This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I will try again for a birthday wish section. Just once more, it gets whacked, oh well.
This is not a place for the debate on Israel, was the comment when my birthday greeting got pulled. Well, fair enough, except for the obvious fact, this discussion seems nothing but!
Ok, much of it is dressed up as discussion about the article about Israel!
I ask we leave the birthday greeting and, and everybody who is either truly for or against, not put an entry in. Let this be the section for observations and comments for those who are not one side or the other. Why? Israel is, whatever else it is, to those more closely involved, Israel, is a focus of world attention and a pivot point of global politics.
So, with that preamble... I search for my birthday wish, and prayer, will put it back in this section. Let us see if my intent is respected, and what the rest of the world can add for how is sees Israel. This could be interesting, and if by some wonder, happens as planned, may lead to a valuable contribution to the main article.
I pray that the peoples there find the answers to autonomy and identity by means other than force and violence. Such a question plagues the world all over, and a common path to solutions would be a blessing on all humanity. Who would not see the truth, in that if an answer could be found in Israel, it could be found anywhere?
Peace might take some give and take, but what a wonderful thing it would be. Israel could become a huge tourist site, much larger than now, and the promised land of milk and honey.
I pray God's children learn to play nice, and apply all that they should have learned in kindergarten.
A perhaps naive American and follower of the teachings of Christ.
It time for a reality check on this one. I think this wiki page is in trouble (very silly that it's an FA). It is solely an advert for Israel and editing is difficult due to the vast number of editors with entrenched views. However, this state was always going to be reached.
The public are, in Europe anyway, often shown on TV the war crimes of the army of Israel and the horrific crimes by people violently opposed to Israel. It is odd that this is not properly described in the article. I suspect the editors are fooling themselves that this footage is canceled or justified by one publicly editable web page.
Wikipedia should be about finding out things you didn't know. Almost all (on this page) engaged in running editing arguments are doing so for political not informative reasons.
It should indeed be for finding out things you didn't previously know, but not things that constitute original research. Whatever your personal opinion is on Israel, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to proliferate it. WilliamH (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't state my personal opinion on Israel. For one, I don't live there or near by and on many related issues don't know enough to have an arguable opinion. I merely question why, in such an expansive article, many events of the last few years shown by international news are not mentioned. By contrast on the Zimbabwe page the recent Human rights abuses are mentioned even thou its only a short section. The same with Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, etc
My opinion, since you ask, is that the editors of this article are politically motivated and too intent on selling Israel. I might call them airing there views on the main page soapboxing. Call stating this questioning of the editors neutralness soapboxing if you will. I accused others of soapboxing and then in turn was accused. As such to avoid wasting my time I shall not continue this. You are feel to agree or disagree. (If it helps I softened the tone and clarified my intent in my original comment in the interests of stopping arguments)
Selling Israel? This article seems like pretty neutral demographic coverage to me. If it's references to the Arab-Israeli conflict you're after, there's loads, just check out the box at the bottom. WilliamH (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
(Decided to go against my final intention not to reply but you'l like it).
Fair enough, I missed the links and on the whole have changed my mind. Once your read this you might as well delete this sub section.
It's sad that this propaganda has been made a FA. "Consensus" is a noble pursuit, but in its name Wiki risks becoming a tyranny of numbers. RomaC (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is not the pursuit but one of the means to the encyclopedia pursuit. Feel free to improve things by using the policies (notably Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight) and either Talking of improvements that would comply to the policy or by countering edits that go against the policies. And Yes it's work. Winetype (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
They said the same thing about the USA in the 1800s! And that worked out fine...kinda ;) Beam 11:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a fairly remarkable article, in terms of NPOV. Israel is an exceptionally difficult subject to maintain NPOV about but I can't see any better way of doing it than the way the editors handled this one. Congratulations to whoever worked on it to get it to this level. Although I disapprove of a lot of the actions of the state of Israel, I don't need every single thing I read about Israel to be primarily about how they behave towards the Palestinians. For one thing, I already know about that subject and if I want to learn more I will look it up specifically. Also, this type of article is supposed to be a general overview of the facts, and sometimes it's just interesting to read about the success of a basketball team. Lexo (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Apartheid? Come now...
Characterizing Israel as an apartheid state ignores the discussion of this very topic elsewhere in Wikipedia and only serves as a jumping off point for inflammatory nonsense, which is not what the overall issue needs. Ralph Goldenmouth (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It's gone. It was just vandalism and was reverted. Nothing to see here. (Until it comes back.) 6SJ7 (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC
John Pilger, an award-winning Australian born journalist and documentary filmmaker from Sydney, primarily based in London, England, has mentioned in his book "Freedom Next Time" that when he went to Israel, he felt a strong resemblance between the Israeli treatment of Palestinians and that of Apartheid Africa.
I don’t live in Israel and I have never been there so I am not in a position to debate anything about whether or not Israel is respecting human rights. What I know though is that many people throughout the world view the Israeli government as an Apartheid regime. This might not be true from a typical North American point of view, but it is almost anywhere else in the world (with a few exceptions in Europe.)
I am not suggesting that we should say the Israel is evil, but at least talk about why most of the World’s population regards Israel’s foreign policies as sometimes inhumane.
An opinion that Israel is an apartheid state by a select few highly politically motivated academias doesn't make it true. Israel's situation is completely different that South Africa. In South Africa you had the remnants of Colonial power who was not native to the area using racial theory to prop up a repressive government.
In Israel, you have two peoples, closely related as has been established by recent DNA studies, making claims to important historical lands, each of which have considerable historical connections. This case is more similar to the Greeks in Asia Minor, a case which was indeed settled with a forced migration to seperate the feuding civilizations with the Turks remaining in Asia Minor and the Greeks being moved out to the Mediterranean Islands and Greek Mainland, giving each state a secure if not volatile boarder. The formation, justly, of a Jewish state inherently means that there would be Arab disenfranchisement. The reverse would also have happened if the as had happened for nearly 800 years, that the Arabs held onto political control of Israel, then the Jews would again be forced into exile. For what it is worth, until this basic fact is grasped, nothing gets solved in the contested territories.
