A rough count puts option 3 in the lead, followed by options 2, 4, 5, and 1, respectively. Option 1 attracted virtually no support, and for the purposes of our analysis, was discarded. We note that options 2 and 4 are similar in language, policy-based arguments in favor, and the editors making those arguments, as are options 3 and 5. Of those two sets of options, 2 seems to garner more support than 4, and 3 seems to garner more support than 5. We will mostly adjudicate, then, between options 2 and 3.
The most cited argument from supporters of option 2 was based on WP:DUE, and the underlying policy of WP:RS. Here, we find that supporters of options 2 and 4 have a slight edge. They bring a large sample of reliable sources that were not convincingly rebutted by the supporters of options 3 and 5 who attempted to discredit them. However, the supporters of options 2 and 4 taking the prerogative to do their own meta-analysis of secondary sources, rather than the simpler and more policy-adherent citation of existing meta-analyses, weaken this argument somewhat.
The most directly relevant guideline to this discussion is WP:LEADWEIGHT: According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. On this, we find that the supporters of options 2 and 4 who cite it make the strongest argument. The body of the article includes extensive mentions of allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel, which options 1, 3 and 5 do not adequately summarize. Additionally, options 2 and 4 include mention of allegations by human rights organizations which are covered at length in the body. The case that option 2 is the best reflection of the body per policy is clear and convincing, in contrast to option 3. Option 4 arguably fulfills this criterion better, but it did not receive enough vetting in the discussion to reasonably gain consensus.
Supporters of options 3 and 5 largely focused on a content-based rebuttal to the argument that Israel's alleged crimes are more notable than other countries', arguing that since these other countries' leads do not contain mention of the crimes, the lead here should not either. This misses the mark on two fronts: first, supporters failed to convincingly rebut the assertions that Israel's alleged crimes are more prominent than other countries' in reliable sourcing, which was among the weaker of the arguments put forward by supporters of options 2 and 4. Second, there is no solid policy foundation for this comparison – LEADWEIGHT, as the guiding policy, clearly points to the body of this article as the priority in determining what goes in the lead, not the leads of the articles on other countries. An alternate argument was brought up in favor of option 3 on the grounds of concision – given how much of the body of the article is devoted to this subject, we find this unpersuasive in light of LEADWEIGHT as well. We note that some supporters of options 2 and 4 brought content-based arguments as well, and those were similarly given less weight.
Finally, we note that the specter of canvassing was raised over supporters of options 3 and 5 – these factors did not directly affect our reading of consensus, but we note that we emphasize argument strength over numerical balance in this discussion, as policy asks us to do. Based on the arguments put forward in this discussion, we find a weak consensus in favor of option 2.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the sentence Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians. be changed to any of the following options:
Option 1 - no change
Option 2 - Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials.
Option 3 - Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the United Nations.
Option 4 - Israel's policies and actions on the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.
Option 2 - as discussed in the RFC above on including accusations of apartheid in the lead, the current version of the sentence undersells the controversy by a considerable amount, and the addition of any singular charge, be it forced displacement, indiscriminate attacks, the illegality of Israeli settlements, collective punishment or indeed apartheid, is not really encompassing the width and breadth of the charges. The sentence in Option 2 is as succinct and clear as possible, and it is exceedingly well sourced. UN Officials such as Volker Turk (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, not a part of the Human Rights Council) and various Special Rapporteurs have said Israel has committed a number of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the United Nations Security Council has denounced acts by Israel as being violations of the laws of war as early as 1968 through 2016, the United Nations General Assembly has denounced Israeli actions as violations war crimes from as early as 1969 and yearly for at least the last 15 years on settlements and the attempted changes in status of East Jerusalem. The UNSC has called the establishment of Israeli settlements a flagrant violation of international law (UNSC 2334). They have also said the same about the Jerusalem Law (UNSC 478) and deportations of Palestinians (UNSC 799). The accusations of crimes against humanity by human rights organizations include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'tselem, among others. And these accusations have been widely covered; these are just some of the sources covering just Amnesty's accusation against Israel regarding apartheid: AP, NPR, The Guardian, Reuters, Politico, al Jazeera. There isnt any dispute on the factual accuracy of the sentence. As far as WP policy, WP:LEAD says that prominent controversies should be included in the lead. The fact that Israel has been repeatedly accused of ongoing war crimes and crimes against humanity is the most prominent controversy about the topic of Israel. It is without doubt one of the most noted controversies in reliable sources about any country period. Even the briefest perusal of news reports or scholarly articles about Israel will show that this controversy has an immense amount of weight given to it in the sources. The controversy has spawned its own controversies, with calls for boycott and sanctions, with countries recalling ambassadors or refusing to recognize Israel. There is simply no basis for claiming that this is not accurate, that it is not a notable controversy regarding the subject of this article, that it does not have weight in sources for inclusion. People will point to France for example and say well that doesnt include the crimes of the French in Algeria and its other colonies, neglecting the difference in sourcing and the sustained criticism. They will say Canada ethnically cleansed its native population and that is not in its lead, ignoring that these sources are discussing ongoing actions and, more pertinently for us, it simply does not matter if another article is poorly written, that the failing of some other article has no bearing on this one. The weight of the sources and our policies are in agreement on the inclusion of such material in the lead, and there is no policy basis for exclusion. nableezy - 17:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Id like to add in response to some of the arguments about other articles and supposed consistency. None of those articles have as its subject a state that has been so consistently accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. And you can try to pretend like it is bias that leads to these accusations and not the military occupation and subjugation of a people for 56 years, but the sources are what matter here, and the sourcing here, from academic scholars in international law (here is now sitting Israeli Supreme Court justice Daphne Barak-Erez writing The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation. about Israeli settlements for example) to widely respected human rights organizations, to UN officials, to UN agencies, to the UNGA and UNSC. People are arguing that the sources should not matter, that their personal views should count for more, and as a rule on Wikipedia that argument is worthless and should be ignored. Also, Id like to note that a wide scale email canvassing campaign has taken place asking people to vote for option 3 or 5 on 12 December. Any closer should be aware of this effort to corrupt our consensus process. nableezy - 14:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Ive forwarded the evidence to the arbitration committee. But much the same as the emails referenced by O3000. nableezy - 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
A serious accusation. The evidence you showed in [20] is from October. And another from early December on a vote of another page. Do you have other evidence of this issue in respect to this vote? I saw you added links to blocked users, I did not see one that participated in this RFC (they don't seem to be ECs). I think it is much more likely that since Israel pg has 2800 watchers and one of the more watched pages in Wikipedia, it would make sense many users would take note of the RFC, especially one as contentious as this one. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [7]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The blocked users were socks who canvassed via Wikipedia emails. One of the emails specifically links to this page. They are all related to Israel, the subject of this page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The email is from October no? This RFC was started a few days ago in December. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [8]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Like I said, I forwarded the evidence to the arbitration committee, but there were emails sent out for this RFC on 12 December. nableezy - 14:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The other completely bogus argument here is that Israel cannot have material that does not appear in other country articles. It is saying that if Wikipedia existed during the Apartheid era South Africa that we could not mention the international condemnation for that regime because some other country that was not subject to such condemnation didn’t mention something similar. Israel is unique in this regard, and the comparisons are completely bogus. And the sourcing shows it, something completely ignored by the 3 and 5 voters. nableezy - 01:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree, therefore there should be a link, linking to the Bias in the UN, or add - which has been accused of bias against Israel. Although I do not like the idea of over explaining again and again in the lead Homerethegreat (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [9]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
That would be absurd, the only people claiming a UN bias against Israel are highly partisan sources. That isnt context, that is gaslighting. nableezy - 01:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Even the Secretary General has said the UN has issued "disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel".
Although, it should be obvious - unless you believe Israel is more worthy of condemnation than the rest of the world put together? BilledMammal (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Israel is a creation of the UN, the UN is responsible for the result of that creation, including the expulsion of the Palestinians from Palestine, so yes it gets the focus of the UN. The only people claiming a bias against Israel are highly partisan sources. It is gaslighting, an attempt to shield criticism by claiming to be the victim. nableezy - 11:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Even the UN Secretary General has explicitly said there is bias against Israel - while he did later retract the statement, the fact that he could say and think it at all demonstrates that it's not the highly partisan position you believe it is.
