Talk:History of Israel/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

Israel was known as Palestine but Zionists change its name to Israel. 2601:243:E7F:30EB:48A1:C6C4:EAF2:96AF (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Requests for references

I will provide the requested references on this page. It will take me a few weeks, as I have a full-time job and a family. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The region has come under the sway of various empires and, as a result, has hosted a wide variety of ethnicities. However, the land was predominantly Jewish from roughly 1,000 years before the Common Era (BCE) until the 3rd century of the Common Era CE (Botticini and Eckstein,The Chosen Few: How Education Shaped Jewish History, 70–1492, ch.1, esp.p. 17 )

Source removed from lead unreliable

The region has come under the sway of various empires and, as a result, has hosted a wide variety of ethnicities. However, the land was predominantly Jewish from roughly 1,000 years before the Common Era (BCE) until the 3rd century of the Common Era CE (Botticini and Eckstein,The Chosen Few: How Education Shaped Jewish History, 70–1492, ch.1, esp.p. 17)

This book is not a competent source for the huge question begging, on the face of it contrafactual generalization above, which, for one, conflates Israelites/Jews/Hebrews anachronistically, when 'Jews' as an ethnonym referring to a single people, dates several hundred centuries after the (Biblically inferred) date of 1,000 BCE. If the Israelites are Canaanites, as archaeology argues, around 'David's time' there was no 'Jewish' majority by definition, even if, but this is unknown, Israelites were dominant. As a unifying ethnonym the word 'Jews' comes into usage several hundred years after 1,000 BCE as we all know, except biblical fundamentalists. Methodologically, the book's approach is suspect (Christians arose from Jews failed to achieve any degree of literacy, as to Jews were were 'literate'. Hahaha! Really!!) as per the remarks by at this section of the article, The Chosen Few.

This is one of about a hundred problematical statements on this POV page, replete with WP:OR, a misnomer, justified to compete with the identical 'History of Palestine' page. I read somewhat widely and in 60 years I've rarely come across accounts of that area dealing with the last two millennium which use 'Israel' as the default term for the Byzantine/Arab/Crusader/Ottoman/Mandatory area. It is invariably called 'Palestine' a geographic term, not a ethnoreligious word.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Telaviv1. I removed the source to this talk page arguing for its obvious inadequacy and placed a cn tag. You ignored my query, and simply restored the source. Explain what you are doing.Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Rewriting the source without replying to me gives us

However, the land was predominantly Jewish (or Israelite) from roughly 1,000 years before the Common Era (BCE) until the 3rd century of the Common Era (CE).

Is WP:OR if the source does not state 'Jews or Israelites.' If the source only speaks of Jews, then the source is hopelessly flawed, and you cannot alter the paraphrase by adding in Israelites to cover up the ignorance such a statement betrays. The two have no specialist knowledge of that early period.Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You are being obstructive. I will think about how to better phrase it. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The port of Haifa was built on Jewish taxes by the British

The British used the taxes paid by the Jewish population to build a port and oil refineries at Haifa and to fund their government in Transjordan.(The Roots of Separatism in Palestine: British Economic Policy, 1920 -1929 Barbara Smit, Syracuse 1993, pp 49-51)

The port of Haifa preexisted the British Mandate, and this edit suggests the contrary. It had long had port facilities which had been improved on in the 1880s, and the Ottomans significantly enlarged them between 1900-1905 (and, one might add, a similar plan foresaw an equally large port for Gaza in 1906). (Jacob Norris Land of Progress : Palestine in the Age of Colonial Development, 1905-1948 ISBN 978-0-199-66936-3 Oxford University Press pp.52-54)

The text as it stands implies no port existed, the British started ex nihilo, and the whole project was financed by taxing Jews, and no one else. Since it is an extraordinary claim - Haifa under the Ottomans was the fastest growing city in that empire and had a majority Arab-Christian population who weren't poor, one would have to explain what fiscal measures the Mandatory authorities introduced to ensure that the Jews alone paid taxes for the port's construction. Of course the cited text may say that, but the page spread is such that, if that report is correct, it must be transcribed in full here so that other editors can control the accuracy of that the way the wiki text so far paraphrases it.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I will check the reference to the port, I think the meaning is a modern port able to take steel ships. The Jews were producing a disproportionate part of the finance of Palestine (much talked about in the Peel report), no doubt the massive immigration tax had something to do with it, and some of this was diverted to Jordan. 192.118.27.253 (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I have copied the relevant pages so you can have a look:

It is my duty as administrator to enforce the copyright rules and the large chunk of text that was here was an obvious violation. Therefore I am removing it. Zero^talk 12:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Which part says "The British used the taxes paid by the Jewish population to....". Please point it out.Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Telaviv1. Thanks for the effort and time taken to reply to my request by this transcription. The details about using Palestine as a tax base to subsidize Britain's wider imperial interests are fascinating, and neglected by our articles. However there is no warrant in the text for the edit you made. You have construed the repeated use of 'Palestine' as the taxpayer as referring to Jews in regard to Haifa when all the text tells us is that Jews would object to that part of the taxes whose function was to patrol Transjordan if they were denied participation in those forces.