The article talks about the occupied territories, as it should. But the whole "apartheid" thing is nothing more than a propaganda bit by a few people, mostly Palestinian, American and British, actually. There is much to criticize about Israel's policies, but the bad analogy to apartheid is unimportant. It's flawed to the very core, seeing as how Israel has 1.2 million Arab citizens, who have the same rights as Jewish Israelis. So the whole racist basis for apartheid does not occur here. As the territories are not a part of Israel (and everyone recognizes this), treatment of the Palestinians, even if not right, cannot be equated to the way the apartheid regime treated its own citizens, in its own territory.
Do note the many of the apartheid analogies fail to even make the basic distinction between Israel and the territories, claiming Israel itself is an apartheid state, with regard to all Arabs under its control. Seeing as how in Israel, Jews and Arabs ride the same buses (with no front/back distinction or any of the such), go the same hospitals, drink from the same water fountains, visit the same restrooms, and go to the same schools* and universities - this is a ridicules analogy.
(* - note about schools - there's an Arab-Israeli school systems, with Arabic as the teaching language; in those schools most of the curriculum is the same, just without Judaism studies, and Arab literature and the likes. Most Arabs choose the send the kids to those schools, to study in their own language. However, they can send their kids to the Hebrew-language schools. For instance, one of my classmates was Arab). okedem (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The differences do heavily outweigh the similarities, in my view. It is possible to find some instances where there are some similarities between Israel's actions/policies in the territories and some of the things South Africa used to do. For instance, the roads reserved for Israelis/settlers in the West Bank, where the Palestinian residents of the West Bank are not allowed to use them. But even there, as I understand it, it's a matter of citizenship, not race/ethnicity: if an Arab citizen of Israel wanted to drive on one of those roads in a car with yellow license plates, he/she would be able to do that.
Somewhat more troubling (from a liberal perspective) is the effort to maintain certain locations for residence by Jews only; I believe that, although the Supreme Court decided in favour of the Arab family that wanted to live in Katzir, several years later they have still not succeeded in actually acquiring a house there (though I no longer remember what the obstacle is, after the court decision). In any event, the court decided this type of discrimination is unlawful.
Highlighting only the few similarities and ignoring the many differences is wholly unreasonable, and I really do think it is an unacceptable comparison. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering the highly POV undertones of the term, I would not recommend using it on this page, but I think it is a fair comparison on many counts, and one that has struck visitors of Israel again and again. To comment on Okedem's remarks, while Israeli Arabs (Palestinians) and Jews are not treated equally in many spheres of everyday life (the Army, e.g., or football) even though they enjoy similar legal rights, the main point of the comparison is between non-Israeli Palestinians (Arabs) and Israelis. Given the fact that there is no Palestinian state yet and that the entire territory is ultimately controlled by Israel, I fail to see how the dramatic inequality between the rights of Israelis and Palestinians - both native to the same country presently called Israel - can be ignored. This is one aspect which is reminiscent of the South African homelands for Blacks, which once created served as an excuse for a racist regime, which disowned any responsibility for what happened to the people who lived there.--84.190.23.44 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I really can't see how Israel/Palestine isn't seen as, at the very least, similar to a Apartheid. The Jews rule over the Palestinians, controlling every aspect of their lives. It should definitely be put into the article, with a reliable citation. Beam 02:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, not "the Jews rule over the Palestinians", but the Israelis, which include Jews and Arabs, control territories with Palestinian population. Unlike South Africa's situation, the territories are not a part of Israel, and Israel doesn't claim otherwise. This is a national issue (two different nationalities), not a racial issue. okedem (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What? That's laughable. Either you're too involved in the issue (do you live in Israel or something?) or you're just blind. The Israeli flag has the star of david on it! Beam 16:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, try to discuss issues, not editors.
Yes, the flag has the star of david on it. The UK flag has 3 whole crosses on it - does that mean the Christians control the Hindu there? The flags of all the Scandinavian states have crosses on them - does that mean the Christians control the Muslims there?
I don't even know what you said that in reply to, but it's meaningless either way. okedem (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Britain is a horrible analogy friend. Beam 17:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. What about Norway? Or Switzerland? okedem (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The term 'apartheid' is frequently associated with the state of Israel. Therefore it would the purpose of an encyclopedia to explain on what account there has similarities (if any) and differences.Winetype (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And that's why we have an article about it. okedem (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant we should talk about it in the Israel article in so far as this is a contended feature of Israel.
In this article we should discuss facts, not allegations. Display the facts in the case, instead of throwing names and titles around. Details, not unsubstantiated analogies, which tend to crumble when examined. okedem (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a fact that some highly respected scholars and politicians have accused Israel of being like the White Apartheid regime in South Africa. Let’s discuss those facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.85.239 (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ooohh, some politicians said things, how exciting.
A person's view might be interesting for his own article. It adds nothing here, except to show how politically motivated those accusations are, once you actually examine the facts.
Discuss facts, actual facts, not what some people say for their own motivations, but what actually is. okedem (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Apartheid has a specific meaning; it was used in a specific historical context. It doesn't simply mean "dominance" or "oppression". It is possible to find a small degree of resemblance on a limited number of aspects (particularly if one treats Israel and the West Bank as one entity - and okedem is right in saying this article does not take that approach) - but the analogy fails completely for most aspects and thus as a general description of Israel. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems we could agree that it would be interesting to expose the facts about how Israel is an equal society and how it is a discriminating society.Winetype (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Name one Arab country that currently has a Jewish representative in its parliament? Name one Arab country that will allow opposition leaders to protest (picket) the government actions (Jewish or Arab)? Name one country that is perfect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.240.20.15 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Discrimination
Based on the above discussion I am inserting into the article a sub-section about 'Discrimination'. It expressly avoids terms such as 'apartheid' and 'occupation'. It sticks to facts -- all of them have references.Springwalk (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The subsection on discrimination was not previously agreed and is not written to the same standard as the rest of the article.