In general, dismissing hundreds of sources saying there is bias against Israel at the UN on the grounds that they are all "highly partisan sources", while also arguing that it is reasonable for Israel to be condemned more than Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Turkey, Northern Cyprus, China, Sudan, Myanmar, Yemen, Eritrea, the Central African Republic - not to mention the rest of the world - put together, is an odd position to take. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
So you’re saying the UN secretary general said there is no bias? Cool cool. The section you linked to is filled with garbage sources like UN Watch, and you want to pretend like it should be treated as objective fact. Again, gaslighting, the abuser claims to be the victim to make you disbelieve anything said against them. Next you’ll tell me Btselem is antisemitic too. nableezy - 13:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Was definitely a bit odd to see things like So you’re saying the UN secretary general said there is no bias? which is the exact opposite of what BM actually said. JM (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why youre responding to something from 6 weeks ago, but do you know what "retract" means? Some synonyms are abjure, forswear, recant, and renounce.nableezy - 18:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Because this is an RfC which is still open. I don't know why if you dislike me responding to something from 6 weeks ago that you also respond; the meaning of "retract" is irrelevant because it doesn't retroactively change the fact that he physically said it. As BM said, the fact that he could say and think it at all demonstrates that it's not the highly partisan position you believe it is.JM (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
It does however mean he disclaimed it, which means he denied it. Which is what I said, making your question to me dumbfounding. Feel free to the last word, I dont intend to engage with you further. And who said it was still open? There hasnt been an RFC tag on this section for multiple weeks now. People who have never been here keep showing up though, for reasons unknown. nableezy - 22:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Considering I ended up here through the page that lists all RfCs and it's not been closed, seems open to me. Anyway, you claimed BM said that the UN secretary general said that there was no bias against Israel, when what they actually said was that the UN secretary general said that there was bias against Israel and then retracted it, meaning your rhetorical comment was a mischaracterization. JM (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I just realized this source is from UN Watch, which has partisan ties. Nonetheless I have not heard good things about the current United Nations. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree that there are better sources than the UN on this subject. Also the several choices listed for the RfC all rest on the weasel-worded "has drawn ..." when clearly there are sources to which the concerns and judgments can be attributed. A poll such as this one should give us choices among validly worded WP article text sans weasel. SPECIFICOtalk03:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 2 without attribution - "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that is has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people". Between State and Non-State: Politics and Society in Kurdistan-Iraq and Palestine (2017) "There have also been many accusations of Israeli crimes against humanity and war crimes..." written before recent events that have served only to multiply said accusations. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 2, with or without attribution, but 4 is also good (I like the reference to policies as well as practices). Option 5 should be an absolute non-starter (it would result in the omission of a significant portion of the body from summary in the lead), and Option 3 is a significant understatement. Agree with nableezy that whataboutism is no answer to clear WP policies, and that war crimes and crimes against humanity are exceptionally notable, well-sourced controversies regarding Israel. WillowCity(talk)18:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 2 - It is representing the major controversies as WP:LEAD demands inclusion. Moreover, it is well-sourced and is much clearer that the current "have drawn international condemnation" in the lead. The reliable sources tend to reflect that things out there are beyond a simple "international condemnation". --Mhhosseintalk19:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 4, with or without attribution. This option is better for presenting the accusations against Israel. The option 2, while still conveying a similar message, is slightly more wordy and may be considered less clear. The use of "practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories" introduces unnecessary complexity compared to the more direct language in Option 4. The phrase "against the Palestinian people" is redundant, as the accusations are inherently linked to Israel's actions on the occupied Palestinian territories. And, there are Palestinians in Israel proper that are not victims of such crimes. In contrast, Option 4 is more concise, clear, and and direct in conveying the message. Mawer10 (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 - Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the United Nations.
Per WP:Summary style, lead is summary and body is place for explanations per (Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section).)
WP:NPOV which dictates: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Topic is controversial specifically war crimes / crimes against humanity which is not widely supported, there is consensus on Israel being criticized internationally, especially by the United Nations, therefore WP:NPOV dictates to be as loyal to neutrality as possible.
WP:NPOV, Prefer nonjudgmental language. Overemphasizing controversial non consensus by world on Israel commiting war crimes and crimes against humanity violates further dictate. If there is included per WP:NPOV we must Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. This will make it too long whilst Lead needs to be summary, therefore best elaborate in body. Per WP:Summary style, the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points.
Furthermore lead is should be summary of article. Lead currently lacks mention of vital important information - Israel's transition from Socialism to Free Market economy. Another vital lack of detail is regarding culture - The Revival of the Hebrew language. Therefore, clearly the topic is notable and should be short and to the point in order to give space to other important info as well as follows WP:NPOV and WP:Summary style. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [10]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Strongly oppose option 3. It misleads the reader into believing that the UN is the main source of criticism of Israel, and that other sources of criticism either don't exist or are not noteworthy, and I can't emphasize how false that is. VRtalk05:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
So Option 3 without the UN part is ok? That's plausible. By the way the UN is the most significant organization doing this. I don't mind removing the UN bit. The UN is considered biased by some. By the way all considering Option 3 is still most valid. Furthermore I referred to the UN once, and once to point out since the United Nations is the most notable critic per Weight. Furthermore, please note most of my arguments do not deal with the UN so please refer to my actual arguments. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [11]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Option 3, without "its occupation of", which is repetitive, not useful for the reader, even burdensome. Should have voted option 5, but in the sake of reaching some type of agreement, this can work. TaBaZzz (talk)
Option 3 - This seems the most reasonable option. No other country in Wikipedia has accusations of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" in the introduction, not even Russia. Dovidroth (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Note to closer: This editor was banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [12]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Option 3 or 5. Come on, man—Russia, Saudi, Syria, North Korea—all these countries have gentler language in the lede than some of these suggestions for Israel.Zanahary (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Did you actually read the leads of these articles? Here's what the one on North Korea says:
North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship with a comprehensive cult of personality around the Kim family. The country is widely considered to have the worst human rights record in the world. Officially, North Korea is an "independent socialist state"which holds democratic elections; however, independent observers have described the elections as sham elections.VRtalk05:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3. Other options use language that is stronger than that used for other countries, which have worse human rights record: Israel proper: 77/100, West Bank 22/100, Gaza 11/100 (largely due to the Hamas government), compared to Egypt 18/100, Vietnam 19/100, China 9/100, United Arab Emirates 18/100, Azerbaijan 9/100, etc. I'm using Freedom House ratings since this is what u:Nableezy (the initiator of the RfC) used himself - happy to consider other ratings. Singling out Israel is a violation of WP:NPOV. Alaexis¿question?10:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Did you read the source on Gaza Strip? It primarily blames Israel, and then secondarily blames Hamas: Israel’s de facto blockade of the territory, along with its periodic military incursions and rule of law violations, has imposed serious hardship on the civilian population, as has Egypt’s tight control over the southern border.[13]
It appears @Alaexis is attempting to show the disparity and dissonance in respect to usage of language whilst recognizing that Israel is a democracy and considered Free. The user seems to be pointing at the rankings of various countries in order to illustrate the potential disparity options 4,2 would present in contrast to the actual sourced rankings in respect to freedom. It seems a valid argument. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [14]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
That's a straw an argument since the proposed text is not about what Israel is doing inside Israel proper but what it's doing inside the occupied Palestinian territories, meaning West Bank and Gaza Strip. VRtalk23:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
First, the Freedom House score takes into account civil liberties, and nearly all war crimes infringe on these liberties in some way.
Still, if you think it's not good, please provide another source which ranks or rates countries according to the number and severity of war crimes committed by them. I promise you, if Israel is ranked worse than Turkey (occupiers of land in Syria and Cyprus), Russia, Saudi Arabia or China, I'll reconsider my !vote. Alaexis¿question?10:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
What does policy say? Whether to include something in the lead is WP:DUE-ness issue, and DUE-ness is determined based on "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. This means that if reliable sources devote more attention to Israel, then we should too. There can be various metrics for this, here is one: how many articles per country are in State Crime Journal (by International State Crime Initiative).
I searched for <country> "war crimes" in the three largest news agencies[15] (and which are regarded as reliable per WP:RSP), and here is the breakdown by country:
Number of news articles on war crimes and a country
The top links in the table above are about Israel accused of war crimes. Maybe this metric will convince you: "Israeli war crimes" is much more common to appear in books published after 1990 than "Russian war crimes", "Turkish war crimes" etc.[16] It is difficult to believe that "Israeli war crimes" is a term that can be used for war crimes against Israel.
Thanks for providing this data, but I believe that this is a flawed approach that is not in line with the letter and spirit of WP:DUE. The number of articles can depend on any number of things, like researchers' interests or the availability of data in Israel vs Congo or Ethiopia.
A much better approach is to use reference works and other sources which discuss this topic in general and check what weight a given country is given there. WP:TERTIARY sources are particularly helpful: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.
