in 2018.
might be good, from the main article's lede. This article Israeli law needs a section on the relevant apartheid allegations, and the other articles on politics and security Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, I will leave you to fix other articles, I am only interested in this one and I am not that clear what it is you want to add, specifically. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Tbh it's mainly political representation in the Politics of Israel article, I'll do Israeli law Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure about including cuisine, I think that’s too much. As I showed above, even “cultural superpower” Japan only has 32 words for culture in the lead. We really want to stress only the most significant points. Israel is the only country which follows the Hebrew calendar and has Hebrew as an official language. Israeli culture combines elements of European, African, and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture. The territory controlled by Israel contains many places with great religious significance to all three Abrahamic religions. 49 words, would probably be on the higher end of any nation’s lead on culture. The second sentence in a sense covers cuisine already. starship.paint (RUN) 01:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but there are more than 3 Abrahamic religions, just 3 major ones Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure about the first sentence. A large number of countries can be described as "the only country having X as an official language". Using the Hebrew calendar is indeed unusual but it's not that consequential, after all it's mostly used for religious purposes and holidays. Alaexis¿question? 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
What's the controversy with saying it's the only Jewish-majority country? This implies other minorities Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure about the import of an Official language. "On 19 July 2018, the Knesset passed a basic law under the title Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, which defines Hebrew as "the State's language" and Arabic as a language with "a special status in the State" (article 4). The law further says that it should not be interpreted as compromising the status of the Arabic language in practice before the enactment of the basic law, namely, it preserves the status quo and changes the status of Hebrew and Arabic only nominally. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
This article's geographic scope is about Israel and not the territory controlled by Israel. So again, I would oppose mention of religious sites in lede here. As for the sentence regarding culture, it does not add anything of much value. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the article has a geographic scope, it is on the state of Israel, and the Palestinian territories are occupied and governed by the state of Israel Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
If we are going to divide Jewish culture, then it is best to use the more appropriate adjectives: Ashkenazi and Mizrahi/Sephardi. African Jews (from sub-Saharan Africa) are an extreme minority in Israel, and Jews from the Middle East and North Africa are basically the same. But since the different Jewish cultures in Israel are merging into one, the division only makes the sentence longer than necessary. Mawer10 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
This is discussed in 'Demographics', but it should be discussed in the context of culture as well imo Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The Ashkenazi/Mizrahi divide isn't a proper classification of Jewish culture, but an ethnic classification created by the Israeli state. Usage of the term Mizrahi Jews only arose prominently from around the 1980s. It's quite unlike the term Sephardim which actually has a long and well-defined cultural history. Mizrahi Jews is just a proxy term for all of the different and quite varied Jewish groups that came from across the Middle East, including Sephardim. It is therefore of little use in actual cultural classification, and aside from being a POV label, is in fact a poorer and less natural descriptor that basic geography. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Ethnic classification terms can also refer to culture. Mizrahi is not an invalid term because of its origins, it is commonly used in various sources discussing things about Jews, especially those from Israel. The concept makes more sense than the American terms "Latino" and "Hispanic", for example. We even have Wikipedia articles about Jews using this division extensively, like Mizrahi music, Mizrahi cuisine, Sephardic cuisine and Ashkenazi cuisine. Mawer10 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It remains less natural descriptively than geography, and anachronistic. If no one was talking about something before Israel was created, Israeli culture can hardly be blended from it. Whatever terms Israel has invented since is its business, but that doesn't redefine the past. That's revisionism. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
How about:
Israel is the only Jewish majority country in the modern period, with Arab, Druze, Circassian, Armenian, and Samaritan minorities. Israeli culture combines elements of European, North African, and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture, as well as those from other minorities.
Britannica [1] states "The State of Israel is the only Jewish nation in the modern period" Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to say that I oppose this addition, we already have a paragraph on culture that talks about it in detail, I don't think it should be in the lead which should be include the most important parts .
Beyond that, only a few months ago there was a discussion about adding "the only Jewish country in the world" and most editors opposed this addition. Qplb191 (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Qplb191. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Why? Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section#Rule of thumb says that if something gets its own section, it deserves to be summarised in the lede. I did put feelers out for that description but didn’t hear any arguments against, Britannica describes it as such. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons, Chipmunkdavis, Wafflefrites, Selfstudier, O.maximov, Starship.paint, Iskandar323, and Mawer10: I'd rather not do an RfC on this, pinging editors that have participated in this discussion Kowal2701 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of a paragraph about Israeli culture, based on the discussion I imagined something along the following lines: Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world, and is the only country to have Hebrew as an official language. The country contains many historical and religious sites with great significance to the Abrahamic religions. In many aspects, Israel's culture is a blending of Jewish and Arab cultures, encompassing diverse elements like cuisine, music, and art. Mawer10 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I am happy with this. Better than nothing. starship.paint (RUN) 02:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The spoken language sentence is pointless: this is not notable. Romania is the only country where Romanian is spoken, etc. The official language of a nation is mundane information that is already clearly displayed in the infobox, alongside population information, land area, etc., and does not need to be repeated in sentence format in the lead. That's just bloat. Also, a culture including "cuisine, music and art" is not "encompassing diverse elements"; those are just the basic constituents of a culture. Fluffy wording. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I’d say the revival of Hebrew is notable Kowal2701 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
If that is what is notable then the lead should link revival of the Hebrew language and state that Israel is the only country to speak a revived language. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Most historical and religious sites are actually in Palestine and East Jerusalem. I’d say change country to region Kowal2701 (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a page about the country, not a region. This is why that statement is a bit vague and problematic. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
It’s a page about the State of Israel which would include their administration of occupied territories, I agree it’s problematic though Kowal2701 (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
As discussed before, this article is about the State of Israel, whose geographic scope is the 1948 internationally recognized border. Mentions of the occupied territories here does not come from a perspective of geographic scope, but from a perspective of that the Israeli state is the perpetrator of the occupation and the apartheid; per ICJ.
I oppose any inclusion of a sentence on culture beyond a sentence, as is the case with any other country's lede. I find so far the point about Hebrew being revived and the Hebrew calendar to be the most appropriate for inclusion, as a middle ground solution, and so we can finally move on from this point.
