Talk:Israel/Archive 87

Archive 80

←

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Condensing international rankings fluff in lead

The list of international rankings in the lead of the article in which the country is said to have "scored highly" was both vague (no scored or rankings mentioned) and arguably tendentious by pushing a select list of indicators without context (happiness perhaps being the most ironic). It has been removed, as there is no room to expand the lead further to make this less vague, and the more specific statements about the country generally ranking highly for GDP, standard of living and human development are quite sufficient - pending a less fluffy and more encyclopedic expansion approach. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a concise list of notably high positions Israel holds in several lists and rating. We could expand this section to include the exact numbers and positions on each subject, but in the interest of keeping the lead section short I think we should keep this sentence as it is. “WarKosign” 08:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@WarKosign: It is a list of nothing, because it gives no rankings or figures, just the vague umbrella of 'scored highly' - a vaguery among vagueries. You also posted an edit summary that said 'no valid reason' was given, which is a palpable falsehood - several reasons were given, in addition to the pre-existing discussions here on the problems with the lead length Iskandar323 (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping the lead short, we should definitely delete the sentence, as discussed, since the standard of living/HDI already covers the bases Iskandar323 (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Now let's wait to hear what other editors think. “WarKosign” 08:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's synth. No single source picking these indicators, just cherry picked sources lumped together to make Israel sound and look good.Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or implyx a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". Would you mind telling which conclusion you think is reached or implied by this list of things in which Israel scores high? “WarKosign” 20:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying they are not combined to suggest something? You have said it yourself above a concise list of notably high positions Israel holds in several lists and rating. That's the whole idea, right? What I am saying is if you had a source saying something similar to your quote then that would be fine. Of course, now that the RWB has been added, it does rather ruin the premise of your quote. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont think it is synth, each individual ranking is supported by one source. But it is puffery for some of them. nableezy - 21:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's debatable, I guess, pretty sure the idea is to convey an impression that all is well in Israel and brush anything not so good under the carpet as per. Could put them in the infobox along with Gini (medium). Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Although, actually, the sourcing is quite poor and for several of the sources it is synth in the sense that a report is linked, but you have to A) download the report, B) find the results, C) personally assess if the information matches the notion of "ranks among the world's top countries by ..." - also on sourcing, all are outdated and in need of an update, the IISS cite is dead, and the women's safety one is particularly dubious - linking to a business insider story based on an ad hoc index produced by an obscure South African 'global wealth intelligence firm' called New World Wealth, which merits the obvious question of: this commercial organization is an authority on women's safety exactly how? Iskandar323 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at this further, it seems like some of this is definite synth. For example, there is nothing in the source that says Israel is highest in the middle east for standard of living, it does not make any such comparison. Making that comparison in our article without a source that does so is OR. I think we can keep that it is ranked at X for quality of life, but need to drop the comparison the source does not make. The other fluff should just be tossed. And the source on military needs updating, and im not sure it is even relevant. nableezy - 17:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe we should keep the list as it is, or maybe expand it a bit, as @WarKosign suggested above, to include the exact numbers and positions of each subject.

Personally, I wonder why Israel should be any different from other countries in Wikipedia - all display a list of notable high positions in certain subjects. I am yet to see an equivalent discussion on any other country article on Wikipedia. @Iskandar323 - Unfortunately it is not for us to decide if something is ironic or not. The World Happiness Report has decided that Israel should be ranked 9th. The article on Norway proudly states it is #1 on the list. Let's stay professional and stay away from NPOV. Tombah (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Things have to have some weight to be included here. Why are we including "consultancy New World Wealth" view on women's safety? How is that view "highly notable"? It honestly seems like people are just trying to play cheerleader here, and putting in any random piece of low quality trivia that accomplishes that goal. You also are not addressing the SYNTH issue in the comparisons it is making. Yes, noteworthy statistics belong in the lead. Can you explain how the New World Wealth consultancy is relevant to this article and why its view should be given that kind of weight? nableezy - 18:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the New World Wealth report got put up for April Fool's Day and then just got forgotten about. Because no one could take it seriously ... right? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There are several pieces of key information that are notably missing from the lead, not least that Israel remains technically at war with Syria (due to its ongoing occupation of the Golan Heights), any mention of either Intifada (fairly key events that are significantly more due than the biblical history), and no mention at all of the decades of allegations of human rights abuses. As it stands, the 'further conflict and peace process' portion of the article is significantly larger than the 'antiquity' and 'classical history' parts. Overall, major WP:DUE imbalances to be addressed per MOS:LEAD. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the content of the article. The technically ongoing war with Syria is not mentioned anywhere in the article, so it does not belong to the lead. Allegations of human righs violations along with their criticism could be mentioned, but very briefly to keep it in proportion to how allegations against Israel are not the subject of this article. “WarKosign” 08:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I will be addressing the Syria omission soon - and that's a pretty huge omission: the information quite obviously belongs in both the article and lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Also you should add that Israel is member in Paris club. Tamar274 (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm ... if country page leads displayed international organization memberships, every one would simply become a drawn out list of the various memberships. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a member of the EBU as well, so what? Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