It strikes me as very POV, also ,most of the issues addressed are already covered under the topic of Human Rights which is where the issue belongs.
I am removing the section. Otherwise I think a blanced approach would require a section on "International Antisemitism" (of State Antisemitism (as Ruth Wisse has described it.).
Telaviv1 (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Julius Caesar beat me to it. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that some of the information in this diff which User:Ave Caesar removed, could be useful to the article. Could we work on integrating parts of it into the article, rather than as a section on Discrimination? Surely some of the information (which is well sourced) could provide some balance to the glowing reviews of Israel's democratic system that permeate this article. No? Tiamuttalk 13:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There are no glowing reivews of Israels democracy as far as I can tell - unless you count the comparison with Arab states. I think the comparisons could be removed as standards of human rights and democracy in the Arab world are so appalling as to make any comparison a joke.
Telaviv1 (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Back to the issue at hand, what do you think about adding some of the material in that diff to the article? Collaborative editing requires treating the contributions of other editors with respect, which means retaining parts that are relevant and well-sourced, while removing other that are not. User:Springwalk made a substantial effort in crafting that section and I'm sure that there is something in the edit that others can agree would be useful. No? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 13:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Make a specific proposal. I don't think any of the individual paragraphs in that edit worked as they stood, so the question is, what would a reformulated version look like. I also don't think a section titled "Discrimination" is going to be widely accepted as NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
What I suggest, creating a sub-section under "Demographics", which discusses the situation of Arabs living inside Israel (and its occupied territories), and in this section allegation of discrimination can be presented. Imad marie (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Most states have minorities, and in many of those states the minorities suffer discrimination, or at least claim to suffer discrimination. Are there any such "Discrimination" sections in other country articles? I haven't encountered any, and so see no reason to treat this article differently. Any issues regarding the Palestinians (in the territories, not citizens) should be dealt with in the section devoted to the territories. okedem (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the recently added text - it is hopelessly POV and misleading - for example, "Since 1901 the Jewish National Fund has been taking land in Palestine and selling it to immigrating Jews" - no, it purchased land from Arabs, for a good deal of money. "In July 2007, the Israeli Knesset approved the Jewish National Fund Bill." - No, it only passed preliminary hearing, and was then scrapped. "Not all adults can vote. Only citizens can vote." - Obvious, and true for most all countries. And so on. okedem (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
After further examination of the article, I'm surprised there is no section dedicated to the Palestinians (or Palestinian origin) inside Israel, 20% of the Israeli population are Israeli Arab ( I think this number does not include Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza, I will check). So yes they are a minority, but they are BIG minority, and it's only natural and notable to create a section dedicated for this. This section can discuss the situation of Palestinians inside Israel, whether it's positive or negative. Imad marie (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you cite similar sections regarding minorities, in other country articles? Israel's situation is not unique. okedem (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Every country has its own unique situation, the unique situation of Israel is that 20% of its population is of different ethnical background, which has, and for many reasons, faced big difficulties in blending in the Israeli state, and on the other hand, you have Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who claim to have the right to have their own independent state, and who have been engaged in deadly dispute with Israel since its creation. This is all notable regarding the Israel article, not including this would be hiding important notable information. A situation close to the Israeli's situation would be Yugoslavia, a country with different ethnic backgrounds, but the situation there does not really matter here, what matters is the Israeli unique situation. Imad marie (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Many countries have minorities, even large minorities. Do they have special sections about them in the articles? I've never seen such a section, and so there's no reason to treat this article differently.
We already have a section on the territories (a section I created, by the way). Information regarding the territories and the Palestinians living there, belongs in that section. okedem (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know much about the US in these terms, but if there's nothing about minority groups and "race relations" in that article, well then there should be. I agree that information on the Palestinians in the territories shouldn't be a significant focus of this article, but I see no reason not to include something about the situation of Arab citizens of Israel. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait, you guys don't think there IS discrimination? What? Beam 14:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Now, who said that? Sure, there's some discrimination. Some for worse, and some for better (Arabs don't have to waste 3 years of their lives in the army, earning a measly $100 a month). And all around, the discrimination is much more minor than some would like to claim. okedem (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Coming from this privileged majority, as you do, Okedem, it's no wonder that you would see things that way. A Palestinian citizen of Israel (like myself) experiences the situation in a vastly different way. Tiamuttalk 14:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Tiamut, try to stick to the issue, not the editor. okedem (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "discrimination for the better". Imad marie (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course there is. I had to spend 3 years serving in the army. Israeli-Arabs don't have to. They can spend that time working or studying, and start their actual adult lives 3 years earlier than their Jewish counterparts. In this instance, Jews are being discriminated against. okedem (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Very correct of you Okedem and if you can manage not to WP:SOAPBOX, as you did above, we will also make much better progress.
Back to the issue at hand, the section on immigration seems relevant:
Members of the Jewish nation are encouraged to immigrate -- even if they have no Judaic religious belief. They are given citizenship. This is the Law of Return. People may be from the same country and be denied entry or citizenship based on them not being Jews. Furthermore many people born in Israel cannot return to it if they are not Jews[1]. The administration effectively restraints Palestinian refugees displaced in 1967 from voluntarily returning to their homes[1].