Much of your editing in this article, as observed years ago, is focused on reading sources that mention what Jews did in Palestine, and then cherrypicking that to exclude any other narrative realities, in order to rewrite the history of Palestine as the history of Israel, this in complete disregard for history and NPOV. In this case you have utterly distorted the source to assert that Haifa was built on Jewish capital. Perhaps it was, but there is no evidence in the source for the claim. To the contrary, since taxes raised all over Palestine are said to have been exacted for that end, insofar as Palestinian Arabs and Christians were also taxed, the latter contributed. Perhaps the only difference is, reading between the lines, that they did not lobby the Mandate about the 'no taxes without representation' principle at stake: i.e. if what 'our community contributes goes to policing trans-Jordan, then we want you to drop the exclusion of Jews from that border force,' (violent Zionist demonstrations broke out precisely regarding this, Laurens 2002 pp.83-84 ) since Zionism envisaged that its eventual assumption of control over Palestine should include the Trans-Jordan. Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that you for your part always view the JEwish side in very negative terms but I accept the criticism in this case. The British refusal to arm the Jews or include them in police forces was a constant complaint, right up to the second world war. Maybe not always justified, there is even now much suspicion between Christians, Jews and Moslems. I looked at the book you referenced and was struck by what he said about 20000 Saloniki JEws arriving in 1920s, something not usually mentioned. Aside from the Ottoman genocide in Armenia, which should perhaps get a mention as some Armenians ended up in JErusalem, there were also attacks on Greek Orthodox Christians, especially in what is now Izmir, hundreds of thousands of "greeks" were massacred. The exchange of population between Greece and Turkey resulted in something like 1 million greek orthodox christians leaving Turkey and 200k moslems leaving Greece. The agreement that covered it is cited as a postiive example by peel. The Greek orthodox refugees were angry at the Jews who were left alone by the Turks and who had been settled in Saloniki by the Turks, hence the departure of 20k JEws from Saloniki to Israel in the 1920s. They worked on the docks in Haifa nd Tel Aviv (also mentioned in O'Jerusalem). The interesting thing about this is that they brought Greek and Turkish music with them and Israeli Jews are to this day major consumers of Greek music. Many Greeks Turks and Israelis today, listen to the same music. Haifa was tiny under the Ottomans, a few thousand people and the British clearly made a big "investment". Telaviv1 (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm removing this: "All the costs of the British administration in Palestine were funded by local taxation, including military costs. In addition the British used taxes paid in Palestine to fund the development of a deep-water port at Haifa and to fund a Transjordanian military force which served their wider imperial interests." cited to a book of Smith. The reason is that these claims are false and the source does not support them. The book is discussing some arguments between the Palestine administration and various British government departments in the early years of the mandate, but it doesn't say what the eventual outcomes of those arguments were, nor does it cover (in those pages at least) later years. To obtain that information one needs a source that summarizes the finances of the mandate over its extent, such as the Survey of Palestine (prepared in 1945–1946). Volume 1, pages 123–126, has a summary with figures. Government income consisted of local sources (customs, taxes & fees, profits from posts and telegraph, investments, etc) and external sources. The main external source was direct non-recoverable grants from the British government amounting to £P13,748,248 between the fiscal years 1924–5 and 1944–5. It covered the cost of the Gendarmerie and "His Majesty's Government's share in the cost of the Trans-Jordan Frontier Force for services performed outside Palestine", among other things. In addition to that, the British government guaranteed a loan of £P4,475,000 and the Palestine administration raised £P5million by bearer bonds. The Haifa port major works completed in 1933 were financed by the £P4million loan, not from local taxes (source: annual report for 1934). The annual reports to the League of Nations contain detailed financial statements for each year. Zero^talk 08:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The British refusal to arm the Jews or include them in police forces was a constant complaint, right up to the second world war.

Complaints are one thing, reality another. The British made a major contribution to the war of 1948 by totally disarming the Palestinians, when they legitimately used a general strike to protest at the policy of cramming their country with foreigners who had an underwritten right to a statehood the Mandatory Authorities repeatedly denied the overwhelming Palestinian majority (Christian and Muslim) and actively training Jewish units to aid them in the suppression of the Palestinian revolt. The number of Jewish settlers recruited into supernumerary police units who received arms, and training to help repress the Palestinian majority, according to one expert Israeli source may have amounted to as many as 15,000.(Asa Lefen, Ha’Shai: Shorasheha Shel Kehilat ha’Modi’in ha’Israelit, Ministry of Defence, Tel Aviv 1997 p.273; Matthew Hughes, Terror in Galilee: British-Jewish Collaboration and the Special Night Squads in Palestine during the Arab Revolt, 1938–39, in The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, vol 43, issue 4, 590-610, p.591)

I don't know what you mean by mentioning the Greek/Turk instance. There is no analogy there.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

And I'd appreciate you thinking closely, or at least documenting the evidence ostensibly informing what you have come to believe when you write:

you for your part always view the JEwish side in very negative terms

That very much sounds as though my editing conceals some anti-Semitic motive. Jews have nothing to do with it. Faithfully reflecting in articles what scholars in Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem and the diaspora write, or Israeli newspapers like Haaretz amply draw our attention to, is what I do here. If what they write is anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish, take it up with the Israeli higher education establishment's failure to get them to toe the Zionist party line, not me.Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Immigration quotas

Text that needs fixing: "The French victory over the Arab Kingdom of Syria and the Balfour Declaration led to the emergence of Palestinian Nationalism and upheavals in the violent Nebi Musa rioting of 1920 and in Jaffa the following year. In response, to placate Arab protests, the British authorities imposed immigration quotas for Jews. Exceptions were made for Jews with over 1,000 pounds in cash (...) or Jewish professionals with over 500 pounds." (1) The reason given for the immigration quotas is a Zionist claim that is disputed; it cannot be presented as a mere fact. (2) So far as I can figure out from the primary sources, there were no quotas until 1925. The first regulations (Gazette, Aug 15, 1921) list persons eligible for immigration but have no mention of limits. There is a "persons of independent means" category that is not defined. The Immigration Ordinance of 1925 (Gazette, June 15, 1925) lists categories of immigrants including one category "Persons who have a definite prospect of employment in Palestine" which is subject to a Labour Schedule (i.e., a quota). Now "persons of independent means" includes six defined classes, the first having capital of 500 pounds and qualified in a profession, and the second having capital of 250 pounds and skilled in a trade or craft. In 1930 (Gazette, 16 April, 1930) these amounts of money were doubled and the definitions changed slightly. So, in the present text the timing is wrong, the monetary amounts are wrong, the nature of the assets is wrong (doesn't have to be cash), and the persons the rules apply to is wrong (not only Jews). I don't want to rewrite the text based on primary sources, so a good secondary source is needed. This is also a good time to consider how much detail should be in this high-level article rather than a specialised article. Zero^talk 10:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, if 4 basic elements of a short text are all flawed, the text must be removed. In wiki write-up that text runs:

The French victory over the Arab Kingdom of Syria and the Balfour Declaration led to the emergence of Palestinian Nationalism and upheavals in the violent Nebi Musa rioting of 1920 and in Jaffa the following year. In response, to placate Arab protests, the British authorities imposed immigration quotas for Jews. Exceptions were made for Jews with over 1,000 pounds in cash (roughly the same purchasing power as 30,000–50,000 pounds in 2017) or Jewish professionals with over 500 pounds.