“ Reporters Without Borders ranks Israel 86th out of 180 countries,[48] saying that "Palestinian journalists are systematically subjected to violence as a result of their coverage of events in the West Bank". You can’t really put that in the lead like this is not accurate “some reports says” you can’t put it!!! It’s not like accurate information that was made in research! Tamar274 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), 144 Palestinian journalists have been wounded by Israeli forces across the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem since 2018. In April 2022, the International Federation of Journalists filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court accusing Israeli forces of systematic targeting of journalists." from Shireen Abu Akleh, can we put that? Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s not made by research you can quote someone and put it…. Tamar274 (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

And I also see in other countries that they are mention the different organizations that the country is taking part in . Why won’t you put it? (Paris club etc..) Tamar274 (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tamar274: Is there really another country article lead that mentions the Paris Club? I sincerely doubt it. If this were a bet, I would totally be taking it up. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sad to see users blatantly viewing the lead as a place to push POV Drsmoo (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You mean the users that use the lead to promote a topic by only including the things they find positive about it? Yes, agreed. nableezy - 14:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and the ones that try to load leads with negative information. Both are POV pushing.Drsmoo (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Im unaware of that occurring. I see notable controversies being included in the lead, exactly what WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV require. Is there a reason Israel's proportion of population with a tertiary degree should be included but its press freedom standing not be? nableezy - 16:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It is occurring. For example, when one user tries to POV load the lead with positive statistics, and another responds by trying to load the lead with negative statistics (with an edit summary of "if we gonna include rankings...") as a tit-for-tat. That is two users both engaged in POV pushing. It's particularly obvious when the back-and-forth occurs exclusively in the lead, as opposed to the body of the article. Incidentally, other country leads haven't had similar POV pushing. Drsmoo (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm equally unaware of what you allege to be occurring, actually occurring.Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that one could reasonable perceive the editing pattern here as tit-for-tat POV pushing (no comment on whether it is or not) I've never encountered a country lead with didn't have significant issues with POV pushing, it is a universal condition and there is nothing special here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

If the lead is going to include rankings on different things then it should include this ranking as well. This is covered in the media subsection, which I will now expand further. Also, your effort at false-equivalency is noted. I added one statistic on Israel, a statistic that is widely cited now given the killing of yet another journalist by Israel. Not "load with negative statistics". Kindly do not falsely portray my actions here. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 18:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I saw countries that mention the different organizations that the country is taking part into (for example Australia) Also like you can’t put “some reports says” it’s not like accurate information….! Tamar274 (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Also there is no research that shows that Israel ranks 86 it’s just wrong information you put.. Tamar274 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Um the source is cited. nableezy - 15:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has given a reason for removal besides I dont like it. Israel's (lack of) press freedom is routinely discussed in reliable sources and in our article. It belongs in the lead. nableezy - 18:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

We do have an article on human rights in Israel, which mentions the country's McCarthyist policies and persecution of human rights organizations:

