Talk:Israel

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Minor Edit Request

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.

---

Remove "synonymous with Canaan" from the lede.

1. The borders of ancient Canaan don't line up with modern day Israel.

2. No real reason to mention ancient Canaan just like we don't mention that it's synonymous with British Mandatory Palestine or the Judea province of the Roman Empire.

3. The fact that Canaanites lives there is in the following sentence.

I've made this request in the past and it was approved, I don't know who reversed it or why Fyukfy5 (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2025 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2025

I'd like to add an audio. This is for the pronunciation footnote a. ^ⓘ Flame, not lame 💔 (Don't talk to me.) 17:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Flame, not lame  Done Lililolol (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Inaccurate Demographics

The Demographics section starts by stating "Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world..." which in inaccurate, as the USA has 50% of the world's Jewish population, and Israel has 30% (according to Wikipedia). Mathematically, the statement is false and should be clarified. 66.119.110.115 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

According to Jewish population by country then Israel has 7.3M Jews, while USA has 5.7M, not sure where you're getting the 30% and 50% from? Maybe you were reading the populations just for Ashkenazi Jews? As maybe that makes sense perhaps, as most Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi, while the vast majority of American Jews are Ashkenazi. ~ Mathmo ^Talk 02:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

There is whole section Jewish_population_by_country#Debate_over_American_numbers with numbers seemingly ranging from 6 to 7.63 million in the US in 2020 (the 5.7 number is from 2016 though the reporter may have more recent numbers). A lot depends on the definition of Jewish: self-definition, those qualified under Israel's law of return, or those as defined by Orthodox standards plus perhaps other definitions. Another issue is how good the method of counting is (I suspect fairly clear cut in Israel by either the law of return definition or Orthodox standards but far less so in other countries). Erp (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

All of those figures under that debate section are well under Israel's 7.3M population, aside from one figure which claims "7.63 million American Jews". Which only barely exceeds Israel's numbers by the skinniest of margins. We can reasonably say with confidence that Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world. ~ Mathmo ^Talk 11:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The RFC above does not appear fulfilled?

The closin admin's conclusion was "INCLUDE IN BODY AND LEAD." However, the article does not currently link to Gaza genocide in the lead. I'm going to restore a wikilink to Gaza genocide into the lead of this article. Feel free to express any concerns or comments about this here. JasonMacker (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2025

Change artillery rocket to rocket artillery. It is the correct form. Sigmarecep31 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: I disagree. Yes, the rockets in question are from rocket artilleries, but a rocket from such an artillery is an artillery rocket. Defense systems can be anti-missile, anti-rocket, etc. In this case, it's anti-rocket, but "rocket" has been qualified with "artillery". I'm not sure that "artillery" needs to be there, because I don't know whether an anti-rocket system's construction depends on whether or not the rockets it's defending against are from an artillery, but that's a separate matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs) 13:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Demography section

Why is there a new infobox of "Greater Israel" in the Demography section? It wasn't there before. It should be removed. Wikipedia is neutral and is not a place of Antisemetism. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Religion Figures are mistyped in Infobox

The religious affiliation of the Israeli population as of 2022 was 73.6% Jewish, 18.1% Muslim, 1.9% Christian, and 1.6% Druze. The remaining 4.8% included faiths such as Samaritanism and Baháʼí, as well as "religiously unclassified". But the Infobox mentions Judaism to be 40%. ArushR (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2025

Change the religious group percentage of Israel to 70.3% because now it says it is 40% which is wrong 2A04:4A43:962F:F261:B942:4C77:972D:29DC (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Largoplazo (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2025

In the first sentence about what Israel shares borders with, i'd like to make a minor clarification that Syria is more in north-east than true north.

−

it shares borders with Lebanon and Syria to the north

+

it shares borders with Lebanon to the north and Syria to the north-east

Yelps :/ critique me 16:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done - I've made the edit request. Thank you for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

In the architecture section, the article discusses an interesting place named Nahalal, which has a circular design. However, the article incorrectly states that Nahalal is a kibbutz. In fact, it is another form of settlement called a "moshav." Zenith87 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources can be found in Nahalal. Zenith87 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Israel has won 20 Olympic medals since 1992

comment about the number of medals Isreal has won. 2A01:73C0:84C:427:0:0:A22C:1901 (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, the number that was there (9) hadn't been updated to reflect the last two summer Olympics. I've updated the sentence. Largoplazo (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you :-). 2A01:73C0:84C:427:0:0:A22C:1901 (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 1 May 2025

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−

[[Syria]] to the north-east

+

[[Syria]] to the northeast

Seungri400 (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Looks to be an WP:ENGVAR thing. The hyphenated form appears to be more common in British english and this article uses that Cannolis (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cannolis: This was a very recent addition, and note that "southwest" is spelled without a hyphen later in the paragraph. Seungri400 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

What was a recent addition? Also, good catch. Have changed all instances of northeast/west and southeast/west with text search to include the hyphen. If this is not actual preferred British English someone feel free to revert. Cannolis (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

i added it via an edit request. Yelps :/ critique me 05:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead section revision

Hi all, I restored a rewritten version of the lead because I believe it better follows Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality and balance, especially WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, and WP:UNDUE. I understand the previous wording had long-standing consensus, but I think it’s worth discussing some improvements.

The older version included some phrases that were too vague or seemed to take a side; for example, terms like “military occupation” or “continued blockade” were stated as facts without showing that they are debated. Also, some parts of the history jumped around or didn’t explain things clearly.

In my version, I tried to:

• Show both sides of disputes (like over territory) without saying who is right.
• Make the history flow better from ancient times to today.
• Use more neutral language that sticks to the facts and avoids emotional or unclear words.

I’m happy to work with others on this. I’m not trying to push a view, just improve the tone, clarity, and fairness of the lead. Let’s talk about it and see what we can agree on. EditBagel (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

To recap the situation to date: You understood that the previous wording had long-standing consensus, but had some ideas to share about revising it. Rather than presenting your ideas to see if you could get a fresh consensus for some changes, you took it upon yourself to make the changes unilaterally. Then, after Remsense reverted your changes, you brought what you had already intended to be a fait accompli to us here to explain why your changes should be accepted. What should then have taken place is a discussion where you try to persuade others to accept your changes, but instead you restored the article to your version immediately thereafter, ahead of receiving even a single response, let alone a consensus, putting the burden on others to justify putting it back the way it was. And that's in a contentious topics article. Largoplazo (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Largoplazo. I understand your concerns about process and appreciate the reminder about how important consensus is in contentious topics. That said, my intent wasn’t to bypass discussion or force a version through, I genuinely thought the changes improved clarity and neutrality, and I was hoping to start a collaborative conversation around that.

I accept that restoring my version without waiting longer for replies might have been premature. I’ve since self-reverted to the stable version to respect the process, and I’m happy to workshop revisions with others going forward. My only goal here is to improve the balance, flow, and attribution of the lead, not to push a POV. Let’s shift focus to the content and see if we can move forward constructively. EditBagel (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Another problem is five misbalanced paragraphs instead of four. Really, most of the changes just aren't improvements, and I don't see how any passage would flow better.

(Really, the only incisive editorial decision I can clearly detect is, uh, the removal of the g-word—likely the single most deliberated upon phraseology I've witnessed in any RfC or content discussion in my time here so far. I was glad to see you self-revert when you did.) Remsense ‥ 论 01:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)