By all means, Telaviv, find, preferable secondary, sources that allow you to make some of the points here in a reformulation. Notre however that Palestinian nationalism is not some reactive anomaly. Zionist nationalism accelerated it, and if you wish to describe that period adequately it must be neutral with regard to the two aspirations.Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Predominantly Jewish population 1,000 BCE onwards

I tagged this and after no source was forthcoming, removed the dubious generalization. There are numerous studies of ancient demographics and if one states that there was a Jewish majority from 1,000 BCE to the 4th century CE (the word here conflates Israelites, Jews and Samaritans, and even then does not hold throughout the specific millennium+ named), by all means enter the datum. One should not edit anything on Wikipedia unless one has a reliable source at one's elbow, and paraphrases it correctly.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Life of Lt. Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, 7th IDF Chief of Staff in photos (8).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Jewish diaspora

Some sentences and paragraphs (particularly in the Mamluk section) concern facts relevant to the Jewish diaspora, but that happened outside Israel and are not directly related to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantis Orquida (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Short description

Please see WP:SDSHORT. Editor2020 (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Non ecp editor comment re split

No, thanks. This was discussed many times before. Check History of Germany, History of France, History of Spain, History of Turkey and many others for further reference and regular standards when it comes to the history article of a country. No need to split anything.Tschlener (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Moved what is actually your first ever edit to here. You may not participate in internal project discussions (anything involving a !vote) until qualified to do so, you may however contribute constructively on talk pages outside of those discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, first time I hear that. Please cite relevant policy to back up your assertion. Thinker78 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction

"However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions." Selfstudier (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yet, FWIW, see History of Germany (1990–present), History of Spain (1975–present) and History of the Republic of Turkey. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Debate about united kingdom

I suggest that this section be cut to a basic summary:

"The historicity of the biblical narrative surrounding the establishment of the Israelite monarchy is debated.[Notes 1] Starting in the 1980s, some biblical scholars began to argue that the archaeological evidence for an extensive united monarchy in the 10th century is weak, and that the methodology used to obtain the evidence is flawed.[28][29] Excavations at Hazor, Megiddo, Beit Shean and Gezer uncovered structures that some have argued date from Solomon's reign,[30] but others argue that they should be dated to the Omride period, more than a century later. Since the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele in 1993, which is dated to the 9th or 8th century BCE and contains the phrase bytdwd, which most scholars interpret as mentioning the "House of David", the majority of scholars accept the existence of a polity ruled by David and Solomon, but its extent is debated. Recent archaeological discoveries in the City of David and in Khirbet Qeiyafa seem to support the existence of the United Monarchy, or at least point to an earlier existence of Judah, although the dating and identifications are not universally accepted.[31][32]"

I think that it could be reduced to a sentence saying something like this: "Archelogists have debated whether the united monarchy ever existed, but recent evidence suggests that a polity ruled by David and Solomon did exist, however this is not universally accepted and the extent of this rule is likely smaller than that suggested in the Bible" But I think I ned approval for such a change.Telaviv1 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Use of "Iron age" or "Bronze age" terminology

I suggest that chapter heading include some kind of dating for this, as the Iron Age and Bronze age don't mean much to most people. It might also be a good idea to mention that they refer to a change in technology for manufacturing weapons. Telaviv1 (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Periodization Section

Does anybody object to me removing this section? I think it is difficult to understand and does not make a useful contribution to the article.Telaviv1 (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead. It is ugly and inept.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, not very useful. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2022

I don't understand how these changes are preferable. It should be discussed first. Tombah made a few improvements which I endorse, but there is no point in having the exact same text in both Israel's lede and History of Israel. Please delete second paragraph in lede and replace it for the previous version, which was better and more concise:

First known in the historical record as Canaan, in the Iron age the area became a hotbed of competing civilisations and cultures, including that of the Israelites, and resulted in the emergence of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel, Judah and Philistia. The region was subsequently invaded, conquered and administered to varying degrees by Assyria, Babylonia, Persia and Macedonian Greece. A brief era of independence under Hasmonean rule ended when the region was incorporated into the Roman Republic. With the advent and rise of Christianity and its adoption by the Greco-Roman world under the Roman Empire in the 4th century, Christians became a majority in the Levant until the Muslim conquest of the Levant in the 7th century. The region then saw the intermittent warfare of the Crusades and the Mongol invasion. From the 13th century, the region was part of the Mamluk Sultanate, and, from the 16th century, a province of the Ottoman Empire.

In addition, I think it was better before when lede was only four paragraphs. There is no need to go into detail in lede about the partition and all the rest. Fourth and fifth paragraph should be merged like it was before:

In 1948, the Israeli Declaration of Independence sparked the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which resulted in the 1948 Palestinian exodus and subsequently led to waves of Jewish emigration from other parts of the Middle East. Today, approximately 43 percent of the global Jewish population resides in Israel. In 1979, the Egypt–Israel peace treaty was signed, based on the Camp David Accords. In 1993, Israel signed the Oslo I Accord with the Palestine Liberation Organization, which was followed by the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority. In 1994, the Israel–Jordan peace treaty was signed. Despite efforts to finalize the peace agreement, the conflict continues to play a major role in Israeli and international political, social, and economic life.

Thanks--Noha Erssam (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally I would just remove the whole second paragraph from the lede. Anybody who is interested can brose the article.Telaviv1 (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Now why in hell would you remove all mention of pre-19th century history... in an article about history? Lede is supposed to summarize content in article, not ignore it. The requirements for WP:TNT are not even close to be fulfilled in this case. Better to simply restore the previous paragraph instead of copying verbatim from a different article. There was nothing wrong with the previous version, which enjoyed consensus. Tombah changed it unilaterally for no discernible reason.--Noha Erssam (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

+1 to this, it seems unusual to remove the brief of 7th century to 16th century history in an article about history. Tweedle (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed split of modern history

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion: No Consensus to split to History of Israel (1948–present).