In our case, the Encylopedia of War Crimes and Genocide (published by Facts on File) dedicates a page and a half to Palestine, of which a part deals with *Palestinian* war crimes. This is similar to many other countries which have been mentioned previously (Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Russia, etc.). Alaexis¿question?08:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that considering academic journals and highly reliable news agencies is irrelevant to WP:DUE.
As for the Encylopedia of War Crimes and Genocide it also gives exactly a page and a half to War criminals of Japan - and imperial Japan was one of the worst war criminals in human history. Of course, certain attention is given to Japan outside of its official entry - likewise attention is given to Israel outside of its entry: one page to Sabra and Shatila massacre; 1/2 page of the "human shields" discusses Israel use of Palestinian civilians as human shields; 1/2 page at entry "collective punishment" is devoted to "scathing criticism" against Israel; the entry on "deportations" accuses Israel of ethnically cleansing Palestinians; the entry on Jordan again mentions forcible expulsion of Palestinians during nakba; the entry on ICJ discusses cases against Israel; the entry on "humanitarian aid, barring of" accuses Israel of "excessive delays" of aid, etc. And this encyclopedia is just one source.
Option 3. Nableezy gives a strong argument, but it is severely undermined by BilledMammal, Homerethegreat, and Dovidroth, Zanahary and Alaexis. François Robere (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 2 - This is well documented, has affected over decades and continues to affect to this day millions of people, and relates directly to the existence of Israel, the subject of this article. The past histories of other countries belong in other articles. Claiming that we are "singling out" a country because of the content of other articles is not a valid argument. That argument could be used on other articles, like North Korea, to prevent changes to them. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 4. I don't support the specific wording or agree entirely with it (forgot to check this talk until now) but it's the best compromise on a practical level for the article and is a base for further additions. Option 3 is better if we're just considering article text, but it is going to result in indefinite cycles of argumentation that'll eventually result in an extreme proposal being adopted. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)18:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 or Option 5 There isn't a single other country in which war crimes accusations or rights issues are given this much attention (if any) in the lede. Serious WP:UNDUE. Its documentation or supposed attestation is secondary to the fact that accusations most especially have no place in a lede.Mistamystery (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
False. Lead of Sudan: Between 1989 and 2019, a 30-year-long military dictatorship led by Omar al-Bashir ruled Sudan and committed widespread human rights abuses, including torture, persecution of minorities, alleged sponsorship global terrorism, and ethnic genocide in Darfur from 2003–2020. Overall, the regime killed an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 people.VRtalk05:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3. Personal opinions aside, (difficult, considering what we see on the news every hour), this is for the sake of the article. Are we here to push an agenda out to the world, is WP taking a moral stance? Difficult to tell in this case. Regardless if the conflict is ongoing, or happened in the distant past, you look at featured articles of countries and there is without doubt a euphemistic tone in the leads. Is it relevant to Israel, perhaps not, but they are examples to follow. I don't believe in watering down, but I believe in compromise and 3 is the only choice really that is a compromise on both sides, for now. Michael0986 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 2 or Option 4 with or without attribution, per Nableezy and Selfstudier. Nableezy has provided reliable sources for factual accuracy of the addition, and the position in the lead is warranted per WP:LEAD (inclusion of major controversies), MOS:LEADREL, and WP:DUE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wracking (talk • contribs) 22:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 2 or 4, preferably without attribution as the list of critics of Israel is too long to list in the lead. Per reasons given by nableezy. VRtalk05:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 or Option 5 No double standards, please. Specifically, One cannot use language stronger than that employed for other countries/nationalities, even those that commit significantly worse war crimes and are much worse at protecting human rights. GidiD (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3. Criticism of Israel is a complicated topic: some countries criticize Israel and some don't, the critique by different sources is sometimes very different, and the entire topic is very time dependent (pro Israeli heads of countries will say different things than pro Palestinian ones). Therefore, just saying that there is international criticism against Israel is problematic, because it's complicated and the lead (which should be relatively short) can't neutrally discuss this issue. However, the case of UN criticism of Israel is more simple since it is almost not time dependent, and very consistent - therefore fits better with WP:NPOV. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 I think option 3 is the best choice. It should be unbiased and show the common view that Israel is criticized. Countries like the EU, US, Canada, and Australia don't accuse Israel of crimes against humanity, which would be a controversial point. So, a better choice is a sentence showing the general opinion that Israel is criticized. The UN and its groups are the main critics, giving credibility to this view. Controversial points can be added later in the article. Option 3 gives important information without making the reader work too hard. It also avoids biased descriptions of Israeli actions. According to WP:SS, sections of long articles should be short and to the point. WP:SS also says that different readers need different amounts of information. Some might want a brief summary (like option 3), while others might want more details (found in longer, linked articles). We shouldn't overload readers with too much detail. Option 3 is good because it's simple but still covers the important points without diving into complex criticisms that might be biased. Option 3 is also more balanced and uses neutral language, avoiding strong terms like 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity', but it still acknowledges the criticism. Eladkarmel (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
By the way, I want to mention that I discussed with my friend, ChatGPT, what he thinks is the most neutral choice. I showed him the 5 options and ChatGPT suggested that option 3 is the most unbiased.[17]Eladkarmel (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 or Option 5. The Wikipedia page on Iran lacks mentioning on crimes and human rights violations in the lead, focusing instead on a diplomatically framed "alleged sponsorship of terrorism" ("Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran"). Similarly, the Wikipedia page on Russia does not state that it is recognized as a terrorist country in the lead, and there is no mention of war crimes ("Russian war crimes"). Surprisingly, even the terrorist organization Hamas does not include the words "crime" or "human rights violations" in its lead. On the contrary, we are highlighting in the lead on Hamas that the UN did not condemn Hamas for acts of terror. And all know that the diverse composition of the UN voting pool, with 48 Muslim countries and one Jewish country, raises concerns about unbiased outcomes. Yet, there is an attempt here to indirectly label Israel as a terrorist state, especially when Hamas is not classified as such. I believe we deserve a more unbiased lead in the article about Israel. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The foundational charter of Hamas, published in 1988, articulated its ideology as a struggle against Jews, calling for the destruction of Israel to establish an Islamic Palestinian state in its place.
[...]
The organization has carried out attacks against Israeli civilians, including suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks.[78] These actions have led Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Paraguay, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union to designate Hamas a terrorist organization.
Did we intentionally select a designated terrorist organization rather than other countries to use as a basis for comparison in an attempt to alter the article's introduction on Israel? :) The crux of my argument is quite evident – even Hamas doesn't feature terms like "violating human rights," "war crimes," and "crimes against humanity" in its introduction. Nevertheless, there are efforts underway to incorporate these terms into the Israel article. It's worth noting that the Arabic Wikipedia is way more neutral and doesn't include such language in Israel's lead, despite the push to add it here. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Because they haven’t been accused of such by human rights organizations and the UN for decades. Hamas has recently been accused of crimes against humanity and has previously been accused of war crimes but less consistently than Israel. Sorry that Israel’s record over the course of decades is worse than an organization that several countries have designated as terrorist, but it is. But here you go. nableezy - 22:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
You are the one who mentioned the Hamas article as a comparison.
You say "Even [the lead of] Hamas doesn't feature terms like "violating human rights," "war crimes," and "crimes against humanity"", yet it describes their "calling for the destruction of Israel" and that they are a terrorist organization which carries out "attacks against Israeli civilians, including suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks."