The Law of return is already mentioned in the article. Countries are free to choose their immigration policies, and this is not very notable. The claim "Furthermore many people born in Israel cannot return to it if they are not Jews" is mostly bogus. Children born to Israeli citizens are automatically Israeli-citizens. Children born to non-citizens (like foreign-workers) are a different matter. A country is not obligated to give citizenship this way, and the US is actually one of the few that do. okedem (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Not notable?! How is a policy that allows only people of a certain religion to immigrate not noticible? As far as I know there is no other country that engages in such policies and as such that makes it very notable.Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
as does the section on separate settlement:
Separate settling is encouraged in general. In 1948 there was a policy that was designed to prevent absentee Palestinians from returning to their land and “to make their abandoned land available for Zionist settlements“'.[2].
A municipality can confiscate land based upon Israeli law concerning abandoned land[3].
"Separate settling" - mostly bogus. One would need to remember that these are two ethnic groups, with different cultures and languages. The separation is voluntary. okedem (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The Jewish National Fund's ownership also seems relevant. Particularly this section:
In 2006, the Jewish National Fund owned 14% of the total land in Israel. In July 2007, the Israeli Knesset approved the Jewish National Fund Bill. It authorizes the JNF to resume the practice of refusing to lease land to Arab citizens.[4].
Had you bothered reading the source, you would have seen the law only passed preliminary reading. Surely by now you should know that the law was scrapped, and now Arabs can lease JNF land (private land), after a settlement was reached with the ILA. okedem (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The section on settlements in the West Bank could go into the Occupied territories section:
In the West Bank, settlements are regulary created or augmented to welcome more Jews. The state organizes public facilities to this end. It builds roads reserved to Jews. Many of the roads allowed to non-Jews are blocked by IDF dams or checkpoints[5] for security reasons.
The settlements are mentioned in that section. The second sentence is obvious from the first. The third might warrant mention, in different form. okedem (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
where it could also be noted that
Only citizens can vote. Citizens are either born in Israel or the settlements or are immigrating Jews.[6] So non-Jews East of the West Bank barrier cannot vote.
This is obvious. In most countries in the world only citizens can vote. Obviously, citizens are only the children of citizens, or the people the state chose to give citizenship to. Nothing of interest here. okedem (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Does Gaza and WestBank not remind one of the concept bantustan? Deport unwanted folks and put them in a closed area and call it a country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noserider (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Unequal development plans could also be mentioned:
Parts of the Negev are being developed for some Jews at the expense of the Bedouins[7]. The budget of the municipality of Jerusalem is discriminatory: 33% of the population (the portion in East Jerusalem) receives a 8.48% share.[8].The budget of the municipality of Jerusalem is discriminatory: 33% of the population (the portion in East Jerusalem) receives a 8.48% share.[8]. Each Jerusalem Jew is offered 1 190 euros on average while an average Arab receives 260. "It's no surprise that 67% of the Palestinian families live below the poverty line, to be compared with 29% of the Israeli families"[8].
Thoughts on how to reword and where to place these? Or thoughts on which are irrelevant and should not be included? Tiamuttalk 14:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I repeat my suggestion above, we create a section called "Palestinians" under "Demographics". Imad marie (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Potentially useful - though in the end, actually useful only if what goes into it works. Both you know that it would take a lot of work here to create something everyone will agree on. I think the material offered by Springwalk is of very limited utility for this. It would be very easy - and very unhelpful - to compile a list of "facts" that add up to highly POV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You are right. Now the question is: does "Palestinians" include Palestinians inside the West Bank and Gaza? Imad marie (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Technically, 'Palestinians' does only include those in the West Bank and Gaza, since Arabs in Israel are correctly referred to as Israeli Arabs. It's also somewhat problematic to place Palestinians under 'Demographics', because they are not citizens of Israel and therefore should not be included in a section which describes the ethnic breakdown of Israel's citizens. In addition, any discussion of Palestinians must take into account the fact that Gaza is no longer under Israeli occupation, but is administered by a breakaway segment of the PA. I have no objection whatsoever to adding information to the article regarding Israeli Arabs and other ethnic minorities in the country, but I really do not believe the Palestinians should be included in sections which discuss Israeli citizens. After all, were Iraqis listed as an American demographic group during the latter country's occupation of Iraq? Of course not. The same principle applies here. — Impi (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Oke, how can you say Israels case isn't unique? Of course it is! Beam 14:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that we agree that there are many facts here. Okedem wrote "Sure, there's some discrimination" and "Countries are free to choose their immigration policies" and "The separation is voluntary" and "In most countries in the world only citizens can vote". Maybe the proposal of User:Tiamut with separate insertions is worth working on. Winetype (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, so we can create a separate section, called: Discrimination or Palestinians in Israel. Me personally I prefer the later title, where we can present the situation of Palestinians in Israel and its occupied territories. Regardless of the discrimination accusations, Palestinians in Israel are notable enough to have their own separate section. Imad marie (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've seen no country articles with sections on "Discrimination", or sections on a specific minority. No reason to treat Israel any differently.
There no justification for treating the issues of Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians (living in the territories) in the same section. Their situations are vastly different, and one basically bears no relation on the other. The Palestinians should be dealt with under the section devoted to the territories. Israeli-Arabs should be dealt with, concisely, under demographics, as is done for other country articles. okedem (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The situation we have here is different than any other country's situation. If we talk about Palestinians (inside Israel and in its occupied lands) as one group, then you are talking about a group who is worthy of a section in this article. Palestinians population is 5 millions (almost the same population of Israelis), have been engaged in a long deadly dispute with the Israelis since the creation of Israel (and even before). The Palestinians case has brought attention from all over the world: UN, super powers.... So, please stop making comparisons to other countries, the question we have here is: Are Palestinians in relation with Israel notable enough to have a section of their own? I believe the answer is Yes indeed. Imad marie (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
But including residents of the West Bank and (especially) Gaza in the Israeli population is absurd. Would you change the total population figure in the infobox? The idea suggests a wholesale revision of the article, and that is a very unlikely prospect. A section titled "Discrimination" is also absurd, offering no hope of NPOV.