There seems to be a consensus that some sort of split should happen, but the proposed split did not have consensus.

In reading through the discussion, perhaps a way forward might be to do the split/merge in reverse, and instead rename this page to: History of Israel (1948–present), History of the state of Israel, or whatever other name finds consensus; and merge the rest either to one of the existing pages named in the discussion, or perhaps a new page..

There seems to be a fair amount of support for doing something like that. But I wouldn't call it an overall consensus (yet).

So with that in mind, no prejudice against a follow-up discussion, to continue to try to work this out. - jc37 03:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

---

This page has grown to become exceptionally unwieldy as an article, and now stands at 140+kb of readable prose. This is well in excess of the 100kb threshold in the WP:SPLIT guideline at which it is noted an article Almost certainly should be divided. In terms of where a split would best be enacted, it is obviously from the "State of Israel (1948–present)" section onwards as History of Israel (1948–present), given the qualitative distinction between historical material specifically about the modern nation state and background history of predecessor states. This is a common division for states that emerged in modern times and can be seen, for instance, in History of India (1947–present), and would avoid the jarring shift from the much less granular pre-modern material, which is divided by historical periods, to the modern section, which is divided by prime ministerial terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Addendum: Since there seems to be some confusion over how the split process works, a split does not involve simply removing the material; instead a good (and in this case likely substantial) summary of the material is left, along with a main template link to the new page. All of this, and the other aspects of what is entailed in the split process can be found at WP:PROPERSPLIT, where point number 6 in particular outlines the summary requirements for any removed material. To be absolutely clear, in no way would a content split result in this article ending at 1948, which would be utterly nonsensical. I hope that is 100% clear. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. The histories of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Greece, and Japan give an outline of each nation's history from the dawn of civilization to the present. Israel shouldn't be a special case. However, I agree might need to be slightly tightened up. Tombah (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah: I haven't proposed a special case. I presented the example of India, and all of these articles are main summary articles that link to more specific child articles for discrete periods. In the case here, it is actually because there is so much history that a split is advisable. The History of the United States has a small amount of background prehistory material and then starts with European colonisalism in 1607, so it really only covers those 400 years and is hardly comparable. Even so, the end portion of its history is already split into cold war periods, History of the United States (1991–2008) and History of the United States (2008–present). The History of France branches off into History of France (1900–present). History of Italy branches into History of the Italian Republic. History of Greece branches into History of modern Greece - on that note History of modern Israel, which currently redirects to State of Israel (1948–present), is a viable alternative title for the split. It's pretty much pick your parallel. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Article continues to grow even since the split is proposed, sensible to split the post 48 material. Selfstudier (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The readable prose size of this article is 144 kB; well over the 100 kB guideline. This seems a reasonable measure to help split the article into reasonable sections. DeemDeem52 (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I would otherwise suggest what had been suggested before: Merging History of Israel with History of Palestine (which is 370kb btw) to a single article, since these are practically the same land. Then create a History of the State of Palestine and History of the State of Israel to deal with modern history. This will not be supported. Therefore, for now, I suggest:

Alternate option - summerize pre-state history up to the 19th century and keep everything the same from the birth of Zionism. All "History of X" begin with the earliest known human habitation there, and it should be reminded that there are articles concerning various bits of the history of Israel as a land. A "History of X" article usually touches a topic so broad, it should really just be a portal to all articles relating to historical periods and events, rather than describing them in detail. Countless books have been written on the history of this land, usually several volumes long, and never comprehensive enough. It would be foolish to think it can all go here, but it would also be foolish to remove anything prior to 1948 as the history of the state and its historical consciousness is much older. If a split is really necessary, the title of the new article should be either History of the State of Israel or History of modern Israel (personally I prefer the former). Starting in 1948 removes the background for the state's formation.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bolter21: In case my explanation was unclear, the idea is very much to stick to the portal format, but simply move the post-1948 material to something like History of the State of Israel or History of modern Israel, while retaining a slimmer summary here without the same level of granular detail. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but hear me out, there's a big confusion caused by the fact there are two articles: History of Israel and History of Palestine, which present both a history of the same land. In my eyes it would be best to chose solutions on the condition of reducing confusion. This is not an easy task. With your proposal we will now have four articles: History of Israel, History of Palestine, History of the State of Israel, History of the State of Palestine.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bolter21: History of the State of Palestine already exists, juxtaposed against History of Palestine, and this is a common form of branched history, like in, for example History of Greece and History of modern Greece. This is a very consistent breakdown of history across Wikipedia, because modern history is inevitably more documented and dense. The pre-1948 Israel/Palestine history split is something of a separate issue, but even were those two articles merged, History of the State of Israel and History of the State of Palestine would still need to exist to explain the origination of those two entities post-1948. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