Indeed. I wanted to see if out of the countries mentioned above someone will choose Hamas as an excuse and it indeed was chosen. I hope you understand the mistake is such comparison. :) With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
It’s a mistake to compare the country under discussion to the government it’s at war with? Unless making comparisons in general is the mistake, in which case the “argument” of the overwhelming majority of Option 3/Option 5 voters unravels completely… if your point is that comparisons are facile and obfuscate the actual point of this discussion, then yes, I would unreservedly agree that the mistake is such comparison.WillowCity(talk)02:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
When the US had a war with terror I do not believe the many have compared US to a terrorist organization. :) With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3. We have limited space in the lead to describe aspects ranging from history and geography to culture and economy. It is essential to keep the wording concise. I would also be ok with a version of #3 that says both "United Nations and human rights organizations". Marokwitz (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 or Option 5 per Oleg Yunakov Option 3 is indeed the most concise as pointed out above, but the most optimal solution is to dispense with it entirely in the lead, so as to avoid holding Israel to a higher standard than, say, Iran. Coretheapple (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 2, then 4 without "internationally" and attribution. Where the criticism and accusations are coming from is a more complicated detail. Comparing with other countries leads can be informative. But at the same time, the Palestinian matter is very unique. The occupation is comparable in size and population to Israel proper, especially if Israeli Arabs and Muslims are excluded. It was crucial to the country's formation and continues to play an important role today, spanning the modern nation's entire history. Senorangel (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey :), just a small check up. The occupation refers to 1967 - Today (Israel was founded in 1948, so it's not the entire history). And I'm not sure why there is need to exclude Israeli Arabs since they are an important part of Israeli society and I think about 87% wish to continue living in Israel, also some do military service etc... That's that. Sorry if I seemed rude, hopefully I did not accidentally offend you. Lovely day! Homerethegreat (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Note to closer: This editor was topic banned for proxying for a banned user, and this discussion was one of those targeted for proxy editing [18]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
There's some people that consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestine since 1948 and don't recognize it as a legitimate state. It would definitely be WP:FRINGE to include that in the lede though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)20:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 1, then 5 The current phrasing is the only one that is factual and consistent with the neutral approach of Wikipedia. Otherwise, just exclude this phrase that seems to be blaming one side, very far from Wikipedia approach Agmonsnir (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I prefer Option 1, as it is the most concise and factual, written in the proper Wikipedia voice, and without heated and controversial details, as is recommended for lede sections. If not, then Option 3, but I'd prefer to omit "from the United Nations" sufix; "international criticism" is enough. If not, then Option 5. Other options are non-neutral, not appropriate for the lead, and contain controversial and biased description and wording. Noon (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 or 5 per Oleg Y, Alaexis, Davidroth, homerethegreat, etc. Additionally, I agree with BilledMammal that mention of UN bias against Israel should be included. The comments comparing the Israeli proposed leads and the leads of countries like Iran and terror groups like Hamas were interesting. JM (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Option 3, alternatively 5, particularly considering that significant amounts of the origins of the criticism has been accused of bias (either based on ethnicity or geopolitical) and to maintain consistency with other pages, as discussed by others above FortunateSons (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Information about canvassing that targeted this discussion can be found here. Commentary on how editors who have edited another language Wikipedia have !voted a certain way is clearly commenting on contributor not on content. If there are concerns about further canvassing issues in this discussion WP:AE, WP:ANI, or WP:ARBCOM are the routes open to present your evidence. Such speculation does not belong on article talk pages, is not proof of canvassing, and only serves to derail discussions.Aspersions about antisemitism have even less to do with the article and should not be made anywhere without significant evidence. Pointing out a trend in !votes based on involvement with another project when there has been off site canvassing although not constructive is not antisemetic and is certainly not the same as using triple parentheses.To summarize, if you have evidence of disruption bring it to the right place. Don't speculate on motives or engage in present patterns. Don't cast aspersions. Assume good faith. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: - noticed that votes on this AfD by active Hebrew Wikipedia editors (more than 250 edits there) are currently 7-0 in favour of Option 3 (1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7) and if you add in sporadic he.wiki editors (less than 30 edits there) it is 11-3 in favour of Option 3. (8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / against 1 / 2 / 3) Of the 11 in favour of Option 3, there are 5 in favour of Option 5, and 2 of these 5 are also in favour of Option 1. May update later on. starship.paint (RUN)14:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The evidence that formed part of the ARBCOM PIA Canvassing case included canvassing to an RfC on this page in October. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the canvassing has persisted. But there's no evidence of canvassing to this RfC is there? Anyone who received canvassing emails should make that public and forward them to ARBCOM. Why wouldn't they want to do that to help the community? I wonder if the closer will take the ARBCOM PIA Canvassing case into consideration. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I haven't looked close enough but there are worrying signs, and as you mentioned, the precedent here has been considered enough to raise some eyebrows. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
If the closer uses the canvassing case about another previous RfC to devalue votes in this different RfC, wouldn't that be antithetical to WP:AGF, part of a pillar? JM (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The evidence, going back over a decade indicates to me at least, that a more effective pillar in ARBPIA would be 'assume nothing, including good faith'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm just going off of what Sean.hoyland just said above, which was that there was no canvassing, so if there is an ArbCom case confirming it, neither of us have seen it. JM (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
JM, there was irrefutable evidence of canvassing. There is no reason to believe it has stopped. Again, evidence that formed part of the ARBCOM PIA Canvassing case included canvassing to an RfC on this page in October, Request for Comment on apartheid charges. I don't know what evidence ArbCom has of canvassing to this RFC on human rights language in lead. My "But there's no evidence of canvassing to this RfC is there?" was a question that Nableezy has kindly answered. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Unless you're arguing that there's canvassing on the Hebrew Wikipedia itself (got a link?), you're basically using someone's linguistic knowledge to discredit their !votes. I don't think that's really appropriate. It's an ad hominem attack at best, and one which can also be made for many of the people here (such as yourself or the creator of this RfC) who have edited the Arabic Wikipedia and seem to take the opposite view. At worst, you're using "Hebrew Wikipedian" to mean "Hebrews that are also Wikipedians" which is even more of a personal attack. I don't think this analysis contributes anything to the RfC and you might want to consider removing it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)17:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
His message is very clear that your at worst scenario is not accurate and adding it here serves no purpose other than to imply a racist intent in the message. Which is, obviously, highly inappropriate. nableezy - 20:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Attacking other editors based on their knowledge of Hebrew isn't explicitly listed in WP:NPA but I'm pretty sure it isn't allowed, because language is often a proxy for nationality and Hebrew is spoken by mostly Israelis and Jewish people. There's been no actual evidence presented of this Hebrew (language) conspiracy beyond Hebrew speakers supporting a more pro-Israel viewpoint. This is not necessarily surprising but for the purpose of civility that's not something we want to bring up in discussions. Imagine if every article related to the other IPA (India-Pakistan) had editors looking at editing patterns to Hindi/Urdu Wikipedias and just tallying it up in the background.
If it's not intended as racist, it still disproportionately singles out editors likely to be of a certain nationality or religion, so that's the effect. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)04:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
There has been numerous documented cases of canvassing by editors slanting towards the Israeli point of view in the past few months, which have disrupted dozens of discussions, and led to them being indefinitely topic sanctioned. Other editors here have every reason to be worried of this phenomena when they see similar signs. Please avoid trying to shift attention from the issue by claims of discrimination. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The canvassing has singled out editors based on the selection criteria of an obsessional, dishonest, ultra-nationalist, racist Israel supporter who has created and operated hundreds of sockpuppet accounts. There's nothing disproportionate about it because he's not doing random population sampling. It's targeted, albeit not very precisely. That would by why concerns about canvassing will tend to disproportionately single out editors based on estimates of the probability of having been canvassed. When there has been extensive canvassing why would a rational person blindly assume good faith? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Chess: - I do not intend to remove it. I said "he.wiki editors" and "Hebrew Wikipedia editors". That means editors of the Hebrew language Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, because any race and any ethnicity can speak Hebrew, and speaking Hebrew is absolutely not a problem. Sure, you can consider my total of one edit on Arabic Wikipedia when I swapped a picture. I am just documenting a phenomenon and that is for the closer to intepret, certainly one possible intepretation is what you wrote, Chess: Hebrew speakers supporting a more pro-Israel viewpoint. That has nothing to do with race or racism. starship.paint (RUN)06:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with Chess above. Making a public note of the voting tendencies of Hebrew Wikipedia editors seems to have a discriminatory effect ("an act or failure to act that is otherwise that has the effect, regardless of intent, of ... discriminating on the basis of a protected classification"). This is because although technically anyone can speak modern Hebrew, it is a revived language with a strong link to Zionism, Judaism, and the Israeli people, and I can't find any significant number of non-Israeli and/or non-Jewish speakers. Now your comment isn't an issue unless it's made to try to devalue the votes of such editors, which others are effectively doing by alleging canvassing without evidence. JM (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I am simply presenting a pattern. There is nothing inherently wrong from a person speaking Hebrew, or being a Zionist, or being Jewish, or being Israeli, and my observation should not be intepreted thus. The demographics of Hebrew speakers are not within my control, it is what it is. starship.paint (RUN)13:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
If you think I'm "weaponizing antisemitism" for calling out users complaining about how Hebrew speakers are !voting, you can try making that case to someone, but I have doubts that it would succeed. JM (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
That's a complete distortion of what was being discussed. No one is seriously meaning that nor will anyone play within this frame and shame game either. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you concerned about the impact of canvassing on this RfC and do you have any suggestions for ways to address it? For example, do you agree that anyone who has received an email directing them to this RfC should make that public and forward the email to ArbCom? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Sean.hoyland: Tag all the people who were topic banned in the ArbCom motion for canvassing as having been (probably) canvassed. That is trivial and there are two major participants in this discussion that can be tagged that way that I didn't know about until Nableezy linked it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)18:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Clearly a distortion. The fact is that there has been a finding of canvassing and sock-puppetry, and sanctions applied, on this and related articles. The comment merely voices a concern about the legitimacy of the RfC process in these articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The original comment did not mention canvassing at all. It specifically singled out Hebrew-language Wikipedia editors for some reason. That's the issue at hand. I'm not distorting that. JM (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not racist, I'm simply presenting a pattern is an interesting way to justify it. Should we start designating editors with some sort of symbol like triple parentheses if they contribute to the Hebrew Wikipedia? The creators of the Chrome extension which highlighted people with certain linguistic patterns (of German origin) in their last name called it a "coincidence detector".[19] Perhaps you are also only in the business of detecting coincidences by singling out Hebraic editors.