I have looked through a few dozen country articles, including countries with deep ethnic/racial divisions, and it is clear that okedem is right - there is no precedent for a separate section like this, even as a subsection under Demographics. To emphasize the point: Israel is by no means alone in having deep ethnic/racial divisions. Having said all that, I would agree that there is scope for brief treatment of socio-economic differences/gaps - that aspect of Israeli society does seem unrepresented here. Coincidentally, today's New York Times has a front page article on the topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your last assertion. The topic of Arab-Israelis and socio-economic gaps seems under-represented here. This can be treated under demographics, economy, and education. okedem (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a country article with a discrimination section: Zimbabwe. We can treat the two articles in the same manner: with a related section (as there is a related article). Springwalk (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is another two: Yugoslavia and South_Africa. And I did not suggest including residents of the West Bank and Gaza in the Israeli population, I was just making the population comparisons for notability. Imad marie (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Not one of those is a "discrimination" section, and they all have nothing in comparison with Israel. The comparison is poor, and uncalled for. Israel's human rights are comparable with those of Western Europe, not Zimbabwe. Deal with the minorities in the general sections. okedem (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We have two suggestions here, creating a "discrimination" section or a "Palestinians" section, we have to settle for one to direct this debate. Imad marie (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? I see only your suggestion count, eh?
No to both. The issue of Arab-Israelis should be dealt with in the appropriate sections, like minorities are treated in other country articles. The issue of Palestinians is dealt with in the occupied territories section. okedem (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Two suggestion meaning two suggestions for change, I believe this was clear.
Anyhow, other WP articles are not the guide for us here, there is no manual for creating articles about countries that those other articles followed. Maybe there does not exist sections for minorities because there are no WP editors from those minorities with interest, or who knows why.
What we need to do here is to measure the notability of this, as I stated before, Palestinians are notable regarding the Israel article, regarding their history, population and long dispute with Israel. Imad marie (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that we have a basic agreement which is that this article needs to be augmented with some facts about discrimination, segregation or human rights. To this end I see two irreconcilable directions: either we create a proper section (with a label to be discussed) or we disperse the sentences (to be chosen) into the existing sections. Springwalk (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
To ignore the treatment of the occupied territories by Israel, both now, and historically as well as to ignore the treatment of the occupiers by the occupied is pretty stupid. I'd say a section, or sub section (at the least) is needed. Let me clarify: It needs to spell out the type of treatment on both sides. Beam 09:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Springwalk thank you for pointing out the irreconcilable directions. Considering the notability of this, I'd say create a proper section. Imad marie (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me clarify. I don't know if there are any clear cut guidelines for country articles, but there are de-facto guidelines, those created when country articles receive FA status (like this one did). None of the others have such sections, because there's no need for them, not there, nor here. You're trying to apply different rules to this article, and that won't fly. What next? A section about the Ultra-orthodox minority? The Russian-speaking minority? The Beta-Israel minority (Jews of Ethiopian descent)? The Druze minority? How about the Christian minority? A country's population is made up of minorities. Sections about each are not the reasonable way to go.
Beam - did you even read the article? We have a whole section about the territories. okedem (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Imad, you are presenting a false dichotomy; this subject can be adequately covered without resorting to either of the options you suggest. Further, you appear to be confusing the issue with your insistence on referring to both Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as 'Palestinians'; but the Israeli-Arabs are not Palestinians. They are full citizens of Israel and are, importantly, free from any legal discrimination by the state. In fact, white South Africans face more legal race-based discrimination than Israeli-Arabs do, if we're going to nitpick. The real Palestinians, on the other hand, are residents of two areas under the titular control of the Palestinian Authority, of which one area happens to be under military occupation by the State of Israel. Furthermore, their status is already covered extensively in parts of the article which deal with the occupied territories.
It would be wrong to add a section titled 'Discrimination' about the status of the Israei-Arabs, because as I said above, they do not face legal discrimination from the state. At best, they face a depressed socio-economic position in much the same way that other similar minority groups face around the world (African-Americans in the United States are a good example). This arguably deserves mention, but it's not important enough to deserve a section all of its own, especially as doing so would go against established practice elsewhere on Wikipedia. Frankly, I don't see why this article needs to change all that badly at all, since it's already good enough to have attained FA status. Unless you can provide an undeniable justification for the changes you propose, I'm backing okedem's proposals. — Impi (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary: the discussion has already demonstrated that there is enough notoriety of discrimination (against non Jews, not specifically Arabs) to warrant the addition of Human Rights facts. It has also demonstrated that a separate section is current practice for a few other country articles. So either we add a section or we add sentences into existing sections. Doing nothing would omit notorious facts. Springwalk (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That 'Israel is by no means alone in having deep ethnic/racial divisions' is not in question here. We might have a consensus that Israel has deep ethnic/racial divisions. So let's expose that state since we should explain things as they are. Now we should do that in an manner acceptable by most editors. There are precedents for a separate 'Human Rights' section. So I would be happy with either creating a dedicated section or distributing the proposed mentions. Winetype (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The single precedent presented is the exception, not the rule, and is a completely different case. If you'd like to deal with the issue in the current sections, in an NPOV manner, in the style of other articles - I have no objections, given that we don't give undue weight to anything. okedem (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The assertion of 'single' is false. Three precedents have already been presented above that show a 'Human rights' sub-section. They are People's_Republic_of_China#Human_rights, Zimbabwe#Human_rights, Sudan#Human_rights. Having a separate section or not is open. A gratuitous assertion is 'that we don't give undue weight to anything'. Winetype (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, "Human rights" is not discrimination. In a dictatorship there's often basically no discrimination - no one has any rights, except for the beloved leader.
Given that Israel's human rights situation is very good, there's no need for such a section, and the fact you bring countries like China, Zimbabwe and Sudan only serves to prove my point. Now, Human rights issues in the territories (which are not a part of Israel) should be dealt with, very concisely, in the section devoted to the territories. okedem (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Discrimination that is institutionalised within the state, or that is state-mediated, is a human rights issue; and rightly assessed as such by, eg, the US State Department.