History of Israel and History of Palestine, which present both a history of the same land. There is no confusion, this article has a Jewish focus (says so right at the top) whereas the Palestine article is a history with no focus on any particular group. And anyway that has nothing to do with the split proposal. Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is already basically about the modern period, with the pre-Zionist history is much less detailed and given as a background. Reducing modern history would make this article redundant to History of ancient Israel and Judah, History of Palestine, and History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. There are already enough of highly-related articles to create another one. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Triggerhippie4: The proposal isn't too reduce modern history, it is to give it it's own article where it could actually be freely expanded without grossly violating the guidelines on recommended readable prose size. Almost all modern countries have a modern history article to overcome this issue. The issue with articles overlapping with this one is not directly related to the principle issue at hand here, but if you feel that way you should certainly raise that topic for discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: You are proposing to move the post-1948 material from here to a new page. In that case, this article, without the history of the State of Israel, would become a WP:CONTENTFORK with History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel – they would be the same. Instead, the pre-modern history here could be shortened to deal with the size issue, without creating a new page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, this page has no raison d'etre outside of History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, with which it should be merged. Most of these historical articles are repetitive and vague crap compilations anyway - none of them have been edited seriously in terms of scholarship, despite the extraordinary abundance of top quality scholarship. They are an eyesore surviving because the tendency is to engage with a messy text by endless tweaking. A serious encyclopedic commitment would demand that one rewrite the lot from scratch, using for each period historical context, sociological structures, economic developments, demographic changes, cultural institutions, ethnic arrangements etc. There is no trace of this, ergo, yawn. . .Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: In this article's current form, the post-1948 content would be summarized and reduced, as with the other sections that have main articles linked to in the sections. This article is not currently just History of modern Israel - half of it is ancient history and most of it is pre-1948 content, and all of this is already summarized. You suggest reducing this, but even in recent days and weeks the ancient material has been increased and expanded, so if it your understanding that this article should focus on the modern then you stand at odds with the other editors actively editing this article. What the article currently is is an attempt at a unified history of Israel, but, as noted in the opening to this discussion, it is uneven in form, with a two-thirds of it being period-by-period before an awkward style segue to a leader-by-leader focus on the modern state. In this form it does both bodies of content, ancient and modern history, an injustice and is the worst of both worlds - both failing to provide a brief history A-Z and presenting a highly truncated modern history. Anyone who cares one jot about the modern history of this country should want that material to have its own article, as with the many parallels mentioned, such as History of the Italian Republic, History of India (1947–present), etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If the pre-Zionist part here is shortened and merged into the articles it duplicates (History of ancient Israel and Judah and History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel), then this page won't be too long to require splitting to another fork. As in this article's Hebrew version, dedicated to the modern period, and prefaced with a brief background about the pre-modern history. A hatnote could then be placed at the top of this page, explaining the scope of this article, and saying that a more detailed pre-Zionist Jewish history can be found at History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: This seems like a lot of what ifs. This split suggestion is to address a readable prose size issue that exists now, and, as at least one other editors has noted, the article has only grown since then. Your suggestion to shorten and merge the pre-Zionist into the two other articles it duplicates sounds reasonable, but that is assuming a lot of time, energy and good will is going to come from someone to actually raise this in discussion or act to boldly do something about it by copying over/condensing material. As this material makes up about half of the volume of the current article, it's a tall order and not the direction the community is currently headed in. A split to create a child article on modern history is a far simpler proposal by comparison. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

So the choice is between reducing material either before or after Zionism started. If you do this to the modern period, as you propose, then this article will become a complete fork of History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel under the less appropriate name. So the only solution is to reduce the pre-Zionist part, and to choose this article to just stick with the modern history. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per arguments of u:Tombah and many sources discussing the whole history. The problem of the length can be dealt with by creating an article about the modern history and trimming the details here. Not sure about the year - 1948 is not the only possible date. Alaexis_¿question? 20:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Support though I generally concur with Bolter's observations. This article is not properly a history of 'Israel' as a geographical entity. It is patched up by copy-and-paste transfers of material from numerous article concerning Jews in history, bolstered with an extensive amount of free composition that concerns essentially a narrative of land loss, expulsion and suffering, including excurses on the persecution of Jews in other countries to underline the lachrymose persecuted experience of Jews both within the Middle East and in Europe. In this sense it is driven by a desire to make a counter narrative to the History of Palestine article. Properly speaking it has no account of the demographic, sociological, religious developments within Judaism and among Jews remaining in this area. Copying and pasting is just meme repetition: most of the accepted 'data' on demographics is fictional, because we simply do not have, for the first millennium, any hard data - everything is wild conjecture, as has been acknowledged recently, with misleadingly neat categories like Jews and Christians distinguished when for centuries the two overlapped and ethnoreligious identity had highly porous borders. Israel here means 'the Jews in Palestine' (even though it has been argued that since the early 4th century 80% of the Jewish population lived outside of Palestine/Israel, and that, not as a result of exile, expulsion etc. Israel here excludes any other people within Palestine or if you like, Israel, except as a disturbance factor for Jewish life in that land, despite the fact that for a millennium and a half Christians and Muslims were the overwhelming majority of the population, with Jews reduced to an exiguous presence. So its point is to provide a focused vision of Jewish continuity and sufferings in that land until the modern state was formed. Arabs and Christians, the majority population for at least 1,600 years feature only as sources of persecution. I wouldn't, furthermore, trust much of the documentation. Much of it is generic, unpaginated, a sign it was lifted without checking the actual text.Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Nishidani's complaints about the content are not relevant to this proposal, so I will not respond to them except to say that the article does contain a geographic history and that the article continues to improve in this regard.

• Part of the reason the article is so large is that everything requires enormous amounts of references due to the contested nature of the subject. Comparable articles contain, IMHO, far less reference material.
• I am happy to edit the article to make it shorter and less heavy and try and bring it within the guidelines
• Obviously the history of Germany did not start in the 1860's or whenever Germany was unified and created and the history of Turkey does not start at the end of the Ottoman empire. These articles reflect a "national narrative" of history, and there is a parallel article called History of Palestine which reflects a Palestinian national narrative (and arguably, downplays Jewish history).
• The state of israel did not magically appear in 1948 but is the product of earlier processes.
• Many of the readers are likely to be English-speaking Orthodox Christians or Jews or Moslems, who are interested in the religious origins and aspects of the history, the article needs to provide a relatively wide variety of information pertinent to its readership. The religious elements are a vital aspect of the modern conflict, which cannot be understood without them and have repercussions well outside the geographical area: For example, Bin Laden used to refer to "Crusaders".
• It is easy to skip parts you are not interested in and go straight to 1948 if necessary, that decision should IMHO be made by the reader.

I accept that perhaps the past has become top-heavy and will try to reduce it a bit. Telaviv1 (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

All of your edits to the article strengthen the point that this is designed as the History of Jews in the land -reduplicating the article we already have- that, for 2,000 years, was generally called Palestine. 'Israel' in antiquity was not commensurate with that land extension, denoted in religious tradition two kingdoms for three centuries, then fell under occupation by several empires, aside from a short Hasmonean interim. Since you edit in material about Jews in that land, your approach is not geographical but ethnohistorical. The term 'History of Israel', as noted, is not about a geographical entity, since Israel, though used in that sense, denotes also the other meaning of Israel, i.e., the Jewish people. The name therefore is ineludibly ambiguous and decidedly anachronistic. You need to address that.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Telaviv1: I would note that the volume of references has no impact on the readable prose size, only on the total data size. It is the readable prose size that is the concern of this split discussion. I'm not sure I quite understand you other points, but articles on the history of modern states since their inception as modern entities have obvious encyclopedic value as a standalone pages. Encyclopedias are designed to be made up of small, digestible articles, not endless scrolling text, and this actually works better for digital encyclopedias, where everything links to everything else. But ultimately it is a guideline issue. The 140+kB readable prose size is equivalent to 23,000 words - an entirely indigestible academic thesis length piece that, based on the estimate on the article size guideline (WP:AS), might take more than an hour just to read at normal pace, and this is why WP:TOOBIG exists in the guidelines - while the idea of having unwieldy articles that readers need to skip through to get to the content they actually want does not. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I guess I've been on this page for too long and I am considering moving on, but I do think the right solution (for me at least) is to cut the article down generally. It has accumulated too much detail, some of which can be cut by adding links to relevant pages.