• "In January 2011, the Israeli parliament endorsed a right-wing proposal to investigate some of Israel's best-known human rights organisations for "delegitimising" its military. The investigations would entail inquiries into the funding of several human rights groups that have criticised Israeli policies. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel described the decision as a "severe blow" to Israeli democracy, and critics labeled the policy as "McCarthyist"." Dimadick (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You wrote about that. Why you should add the ranking “86” of some unknown organization without accrete research? Please remove it Tamar274 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Reporters Without Borders is not an unknown organization, they are a widely respected group and their research is widely cited on the topic of press freedom. nableezy - 19:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The lead is very long anyways… I haven’t seen country with such a long lead, also as I said you should remove the “86” ranking because it’s not an accurate information . As you said about the Paris club that you haven’t seen one country the mention that they are in Paris club. I haven’t seen even one country!! That in the lead they give the rank of this organization. Please remove it or put it in other place. Tamar274 (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying that it is not accurate, but it is, and the source cited shows that. Oh hey, here are a bunch of sources talking about Israel's press freedom ranking: [1], [2], [3]. nableezy - 20:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I just haven’t seen one country that in the lead it’s mention their ranking of this organization…. Not even one… I don’t think that it’s the right place to put it in … you can put it in other place but not in the lead . Tamar274 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you seen other articles mention the number of tertiary degrees? You seem to be under the impression the article exists to promote Israel. It does not. But as far as your other crap argument, its just wrong. China: It ranks among the lowest in international measurements of civil liberties, government transparency, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and ethnic minorities.; Cuba: Reporters Without Borders has characterized Cuba as one of the worst countries in the world for press freedom. nableezy - 20:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You just making my point there is not even one country with ranking of this organization you can write about human right violations but you can’t put this ranking when there is not even one country that have kind of ranking in her lead!!! Tamar274 (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Um each of those is in the lead of those articles, and each discusses the ranking on press freedom from RWB. nableezy - 20:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Also why you put it in this part of the lead when you can put it in the article? Tamar274 (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It is in the lead and the body. nableezy - 20:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Being 86th out of 190 in a ranking of countries means average. It's not a remarkable feature, so it doesn't fit the lead. The rankings given now are the ones with Israel near the top. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it means near the bottom half. For developed democracies near the bottom. The idea that we should only highlight the things that Israel is near the top of has no basis in policy whatsoever. Israel's lack of press freedom is remarked upon in a number of sources, and many other country articles include that same information in their lead. And its 86th out of 180. nableezy - 21:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"Near the bottom half" means average; it's in the first half, for that matter. No one says "we should only highlight the things that Israel is near the top". Rankings make sense in the lead only if the country is near the top or the bottom, otherwise it would clutter of ratings. And can you provide examples of "many other country articles include that same information in their lead"? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

No one says "we should only highlight the things that Israel is near the top".

WarKosign does, up above This is a concise list of notably high positions Israel holds in several lists and rating Selfstudier (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Rankings make sense in the lead only if the country is near the top or the bottom, otherwise it would clutter of ratings. is based on what? Being 86th out of 180 countries, and that includes countries like North Korea and not just liberal democracies, is certainly noteworthy for a liberal democracy that we repeatedly tout as being the most advanced and freest. As far as examples, Cuba and China cited above, and add to that Costa Rica, Jamaica, Portugal, Slovakia, South Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Latvia, and Uruguay all include its press freedom in the lead of their articles. I got tired of looking through articles at that point, that is not an exhaustive list. Why is a Business Insider article on some random survey by "New World Wealth consultancy" on women's safety more relevant to an encyclopedia than Reporters Without Borders widely cited Press Freedom Index? Why is the Bloomberg Innovation Index being cited in the lead of this article but you somehow think that Israel's press freedom, which is currently widely discussed in reliable sources, is not relevant? How does that even work in any logical way? nableezy - 23:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"is based on what?" On common sense. No country from your list ranks in the middle as Israel: Cuba 173, China 175, Costa Rica 8, Jamaica 12, Portugal 7, Slovakia 27, South Korea 43*, Equatorial Guinea 141, Latvia 22, Uruguay 44*. *Lead sections of South Korea and Uruguay describe how they're ranked 1st on their continents, which is not applicable here. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Youre shifting the goalposts here. Press freedom is a noteworthy statistic in an overview of a country, much more so than the fluff currently in the article's lead. And a number of other countries show that. The thing that makes it especially noteworthy here is that sources discuss how poor the ranking is for a liberal democracy. For example, the 2020 ranking was discussed in the Israel Democracy Institute's Israeli Democracy Index, making this remark:

Israel’s score in this indicator is 69.2, a grade that has remained virtually unchanged since 2012. In comparison with all other countries surveyed, Israel places in the second quartile, ranking 88th out of 180. Relative to the OECD states, however, it is positioned extremely low, in the fourth and lowest quartile (8th percentile), topping only Colombia, Mexico, and Turkey—countries that are hardly known for safeguarding human rights. This low score is due to military censorship in Israel; government hostility to journalists; difficulties of foreign journalists in renewing their permits to work in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; and infringement on the rights of Palestinian journalists, including firing on reporters covering demonstrations and administrative detentions.