If previously much mooted Smooha quote is correct in its assertion that "... the state is neither binational nor neutral in the dispute between minority and majority but is rather identified with the Jewish majority that employs it as a vehicle to further its particular interests. The Arab minority is not considered as an equal partner in the society and the state," then that is abusive.
At the very least, this article should not try to brush such an elephant-in-the-room issue under the carpet. It needs to present a balanced picture, warts and all. Jheald (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The words "institutionalized discrimination" are often heard, but seldom explained. Would you care to detail those allegations?
Smoocha is not a very objective commentator, by the way.
I say again, for the 1,000'th time - there might be a place for this issue - but only in the existing sections. There are claims of discrimination and minority issues in most countries in the world. We will not be applying a different standard to Israel by opening such sections. okedem (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a fair number of examples of state-mediated discrimination identified eg here.
"Institutionalized discrimination" can take different forms. On the one hand, there may be formally institutionalised discrimination, eg that against non-Orthodox Jews by the vesting the right to make marriages in the Orthodox authorities.
But more broadly the phrase also refers to routine discrimination at administrative levels - eg in granting settlement permissions; or in civil policing - where discrimination may have become an ingrown institutional wisdom, even if not mandated by formal policy; and where no effective central action is taken to avoid or prevent this. Jheald (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Oke, I wish not to address the editor and not the issue but here goes: why do you have a problem with expanding on the occupied territories? I'd say that the reader WANTS to know about those territories in relation to the state of Israel in the Israel article. Summarized of course, but still present. Beam 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Beam, why are you attributing to me things I never said? I was the one who originaly wrote the section about the territories, and if you'd like to improve, I'll be happy to cooperate with you. okedem (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sir it's not a specific thing you said, but the whole of what you've said in this section. And I congratulate you on the work you have put into this article, very nice work indeed. And of course I'll be cooperating with you in any edits I make, I doubt you'd have it any other way! ;) Also, I wouldn't have it any other way either. I'm all about NPOV and Consensus. Beam 11:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, despite Imad Marie's tendency to incorrectly refer to Israeli-Arabs as 'Palestinians', we're not actually discussing discrimination against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. That is an entirely different subject altogether, which is covered extensively both under its own section and in related articles. The question here is whether there is merit in adding an entirely new subject area to the article, titled 'Discrimination', with regards to the status of Israeli Arabs. I don't believe we should, since it goes against common practice elsewhere on the 'pedia and there is a lack of formal and legal discrimination against Israeli Arabs. I don't doubt that there may be some casual societal discrimination, but this is something experienced by ethnic and cultural minorities the world over and is certainly not notable enough to deserve its own section. Okedem's entirely right in his assertion that doing so would hold Israel to a standard no other countries are held to on Wikipedia, which is definitely not what we should be aiming to achieve here. — Impi (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Impi, the examples of state-mediated discrimination identified eg here go a long way beyond "casual societal discrimination". As do the routine dual standards enforced with state authority eg in granting building and settlement permissions. Jheald (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The page you link to is very long, containing a whole lot of information about the general population of Israel. Can you please quote the specific points relating to discrimination of Israeli-Arabs? okedem (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Okedem, I fail to understand how you can be so dilusional in your belief that Isreal's civil rights situation is not unique. For someone who has contributed so much to this page it makes me question your neutrality in this matter. As for the article, I strongly support the creation of a discrimination sub-section. While I agree with you that other nations that possess civil rights issues do not have these sections, I believe that we should use this article as an example for others. Besides, the most widely accepted belief is not always the correct one. Were this the case there would be no progress, no one would have challenged slavery in America, Nazi extermination of Jews, and most importantly no one would have supported the creation of the modern day state of Isreal. All I am saying is that we should look beyond our own beliefs and realize that there is an excessive amount of discrimination in Isreal and it is worth mentioning in order to make this page more informative to its readers.Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's so useful of you. I asked for the specific points and facts, and you accuse me of being delusional. Productive. okedem (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Try not to attack Oke. He's just patriotic. Beam 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
And you, don't patronize. I see you don't really like dealing in specific facts, but baseless generalizations, but it's getting to be quite annoying. okedem (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
What? There's nothing wrong with being patriotic. I'm quite patriotic regarding my homeland. Beam 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
By saying I'm patriotic, you're voiding all my arguments as originating from a desire to protect my country. This is highly insulting. I'm here to write an encyclopedia. I'm here to write as objectively and fairly as possible. My arguments stem from logic and facts, not from my own feelings. Upon seeing a POV edit, or a badly sourced edit, I will revert it, regardless of which side it "favors". I've done that to edits from both sides often enough.
I deal with these articles on the English wiki because I have a lot of knowledge in the subject, and feel these articles require the most attention to become and remain NPOV and of high quality. On the Hebrew wiki, where I'm actually more active, I never even come close to political or conflict articles, dealing almost exclusively with articles relating to Chemistry, my profession. Here the chemistry articles are in much better shape, and I can't really help them, with my limited time.
I reveal my nationality on my user page so other users can know something about myself - what I know or can find out, not to be attacked for it.