Comment I wasn't really that bothered about it before but given the rather surprising (and imo illogical) opposition here, I think it might be best to merge this article and History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel and deal with this that way. It has been acknowledged as being mostly a fork by several editors. Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Supportcreation of History of Israel (1948–present) (alternatively titled History of the State of Israel or History of modern Israel) as well as the merging of History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel with this article, although that should be discussed in its own merge proposal. Not only would splitting out modern history resolve the size issue of this article, but allow for a much more focused discussion on the state of Israel since its founding in 1948 which is a much more distinctive time period. For such example of how these articles would look following a split see how History of the Italian Republic and History of modern Greece relate to History of Italy and History of Greece. Yeoutie (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It will only add more confusion and work to split this article and then deleting History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, instead of just moving pre-modern history from here to History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. The latter will give the same result with the same number of articles, but without creating/deleting articles. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. There needs to be an article "History of Israel". Written in very summary style. There should also be articles on "History of the modern state of Israel", "Ancient Israel", "Second Temple Israel" etc, where the finer grained detail goes. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: The proposal is to create exactly that, a modern history article, while summarizing the content better here - so what about the split are you opposing? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies for barging in. Possibly there was a misunderstanding here. I thought that you proposed to *split* the existing article in two, pre- and post-1948. If the suggestion is to create a new article for the post-1948 and leave a summary written with the same level of details as the rest of the article, I have no problem with that. Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Alaexis: Hi, yes, that a good (very substantial in this case) summary is left of material removed in a split is entailed in the split process, see WP:PROPERSPLIT, point number 6, but it now occurs to me that there has been some confusion over this. For sure the proposal was not to have the current article suddenly abruptly end at 1948, which would be utterly nonsensical. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support reading the above, it looks like many of the oppose votes misunderstood the proposal. Now that it has been clarified this seems to be a very straightforward. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. When this discussion started there was 140KB of readable prose. Now there is 158KB. It is way too much and it would be way too much even if it didn't duplicate several other articles, which it does. However the split is done, it has to be done. Zero^talk 12:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Telaviv has made good improvements and this will help with the needed split. Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Simply trim the article if it's actually necessary to do so. Drsmoo (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  We tried that, it got bigger. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Who is "we"? I'm not sure why History of India is provided above, the far more relevant comparison is the History of Jordan and History of Lebanon articles. Both of which contain both ancient and modern history. Ultimately, the argument being presented is that the article should be split because it's "too long", in which case, shorten it. However, splitting the article, and thereby separating the modern history of Israel from its ancient history, and putting the article(s) into a format that is different from those of neighbor states, is inherently political. Drsmoo (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Also on that note, the difference in size between the History of Israel and History of Palestine articles, which cover similar historical scopes, is 7kb. With the History of Palestine article being at 136 kb, compared to History of Israel at 143kb. So if that is the rationale for the split, it would/should apply to both articles. However, I think both should stay as they are, unless the pre-modern histories are merged together per Bolter's suggestion. Drsmoo (talk)

  @Drsmoo: The History of Palestine is already split into a modern component in the form of History of the State of Palestine, so that is just another one of the main modern timeline splits of which the proposal here is simply a logical extension. So History of Palestine may be overly long, but the specific proposal listed here for this subject has already been enacted for that subject. Given your words, "if that is the rationale for the split, it would/should apply to both articles." - and one has already been split, I assume you support this split? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Roughly 25% of the History of Palestine article deals with the Mandate onwards. With this article, the split isabout 60/40 in favor of modern. Neither article has a clear distinction between ancient history and modern history. So if a split were done for this article, the same would need to be done to the other, and in that case, the histories would/should be merged. Drsmoo (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, maybe, but those are totally separate problems completely out of the scope of this discussion. The fact is the history is split. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  The history isn't split though, there's just an additional article that covers modern history in more detail. 25% of the History of Palestine article covers modern history. Drsmoo (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's what a split is - both articles retain summaries of the other where relevant. Any quality issues or undue overlap between those articles should be addressed there not here. Here, however, there is still the matter of your unfulfilled declaration: "if that is the rationale for the split, it would/should apply to both articles." - since the rationale has been shown to be entirely consistent, I hope we can look forward to you honouring your own commitment and changing vote to support. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  We is mainly Telaviv. Assume you are responding to Triggerhippie4 canvas? Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Linking to this discussion on WikiProject: Israel is not a canvas, and in fact should have been done initially. However, your voting within 6 minutes of Zero is a bit curious, to say the least. Drsmoo (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  a) Dont mess with my sig, please. b) If you had troubled to look you will see that I am an early participant this discussion, unlike yourself. c) If you ping the Israeli and not the IP portal, that's a canvass.Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Please strike your above accusation, as it had already been fixed by the time you posted, no one "messed with" your sig". Rather than accusations, could you (including anyone reading this) give a rationale behind why they believe this article should be split, and not History of Palestine, which is roughly the same size and covers roughly the same scope? Drsmoo (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  No, when I replied you had messed with my sig, so I fixed it and asked you not to do that. What's History of Palestine have to do with this article, start a discussion over there if you want and stop wasting everybody's time with diversions. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  No, in fact when you replied I had already fixed it. So strike your false accusation. Drsmoo (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Diff of me fixing it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• Question to those who vote for support. What would be the difference between this article and History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel in case of splitting, and would they not be duplicates? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  We are trying to keep the article but as I said in my comment up above, this is indeed largely a fork. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The excessive length of this article is due to the repeatition of info from History of ancient Israel and Judah and History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. Modern history is the only distinct information specific to this article. It makes no sense to move it to a new page and exacerbating the fork problem, instead of moving redundant information from here to the already existing well-established articles mentioned above, where it belongs. Basically, you are voting to move part of this page to worsen the fork problem, instead of moving another part of this page to solve the fork problem. Splitting this article would necessitate deletion of History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, making this article about whole history, and a new one about modern history. The same result will be archived with trimming pre-modern history here, but it will not require more work moving text, creating/deleting articles, losing edit history and making a mess with links to Wikis in other languages. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