This is the proposal: "Hebrew is the country's official language, a revived language, and the only country that uses the Hebrew calendar. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, your opinion is just one person’s opinion Kowal2701 (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: Aren't the 1967 borders the internationally recognised borders, as again just determined by the ICJ case? Why are you harking on about 1948 (1947 UN partition proposal technically)? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I am referring to the green line, so indeed better called the (pre-)1967 border. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but no one still talks about the green line, except in reference to 48 Arabs. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
It's also Modern Hebrew; Hebrew links to Hebrew language in general. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with @Kowal2701s alteration to @Mawer10 suggestion here, because it’s controlled by the country, despite not being within what most consider the de-jure borders. FortunateSons (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
By "most" you mean international law and the intentional community? That's not something we just hand wave aside. The occupied territories are no more part of Israel than Crimea is a part of Russia. And you haven't addressed any of the other points, which does not really help us build consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Would “wider region” be more appropriate, provided we can agree on the scope here? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Why would we bring that up in the lead about a specific country? A lead is meant to reflect the absolutely most specific and critical information about the subject, not peripheral material. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Because the wider region is under Israeli administration Kowal2701 (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok, and ... ? Crimea is under Russian adminstration. Does Russia now contain and get to claim everything Crimean? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Crimea would be within the scope of Russia imo Kowal2701 (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, that does depend on your specific interpretation of 242 regarding any or every specific area, and the status of Jerusalem, etc., as well as a wide range of other factors. But I do feel like most is the appropriate term here, considering my argument is based on de-facto status, not law. FortunateSons (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
As of Friday, East Jerusalem is illegally occupied according to the ICJ, which is the highest legal body of the UN. If we're not dealing in legal terms, we would have to state that "Israel claims ownership of ..." Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The phrasing sounds clunky, but the content is fine IMO, even if I would stick with facts rather than claims, focussing instead on what is happening on the ground, being less subject to change. What is the phrasing used for other long-term occupations/effective control on other pages? Tibet uses “under the administration of”, Taiwan uses “The combined territories under ROC control”, both sound reasonable to me when used here. FortunateSons (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
There are many religious and historical sites of great significance in Israel proper, so there is no need to consider the occupied territory in this statement. See. Mawer10 (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The sentence is vague and avoids mentioning if these religious sites are Al-Aqsa mosque and Nativity church, which Israel advertises as within its territory, while they are in fact under occupation. This vagueness would be misleading. There are no parallels to these two sites within Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of the historical site mention on when current culture is the intended topic. They're not mentioned in Israel#Culture at any rate. At any rate, if that's what's holding back the addition of a very basic mention of Culture in the lead, add the rest and discuss that sentence more if needed. CMD (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I object to adding the culture paragraph, for the reasons listed above there are not enough supporters of it and there are opponents. I don't understand why add this to the lead. Qplb191 (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Your objection needs to be based on policy Kowal2701 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Also @Makeandtoss opposed to adding that. Qplb191 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
No he didn't, he opposed the sentence on religious sites which was removed Kowal2701 (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Regardless it is 4/5 to 1/2 which is clear consensus. You've also just violated 1RR Kowal2701 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: regarding your earlier quote I oppose any inclusion of a sentence on culture beyond a sentence, as is the case with any other country's lede. - that's absolutely false, and I already proved it above with quotes, CTRL-F "Brazil", "New Zealand". starship.paint (RUN) 02:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I think adding the sentence about lead culture is problematic, Israel is among the most heterogeneous countries in the world, there are minorities of Christian Arabs, Muslim Arabs, Druze, Circassians, Russian Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, immigrants, , secularists, ultra-Orthodox, and more... There is no way to sum it up succinctly, it must be detailed, and it is not fit for the lead. Qplb191 (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
It is detailed in the article body (although it can use more). Per WP:LEAD this needs to be summarized in the lead, as it is with any other heterogenous country. CMD (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a difference between a heterogeneous country and Israel which is a heterogeneous country that is in conflict with the indigenous people of the land. Qplb191 (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
No difference that affects WP:LEAD. CMD (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
There is definitely a difference , we can’t mention only the culture of Israel without mentioning the Palestinian culture. Qplb191 (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The addition you reverted twice already specifically mentions both Jewish and Arab influences. CMD (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Looks fine @Mawer10 O.maximov (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Just wanted to say that my latest edit summary was partially incorrect, this is not longstanding content. I got confused since there is another sentence starting in the same way ("Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world") in the Demography section. Alaexis¿question? 08:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Relating to the recently added sentence: "Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world, and is the only country to have a revived language, Modern Hebrew, as an official language. In many aspects, Israel's culture is a blending of Jewish and Arab cultures, encompassing diverse elements like cuisine, music, and art."
How is having the largest Jewish population in the world lede worthy; India has the largest Hindu population in the world; what value does that add? How is "Israel's culture is a blending of Jewish and Arab cultures" even neutral when Israel is consistently characterized as engaging in cultural theft and destruction? [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] And about "cuisine, music, and art"; all cultures encompass cuisine, music and art so how does this add anything of value to the lede?
Why were these contested sentences added despite the clear lack of general agreement, i.e. consensus; not a headcount? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Because there was clear consensus, although not a complete one. Most people agreed with the proposal, yours and Qpib's opinions are in the minority. Also I really don't think your points hold water. Kowal2701 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
You need to propose improvements rather than tearing everything down Kowal2701 (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Makeandtoss: It would be constructive to differentiate descriptive statements from normative statements, evaluation, and opinion. SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
How about: "Israel is the only country to have a revived language, Modern Hebrew, as an official language. The culture of Israel is predominantly Jewish with elements of Arab cultures, encompassing cuisine, music, and art.
Predominantly addresses the initial first sentence. The wording of the last clause could be improved Kowal2701 (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Adding a fix (Because there are many different types of Jewish cultures). The culture of Israel is composed of diverse Jewish with elements of Arab cultures, encompassing cuisine, music, and art.
Do you like it? O.maximov (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes but just a little tweak:
The culture of Israel is predominantly composed of diverse Jewish cultures, with elements of Arab cultures, encompassing cuisine, music, and art. Kowal2701 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no minority and majority on WP, as WP is not a democracy; WP operates by consensus, and consensus is achieved by following guidelines and RS and valid compromising. If RS are stating that Israel has engaged in cultural theft of Arab culture, and we are here incorrectly portraying it by claiming Israel's culture encompasses elements of Arab culture, then this is a completely misleading POV that runs counter to RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
That's a factual statement. "with elements of Arab cultures" implies they've been taken from elsewhere, and the context given earlier implies the climate Kowal2701 (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
It is not a factual statement because "encompassing" implies it is intrinsic to it, and not culturally appropriated per RS. This is similar to how we do not say that Israel encompasses the West Bank; it actually illegally occupies it. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense, but encompassing is not in reference to the Arab elements. I'm struggling to find a word that is more direct and doesn't imply intrinsicality. "Involving" as an improvement? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think the current sentence accurately represents the culture, at least according to Britannica.