I expect you, and the other users on this page, to refrain from further mentions of editors' nationalities. Don't attack editors, don't refer to their nationality or other traits. Discuss issues, facts, sources. If you disagree with me - that's fine. But don't "blame it" on my nationality. okedem (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? I didn't attack you. I'm not blaming anyone for anything. And, I didn't even say I disagree with you. In fact, I don't think there should be a section about discrimination. I do think that maybe a subsection is in order, or at least discrimination should me widely discussed within the article, because it is there. Beam 18:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
How about the suggestion that we create a section called "Human rights", where information can be presented in a balanced way, anyone objecting to that? Imad marie (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I object to that. The human rights situation in Israel is comparable to the Western world, and none of those articles have human rights section. We've been over this. You're trying to apply different standards to Israel. Israel is a liberal democracy, with universal suffrage, freedom of speech and organization, and the various other rights commonly cited as indicators of liberal democracies. While there might be some, limited, discrimination, such things can be found in most other countries, and are not significant human rights violations. okedem (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed let's write a 'Human rights' section because most of us agree that this scope is very important. In this let's state sourced facts and avoid comparisons to other countries -- which are out of scope. Much material is already available in this Talk section. Winetype (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
"Most of us"? What about all the people who object? What about all the people who worked on this article before, and supported this article for FA status, without a human rights section?
You're trying to apply a different standard to Israel. It will not fly. okedem (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't own this article. Just because you worked on it the past doesn't mean anything. Go read some Wikipedia policy, it states that if an article moves in a different direction, even one you're not happy with, that you're not to stand in the way. You do not own the article. Sorry Beam 15:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You pretend you have consensus, but you don't. Not even close. You ignore the fact the "Human rights" sections are extremely rare. You ignore the fact this article is a FA, and that means something. okedem (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Sorry man, again I didn't say anything you said I did. I didn't say anything about consensus. It's a fact that you don't own the article, and it's also a fact that FA status doesn't prohibit further editing. Go read some Wiki policy. It explicty states that if an editor works on an article for a long time, and does a great job it still doesn't give that editor ownership. And it also blatantly states that if an article starts to go in a direction you don't agree with, too bad. You don't own it. I had this same problem with an article myself, and have had to step back away from it. I understand what you're going through. Beam 18:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Again with the patronizing and the personal references. Hard to avoid those, eh?
To make changes in such an article, a heavily edited article, one that received FA status, you have to get consensus on the talk page. I'm discussing the topics, the comparison to other country articles, the specifics. You're accusing me of trying to "own" the article. Enough of this. okedem (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the thing Oke, you and your Tyrany of Numbers made up of the original or long time editors keep preventing well sourced information from getting in just because you don't like it]. I'm going to go dig up the Wiki Policy, maybe we all need a refresher. Beam 11:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Beam, you don't like it seems to apply more to you; one finger pointing, three pointing back. What about proposing something concrete instead of making general accusations and attacking other editors?? Novidmarana (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Beam, you seem to have no understanding of how editing works in Wiki. When an article receives FA status, that means a substantial number of editors have worked on it, and brought it up to high quality.
Once in a while someone like you comes in. Doesn't like what he sees. The article doesn't seem to fit his POV; in his eyes - it's not neutral. That someone has no knowledge or understanding of how the article came to be as it is. Has no understanding of the delicate compromises that formed to create this article. Doesn't understand how every word was a middle ground between opposing POVs, how much work was done, and how much thought was given to everything. The FA status ought to make that clearer, but sometimes it doesn't. Then he tries to make changes. The idea of consensus seems foreign to him. The article isn't right, and he'll fix it! He tramples the understandings, destroys the compromises, and drags us all down to another edit war. After a while, after a lot of wasted time and effort, we reach another delicate compromise, another middle-ground. Usually, it's pretty close to the old one. And then we wait for the next round of useless arguments over the same old points.
Well, same old.
Let me make this clear - nothing is perfect. An article can always be improved. But it must be done with great care. With good sources. Keeping in line with other articles, justifying every aspect of the change, and gaining wide agreement in the talk page. It must also be done with a positive attitude, one that doesn't assume things of the other editors on the page, one that assumes we are all here for the positive purpose of factual, neutral articles, even if we disagree over exactly what that means.
Now, here's the thing - I'm constantly trying to stick to the issues at hand, but your personal attacks and patronizing attitude make that very difficult. My questions remain unanswered. The points I raise don't seem to get a response, just another attack on my character, motives, or behavior. No real sources are brought in, and when they are - the person bringing them doesn't seem to want to follow up on them - as the silence to my above request testifies. Unless you can change your attitude, and start trying to collaborate, in the spirit of Wiki - I'm done discussing things with you. If you make non-consensual changes, I'll just revert you. You have to justify the changes, not I. okedem (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Oh boy. Honestly, you guys need a slight review of WP:OWN. Go ahead, I'll wait.... ok there we go. Anyway, at the slightest mention of apartheid or discrimination some editors here flip the freak out. These people have good sources regarding these POVs. Their inclusion is simply reverted by certain editors who say "This is a featured article." It's kind of disgusting. Than to accuse me of not knowing how editing works? You're biting editors who are trying their hardest to get good sources, and imo succeeding, and preventing this article from going in any direction that you don't condone. Beam 09:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely sure whether I should justify this with a response, but what about you concentrating on content instead of attacking and accusing other editors? Novidmarana (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
How can you honestly say that about Beam's comments? Simply because he presents a view that you don't agree with you accuse him of attcking others?! Why are there no similar accusations pointed at Okedem? If you look at the monologue just given by Okedem before Beam's comment you will see that he too clearly violated the exact same rules. If you're going to tell us to abide by the rules you must do so as well and try not to be so biased next time.Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I should justify you with a response, but hey I'm a giving type of guy. I support the editors who have came here with content that should be included in the article. They bring good sources and cites yet the ownership of this article won't let them. It stinks. Beam 13:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Beam, I think that inserting relevant material into existing sections in a neutral manner would be a good compromise. Imad marie (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I agreed to such a thing above, I said there isn't a concrete need for a section called apartheid or discrimination as long as the relevant information is inserted appropiately in the article, or even subsection are made to existing section. It's just that some editors either have ownership issues, or think that NPOV means pro-Israel. Neutral could be *gasp* negative towards Israel, if that's what the facts and sources show. It's a reluctance to even consider that which bothers me. Beam 13:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to take the time to respond to every comment in this section, but I find it absolutely ironic that some of the voices arguing that this article is, in some way, biased toward Israel are suggesting that the best way to rectify this perceived issue is to tip the scale to make the article anti-Israel. Let's cut the nonsense; this isn't about presenting information in a balanced way or making this article an example for country articles on Wikipedia. This is about Israel. There's no point in tiptoeing around the issue any longer; when the only contributions certain editors make to discussions about this article, and other related subjects, is accusations of bias toward Israelis, or against Palestinians, it's obvious the aim is more to advance a political point than create a good article. This article has undergone a series of reviews both before and after being awarded featured status, so the idea that you are eliminating some severe bias that has gone unnoticed for eight months is absurd.