You can't just say "I'm just identifying patterns" when anyone can tell that your analysis singles out people that are likely to be Jewish or Israeli. I'm not even directly accusing you of anti-Semitism though. What I would like, is to hear your interpretation of the evidence since it's your burden to explain exactly what the pattern you've recognized is proof of. Otherwise your comment is meaningless to the closer since it's just random data unlinked to the issue at hand. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)17:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2, alternatively 4, then 1. Human rights violations, as well as the settlements and the longest-running occupation in modern history are pretty notable and defining characteristics of the modern state of Israel. Yes, other countries also have dependent territories and territories which you could classify as "occupied" depending on the definition, but Israel stands out for the longest-running legal occupation, that is, an occupation under international law. This is an aspect of this article which will, in all likelihood, only grow in size and notability relative to the rest of the article, the longer the occupation runs. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Option 3 - I'm late to the party here, having only just now seen this, but Option 3 is the only version that does not make a value judgment on whether the criticism is warranted, just that it exists. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!03:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
CommentWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument, just sayin. As for UN bias, it would be as well not to cherry pick quotes from ex SG Ban final speech in 2016 which says "Decades of political maneuverings have created a disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel [just that italicized bit is frequently quoted by partisans] In many cases, rather than helping the Palestinian cause, this reality has hampered the ability of the UN to fulfill its role effectively. At the same time, Israel must realize that the reality in which a democratic state, governed by the rule of law, keeps the Palestinian people under military occupation will continue to generate criticism and calls for accountability." and a lot else besides. Oh, and the discussion is down here, not up there. Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay; sometimes it is useful to let other articles guide us as to what is appropriate, particularly for a topic with highly partisan editors like this one - if topics with less partisanship do something one way, it’s probably a good idea to do the same in topics with more partisanship in order to avoid that partisanship causing NPOV issues.
As for the full quote, I’m not sure what you think it proves? It doesn’t change the meaning or otherwise moderate the section I quoted. BilledMammal (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Comment To keep the survey section relatively trim, here is my comment addressing some of the arguments I've seen, and why I believe those arguments are insufficient.
Homerethegreat's reference to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is not a strong argument to shorten a sentence by about 20 words, especially when that removed text is disputed. More relevant policies/guidelines for this issue would be MOS:LEADREL and MOS:LEADLENGTH, neither of which support removal simply for the sake of it.
Homerethegreat's use of WP:NPOV fundamentally misunderstands what it means to state an opinion as fact. The "seriously contested assertion" is "Israel has committed war crimes"; the fact (as Nableezy has established) is "human rights organizations and UN officials accuse Israel of committing war crimes". The solution here, as described at WP:NPOV, is to provide in-text attribution. (Though, per MOS:WEASEL, unattributed assertions can be put in the lead to be later attributed in the body.) The solution is not to simply remove all contested assertions.
Whataboutism (WP:OTHERCONTENT), an argument used by several !voters for Option 3, is also not a strong argument. It is not driven by reliable sources, policy, or the actual claims of the sentence. WP:DUE refers to content within an article, not content amongst articles. If you think it's wrong that Russia doesn't list war crimes accusations, go to Talk:Russia.
Alaexis' citation of Israel's Freedom House score is irrelevant. The claim we are !voting on is not really related to human rights in "Israel proper" at all, but accusations about Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.
I'm sorry, but this is not a good faith response. First, the consistency argument is driven by WP:NPOV: we should not give undue weight to a certain aspect of the subject. The essay WP:OTHERCONTENT actually says While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.
Going to the talk pages of Russia and dozens of countries having worse human rights record than Israel isn't feasible. Have *you* tried adding this information to other countries articles? Alaexis¿question?10:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
There's nothing in the above that even remotely suggests bad faith. Freedom House (in addition to being extensively funded by the US State Department) assesses issues like civil liberties and democracy; it's not a surrogate for a country's human rights record writ large. An ostensibly democratic country can still commit (or, more to the point for this RfC, be accused of committing) war crimes and crimes against humanity. WillowCity(talk)12:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Again, the initiator of the RfC brought up the Freedom House ratings, that's why I used them in my argument. You can look at Swedish-Canadian CIRIGHTS Data Project [20] which also shows that Israel is better than all of its neighbours (a very low bar indeed) and many other countries in Asia, Europe and Africa. Alaexis¿question?13:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
If you look at the scoring guide for CIRIGHTS, it notes: The primary data source is the US State Department (USSD) Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. But again, all of this is neither here nor there because we're talking about this article and what should go in the lead of this article. "XYZ country is worse!" is really just smoke and mirrors. I can't say it any better than Wracking: If you think it's wrong that Russia doesn't list war crimes accusations, go to Talk:Russia.WillowCity(talk)14:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
So CIRIGHTS gives Israel the second worst of seven ratings. But what does a rating of Israel relative to its neighbors have to do with the RfC options anyhow? When a kid is scolded by a parent, a common response is my brother did X. And you may disagree with Wracking's response -- but it is wrong to call it not a good faith response. WP:AGFO3000, Ret. (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Freedom House is about ranking freedom, not about war crimes and crimes against humanity. You asked for rankings showing that the Israeli occupation is consistently ranked among the worst human rights abusers and I gave that. But this proposal is about war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not respect for freedom of speech or the press or any of the other things Freedom House looks at. And it is incredibly bad faith to accuse others of bad faith while you are so blatantly misrepresenting the proposal and its basis. nableezy - 14:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clarify details about explusion in lead
Change: "The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war between these groups which would see the expulsion or fleeing of most Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine."
Rewriting in active voice for clarity. Also be more precise, since the civil war was just the first phase (see morris): "The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war among these groups. This conflict marked the initial stage of the forceful eviction of Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine by Zionist militias and paramilitary units. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine had either been expelled or had fled." DMH223344 (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose parts of them were evicted, parts fled for reasons equivalent to eviction, parts did not. Your solution removes that nuance. FortunateSons (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
My justification as per above: "Rewriting in active voice for clarity. Also be more precise, since the civil war was just the first phase" DMH223344 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Also, my proposed version does not suggest that zionist militias and paramilitary were the only reason, only that they were a major reason (which is not contested by serious historiagraphy). DMH223344 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
True, but it strongly implies that, which is not consistently supported by the sources. In my opinion, the passive voice is fine, particularly as there is a significant group where there is strong but not fully conclusive evidence for the cause of their action (though to be fair, my reading is a few years old, so if there are clear percentages on expulsion, flight based on reasonable fear of non-permitted harm and flight from the conflict/to not be under Jewish rule/other optional reason, I would be willing to reconsider my position.
If I’m still up to date, 6 (?) villages definitely “purely” left, a few dozens were aggressively cleansed (read: none or few people could have remained without an overwhelming likelihood of directed and significant harm), and there is a wide range of everything in between, which is a good reason for passive voice if you ask me.
If you are willing to actually look up the specific numbers (I seem to recall Morris having those, but am not sure), I think shorting the section, linking to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight instead of Nakba, changing the order of sentence 2 and 3 and softening 2 would significantly improve your suggestion and make it significantly more likely to be included in the article.
True, but it strongly implies that, which is not consistently supported by the sources.
It doesn't imply that at all, since I explicitly say "or fled", which is the typical word choice everwhere on wikipedia.
so if there are clear percentages on expulsion, flight based on reasonable fear of non-permitted harm and flight from the conflict/to not be under Jewish rule/other optional reason
In the current version, it sounds like people fled simply due to the war, but no well-respected historian claims that. We don't need to know an exact breakdown of the reasons people left to know that the main reason was attacks and fear of zionist attacks on civilians. Everything in history is multifactorial, but when there is a well-known and broadly accepted major reason something happens, we should mention it. There are of course some historians who do try to estimate the number who left due to various reasons:
"Meir Pa’il, the widely respected Israeli historian of the 1948 war, estimates that, of the total Palestinian refugee population, ‘one third fled out of fear, one third were forcibly evacuated by the Israelis …, [and] one third were encouraged by the Israelis to flee’ (Palumbo, p. xviii). Palumbo’s study reaches roughly the same conclusion as Pa’il." Finkelstein 1995
From Finkelstein 1995: Indeed, according to the former director of the Israel army archives, ‘in almost every Arab village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’. The number of large-scale massacres (more than 50 murdered) is put by the archivist at a minimum of 20 and small-scale massacres (an individual or a handful murdered) at about 100. Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs’
From Shlaim (iron wall): Although the wording of Plan D was vague, its objective was to clear the interior of the country of hostile and potentially hostile Arab elements, and in this sense it provided a warrant for expelling civilians. By implementing Plan D in April and May, the Haganah thus directly and decisively contributed to the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem.