Here is what I added to the Culture of Israel Wikipedia article:
There has been minimal cultural exchange between Israel’s Jewish and Arab populations. Jews from Arab-Muslim Middle East communities brought with them elements from the majority cultures in which they lived. The mixing of Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Middle Eastern traditions have advanced modern Israeli culture, along with traditions brought by Russian, former Soviet republican, Central European and American immigrants. The Hebrew language revival has also developed Israel’s modern culture. Israel’s culture is based on its cultural diversity, shared language, and common religious and historical Jewish tradition.[1] Wafflefrites (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
What is even the source for the claim that Israeli culture encompasses elements of Arab culture? A quick google search for the terms "Arab culture" and "Israel" only reveals articles about cultural theft and destruction. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Falafel. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I like it. A good balance. O.maximov (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll be specific. I like Kowal2701's "The culture of Israel is predominantly composed of diverse Jewish cultures, with elements of Arab cultures, encompassing cuisine, music, and art." O.maximov (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I don’t like this paragraph at all it’s not supposed to be at the lead and it’s not mentioning the Palestinian culture Qplb191 (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the article about modern Israel, not Palestine or the British Mandate. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
They are part of the Arab minority, which also includes the Druze Kowal2701 (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
And also Arab Jews who never left the region, I suppose you could call them Palestinian if you want, as well as Arab Jews from the diaspora. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
It’s can not be summery , it is complicated and there are many minorities ethnic and religious groups, the relation between ultra orthodox and secularist is much more important today . Qplb191 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Also it’s very debatable, we are not mentioning Arabic , Russian languages (which they are the second and third most spoken languages in Israel) not mentioning religious groups like ultra orthodox, and minorities, for example some Druze don’t see themself as Muslim and Arabs , I think it’s horrible sentence. Qplb191 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
We are also not mentioning the Palestinian culture , @nableezy what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Qplb191 made a new good point. Israel has its culture divided between the secularist and Ultraorthodox sections of its predominantly Jewish society. Consequently, the culture wars, relating to the role of religion in public spaces, the drafting of the Haredim, the charachtar of the state; these are all much more relevant to Israeli culture than the culture of its Arab minority. Even this Arab minority's culture, it is part of Palestinian culture, and not part of Israeli culture; even if Israel attempts to portray it as such; and even if a minority of Jewish Israelis are from Arab backgrounds. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The Mizrahi Jews ("Arab Jews") are the largest ethnic group in Israel, about 40% to 45% of the population. They brought many things from Arab culture to the country, especially in cuisine. So not everything Arabic in Israeli culture comes from the Palestinians. Mawer10 (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Bringing things to the country does not mean that the country's culture is now made up of it, especially when we have RS saying that Israel is appropriating parts of Palestinian and Arab culture as its own. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
You could say “culturally appropriated”, or you could say the Israeli version was “influenced” or “inspired by”. For example mandu, piergoi, kreplach, jiaozi all possibly have Silk Road origins or some even hypothesize Middle East origins [8]. Or that Taylor Swift was culturally appropriating/was influenced to create her own version of congee.[9] Or that Starbucks’ and Dunkin Donuts’ new popping boba/bubble drinks are culturally appropriating / influenced by the Taiwanese bubble tea. [10] Wafflefrites (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Ahh, I got it. When y‘all were saying Palestinian, I was thinking about the Palestinians that were expelled, but yes some of them did remain, Israel does have a 20% Arab minority, which would include those that identify as Palestinian as well as the Druze and the Negev Bedouin. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The view that Arab citizens of Israel and other minorities do not count as Israelis is a relatively fringe POV. I'm surprised to see it is being promoted here, and it certainly should not guide the crafting of this article. CMD (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I dont care. nableezy - 15:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that we can agree that this sentence is extremely problematic.
1. the relations between secular and ultra orthodox is not mentioned.
2. there is Palestinian culture not Arab
3. what about the culture of other groups like Russians Ashkenazi etc….
4. What about minorities which do not see themselves as Muslim /arabs like Druze and Circassians
5. the Arab/Palestinian culture is rejected by the state of Israel ,so this is a very twisted sentence, there are tense relations between the Palestinians and Jews so it is incorrect to say that their culture has mixed. Qplb191 (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
No we can't, stop putting your own opinion on a pedestal.
1. that more due for politics, not culture, notice how USA doesn't mention culture wars even though theirs are more pronounced
2. Palestinians are part of the Arab minority
3. Russians and Ashkenazi are included in "diverse Jewish cultures"
4. Druze are included in Arab, as I already said. Circassians are a tiny minority, 5000, it'd be undue here
5. There is no mention of Palestinian culture
I think this is really pathetic. You should WP:Drop the stick Kowal2701 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
No, this sentence is just extremely inaccurate and misleading, it’s just not true Arabs in Israel are Palestinians, not just Arabs there is Palestinian tradition.@Makeandtoss do you agree? Qplb191 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Do we need to get a 3O here? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that is coherent Kowal2701 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The elements of Arab culture brought by the "Arab Jews" who now constitute 45% or more of the Israeli population are not Palestinian. Palestinian culture being a subsection of the broader Levantine and Arab culture needs no special mention. Israel does not reject Arab culture because is a well known fact that Israeli Jews have incorporated many elements of Arab culture into their culture even if some do not recognize the Arab origin of these elements. And the ultra-Orthodox are a minority in Israel, their mention is not important in a paragraph that is supposed to be a summary. Mawer10 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
As for the points 3 and 4 and the last part of 5, I think this is enough: "The country's culture is primarily characterized by the Jewish and Arab cultures, but it also includes Western and Eastern influences." What do you think? Mawer10 (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
In fact, Ashkenazi "Western" cultural influence is much more dominant than "Arab-Jewish" influence. There has not been a single prime minister who was of Mizrahi origin, beyond that the ”conflict “with the ultra-Orthodox is much more significant and is being discussed, there is a real cultural "war" between secularists and ultra-Orthodox in Israel, and Israel is one The countries with the greatest religious tensions (Christians, Jews and Muslims) in the world, not mentioning it would be problematic. Qplb191 (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The distribution of prime ministers is more a function of the historic and persisting hierarchical racism in Israeli society than a useful indicator of general cultural influence per se. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
And even if the culture of Ashkenazi Jews was the most dominant in Israel, so what? This does not necessarily need to be in the lead, it's not important. Mawer10 (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The sentence simply does not describe "culture" in Israel correctly. There are many different groups in Israel, and within that there are religious tensions between religious groups, and tensions between secularists and ultra-Orthodox, the law must include this and currently it is lacking. Beyond the fact that it is not about the Palestinian culture and to say that Israel is a mixture of Arab culture is simply not true. Qplb191 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kowal2701 we reach consensus and then add that , you can’t add that when some editors object that. Qplb191 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I can if arguments have been exhausted and most people support it. We can continue discussing, but people are not going to be incentivised to reply if the same points, that have been addressed, keep being made Kowal2701 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Most people don’t support this current vision please self revert Qplb191 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Please give us a version of what you would like the culture paragraph to look like. This will help this discussion progress more productively. Mawer10 (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that simply in a heterogeneous country with an ongoing conflict with so many ethnic/religious groups, it is impossible to summarise the culture and the cultural and religious tensions between the different groups within one sentence, therefore in my opinion its need to be in the culture paragraph and not in the lead. This sentence is just incorrect and misleading… Qplb191 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTADEMOCRACY so we can please drop the "most people support it" claim. This is not even sourced to any RS and having re-added it despite clear lack of general agreement -consensus- does not bode well in this topic area. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