Its a fact that Israel ranks extremely low for supposed liberal democracies, and its a fact that sources make note of. nableezy - 07:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

And why do we need to consider that it ranks low among vague "liberal democracies"? Lead section should be short and rely on clear information, and not on your POV-pushing in the form of strange "the worst among the best" rankings. Israel also ranks near the top in press freedom among the Middle East; it's a more concrete criteria than "liberal democracy". --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The Israel Democracy Institute observes the low ranking among OECDs - do you want to censor discussion of censorship? Ironic, no? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

And then your solution to the published "worst among the best" observation is some "best among the worst" whataboutism? Priceless. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Great, we have more press freedom than ME dictatorships, lol. Just need a source for that and we're off. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Because this is really should be in the article or in place that is about the conflict. Let’s began that non country have the rating of this organization and it’s should be in the article or in some place that talked about the conflict. This is just one organization and there are also several other ranks and organizations about “freedom of press” Tamar274 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is a widely respected and cited organization, please read Reporters Without Borders. nableezy - 23:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot… of things that can be added but as you said there is no place for everything in the lead. Tamar274 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Drive by comment here (am busy elsewhere): as we agree it is important to highlight matters where Israel is near the top, we must remember that Israel is the world's #1 country for accusations of apartheid in the 21st century. No other country comes close. Of course we need to "bothsides" any reference to it, but the topic must be in the lead given how high profile it is. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Also Israel ranked 23 most democratic state add it . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index Tamar274 (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

So lets be clear, you argue to add anything positive and remove anything negative? I got that right? nableezy - 23:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

No , I am completely natural and don’t have an opinion about that. All I am saying is that we can’t add anything to the lead that is already very long. Btw The democracy index is very important so why it should be ignored Tamar274 (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Im happy to add that, though the womans safety and innovativeness bit of puffery should be removed. The bit on percentage with military training needs an actual source too, and I think should probable be axed. The RWB bit though is of course relevant and should be retained. nableezy - 23:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you adding the democracy index? Also I think you right and didn’t find any accurate information about military training and women safety . About innovation I did find ranking that ranked Israel at 7th . Tamar274 (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I've agree this isn't a notable datum (though it certainly leaves something to be desired on the personal level). If consensus is reached differently, then surely the rankings of the rest of the Middle East's countries' are as well, seeing as they mostly occupy the 10th percentile.[4] François Robere (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability as nothing to do with article content. But reliable sources often discuss it, and Ive cited some up above. And that gives it weight. nableezy - 13:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Up above you cited MOS:LEADREL, a section on relative weight. Do you feel that the relative weight of this bit of puffery is more than the RWB ranking? What about percentage with a tertiary degree? Do you feel that ranking in the lowest 10% of OECD nations is not noteworthy? nableezy - 14:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability as nothing to do with article content I view "noteworthiness" and "significant information" (MOS:INTRO) as applying here as well. Being in the middle of the pack is just not interesting enough for the lead.

Do you feel that the relative weight of... is more than the RWB ranking I do not.

What about percentage with a tertiary degree Depends on where it sits relative to other countries, though I'd generally prefer a more general statement about the education system.

Do you feel that ranking in the lowest 10% of OECD nations is not noteworthy Less than "lowest 10% globally".

Do you concede that if consensus is reached differently, then surely the rankings of the rest of the Middle East's countries' are as well, seeing as they mostly occupy the 10th percentile? François Robere (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course the Arab dictatorships should include their dismal press freedom rankings, their dismal freedom of speech rankings in their articles. That is a basic other crap argument though, so maybe dont waste time on that? I dont think youll find anybody here challenging the inclusion there. I feel press freedom, given the repeated killings of Palestinian reporters by Israel, attacks on international media, and so on to be noteworthy. And so to do sources. It is significant that Israel ranks so low among its supposed peers in press freedom. If you dont feel that the relative weight of some rando consultant group in South Africa on women's safety is more than Reporters Without Borders on press freedom, why did you silently remove the press ranking yet keep the rando consultant group here? nableezy - 14:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we agree that the South African consultancy known as "New World Wealth" is not a good source for data, least of all for complex social indicators? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, thank you for the civility and good faith. I believe your definition of "supposed peers" is subjective, and without sources will constitute OR. I do not edit based on OR. François Robere (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It isnt my OR, it is for example the Israel Democracy Institute saying:

Israel’s score in this indicator is 69.2, a grade that has remained virtually unchanged since 2012. In comparison with all other countries surveyed, Israel places in the second quartile, ranking 88th out of 180. Relative to the OECD states, however, it is positioned extremely low, in the fourth and lowest quartile (8th percentile), topping only Colombia, Mexico, and Turkey—countries that are hardly known for safeguarding human rights. This low score is due to military censorship in Israel; government hostility to journalists; difficulties of foreign journalists in renewing their permits to work in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; and infringement on the rights of Palestinian journalists, including firing on reporters covering demonstrations and administrative detentions