So if we did that instead then we could just delete this article altogether, right? Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This is bizarre logic. If there is significant overlap between the two articles, they will still overlap to just the same degree regardless of this proposal. Equally, if the overlap in the material between these two articles is as extreme as you say, and that the only logical solution is to merge it, then that also applies equally, outside of this proposal - and the fact that it may involve a little work to do so is neither here nor there. IF there is a POVFORK, and the fork here is solely differentiated by its ending, that is a problem regardless of this proposal. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is a fork regardless of this proposal, and the logical solution to both this fork and the excessive size of this page is to make this article what you're proposing a new article to be, i.e. modern history with a little historical background (see the Hebrew version of this page). --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I would support this. Drsmoo (talk)

Or perform a split and create an unambiguous History of the State of Israel that clearly scopes the article as pertaining to modernity. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

After trimming pre-modern history, a proposal to rename this page could be started, that's a secondary issue. But splitting this article in two won't solve the fork, but exacerbate it. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

If you really think this whole article should be rescoped to focus on the modern history, I suggest starting a discussion to establish a clear community consensus for this. Why not start an RM to move the page to History of the State of Israel to make the scope clear? As it stands, the article just continues to grow. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

+1. Now we all know what the problem is, let's fix it one way or other. We can just make this move if everyone agrees. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Even Israel's last election didn't cause the conciseness-engineerers (as some of them can't study normal scientific engineering in college) to stop focusing on things that aren't important. You can't erase the truth -- in 100 years from now, someone will probably put it back. And even now, people can get the full information from other sources, from history books, videos, other wikis, etc. Any radical change is not acceptable, as if for all of the years people were stupid enough not noticing it. A change should be proportional, coming from an authentic mission, and not impulsive anger (IMO). Archway (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This talk page is not here for you to record your personal thoughts on irrelevant matters. Kindly desist. Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2022 (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.

Too long

Readable prose has increased to 150kb from 140 when above split was proposed. So per rfc close, how to proceed? Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps shift the non-duplicative pre-modern history to History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, which is where the most serious overlap lies, and leave this as an article specific to the history of modern Israel? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Or, I suppose, to History of Palestine, for the tracts of history not ethnically fixated. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Although that page is already also overlength in terms of readable prose size. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This article is "Jewish focus" so shouldn't be very much of that. We should keep that as a separate issue anyway, on HoP talk, avoid the WP:OCE discussions on this page. It's less of an issue there because no forks and already partly split up. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It was clear from the RFC that there is no consensus to remove pre-modern history from this article. Although if you want, I suppose you can start another RFC in six months or so. Frankly, I'd prefer to delete the article on "History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel" rather than make an exception with Israel by not having pre-state content on its history article. Dovidroth (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It was a split discussion not an RFC, we can start an RFC anytime if thought necessary to get a wider view on something specific. But we can wait on that now we have a close, see what other editors think first. Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the suggestion is to remove everything pre-state. The article could have a brief background section(s) (like in the Hebrew version of this article, or little longer) with hatnotes to Prehistory of the Levant, History of ancient Israel and Judah, Second Temple period and History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. This page would not be too long, and readers would be able to click on these links if they want to read more about pre-modern history. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly how this article is structured: A summary of each period with its respective links to more detailed pages. Also this article has a fair amount of content on the non-Jewish periods, despite what the hatnote says (funny enough, it was Iskandar who added an "expand" tag on the Islamic period, so more content was added over there as well). The central focus of the article, however, is the post-1948 period, as it should. It's the same thing with History of Germany or France, for example. Dovidroth (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• There is no problem here, other than two users ignoring Israel's pre-modern history. The page is fine as it is. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 14:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  You may not think there is a problem, but there is, objectively a problem with respect to Wikipedia guidelines on article size, most specifically WP:TOOBIG. The project here is to build an encyclopedia made up of discrete, digestible packages of content; dissertation-length articles are the opposite of that. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Tombah: You continue to add further content to the page in a manner apparently blithely devoid of any concern for length. You opposed a split, but perhaps you could engage here on the subject of the page's excessive length. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  You're correct. There are a few passages in this article that, as far as I can tell, are of minor historical significance and can be moved to the drill-down articles for those passages. Just the more significant wars, conquests, religious, ideological, cultural, and demographic changes should be covered in this article. I'll see what I can move. Tombah (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  Great. Thank you. Yes, moving content to relevant child articles is a good option. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are there 2 articles?

This one and History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel? Synotia (moan) 17:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You should ask @Selfstudier. This is one of his Wikipedia pet peeves. But also, see above. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I have put up with it on the theory that Jewish history is distinct from Israeli history. However the theory is often not followed in practice and it all ends up being Jewish history for the most part with any "other" history downplayed. All WP:CPUSH and I mostly pay it no attention, just not worth it. Same crap in the parent article. Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