All of your points have been addressed comprehensively. I suggest you start editing the culture section of the body if you’d like the summary to be changed Kowal2701 (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
None of them have; this sentence is not even sourced! Makeandtoss (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Makeandtoss that it needs a source that is not Wikipedia. The culture introductory body section needs to be checked for WP:SYNTH. Also the sentence about Arab influences being in many spheres needs attribution and has unbalanced emphasis towards the Arab influences (when really Israeli art, music and architecture is primarily influenced by the Jewish diaspora). The mixing of the Jewish diaspora culture is the dominant culture. It hasn’t mixed with the non Jewish Arab culture, they just exist alongside each other. Wafflefrites (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD does not need a separate source or attribution. If there are issues, take it up with the sources in the Culture section. CMD (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Citations usually are not needed for the lead, but sometimes citations may be added on a case by case basis per MOS:LEADCITE and “ any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it.” Wafflefrites (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, but it does not need a separate source. It is summarising the Culture section and can use the sources there, if there are issues with those sources they should also be dealt with in the Culture section. CMD (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the problem is the handwave-y statements characterising what makes up the culture, which is currently not really sourced anywhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Handwavey statements is the subject of the first paragraph in the Culture section. CMD (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
If you’d like to do an RfC, we can do one, but it’d be very unnecessary imo Kowal2701 (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
ONUS of achieving consensus is on the inserter, i.e. you, not me. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Makeandtoss, ONUS is about content that is sourced. And it is not about what sourced content belongs in the lead. Surely you understand that even controversial or despicable facts may be described in the lead summary. SPECIFICO talk 11:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
[11] This looks like a good source to back up the sentence.
[12] also on multiculturalism. O.maximov (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Those both look good, feel free to add them Kowal2701 (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
By the way like @Makeandtoss said this sentence never reached consensus, can you actually get consensus and then change the lead? Qplb191 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a summary I made based on the section on Israeli culture in the Encyclopedia Brittanica:
Israel's culture is characterized by the convergence and intermingling of different Jewish traditions from the diaspora. This diverse cultural heritage and the revival of the Hebrew language played a crucial role in the country's cultural development.
This summary says nothing about Arab influence on Israeli culture because Britannica did not elaborate on this very well. So I found this paragraph in another source:
Israel's diverse culture stems from the diversity of the population: Jews from around the world have brought their cultural and religious traditions with them, creating a melting pot of Jewish customs and beliefs... Israel's substantial Arab minority has also left its imprint on Israeli culture in such spheres as architecture, music, and cuisine
These two sources help to create a good summary, I have not yet found any source talking about the Israeli culture that included mentions of religious conflicts. Mawer10 (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Most of the encyclopaedias (Britannica for example)do not include the culture in Israel at the beginning of the article , but in a separate paragraph (like in Wikipedia). Relatively if we are talking about cultural influence , Israel does not have such a globally influential and developed culture that includes famous composers and artists (like Italy and France for example) .
There are many different cultures in Israel and many tensions between the different groups (between Jewish groups , and between Jewish - Christian and Muslims) , so if we talk about culture we must also mention that (which is not possible to summarise in the lead in my opinion).
I don’t think it’s really necessary to include that. Qplb191 (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
1) The lead of Wikipedia articles does not necessarily need to present the same information presented in other encyclopedias. 2) We are not talking about global cultural influence, a country does not need to have cultural influence to deserve at least a simple mention of its culture in the lead. 3) The proposed sentence does not deny the existence of other cultures or subcultures in Israel; if you think it does, it shouldn't be difficult for you to suggest an improvement to the sentence in that regard. "if we talk about culture we must also mention that" [citation needed]. Mawer10 (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I simply do not understand why culture need to be mentioned on the lead ,when much more important topics are not mentioned, even in the lead of countries with much greater influence such as Sweden or the Nederlands culture does not mentioned , Furthermore culture in Israel is much more problematic we can not mention only culture without the ongoing cultural tensions between different groups which is to my opinion do not need to be on the lead. Qplb191 (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Because per MOS:LEAD relative coverage in the lead should be similar to the body, and the body has an entire level 2 section on the topic of Culture. CMD (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, culture should be summarized in the lead just like the other sections of the article. If other articles or encyclopedias don't do that, someone should fix them. Levivich (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
There are paragraphs that are not covered in the lead such as geography or demographics which are much more important than culture... as I also said , in other countries that have a much greater cultural impact , culture is not covered in the lead. Qplb191 (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
And please @Kowal2701 stop adding this sentence before why actually get consensus! Qplb191 (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Your arguments are not only not based on policy they are directly contradicting it! Stop wasting people's time Kowal2701 (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
The lead should summarize all the sections, including geography and demographics, and culture. This isn't up for debate, we have long-standing global consensus that leads summarize the body. Stop edit warring, and WP:DROPTHESTICK, culture will be summarized in the lead of this article (and all articles that have a culture section). Levivich (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
there is clearly no consensus about this certain sentence, can you please stop adding it? Furthermore this sentence has no reliable source and is clearly controversial, you have never received consensus for this and keep adding it…. Qplb191 (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
There are much more important paragraphs that are not mentioned, while most countries doesn’t even have “culture “ in their lead. Qplb191 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
You keep repeating the same arguments over and over; these arguments have been addressed above. Levivich (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes but you have never reached consensus as well, this sentence has no reliable source and it’s extremely problematic Qplb191 (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
You actually have never reached agreement to add this specific sentence Qplb191 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Please stop, the poor horse is done FortunateSons (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
sorry but this has never reached consensus @Makeandtoss and others users object that, can you also bring reliable sources that actually claims that Israeli culture has “Arab elements”??? Qplb191 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
See maximov's links above Kowal2701 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
They are not reliable though Qplb191 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Why not? FortunateSons (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
The sources already on the page? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
The split between Jewish and Arabic culture in the latest proposal above is simplistic. Sure, there are just Palestinian Arabs in Israel today, but early on, there were also Arab Jews, including Palestinian Jews and Arab Jews from across the region – who all obviously had both Jewish and Arabic culture already, and were responsible for bringing in not just Jewish, but all sorts of Arabic cultural elements from across the region, including Arabic food from all the corners of the Greater Middle East. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
This sentence is just incorrect claim. Qplb191 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
This Washington Post source says the Israelis adopted the popular street food from Palestinians (hummus, falafel, msabaha, baba ghanoush, knafeh) but not msakhan, maftool, maqlubeh and mansaf.[13] It says kebabs and shakshuka were brought from North Africa and the Balkans.