This was quoted above. So whats that OR again? And how have I been uncivil? Repeatedly making accusations of wrongdoing is, to run back a link youve placed here before, WP:ASPERSIONS. nableezy - 16:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the state of OECD references in other article leads? François Robere (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That is a basic other crap argument and has no merit here. nableezy - 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Do check and let us know.Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Generally the burden of proof lies on the editor that wants to add material, and since I'm not the one looking to add this bit to the article... François Robere (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This is fruitless whataboutism and, in any case, other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources (or necessarily even of good quality). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. There's nothing wrong with a comparative approach when trying to clarify specific questions, and indeed we often do just that. Is it obligatory? No, but it can provide insight. François Robere (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"This is a crap argument, don't waste your/my time", "the game on... might be more clever if not for that" and "Ill fix your mess tomorrow, no biggie" are not courteous comments; and replying to an editor saying "I'm actually not at all concerned about the use of 'occupied'" with "I understand some may be allergic to that word" suggests you have some preconceived idea as to what other editors think, that ignores what they actually say. François Robere (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Other stuff exists isn't a great argument, is it? And occupation was actually removed initially, wasn't it? ""I understand some may be allergic to that word" is, I think, true, anyway, this just seems like a distraction from the issue at hand. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The other crap argument, not "this is a crap argument" as you dishonestly quote, is about WP:OCE, aka other crap exists. As far as allergies and game playing to remove that word, and making edits that astonishingly remove the word occupied entirely from the lead of the article here, lets not pretend like there isnt a history of suppressing the use of that word, eg here. And yes, you made a mess in that paragraph, and if somebody else hadnt fixed it I would have. Anyway, this section is about Israel's low performance in press freedom, a ranking that numerous sources have discussed. nableezy - 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

as you dishonestly quote And you're assuming bad faith. I never made any attempt at "suppressing the use of that word", have I? In fact, I repeatedly stated I've no problem using it. François Robere (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That is a dishonest quote. You placed in quotation marks something Ive never said in order to make it appear as though I had said something nefarious. I never made any attempt at "suppressing the use of that word", have I? You mean besides actually suppressing the usage here? nableezy - 18:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

And there's that assumption of bad faith again: you assume I misquoted your (otherwise aggressive and unpleasant) comments intentionally; and that my edits are motivated by some hidden agenda. In both cases you are wrong, as I repeatedly tell you; but of course - what I say doesn't matter, if you've already made up your mind that I'm being dishonest. Now imagine I were of the same mindset: then I could claim that you were dishonest in saying I'm "suppressing" facts, when in fact I'm only editing for readability and flow. Where we would be then? But I won't, because I don't think you are. François Robere (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume nothing on intent. You placed in quotation marks something I never said, making it appear as though I had violated some policy, and in fact directly claimed I did so on the basis of the misquote. When somebody places something in quotations marks they are saying that exactly these words were said. And they were not. You did in fact completely eliminate the word "occupied" from the lead of the article Israel, something that I truly find astonishing. That somebody could make the top-level overview of Israel not even include the word occupied a single time as though that were not a subject of considerable weight? Whatever though, we can skip past all the personal things if youd like and go back to discussing the topic of this section, which as far as I recall is including the freedom of press information in the lead. You said it was OR to compare it to OECD nations. Ive provided a source that does exactly that. Is it still OR? And without resorting to what on Wikipedia is generally considered a non-argument, why should that not be included in the lead? nableezy - 04:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Seconded @François Robere: It has been quite a number of posts since you last touched on content. Get back on topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

As for the case in point, my opinion is split. I think it's a more interesting datum in comparison to other OECD members than it is globally, and comparative OECD data is often cited by RS on a range of subjects; but I'm not sure this particular point merits a mention in the lead - one could think of a dozen others of similar import that aren't mentioned - and I'd definitely like to avoid turning the fifth paragraph of an already long lead into a "miscellanea bin". Hence my preference of resorting to precedence (so to speak) for a better perspective. Put differently: we need a better rule than "I think it's un/important"; perhaps an RfC is in order, with a numbered section for each proposed and existing datum (from "nominal GDP" onwards), to try and establish relative importance. François Robere (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not “crap argument” this is really true. Non country in the world have the ranking of this organization…. You can check it. Tamar274 (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly established that numerous other countries contain their press freedom in the lead. nableezy - 17:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is it so Important to you to put the ranking of this organization? The lead shouldn’t be so long Tamar274 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There is one sentence on press freedom in the lead. That is not contributing much to the length of the lead. Why is it important? Because sources consider it important. nableezy - 17:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is job for you. International rankings of Israel, it is included in here, out of date, 2016, it was worse then. You can update it and link it here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

If the lead length bothers you, please do cut some historical minutiae, see below. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

But why didn’t you add the democracy index? Tamar274 (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The democracy index is way more important Tamar274 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing multiple conflicting positions. One is we cant add anything because the lead is too long, the other is we should add this one thing. Pick a side. nableezy - 20:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no contradiction , the lead should be shorted specialty in the history paragraph, but I don’t understand why you aren’t adding such a important index …? Tamar274 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The democracy index is very important I have saw a lot countries where it’s mentioned 79.183.26.247 (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Took out some of the fluff and added that. nableezy - 23:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

FA and GA norms ...