An overview of the history of the Land of Israel, with an emphasis on Jews (mostly in the ancient periods), is already provided in this article. For a more in-depth examination of the Iron Age and classical periods of Ancient Israel, respectively, we already have History of Ancient Israel and Judah and Second Temple period, but we're missing the post-Second Temple period Jewish history in the Land of Israel. To fix this, I'd narrow down History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, maybe using a different name, and possibly split it into two articles: History of the Jews in the Land of Israel during the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods (to cover the time from the destruction of the Temple to the Arab conquest); and History of the Jews in the Land of Israel during the Middle Ages and the early Modern period (from the Arab conquest and up until the first Zionist aliyahs). Tombah (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The objective is for 'History of Israel' to be focused on the modern country (albeit with a brief pre-modern background), while 'History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel' being about pre-modern Jewish history in the area. What's needed is to reduce the pre-modern part on this page. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Would also be nice to note the difference in the intro. Synotia (moan) 09:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I just tried my best. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice. But at this point it's almost the other way around in practice (: Synotia (moan) 10:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I counted roughly 71% of characters here is post-1516, and on the other page 68% is pre-1516. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

scope

The heading of this article says This article is about the history of the State of Israel and its historical background. For a boader (sic) overview of the region, see History of Palestine. For pre-modern Jewish history, see History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. And then the article proceeds to give a broader overview of the region and pre-modern Jewish history. If this article is about the state of Israel, the sources, per WP:SYNTH, need to relate the topics covered here to that. Otherwise this is a straightforward WP:POVFORK of History of Palestine. nableezy - 19:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

---

History of Israel → History of the State of Israel

History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel → History of Israel

This RM, which is a proposal to rename and rescope, follows on from an inconclusive split discussion, which proposed splitting off the 1948–present history of Israel to a page of that name (or similar). The principle motive for this is that, as it stands, this page is grossly overlength at 140kB of readable prose, so a runaway example of WP:TOOBIG. History of Israel (1948–present) is also a potential alternative to the proposed title, in line with the likes of History of India (1947–present), History of Pakistan (1947–present), History of the Italian Republic (post-1946), History of Germany (1990–present), etc.

Absorbing the input from the earlier split discussion, a number of the editors who objected to the split did so on the grounds that it would be better to re-scope this page with an explicitly post-1948 focus and mover and/or merge the pre-1948 material to History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, which duplicates much of the pre-1948 history. I agree that this is a better option overall, as it will preserve the page history of the post-1948 history here.

I would further suggest that History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel should then be renamed History of Israel, again in the same vein as History of India, History of Pakistan, History of Italy, History of Germany, etc. – as articles that cover the broader scope of the history associated with the modern identity of those countries – and per WP:CONCISE. As Israel identifies itself (now explicitly) as a Jewish state, the elements of the history that get focused on in a "History of Israel" are naturally one and the same as the Jewish history of the locale. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Every country in Wikipedia has an extensive article covering its entire history, both modern and pre-modern (including Germany, India, Italy, etc). You should wait at least six months before starting basically the same RFC/RM in different words because you didn't like the result. Dovidroth (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

No consensus means more discussion not less. The response also does not address the proposal made. Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

A split discussion, if that is what you are talking about, is not an RFC (WP:RFCNOT) or an RM (WP:RMNOT), so while your engagement would be welcome, I would kindly ask that you refrain from wholly ungrounded procedural complaints. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: Sorry, please could you better articulate your response here. This is a multi-move discussion that will result in there still being an article covering the entire history under the same page name, just at a different location. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. "History of Israel" and "History of the State of Israel" are very similar. And the title "History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel" better reflects the subject of the other page, so "the State of" is unwarranted here. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: I'm not sure what you mean with the first part there, but with the second, you very specifically contested in the preceding WP:SPLIT discussion – quite vociferously I might add – that the pre-1948 history here was essentially a WP:CONTENTFORK of History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. Now you are saying that these bodies of content are suitably different that this is not the case. Which is it? Please can you straighten out your position. If the pre-1948 is now not a WP:CONTENTFORK in your opinion then I expect you to dispense with such lines of argumentation in future, particularly with regard to any future split proposals. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel has an appropriate name as it is and shouldn't be moved to "History of Israel" because for the most part there were no independent Israel. Therefore, this article shouldn't be renamed to "History of the State of Israel" because such disambiguation is unnecessary, for the same reason as the article Israel is not titled "State of Israel." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I also suggested History of Israel (1948–present) specifically to give an alternative option to anyone that found "State of" problematic. History of modern Israel, along the lines of History of modern Greece, also works. In your very own words, History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel is a WP:CONTENTFORK of all of the pre-1948 material currently situated at this page, in which case the only real variance here is in terms of the title, with one being concise, the other not. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose as per Dovidroth. Pg 6475 ^TM 06:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pg 6475: Sorry, part of Dovid's comment is simply incorrect on matters of procedure, as already pointed out; the other part seems confused about what the proposed moves will actually effect. What exactly are you agreeing with? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The other part. Pg 6475 ^TM 18:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proper way of dealing with a too long article is to move details to articles dealing with various aspects of the history and leave summarised information here. I don't see how this justifies changing the scope of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 10:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, there is no need to change the scope of the article. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:32, 11 April 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.

Deletion request

Iskandar323 created "History of Israel (1948–present)" despite that the recent RfC here was against his proposal for this split. The deletion request is here: link. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of Israel (1948–present) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Any real evidence not from the Torah or Bible?

let's chill out on the religious narratives a little guys 64.231.187.83 (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Minor spelling correction needed

In the last paragraph of the "Birth of Zionism" section, a sentence reads: "The number of dead is though to be around 700,000." 'Though' should be corrected to 'thought'. Tyson170 (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Mojoworker (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of Israel (1948–present) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead revert

This revert was not an improvement, taking the lead back to a version which, among other things, failed dismally at MOS:FIRST - not even mentioning the word history, let alone introducing the subject in any sort of usefully encyclopedic manner. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Too long

This page is still overlength and I'm going to keep cutting until this page is at least down below 100kB, which is still not really in the digestible-for-readers range, but is a good rule of thumb per WP:TOOBIG of when a page returns from the brink and begins to resemble an attempt at an encyclopedic entry again. Trimming the page down is likely to involve cutting both unsourced and sourced material. Assistance and further split suggestions welcome. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

I'm suggesting a change to the section "Assyrian invasions". Specifically, the first sentence of the final paragraph of this section reads "Under King Josiah (ruler from 641 – 619)..."; I suggest that this be changed to "Under King Josiah (ruler from 641 – 619 BCE)...", as confirmed in the wikipedia entry for Josiah. 2rock (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 08:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It was Kan'an who lives in Palestine before israel

Israel Zain7251 (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Provide in urdu

Urddu 119.73.105.33 (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)