For the longest time, I thought hummus, falafel, tabbouleh, baklava, pita, and dolmas were Greek food, but turns out they are also Mediterranean/Levant/Middle Eastern. Apparently the Greeks inherited some of those from the Ottomans (one of the regional powers that conquered Palestine). Wafflefrites (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Food is not really culture if we are talking about culture in art music etc… there is no reliable article that claim that Israeli culture has Arab elements Qplb191 (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Except the RS cited in the article, like this book, which is about Arab elements in Israeli culture (and specifically uses food as an example). Levivich (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to iterate on it Kowal2701 (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
There is literally no consensus on adding this sentence and yes I will repeat that again, news paper are not reliable sources Qplb191 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kowal2701 can you self revert until we reach consensus on sentence ( like you should have done) Qplb191 (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Consensus occurs in a process that involves taking into account our policies and guidelines, it is unlikely to be greatly shifted by arguments against accepted WP:LEAD practice and against accepted WP:RS practice. CMD (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
It’s was actually proven that other countries doesn’t have culture in their lead (while also other paragraphs are not included in the lead) this sentence has never reached consensus like @Makeandtoss said. Qplb191 (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
So we have myself, @Qplb191: and @Wafflefrites: opposing this phrasing, with @Iskandar323: saying it's too simplistic. So why is this still on the article? The way forward to resolve this clear dispute is through an RFC, and not through the power of the majority, as WP is not a democracy.
We have multiple RS saying that Israel has been engaged in cultural appropriation of Arab and Palestinian culture, and here we are ignoring these RS and whitewashing this appropriation by claiming Israel's culture is actually made up of elements of Arab culture. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to do an RfC, but personally I don’t feel the opposing arguments hold any weight Kowal2701 (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Ideally we'd have an RfC, but it might be a waste of the community's time if the differing quality of the arguments regarding policy is clear. Of course a summary is simplistic, it's a summary per MOS:LEDE. Of course there are Arab elements of Israeli culture, these come from the Mizrahi and Musta'arabi, as well as the Druze and Palestinian/Arab citizens. That controversy is barely WP:DUE for the body. Feel free to iterate on the wording, but the content is fine. Kowal2701 (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the word "appropriate" anywhere in Israel#Culture or Culture of Israel. Levivich (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The words Israeli cultural "appropriation" and "theft" of Arab and Palestinian culture should exist in both; we have plenty of RS documenting this relating to food, attire, music and others. [14] [15] [16] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I suggest you edit the first paragraph of the culture section which mentions Arab influences and add a couple sentences on where these come from, personally a clause for the controversy would be due, not a sentence Kowal2701 (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Kowal2701: The WP:BURDEN to do an RfC is on the inserter of the material, which would clearly not be me. Simplicity should not be misleading; as demonstrated before we already have numerous RS relating to Israel's appropriation of Arab culture. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
There was and is weak consensus to add it and it's been added. I'd say the onus is on you. I'm not denying those sources, but you're ignoring the genuine Arab elements of Israeli culture (which lots of RSs discuss) and seem to be pushing a political POV. Numerous people in a previous RfC said that this article was over politicised, and I think this is an example of that. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree with @Makeandtoss this sentence has no actually reliable source it is extremely misleading and problematic and most importantly this never reached consensus, you need to reach consensus before you change the lead not after. Qplb191 (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
100% agree with @Makeandtoss, this sentence should be removed, because it is extremely problematic, there are many editors opposing it as well. Qplb191 (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I was not sure about “The culture of Israel is predominantly composed of diverse Jewish cultures, with elements of Arab cultures, involving cuisine, music, and art.” I liked “ The culture of Israel is composed of Jewish culture and Jewish diaspora influences, alongside elements of Arab culture, involving cuisine, music, and art” better because I think it’s more precise. The bolded info can be sourced to Britannica’s article. Both versions link to the culture section under Arab citizens of Israel, so the Palestinian culture is included. The second version uses “alongside” which I think is an accurate description and doesn’t mean mixing. The cultures and people do exist alongside each other.