Moxy- 12:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Id be happy moving all the rankings stuff to the body. But wherever rankings are presented, this is a noteworthy one to include. nableezy - 13:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ill remove the rest of the ridiculous rankings information inappropriate for the lead then. nableezy - 17:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

And since editors insist on making the lead in to a cheerleading section Ive tagged the lead in the meantime. nableezy - 17:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Triggerhippie4, please restore the NPOV tag, your removal of the happiness index is not at all resolving the issue here. The tag requires consensus to remove it, and that is your second revert. nableezy - 17:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: 1RR is about reverting the same information repeatedly in 24 hour period, as I understand, which I didn't do. And what possibly could be wrong with the lead now? It's a balanced and short list of rankings now. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

See your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Why did you removed the happiness ? Israel ranked 9th on happiness that’s very high Tamar274 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Im going to remove every ranking except for GDP later on. nableezy - 19:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tamar274: the happiness ranking is a subjective criteria, no need for that in the lead. @Nableezy: you just spent last several days trying to expand the rankings. It's finally balanced and should stay, as it's normal for a country's lead section to have it: United States, Canada, Chile, Netherlands, France, Italy, South Korea, Singapore, Australia. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense that is is finally balanced, if this is to include such things as percentage with a tertiary degree or R&D expenditures then press freedom's relative weight is greater and should be included. If this not to include those things then fine. You simply cannot use the lead of this article to cheerlead and POV push the narrative that this is the world's greatest place. Either this goes in or that crap goes out. And multiple of the country articles you just cited include their press freedom rankings, making your invocation of them curious to say the least. nableezy - 21:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Removed anything less noteworthy than press freedom. nableezy - 01:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: [5] Hoarding international rankings is not what the lead is for. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Unsure what you think "discussion" means, be so good as not to lecture me. Perhaps the fact that your plea for assistance at WikiProjIsrael has not produced the desired result accounts for your intemperate response? (The following bit is discussion) If I go back to the top of this section and see where we started with all this and then just follow the trail from there, we can see what's what. Iskandar initiated the thread and wanted to condense the lead which is, apparently, what you would like to do as well. Unfortunately, things went downhill. Y'all want to make Israel look as best you can (understandable) and we all would like some perspective. I did make a suggestion of sorts earlier, if it is indeed true that all that is desired is to condense the lead, why not shift some of the "stats" out to the info box? (I haven't looked too closely but they seem out of date, maybe fix that first?) Then we can discuss what ought to remain, what included and what not. Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

"Y'all want to make Israel look as best you can (understandable) and we all would like some perspective."

It's the other way around. I'm restoring the long-standing version with some complementary rankings removed and the Peace index added so it's balanced, while you treat the lead like a battleground to push as much stuff against Israel as possible, regardless of common sense. The point of rankings in the lead is not to express your attitudes towards Israel but to reflect the fields in which the country is standing out. No other lead section would elaborate on press freedom rankings if a country is in the middle (86th out of 180). As for the Democracy Index, I've looked into every country classified as a "flawed democracy" and none of their lead sections mention that. Their leads are either simply give their ranking number (Czech Republic) or just stating very briefly that they "performs/ranks favorably" (Latvia, Lithuania, Jamaica, Slovakia), and all of them are ranked lower than Israel! It was added to this article just to include the word "flawed", despite Israel is on the verge of being classified as a "full democracy" on the list.