Finkelstein 1995 quoting Morris: The attacks themselves were "the most important single factor in the exodus of April-June from both the cities and from the villages... This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that each exodus occurred during and in the immediate wake of each military assault. No town was abandoned by the bulk of its population before Jewish attack."DMH223344 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Masalha 2012: In 1948 more than half of the Palestinians were driven from their towns and villages, mainly by a deliberate Israeli policy of ‘transfer’ and ethnic cleansing.DMH223344 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Also Shlaim (iron wall): There were many reasons for the Palestinian exodus, including the early departure of the Palestinian leaders when the going got tough, but the most important reason was Jewish military pressure.
Ben-Ami (2005) describes "hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who were evicted from their villages". DMH223344 (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to look for the scholarship. I generally dislike using Finkelstein due to the quality of his scholarship (particularly in areas where I have decent knowledge, so it’s quite possible that those are localised issues). That being said, I think the first quote could be usable: estimates say that one third was forcefully removed, 2/3 fled. I think if you restructure your request (I left a few suggestions above, but feel free to follow the spirit instead of the letter, and cite Meir Pa’il (preferably directly)), you will have good odds of reaching a consensus (barring issues with the sources for other claims, other issues and that you have your EC again, which I think you do?). FortunateSons (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with the need to describe a specific breakdown since most scholarship does not give an explicit estimate and it's unclear what "encouraged by the Israelis to flee" means specifically or to what extent we should have faith in this breakdown of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. The scholarly consensus supports the portrayal in my proposed edit.
As for Finkelstein's scholarship, it's not particularly relevant here since he is quoting other sources. I don't think his work on this topic in particular is described as low quality, although of course not everyone agrees with his conclusions (in particular, he disagrees with at least Morris and Shapira on important conclusions as is highlighted in the cited book). If you can point me to respected and relevant scholarly criticism of Finkelstein's scholarship, I would be grateful. DMH223344 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I would have gone for Morris and my own anecdotal experience, and there is a list of people on his wiki page, but I’m not informed enough for an in-depth comparative analysis of his work. Some of his assessments on law are not great, but I am quite hawkish in my international law interpretation, so it’s possible that him and I are just on opposite side of a bunch of implied and explicit disputes (though to be fair, what I read from him was a while ago, so I’m uncertain on the details.)
He also made a bunch of questionable statements, but that is an issue of character and not of scholarship.
I disagree with your proposal in its current form, as it implies expulsion as the overwhelming cause (at least to the uninformed reader), something not broadly supported by scholarship to the best of my knowledge and your sources. If you can appropriately address that issue, I’m happy to have you include it, otherwise I am still opposed. FortunateSons (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
How can you say "I disagree with your proposal in its current form, as it implies expulsion as the overwhelming cause (at least to the uninformed reader), something not broadly supported by scholarship to the best of my knowledge and your sources." when DMH223344 just presented 5 scholars stating variations of "In 1948 more than half of the Palestinians were driven from their towns and villages, mainly by a deliberate Israeli policy of ‘transfer’ and ethnic cleansing."?
People primarily only fled in order to avoid the violence of their imminent forceful eviction.
How is being "driven from their towns and villages, mainly by a deliberate Israeli policy of ‘transfer’ and ethnic cleansing" not the same as being expelled? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
"They were either expelled or fled from their homes for fear of being killed, as had actually taken place in a number of villages."[1]
And also: "as scores of historical documentation has since revealed, the Yishuv encouraged the flight or directly forced750000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the population at the time) from their homeland"[2]
You seem to imply that many fled irrationally or unnecessarilly. How is "fear of being killed, as had actually taken place in a number of villages" an 'abstract' rather than acute/concrete. They were concretely and specifically afraid of the Irgun, Lehi and the Haganah, and their campaign of massacres, terrorism and ethnic cleansing. Hardly abstract fears.
Morris is considered one of the best, and you haven’t provided another broadly recognised historian who disagrees, so even if he wasn’t, he would still be the BESTSOURCE here.
While those fears are definitely understandable, a fear of conflict or harm is generally considered flight and not expulsion even when rational, of which a few villages undoubtedly were, a few most likely weren’t, and everything in between is disputed. FortunateSons (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
"a few villages undoubtedly were, a few most likely weren’t, and everything in between is disputed."
Not sure what you're saying here, and what exactly are you claiming is disputed?
That was a book that every academic publisher Tauber approached to publish declined. And Tauber doesnt even dispute the events, just claims that they somehow do not add up to a massacre, but never says what would be. Tauber's view on Deir Yassin is firmly in extreme minority territory. nableezy - 00:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The book The Massacre That Never Was: The Myth of Deir Yassin and the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem is a work of historical denialism (specifically Nakba denial). The Deir Yassin massacre was an extremely obvious massacre and we call it such on Wikipedia for good reason. You might review the article we have on it and check the references. The pages Nakba and Nakba denial are worth reading also, and are very thoroughly and well sourced. Especially the Nakba article. @FortunateSons, you may want to read the Nakba article as well and read up on its references. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. The Deir Yassin article actually has a section called “Propaganda” Deir Yassin massacre#Propaganda, which is what I think what Tauber discusses. Tauber is listed as source 77.
In regards to the other discussion about whether or not most Palestinians fled or were expelled, I found this section in the Deir Yassin Wiki article:
'There was no rape.' He [Hussayn Khalidi] said, 'We have to say this so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews.'" "This was our biggest mistake," said Nusseibeh. "We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror. They ran away from all our villages." He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem."
A villager known as Haj Ayish claimed that "there had been no rape." He questioned the accuracy of the Arab radio broadcasts that "talked of women being killed and raped", and instead believed that "most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters." Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, said: "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that ... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade. They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin." Wafflefrites (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
In some villages, there was clear expulsion, in others, clear flight; everything else is considered somewhat unclear depending on who you listen to, and therefore disputed.
Citing specific examples is interesting from a historical perspective, but for this discussion, the total breakdown is the only relevant factor, unless you are willing to take the time for 600 separate villages, which I personally am not. The (first) Finkelstein citation provides such a breakdown and Morris provided approximations, but if you have another one as an alternative, I welcome you to cite that. To the best of my knowledge, most historical sources state that the majority of Palestinians fled (often for good reason, but voluntarily). FortunateSons (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
How can one be said to voluntarily flee from danger? Sources sinply do not describe the Palestinian flight as 'voluntary' but as compelled. But we're going in circles and you're persisting in disagreeing with the reliable sources. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Consider also that during the ethnic cleansing of Haifa for example, "the Haganah made effective use of Arabic language broadcasts and loudspeaker vans" and "called on the populace to 'evacuate the women, the children and the old immediately, and send them to a safe haven'", and used "tactics [...] designed to stun and quickly overpower opposition" where "demoralisation was a primary aim. It was deemed just as important to the outcome as the physical destruction of the Arab units. The mortar barrages and the psychological warfare broadcasts and announcements, and the tactics employed by the infantry companies, advancing from house to house, were all geared to this goal." (per Morris by the way), and that "Historian Walid Khalidi described "the mass exodus of Haifa's Arab population" as "the spontaneous reaction to the ruthless combination of terror and psychological warfare tactics adopted by the Haganah during the attack."" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, and you (and others have) can make the argument that this specific conduct amounted to expulsion, but even if we were to assume that as true, it still wouldn’t account for a majority of other instances. FortunateSons (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with your proposal in its current form, as it implies expulsion as the overwhelming cause (at least to the uninformed reader), something not broadly supported by scholarship to the best of my knowledge and your sources.
I actually disagree. Maybe to a reader who is not careful they might go away thinking it was the overwhelming cause, but the proposed version does not state that or imply it. The main difference (in content) from the current version is explicitly stating who performed the expulsions. And as stated by the sources quoted above, expulsions and attacks were the most important factor, so stating who performed them is critical. DMH223344 (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I think we already have a confused editor above, so I would doubt that. Having said that, adding who performed the expulsions is fine, the rest is the issue. FortunateSons (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war between these groups which would see the expulsion or fleeing of most Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine.