I don’t really care if the info is included or not. Although am not sure why the Hebrew language revival sentence was problematic and removed as well. I’m not sure of the objections to that sentence unless there is some mos guideline saying languages from the infobox should not be in the lead. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Minority cultures should not be highlighted, as is the case with any other country's lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
How can it avoid mentioning the Arabic cultural influence that is based on the combination of the Arab population, Arab Jewish culture and appropriation? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't since the sentence already mentions "Jewish diaspora influences" which includes the Jews of Europe and other places. No need to specify Arab while avoiding mentioning the cultural appropriation and theft aspects. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
It does not appear constructive to repeatedly invoke "theft" etc. at the expense of parsing the issues under discussion here. "Theft" reifies cultural factors as if they were bags of booty criminally acquired. Regardless of whether some people believe that, it's not descriptive. We don't talk about Christian or Islamic "theft" of Hebraic religious teaching, e.g. and we need a more nuanced and subject-appropriate manner of describing the merger of cultural factors and practies. Proposals along that line would be helpful.18:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
Agreed. "We have RS that say..." is never a strong argument for inclusion of anything. Of course there are RS that talk about Israeli cultural appropriation, and there are RS that dispute it, and there are RS that say that cultural appropriation isn't even really a thing. There are also RS that say that other countries and cultures engage in cultural appropriation. Should every country article mention cultural appropriation in the lead? The word "appropriation" isn't in United States, for example. But more the point, the word "appropriation" isn't in Israel. So why are we talking about putting it in the lead? (Surely, none of us would advocate for including info in the lead that isn't in the body in one article, while simultaneously removing info from the lead of another article because it isn't in the body...) "Appropriation" doesn't even appear in Culture of Israel (and Israel is mentioned once in cultural appropriation). I believe there is enough RS coverage to make a section on appropriation WP:DUE for inclusion in Culture of Israel, and that could probably be summed up in a sentence or few sentences in Israel#Culture. Whether it's DUE for the lead of Israel, I'm not sure at all. The only thing I'm sure of is that the lead should summarize Israel#Culture. Editors who think they can improve that summary should suggest the improvement or WP:BEBOLD; editors who think the body section needs expansion should expand it, IMO. But talking about not summarizing culture at all in the lead is ridiculous, and talking about including cultural appropriation in the lead is premature. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I did not mean to argue for the inclusion of the material on cultural theft and appropriation to the lede. Rather, I was arguing for the removal of the so far poorly-sourced and highly contested claim that Israeli culture actually is/encompasses Arab culture as being ridiculously overly simplistic and therefore misleading. WP is not a reliable source so the argument that it does not feature/feature enough in other articles is not a good argument. Actually, there is enough RS and significant coverage to make an an entire article on Israeli appropriation and theft of Palestinian culture, and not just a mini-section. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
This thread would have gone much more smoothly is people had actually started by reading what's written and sourced in the overview of the actual culture section on the page, which covers the diverse Jewish cultural origins and Arab influences already ... And again, is sourced. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The lede is different from the body. In the body there is an opportunity for nuance, while in the lede there is an opportunity for simplistic oversimplifications that are misleading. The body mentions "Arab influences" which is fine and keeps the weight reasonable somewhere within the large body of text. But adding "Arab elements" in a sentence in a prominent place such as the lede would be entirely misleading for the reasons mentioned previously. [Influence is much more reasonable than elements] And of course the culture section misses the controversies relating to cultural appropriation and theft. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
My point was that if anything, the lead sentence should be a summary of the existing summary. "Arab influences" is reasonable to mention if it is well-sourced. (I mean it's kinda obvious: half of the cuisine is Arabic or Arabic influenced – both adopted from the locals and from Arab Jewish immigrants.) Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Here is the overview paragraph at Israel#Culture:

Israel's cultural diversity stems from its diverse population: Jews from various diaspora communities brought their cultural and religious traditions with them. Arab influences are present in many cultural spheres, being found in Israeli architecture, music, and cuisine. Israel is the only country where life revolves around the Hebrew calendar. Holidays are determined by the Jewish holidays. The official day of rest is Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath.

Here is the sentence in the lead:

The culture of Israel is composed of Jewish culture and Jewish diaspora influences, alongside elements of Arab culture, involving cuisine, music, and art.

It seems like this sentence does a fairly good job of summarizing the overview paragraph. I'd be fine with changing "alongside elements of Arab culture" to "alongside influences from Arab culture." I don't really see the difference between "elements" and "influences," so either one would be fine with me. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Since the wikilink for “Arab” is pointing to Arab citizens of Israel, I think “Arab” should be changed to “Arab-Israeli” to match the ethnic group in the link destination. There were many Jews from other Middle Eastern countries like Iraq and Egypt, who brought Arab influences from those countries too, but they don’t fall under Arab citizens of Israel. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Or just link to Arabic culture and make it less weird? The Arabic influence also comes from Arab Jews: it's not even remotely solely about modern Arab Palestinians. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Turkish and Iranian culture among many other cultures are influenced by Arab culture so still not sure how this would be suitable for the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Could you explain why in these cases you refer to "influence" rather than "theft"? Is this implicit or is it supported by the weight of mainstream RS? SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Clearly, these three cultures were under one Islamic culture. In the case of Israel and Palestine, there is no overall shared culture, and there are two opposing identities. RS have made the theft claims relating to Israel, not me. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The culture of Israel is composed of Jewish culture and Jewish diaspora influences, alongside elements of Arab culture, involving cuisine, music, and art.
This captures very well. I think it is good, short and balanced. O.maximov (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we can say, culture of Israel is composed of a variety of different Jewish cultures instead of first half. O.maximov (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I have added an under discussion tag, as clearly there is no generally agreed upon version here. The way forward now is an RFC, and the onus of reaching consensus is on the inserter of this material. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
This sentence about “culture” is so unnecessary and never reached consensus, btw I want to see a reliable source that actually claims that Israel culture has an Arab element Qplb191 (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
What is your concern with the body sources? CMD (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
We can't have an RfC every time an editor or two editors doesn't like something. You two need to suggest some revisions or drop the stick. Levivich (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Many suggestions have been proposed: the bare minimum of changing “elements” to “influences,” and more ideally, removing the material all together to avoid simplistic narratives that ignore prominent controversies. This is based on RS, not on personal preferences. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich this sentence has never reached consensus actually . Qplb191 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see anyone objecting to changing "elements" to "influences", I'm pretty sure you could make that change boldly, especially since "influences" is the word used in the body. We don't need an RfC for that. Levivich (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned this would be the bare minimum. The main issues remain: this is undue for lede, poorly sourced, misleading, oversimplistic, and lacks consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
What is your MOS:LEAD-compliant suggestion for changing the language then? Levivich (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
"The culture of Israel is composed of Jewish culture and Jewish diaspora influences, involving cuisine, music, and art."
This version would simply mention "diaspora influences" of which Arab, among other cultures, is clearly one, but without overstressing this aspect or ignoring the cultural appropriation aspects. (Given that I still find "involving cuisine, music, and art." to be redundant but I don't feel strongly about removing it.) Makeandtoss (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
While I don't think it's an improvement, I'd be fine with it. If nobody objects, I think that change can just be made boldly. Levivich (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Waiting one more day to see if there are any objections to that part's removal. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
No objections at all to its removal? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I am against this removal, this would be the erasure of 20% of the Israeli population or 65% of the population (Palestinian Israelis + Arab Jews). Mawer10 (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Actually you should argue for the insertion of this recently-added material, and not argue against its removal, per WP:ONUS. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the culture section needs to be summarized in the lead, just like other sections of the article. Wikipedia articles about countries such as Brazil, South Africa, and Mongolia include at least a sentence about culture in their leads, in accordance with WP:LEAD. There is a clear consensus to keep a mention of Israeli culture in the lead. If you disagree with the current phrasing, you should propose only improvements rather than advocating for its removal. Arguing that we can mention Israeli culture in the lead only if we mention Palestinian culture, cultural appropriation, the culture of other minorities like Druze and Circassians, religious tensions, or some other controversy is not a proper argument. Mawer10 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Mawer10: That is not what was being discussed. The latest discussion here revolves around removal of "Arab influences." Do you support that while keeping the rest of the sentence on Israeli culture? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The removal of "Arab influences" is hard to justify given that most Israeli Jews have origins in Arab countries and the country has a substantial Arab population within its borders. The country is literally an island of Jewishness surrounded by an immense ocean of Arabness, how can we ignore this? The disputed concept of cultural appropriation is not enough to justify omitting Arab cultural influence, which would make the sentence an incomplete summary of the culture section. We could change the sentence to something like "Israeli culture is marked by the blending of various Jewish diaspora traditions and has also been influenced by Arab culture in many aspects", which is better than the current phrasing but still keep the Arab influences. Is it inaccurate, misleading, or oversimplified? I don’t think so, it is well-sourced. Mawer10 (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Mawer10: Again, no adequate RS have been provided, there is no consensus for it, and it is undue for lede. Please verify this information first per WP:BURDEN and then gain consensus for its inclusion via an RFC per WP:ONUS. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Which part of the sentence lacks consensus, has no reliable source, and is undue for the lede? The part 1 "Israeli culture is marked by the blending of various Jewish diaspora traditions" or 2 "and has also been influenced by Arab culture in many aspects". Mawer10 (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Mawer10: #2. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich this sentence has never reached consensus actually . Qplb191 (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Stop repeating this, you are spamming the page. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Israel - Art, Music, Dance | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2024-06-05.