As for the infobox, I don't understand what you mean. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

As much stuff as possible - the reaction to including one relevant ranking. While retaining things like research and development budget and percentage with a tertiary degree. There is zero logical reason for retaining "research and development spending by GDP percentage", a ranking that no source has shown any interest in at all and is drawn entirely from sorting through OECD data, but not including its near bottom ranking of OECD nations for press freedom, a ranking noted by a multitude of sources. As far as imputing motives, it was added to this article because the source noted that. The eye-popping hypocrisy in retaining straight puffery, removing what sources actually consider important, and then claiming others treat the lead like a battleground to push as much stuff ... as possible is a bit over the top though. nableezy - 00:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's a source for R&D. And you're adding two rankings, not one. I'm not imputing your motives, you're making it clear yourself that you want to counter the puffery. But that doesn't mean you can narrow down criteria for press freedom ranking to include only OECD countries instead of the entire world, just so you could add criticism here. That's an obscure construct. I know there's sources for it, but that doesn't mean it should be in the lead. There's a more plain and simple solution, like Global Peace Index (141st out of 163). Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I added democracy index due to our insistent friend asking for it. You seem to have a problem with them being classified as a flawed democracy, but that isnt really my problem. As far as press freedom, it is common among sources to measure democracies against one another, advanced democracies even more so. There's a reason why the whole R&D thing is from the OECD itself. Again, there is zero rational reason why R&D budget as a percentage of GDP merits inclusion in the lead and press freedom does not. There are a ton more sources discussing the lack of press freedom, including the slayings of Palestinian reporters, than there are about this artificial construct of private expenditures as a percentage of the GDP. nableezy - 03:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

"Infobox country" runs down the right side, the Gini and HDI stats can be seen there. Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4 The United States, Spain, Greece and Belgium, among others, are also ranked below Israel and as “flawed democracies” but nothing about that was shoehorned into their leads. Also Italy, Portugal, Croatia, Czech Republic, etcDrsmoo (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe because this article isnt about any of those countries? nableezy - 03:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Need to get a handle on this junk....now we have 5 random countries linked at the bottom of the lead that provide zero information on this country nor do they provide any context for the fact being listed.........why are the FA and GA examples not being followed here? Moxy- 01:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve reverted Daveouts expanding of the stats, which I don’t think any other editor supported Drsmoo (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead should be so general that sources for information is covered in detail in the body......so something like It ranks among the highest in international measurements of government spending, quality of life, education levels, economic and media freedom......then move all the actual stats to the body. Now each section has its own lead with links and details WP:Summary article Moxy- 02:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Well I guess someone else supported it as it was immediately added back in Drsmoo (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Im fine removing everything after GDP or HDI. But if things like R&D and percentage of tertiary degree holders is retained then per relative weight press freedom should be too. I dont see the point of the added 5 countries, we could also say ahead of North Korea, so what? nableezy - 03:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The superfluous rankings fluff should be removed, and I attempted to do so. I don’t see why “Flawed democracy” was tagged on. Other notable democracies with similar and/or lower ratings do not have that added. Israel’s rating is .03 points from, or 99.625% of the way to, the classification of “full democracy”, and is generally trending upwards as well. My perception is that the detail regarding “flawed democracy” was added for POV reasons to attempt to counterbalance the generally high democracy index with a classification that sounds rather negative. As that classification is not included in similar leads, having that classification exclusively on the Israel page requires clarification and context. The source provided context, and that context was then brought into the lead. Drsmoo (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Other notable democracies? Israel is democratic only if one pretends that there is no occupation along with the attendant knock on effects. This is I suppose possible, in a technical sense, just ignore the Palestine situation and we can all pretend that Israel is more democratic than Spain, Portugal, Italy and the United States (per the EIE), but there are plenty of sources that do take such things into account and according to those the nature of Israel's "democracy" is suspect at the very least and "flawed" an understatement. Even ignoring the occupation, there are many that would argue the two tier system within Israel means that Israel cannot be classed as democratic. If the apartheid label should stick, Israel is undemocratic by definition. Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Drsmoo (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Delete it if you like, just make sure you delete at the same time all the forum related posted by yourself (including but not limited to that which I responded to, My perception..." blah blah.Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Japan and Canada, the two model country pages provided above by Moxy show very limited rankings (and limited group memberships). Japan shows GDP, HDI and life expectancy; Canada shows just GDP and HDI. As model articles, these suggest that the volume of rankings on Israel page is undue from the perspectives of country page best practice and consistency, as well as in terms of relative emphasis based on the volume of coverage in the articles, per MOS:LEAD. For the purposes of this page, it seems like a practical step forward to similarly reduce the section down to GDP and HDI. Life expectancy (and any other more detailed demographic data) would perhaps best be excluded given the inherent ambiguity's in Israel's case, since the data presumably includes citizens living in East Jerusalem and (maybe?) West Bank settlements, but not, for example, resident Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and the lead does not have space for expounding on such nuances. Even GDP and HDI must be afflicted by the same issues to some degree, but are both more macro. It would be great is anyone can actually pin down some notes on the OECD methodology for Israel, but I personally haven't been able to find it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  As noted by others, most of the other figures also have a level of arbitrariness in their selection, and should probably only be re-included, if at all, based on consensus. A potentially notable supplementary indicator (and one actually remarked upon in the article outside of the lead) is the global peace index included by @Triggerhippie4, since peace is patchy. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