Your suggestion:
The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war among these groups. This conflict marked the initial stage of the forceful eviction of Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine by Zionist militias and paramilitary units. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine had either been expelled or had fled.
My preferred version:
The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war between these groups which would see the expulsion or fleeing of most Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine, of which around a third is estimated to have been forcefully removed (alternatives: expelled, evicted) by Zionist militias and paramilitary units and the rest to have fled.
Suggested compromise:
The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war among these groups. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine had either fled or been expelled. This conflict is generally considered the initial stage of the forceful eviction of Palestinians by Zionist militias and paramilitary units.FortunateSons (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
As per above: I disagree with the need to describe a specific breakdown since most scholarship does not give an explicit estimate and it's unclear what "encouraged by the Israelis to flee" means specifically or to what extent we should have faith in this breakdown of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. So I won't consider your "preferred version" further.
Comparing your suggestion with my proposed version:
Your version swaps "fled" and "expelled".
Your version puts the statement about forceful eviction after the description of demographics in 1949.
Your version adds a qualifier of "generally considered" rather than stating it as fact.
Both points 1 and 2 serve to highlight the fleeing and de-emphasize the expulsion. Additionally, both points 1 and 2 lead to an awkward flow in the reading. Point 3 introduces a sense of uncertainty which is not needed and is unsupported by the scholarly consensus.
Nableezy found the actual RS claiming that involuntary expulsion is considered to be main cause (compared to voluntary flight) by at least some RS, so the issue has been solved anyway. FortunateSons (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Suggesting that "RS claiming that involuntary expulsion is considered to be the main cause" means that any flight was therefore voluntary is both OR and badly illogical. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
There’s a whole bunch of made up special pleading and OR being put up as a roadblock here, but here is an actual summary of estimates from an actually reliable source: Slater, Jerome (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6. There is no serious dispute among Israeli, Palestinian, or other historians about the central facts of the Nakba. All of the leading Israeli New Historians—particularly Morris, Shlaim, Pappé, and Flapan—extensively examined the issue and revealed the facts. Other accounts have reached the same conclusions. For example, see Ben-Ami, "A War to Start All Wars"; Rashid Khalidi, "The Palestinians and 1948"; Walid Khalidi, "Why Did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited"; Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians; Raz, Bride and the Dowry. Reviewing the evidence marshaled by Morris and others, Tom Segev concluded that "most of the Arabs in the country, approximately 400,000, were chased out and expelled during the first stage of the war. In other words, before the Arab armies invaded the country" (Haaretz, July 18, 2010). Other estimates have varied concerning the number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled before the May 1948 Arab state attack; Morris estimated the number to be 250,000–300,000 (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 262); Tessler puts it at 300,000 (A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 279); Pappé's estimate is 380,000 (The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 96). In another recent review of the evidence, the Israeli historian Daniel Blatman estimates the number to be about 500,000 (Blatman, "Netanyahu, This Is What Ethnic Cleansing Really Looks Like"). Whatever the exact number, even Israeli "Old Historians" now admit that during the 1948 war, the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians, though they emphasized the action as a military "necessity." For example, see Anita Shapira, Israel: A History, 167–68. In July 2019, the Israeli government sought to cover up the extensive documentary evidence in its state archives that revealed detailed evidence about the extent of the Nakba—even the evidence that had already been published by newspapers and Israeli historians.
Beyond that, not being allowed to return to your home is also being expelled, and that is true for *all* of them. Finally, if one user is filibustering it’s usually a better idea to move past them and let consensus develop in spite of that instead of trying to convince them to stop filibustering. nableezy - 13:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
You are wrong on not being allowed to return = expulsion, but you did provide sources showing that at least some RS consider direct expulsion to be the primary cause, so the order of flight after expulsion can stand, at least until I take the time to look for the specifics of actual academic consensus. I maintain that the link should actually aim to causes and not not nakba (or maybe both?), but the removal of passive voice is fine. FortunateSons (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
"I maintain that the link should actually aim to causes and not not nakba"
Swapping fled and expelled is done by quantity (According to your citation). If you can find a way to fix 2. without altering the content, feel free to do so. 3. is friendly to your 'side', including evictions of tenant farmer etc., but can be removed if you don’t care for it. Regarding „encouraging to flee“: it can indeed be a wide range, but as the contrast is expulsion and the main categories expulsion and flight, we can therefore logically say that it isn’t expulsion.
Based on the scholarship you provided, you have made a convincing case for including the actors responsible (therefore inclusion in my proposal).
My key remaining issue is with anything that - while factually accurate - leads to inaccurate interpretations, most notably that expulsion far the primary or even disproportionate cause beyond what is broadly supported by RS, instead of being an equal or lesser cause compared to flight. Due to the fact that English isn’t my native language, some of my phrasing can be rough, so I’m open to altering those as long as content remains preserved.
most notably that expulsion far the primary or even disproportionate cause beyond what is broadly supported by RS, instead of being an equal or lesser cause compared to flight
This is your interpretation, not what is represented in the scholarship, which is in agreement that expulsion was the primary factor. DMH223344 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, me, Morris, the old Israeli Historians, Pa‘il and Palumbo (cited by you above) disagree with it being primary in the sense of making up more than flight (I could be wrong on the scholarship, so take that with a grain of sand.) Do you disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Even if you accept those estimates as accurate, the key question is what is the most important factor. As we saw, it is the forceful expulsion.
You mention the qualifier "in the sense of making up more than flight". But that's not the question here, we are concerned with the primary factor of the exodus, which is the expulsions. DMH223344 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
That may be a language barrier on my part, but if something makes up less than half of something and another thing makes up more than half, then the second one is the primary factor, no? FortunateSons (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I mostly rely on Morris (and the source kindly provided by the other editor), but the old ones definitely contribute to disproving the existence of consensus on expulsion being primary. As long as we are using Finkelstein, we can probably use the old ones too ;) FortunateSons (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Benny Morris does not represent the latest scholarship.
Of course he's "often reliable enough" but that doesn't mean there aren't issues with his work which later historians have improved upon.
And apologies for removing your comment (which consisted of only "thoughts?"), it was out of place in the discussion and I thought clearly insignificant enough that removing it was easier. I was in a rush also to implement my outdent edit (which I was doing manually, changing the number of indents on each subsequent comment) without a conflicting edit, which had already happened the first time I tried to implement it. But of course at this point I'll restore your comment for you immediately.
There are no historians without issues, but he is still broadly considered one of the best. Are you aware of someone who you consider comparable or better who disagreed later regarding the topic at hand? FortunateSons (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Expulsions lead to fear which leads to fleeing. So expulsion can be the primary reason even if it's the case that fewer than 50% of people who left were directly expelled. DMH223344 (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
That would be an argument of why expulsion may have been a factor for flight, but not an argument for Expulsion as the primary factor: someone fleeing due to fear of expulsion is still fleeing. We can still go with the phrasing used by your first Finkelstein citation if you think mine is also misleading? FortunateSons (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
It's probably a good idea to mention the systemic violence which people were fleeing from. Only saying people fled without mentioning from what is rather whitewashy in my opinion. Also the great number of massacres and acts of violence perpretrated in these expulsions and flight is likely due for inclusion in this summary anyway. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand, you don't agree that expulsion was the primary factor leading to the exodus? Is the phrasing you're referring to "The attacks themselves were the most important single factor in the exodus"? DMH223344 (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Isn’t that generally written in cases where there are considerations of a multitude of factors, or cases where „attacks“ also include the capture of villages. Attacks generally are not the same as expulsions. FortunateSons (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with DMH223344, that "In the current version, it sounds like people fled simply due to the war, but no well-respected historian claims that.", and I think that it would be an improvement to reword this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Likewise agree, the sourcing is very clear here, and the only reason to keep it vague is to obscure. nableezy - 16:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I would change the link from nakba to the other page, and may take the time to actually dig up the research in the future, otherwise no. Please remember to cite RS where applicable. FortunateSons (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I see, your second sentence has also added additional details and weight to the lead with regards to forceful military expulsion. As FortunateSons and I have pointed out, there is historical debate and inconsistencies about whether most Palestinians were forced out of if they fled. Especially after Deir Yassin, both Arab and Jewish leader inflated the number of dead and encouraged rumors, the Jewish leaders I believe in part did this to encourage flight. Your version seems a bit unbalanced in this regard giving more weight to forceful expulsion and feels a bit POV pushing,
especially this comment,
“Expulsions lead to fear which leads to fleeing. So expulsion can be the primary reason even if it's the case that fewer than 50% of people who left were directly expelled.” seems a bit like roundabout logic to conflate fear of expulsion with direct expulsion and attribute expulsion as the direct reason.