ARBPIA

@PrimaPrime: Kind reminder that this is an article subject to discretionary sanctions, as it seems on one hand you are engaging in WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING relating to your recent changes to the historical names of the region [17], and on the other hand engaging in WP:EDITWARRING by reinserting disputed material relating to Dead Sea being lowest point on earth in opening paragraph, [18] [19] and the Holocaust in the lede.[20] [21]. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It's disputed that the Dead Sea is the lowest point on Earth? Or that Jewish immigration increased in the leadup to the Holocaust? Moving the reference to it in response to a concern raised at talk would of course be the opposite of edit warring.
Be the change you wish to see, I always prefer to boldly improve off what others have done rather than nitpick like this. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@PrimaPrime: No one disputed their factuality, what was disputed whether they belong in lede or not. Instead of tackling this disagreement on the talk page you chose to ignore it and edit war your preferred version, twice, and continue to status quo stone wall the historical names aspect, after having been asked for the third time now. Please demonstrate good faith by self-reverting and then gaining consensus for your disputed insertions per onus. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Historical names

@PrimaPrime: [22] Thanks for your bold edits, but note that your changes to the historical names have mixed up the chronology and gave less than due weight to the most commonly used name throughout history: Palestine. Note that this part had already been discussed and consensus was formed on the previous version. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime: [23] Mention of the Holocaust has already been discussed and there is no consensus for its inclusion in the lede, particularly as framed in the latest addition, which confuses situation in Palestine civil war with that of the one in Europe. Also, the relationship between the two is disputed in RS, so this is more of a POV than on a factual basis. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
We can't just say "is disputed in RS" and therefore take it out. Zionism = colonialism is also disputed in RS. Lots of things are disputed in RS. Not that I'm an expert, but that is the first paper I've personally ever come across that dispute the importance of the Holocaust in the creation of Israel, and I've read several Holocaust/Nakba books like Goldberg's. Pretty much everything else I've ever read mentions that world opinion post-Holocaust was a significant factor in the passage of the partition plan. Even the RS you cite says this is a common view, though the RS disputes it. I think it's worth including on this basis. Levivich (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich: I don't think the situation is analogous. The text concerned here is a lede paragraph about the history of the state of Israel that is exclusively factual.
It is a fact that Britain set up Mandatory Palestine in 1920, that Jewish immigration increased 1920-1948, that the UNGA approved a partition plan in 1947, that a civil war broke out 1947-1949. These are all facts. But it is a thesis that somehow the international community felt guilty about the Holocaust and so voted in favor of the partition plan; a thesis that is disputed and impossible to verify; and which is written in an implicit way by the sheer mention of it.
Why insert a disputed thesis in a paragraph of facts? If this is a special disputed thesis why not insert the thesis that Zionism is a settler colonial movement as well? Why not the thesis that the expulsions of 1948 were ethnic cleansing? Why not the thesis that Israel's ongoing war in Gaza constitutes genocide? These are all thesis about event that occurred in Israel and are much more detrimental to Israel than whatever happened in Nazi Germany, some 5,000 kilometers away.
This should be removed first, and the consensus sought for it second. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps not so much the Holocaust as a completed event but I believe (I would have to check sources, it's a long time since I read up on this) it is true that the US ("displaced persons") and turning away of fleeing Jewish refugees, ignoring what the Nazis were doing for a long time, these elements I am reasonably sure played a part in the post war decision making back then. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
US is only one country and the UNGA consisted of the entire international community. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Antizionist polemicists routinely fault Western Holocaust guilt for the GA vote and ultimately the Nakba. We literally have a whole article making the analytical connection. PrimaPrime (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@PrimaPrime: That is their opinion, not a fact. Why is this opinion featured in a sea (paragraph) of facts? Why not feature other prominent opinions? And what is your elaborations on your changing of the chronology of names? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Your source acknowledges the Holocaust (specifically the refugee problem it created) weighed significantly on the UN debate. So this is another fact. PrimaPrime (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@PrimaPrime: Debates and not outcomes. Also I am not sure why you are ignoring my questions relating to the chronology of names in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Evaporation123: Canaan indeed was a geographic region so I do not understand your latest edit. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
You are right, I made a mistake. Evaporation123 (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I think if it's mentioned, it needs to be done carefully. Some Zionists argue that the Holocaust made the foundation of Israel harder rather than easier. While Israel benefited from reparations payments, in 1939, there were millions of Polish Jews who wanted to immigrate to Palestine. In 1945 they were mostly dead. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@FourPi: I don't think that was an improvement; a state is surrounded by states, not territories. West Bank and Gaza Strip are notable exceptions as they are within the former mandate territory. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If Mandatory Palestine is the reason then Golan Heights is even more exceptional. FourPi (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Sinai was an unsuccessful attempt to be consistent. It's the only other commonly recognisable name that describes the whole border region, and it was previously disputed, so I included it to match the other three. But in retrospect it's probably more consistent to make that one Egypt, since there's three disputed territories and three mutually agreed international borders. FourPi (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
But someone changed both before I could change just Egypt. FourPi (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Lede summary proposal 2

From: "The 1967 Six-Day War saw Israel occupy the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has established and continues to expand settlements across the occupied territories, contrary to international law, and has effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in moves largely unrecognized internationally. After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt—returning the Sinai in 1982—and Jordan. In the 2020s it normalized relations with more Arab countries. However, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict after the interim Oslo Accords have not succeeded, and the country has engaged in several wars and clashes with Palestinian militant groups. Israel's practices in the occupied territories have drawn sustained international criticism, including accusations of war crimes against Palestinians from human rights advocates and United Nations officials."