But you should add the information about the standard of living in the lead. In every country it’s mentioned. Tamar274 (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

״It ranks among the highest in international measurements of government spending, quality of life, education levels, economic and media freedom..״ you can add that not so long . Tamar274 (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

No, we arent making this in to a promotional puff piece. Especially given the fact that anything that does not show Israel to be the beacon of light for all humanity that we all know and love is removed wholesale. nableezy - 14:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all not only do you decide to consider the opinion of different people as well. Second thing how the hell does this relate to promotion? This entry in wikipedia is not a publicity campaign in all the countries in the world it is excellent (for example Japan and Poland which are countries with GDP per capita and HDI lower than Israel is a fact. Tamar274 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

“It provides very high standards of living, safety and economic freedom, as well as free university education and a universal health care system.”- Poland “ Japan has one of the world's highest life expectancies, though it is experiencing a decline in population. A global leader in the automotive, robotics and electronics industries, Japan has made significant contributions to science and technology” -Japan Both of these countries have lower GDP per capita and HDI than Israel so how it’s make sense???! Tamar274 (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is not just me, but youve been asking for this for months now. And we have settled at a stable place for the rankings to be included in the lead. Since that is the consensus on this, repeatedly asking for that to be changed without evidence of new information is a failure to get the point. You have repeatedly attempted to push for promotional material and remove material less than promotional. That is not the purpose of this page, and if you continue to do so I will ask that you be made to stop. nableezy - 17:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is not just me, but youve been asking for this for months now. And we have settled at a stable place for the rankings to be included in the lead. Since that is the consensus on this, repeatedly asking for that to be changed without evidence of new information is a failure to get the point. You have repeatedly attempted to push for promotional material and remove material less than promotional. That is not the purpose of this page, and if you continue to do so I will ask that you be made to stop. Tamar274 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

This is so disrespectful Tamar274 (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you serious ?, let's start with the fact that I did not ask to add these to anyone else and you started a quarrel with him. What the hell is related to advertising material for information by the GDP per capita and standard of living that is published on every Wikipedia page of a country and how the hell is advertising material related to the Wikipedia page? I do not even support Israel and do not know how you came to this conclusion. But it's not strange that countries with a per capita and low HDI of Israel have an excellent standard of living and Israel does not? Tamar274 (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The Reporters Without Borders ranking on lack of press freedom is also in a number of WP articles. You were very adamant that it cannot be here. We already have the GDP in the lead, we already have HDI in the lead. There is no need for anything else. And if you want to push for more, well we can return Israel's dismal press freedom ranking among OECD nations to the lead as well. That work for you? nableezy - 18:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Put it I don’t care as I said I don’t support Israel. But why aren’t you putting details about the standard of living ? Like it’s mentioned in all the countries. You are not the only one that decide here. And it’s you problem that you don’t accept other people opinion . Tamar274 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Put it I don’t care as I said I don’t support Israel. But why aren’t you putting details about the standard of living ? Like it’s mentioned in all the countries. You are not the only one that decide here. And it’s you problem that you don’t accept other people opinions . Tamar274 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

And my question is why are you so Insists on not putting information on living standards as it is excellent in all countries? Tamar274 (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, you dont care. Makes sense. Anyway, Im not going to add this, and it appears nobody else is going to either. nableezy - 14:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to change the ranking of the population to 92th. Tamar274 (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Jerusalem isnt the caplital of any state.its a international city.the most parts of it is governed by fatah but its not their capital.its same for isreal regime.pls edit the capital to tel aviv. Ert141 (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your point of view with us. As far as I know, it cannot be further from the truth. You may want to check your sources again. Try reading Status of Jerusalem. Tombah (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The capital of isreal is tel aviv.isreal always wanr to attack to jerusalem.trump let them to do this.and announced jerusalem as capital.but isnt real and it died after trump Ert141 (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Question

May I please ask why Israel and many of the Wikipedia pages surrounding it have extended protection? Thanks. -Conservative Alabamian (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:A/I/PIA, or slightly more verbose, due to longstanding disruption and sockpuppetry in the topic area, the arbitration committee has imposed extended confirmed to edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. nableezy - 01:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

But why is it completely protected? Even the United States Wikipedia page which is also in dispute is not protected in this way Tamar274 (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamar274 it's protected against IP edits, and the talk page is as protected as this article until mid-October. The disruption in the Arab-Israeli area was deemed so severe as to warrant such protection. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)