Agreed. Thank you. Nableezy posted some sources that seemed to consider it the primary direct source, but if it isn’t, I’m still opposed FortunateSons (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
That doesnt really challenge expulsion as the primary cause. He doesnt break it down at all, only to say that most fled because of the "flail of war". nableezy - 20:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
To quote the causes article: “ In the first decades after the exodus two diametrically opposed schools of analysis emerged; Israel claimed that the Palestinians left because they were ordered to by their own leaders, who deliberately incited them into panic, to clear the field for the war, while the Arabs claimed that they were expelled at gunpoint by Zionist forces who deliberately incited them into panic.” Expulsion (similarly used in the Morris letter) generally refers to the latter.
I don't understand the point you're trying the make. In any case, the claim Palestinians left because they were ordered to by their own leaders, who deliberately incited them into panic, to clear the field for the war has been almost universally debunked. DMH223344 (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
My point (responding to the other user) are that flight and expulsion are diametrically opposed when it comes to the mode of flight (but not to motive) FortunateSons (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
"Flight and expulsion are diametrically opposed" - This isn't true at all and is completely out of line with the RSs (many of which have already been provided to you in this discussion). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This isn't my interpretation, it is the interpretation represented by the scholarship (as I've shown in this thread), as I've said multiple times in this thread. Expulsions were the primary reason for the exodus. You and fortunatesons are interpreting "primary reason" as meaning "50% or more of people were removed with direct force from their homes", but that isn't what is being discussed here. DMH223344 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The 1947 UN partition plan triggered a civil war among these groups, which was the initial stage of the forceful eviction of Palestinians by Zionist militias and paramilitary units.
Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. By the first Arab-Israeli war's end in 1949, Israel was established over most of the former Mandate territory. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled or fled.
Yeah, the dispute is the order of the words. Today I found Morris using displaced for both, which fixed this issue. Sorry, the thread has gotten quite hard to follow. FortunateSons (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Of course I am opposed, the phrasing pushes the traditionalist (and now debunked narrative) of the Palestinians being displaced as a consequence of war, rather than primarily as a consequence of expulsions. See Khalidi: "This argument furthermore ignores the fact that in many cases Palestinians were driven out of areas where there was no fighting, where there were local truces, or where fighting had long ended, and that the vast majority were not allowed to return to their homes even after the fighting was over."
For @Wafflefrites, why did you add this sentence: "By the first Arab-Israeli war's end in 1949, Israel was established over most of the former Mandate territory." DMH223344 (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
That was from Makeandtoss’ edit but nw I am thinking it’s not the best since he dropped the link to the 1949 armistice Wafflefrites (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Considering you don’t seem to have read the essay you are citing: Alleging incompetence: It is generally inadvisable to call a person "incompetent" or their editing "incompetent". While being direct with problems is advisable, it is possible to be direct without being insulting. Telling people their work displays incompetence often does nothing to improve their work; it only serves to put them on the defensive, making them less receptive to instruction.
I'm not accusing you of incompetence. If I feel the need to so I will do it at AE or another appropriate venue.
I am asking you to strongly consider the essay I linked to however, and we've gone over your overreliance on Benny Morris multiple times now. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
If you are not concerned about my competence, what purpose does citing WP:Competence have?
If “overreliance” on one author is your primary concern, we really should also stop people from trying to work Finkelstein (who is significantly more controversial on quality and character) into every possible situation, no? Morris is broadly cited (including by Finkelstein). If it makes you feel better, I can include a bit more Shlaim and old historians if it makes you feel better.
Morris is/was (?) considered one of the best on the causes and motives and expulsion, per Pappe: “ Were these atrocities and conduct a consequence of the war itself or were they the result of premeditated expulsion plan? Some Israeli “new historians,” such as Benny Morris, who wrote the most important scholarly research on the question, tend to talk about this immoral chapter as emanating from the war atmosphere.“ [1]FortunateSons (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The full quote reads "Were these atrocities and conduct a consequence of the war itself or were they the result of premeditated expulsion plan? Some Israeli “new historians,” such as Benny Morris, who wrote the most important scholarly research on the question, tend to talk about this immoral chapter as emanating from the war atmosphere. Others, like this author, tend to see it as an outcome of a master plan prepared by the Jewish leadership before the war. Palestinian historians see it as a direct result of the Zionist settlement in Palestine. Ultimately, the establishment of a Jewish state could have become a reality only through an act of expulsion. 1948 was the opportunity, although the intent had been there all the time." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
^Petersen-Overton, Kristofer J.; Schmidt, Johannes D.; Hersh, Jacques (27 September 2010). "3. Retooling Peace Philosophy: A Critical Look at Israel's Separation Strategy". In Carter, Candice C.; Kumar, Ravindra (eds.). Peace Philosophy in Action. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 49. doi:10.1057/9780230112995. ISBN 978-0-230-11299-5. as scores of historical documentation has since revealed, the Yishuv encouraged the flight or directly forced 750000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the population at the time) from their homeland in 1948 and destroyed 531 Palestinian villages
Lede
@Eladkarmel: Please respect other editors' time and effort spent on Wikipedia by reverting what you specifically object to, and not indiscriminately revert every edit made to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Eladkarmel, regarding your reversion with edit summary "Restoring previous lead versions before deep changes made without reaching discussion. Please reach consensus before making such changes", please see Don't revert solely due to "no consensus".
Thank for your careful reversion @Wafflefrites:[21]. Can you explain though why the recent changes? The first Arab-Israeli war and the 1947 civil war were both part of the 1948 Palestine war, aka both the first and civil war were responsible for the Palestinian expulsion that had occurred. But the first war mention was removed by you and moved to the following paragraph, where it seems as if the war was due to an act of aggression by neighboring Arab countries, which is not an accurate representation of history, nor an accurate summarization of body. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Makeandtoss! I put it in chronological order. First the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine happened from 30 November 1947 – 14 May 1948. If you go to the civil war page, there’s a section called “First wave of Palestinian refugees” and the Nakba infobox. And then Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948 after the civil war. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war was from 15 May 1948 - 10 March 1949 (after Israel declared independence).
Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and its borders were drawn in the wake of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which saw Israel established over most of the former Mandate territory,
I think this version is confusing because it reads as though Israel declared establishment after the wars, and immediately after its declaration the armistice line borders were drawn. The armistice borders were drawn not immediately after Israel’s declaration of establishment on 14 May 1948, but after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, formally ending the war.
But you are right, both wars saw expulsion of Palestinians. And I believe you are right about the act of aggression. The Arabs didn’t see it as an act of aggression but an act of defense, while the Israelis thought otherwise.
Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, in an act of defense, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. During the Israeli offenses, additional Palestinians fled or were expelled. The 1949 Armistice Agreements saw Israel’s borders established over most of the former Mandate territory
I understand the issue with the chronology but this presents unnecessary details such as "first wave" and POV language such as "act of defense" and "offense". Makeandtoss (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible solution, something around:
"The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.
Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. By the first Arab-Israeli war's end in 1949, Israel was established over most of the former Mandate territory, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of its predominantly Arab population." Makeandtoss (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
"in an act of defense" would violate WP:NPOV, this doesn't represent the scholarly consensus in any way.
Discussing the two waves of expulsions is too much detail for the lede. There are many things we could mention, for example the exodus of the Jewish population from the Arab countries as a result of the same conflict, but it's just not suitable for the lede. Alaexis¿question?17:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you all work on the version that is in the section “Combined version” down below? I keep reading different things from different editors and scholars so I don’t know what is the consensus either, and I may be interpreting the scholars incorrectly. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The history and scholarship are especially difficult here.
Another discussion in a long series of discussions about the lead, I'm not counting, but I think this must have been discussed more than 10 times around here: 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101. All these discussions seem to have been a waste of time since most editors haven't reached a consensus on almost anything. Given that each editor's personal biases on this controversial subject are the reason for the lack of consensus, perhaps we should ignore a bunch of random sources out there to determine what goes or not into the lead and rely only on a normal online encyclopedia like the Encyclopædia Britannica. Mawer10 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm considering getting an uninvolved administrator to review this and a few other recent discussions here for disruptive editing. Would I be alone in thinking that would be appropriate / a good idea? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Is that to say that you consider dealing with disruptive editing in this area to be the norm or that you don't think there is any significant disruptive editing here? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, there are different dispute resolution processes, not sure which it is that you have in mind. And yes, this is just the usual rough and tumble in my view, although some might disagree. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