To: "The 1967 Six-Day War saw Israel occupy the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and Syrian Golan Heights. After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt—returning the Sinai in 1982—and Jordan. In the 2020s it normalized relations with more Arab countries. Since 1967, Israel has established and continues to expand illegal settlements across the occupied territories and has effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in moves largely unrecognized internationally. Efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict after the interim Oslo Accords have not succeeded, and the country has engaged in several wars and clashes with Palestinian militant groups. Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories is currently the longest military occupation in modern history, and evolved into a system of institutionalized discrimination against its population, drawing sustained international criticism." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"moves largely unrecognized internationally" is of course a serious understatement. As per "lead summarizes body" it should say something like "rejected" rather than "unrecognized" DMH223344 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Suggestions:
  1. "The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria's Golan Heights."
  2. "Israel effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and, since 1967, has established and expanded illegal settlements in the occupied territories."
  3. "Efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict after the interim Oslo Accords have not succeeded, and there have been several wars and clashes between Israel and Palestinian militant groups. Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories is currently the longest military occupation in modern history, and has drawn sustained international criticism, including accusations of war crimes and institutionalized discrimination".

I stroke some parts out because concerns about the excessive emphasis on the conflict have been raised in previous discussions. Mawer10 (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively: "Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories has drawn sustained international criticism, including accusations of war crimes and institutionalized discrimination. Efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict after the Oslo Accords have not succeeded, and wars and clashes between Israel and Palestinian militant groups erupt intermittently." Mawer10 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Fair and constructive suggestions, which I would also support. However, why did you switch the chronology in point 2? Also relating to point 3 Israeli apartheid is no longer an accusation, and an established fact. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I changed the order because the phrase "has effectively annexed" seems imply an ongoing process of annexation rather than a completed action. As for 3, that Israel has committed war crimes is also an established fact, isn't it? I've never seen a serious source say otherwise. Despite this "including accusations of" has been kept in the lead without any problems, English is not my native language but this phrasing/writing does not seem problematic. Mawer10 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Mawer10: I don't think it gives off that implication, I think the better emphasis is on chronology because the ideas would flow better that way. As for war crimes, yes, indeed is an established fact. Would you support removing accusations all together? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay. But as for 3 I prefer to keep the language neutral, this wording came as a result of an RFC if I'm not mistaken. Mawer10 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Mawer10: The RFC was completed before the ICJ opinion which ruled affirmatively of the existence of Israeli apartheid. It is only the cherry on top source, among a sea of RS saying the same thing. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
That's not really accurate, the AO did not specify apartheid (some of the individual judges did but some of the individual judges also negated it). That can got kicked down the road to CERD for them to decide whether the Article 3 breach is in fact apartheid. Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
For context, from Aeylal Gross: "While it held that Israel's actions amount to systematic discrimination, and violate the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination prohibition on "segregation and apartheid," the ICJ stopped short of determining whether the situation constitutes "only" segregation or, in fact, amounts to "apartheid." Presumably this ambiguity was deliberate, allowing as many judges as possible to join the majority – regardless of their view on this point." DMH223344 (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Israel is a settler colonial state, with the Israeli settlements similar to say the Plantation of Ulster and Cromwellian conquest of Ireland by England, the Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, or the creation of Indian reservations in the United States.
The war crimes and apartheid, including accusations of genocide, are in a larger context of irredentism, not merely armed conflict. Miriam Adelson, one of Donald Trump's and Netanyahu's main backers, wants Israeli annexation of the West Bank and the elimination of the Palestinian authority. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Israel's settlements are irredentist, similar to Russia's annexations of Ukraine.

I'm proposing comparing Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine to the Israeli settlements, which are both motivated by irredentism--see Russian irredentism and Greater Israel, wishing to recreate the Soviet Union or the Land of Israel. Both Russia's annexations and Israel's settlements are illegal under international law. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What sources do you have that use the term "irredentist" with regards to Israel? 331dot (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum and this appears to be the musings of a user, with no references to support it. Of course both are illegal, and we already say that, but the proposed "comparison" is just a NF-violation. Jeppiz (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
The musing user is here, who has over 8000 edits and an extended-confirmed account. Israel itself is a creation of irredentism and settler colonialism with respect to Zionism--see Zionism as settler colonialism and Balfour Declaration--, similar to Russia claiming Ukraine as part of the historical Kievian Rus. The United States, for what it's worth, is a creation of settler colonialism-see the animation on the page. I used the Ireland example because Israel is causing the Gaza Strip famine in an analogous way to how Britain caused the Great Famine in Ireland. Israel is nothing special in its actions, which are par for the course in the history of colonialism.
Israel is doing what Russia has done since the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, but in the Palestinian Territories--Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip; in the West Bank, Bezalel Smotrich is engaging in open land grabs, much like Putin annexed Crimea and then Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts.[1][2] JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
For years, RS have discussed Israeli irredentism, and Palestinian irredentism, and specifically compared it to Russian irredentism, including the comparison of the West Bank and Crimea (long before Crimea was annexed). These RS can be found with a Google Scholar search for irredentism "west bank" crimea, for example:
  • Ian Lustick (1996), "Hegemonic beliefs and territorial rights" [24] (free PDF)
  • Lustick again 10 years later, "Making Sense of the Nakba: Ari Shavit, Baruch Marzel, and Zionist Claims to Territory" [25] (free PDF)
  • Peter Krause and Ehud Eiran (2018) "How Human Boundaries Become State Borders: Radical Flanks and Territorial Control in the Modern Era" [26] (free PDF)
  • Lars-Erik Cederman, et al. (2022), "Redemption through Rebellion: Border Change, Lost Unity, and Nationalist Conflict" [27] (free PDF)
  • Mischa Hansel & Alexander Reichwein (2023), "A Dangerous Responsibility: Towards a New Authoritarian Interventionism?" [28] (available for free via WP:TWL)
@JohnAdams1800: feel free to summarize these sources and any others you might find, but I think an extended discussion of irredentism or comparative politics is probably WP:UNDUE for this article (except perhaps for a very brief summary, like one sentence in the body maybe), but it would probably be WP:DUE for other articles, like Irredentism, Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. (It's interesting to me that the words "Israel" and "Palestine" do not appear in the Wikipedia article about Irredentism.) Levivich (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Beaumont, Peter (2024-06-24). "Israeli far-right minister speaks of effort to annex West Bank". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.
  2. ^ Loveluck, Louisa; Parker, Claire; Taha, Sufian (August 15, 2024). "Israel is redrawing the West Bank, cutting into a prospective Palestinian state". The Washington Post.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel/Archive_107&oldid=1247686717"