The criticism of Israel's human rights situation is focused almost exclusively around the occupied territories (unlike in most other countries, where it's vis-a-vis how the government treats its own citizens within its own borders). We already have a section on the occupied territories, so if you want to expand that, as Okedem has already said, he is (and I am, too) willing to assist with improving it. We also have a demographics section that could conceivably discuss the Palestinian prescene in greater detail. However, this throwing stones from glass houses -- suggesting Okedem is just standing by his country, while ignoring the clear fact that some of you have some glowing conflicts of interests -- does nothing to tackle the issues, whatever those issues may be. -- tariqabjotu 14:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well said Tariqabjotu. Novidmarana (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Inserting relevant material in existing sections
It's hard to keep track of what every editor think in this long debate, but as far as I remember, most of the editors here agree on this compromise as long as the material is inserted in a neutral manner. Imad marie (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The owners of this Featured Article may object if this neutral content portrays Israel in even the slightest of negative light. I have had experience with nationalistic peoples within Wikipedia and they rarely allow changes that go against their personal POV without a fight. We'll see how this goes, but I of course support the neutral inclusion of content. Beam 14:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I see you know how to attack other editors; you've done that repeatedly and consistently. What you haven't done is offer any actual, NPOV, well sourced, content. When you do, it can be discussed. okedem (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not attack, Oke. I have simply supported the rights of other users to present content for inclusion. These editors deserve some good faith. Believe it or not, there are editors, other than the owners of the FA version of this article, that want to contribute in a neutral fashion to Wikipedia. I have dealt with nationals, and with some patience have had success bringing opposing parties together to form a neutral and informative article. While not everyone is always happy with contentious articles as these I hope I'll have this success with this article. Remember, consensus is ever changing. Beam 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Beam, what is the material you want inserted and where? personally I see the discrimination material fitting under "Demographics". Imad marie (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, I don't see the "Demographics" section giving enough weight for the Arab Israelis, which constitute 20% of the Israeli population. The section hardly mentions them (under a sub-section): "Making up 16.2% of the population, Muslims constitute Israel's largest religious minority. The non-Jewish Arab Israeli population, comprising 19.8%, ... ", I believe more weight should be given to Arab Israelis. Imad marie (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Please check the suggested structure for the Demographics section here. Of course this test section is not final and needs much more work, I'd just like to have some feedback about proposed structure. Imad marie (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
To evaluate this, I thought it might be useful to create a diff between the existing version and Imad marie's proposal. Now that I've seen the result, I'm not sure how helpful it is - but in any event if you want to see the diff, it is here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the diff is the right way to evaluate my proposal, the diff generator is not that intelligent to show you the real areas of differences.
About my proposal, the material remains almost the same, but I restructured the section; creating new sub-sections. IMO, this is more balanced, one reason is that the "Ethnic groups" is more important than "Israeli settlements". Imad marie (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Imad, in the new structure, you have a whole lot of material under "Settlements", which doesn't belong there at all. You have a section for ethnic groups which has only one sentence, and the lead of the entire Demographics section is now only a single, short sentence. This is really not organized, and not a very readable structure. I don't have an objection to creating a short "Settlements" section, though. okedem (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You are right, it's not organized. But before making the effort and organizing the material, I wanted to hear feedback about the proposed structure, with the new sub-sections. Imad marie (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I'm fine with the Settlements section, but I don't see the need for an Ethnic groups section, when we only have a single sentence there. Also, as Religion and Ethnic group are mixed (Jews are both an Ethnic group and a religion), the separation seems doomed to fail. I prefer the current structure (optionally with a new settlements section). okedem (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
"Ethnic groups" is IMO one important missing element from the current version, more important than other elements currently included, this section should give more weight to Israeli Arabs and it's a good place for insertion of the discrimination allegations. Perhaps merging "Ethnic groups" with "Religion" is a good idea. Imad marie (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
This is highly controversial, and a more neutral language should be presented. According to international laws, and according to the UN, East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel. And most embassies are located in Tel Aviv. Imad marie (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No reason to muck up[1] a featured article; Gain consensus first. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You call putting the "dubious" tag mucking up? Anyhow, my argument is already presented, there is international consensus that East Jerusalem is occupied by Israel, marking Jerusalem simply as the capital of Israel ignores all related international laws. I suggest a more neutral language. Imad marie (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You have yet to comment on the fact that the information already exists in a well-visible footnote. -- Ynhockey(Talk)
Really? So you want to put false information in the article, and then explain that in the footnote?! I advice you to come to your senses. Imad marie (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
And I advise you to stop personally attacking other users and review Wikipedia's policies before further vandalizing the page. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 19:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't put content inside footnotes, footnotes are just there to link or reference your sources. You put content inside the article. Imad marie (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Okedem, the factual accuracy of this article is disputed, there is no need for you to remove the tag. Also, about your bizarre edit summary here, since when we put content inside footnotes?! Imad marie (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently this is your first time encountering content in footnotes on Wikipedia. This is not uncommon, and footnotes (as opposed to references, although on Wikipedia they are often grouped) are intended to provide explanations for information inside the article where you don't have enough space for an elaboration. Okedem is 100% right. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
For any definition of the word "capital", Jerusalem is Israel's capital, de jure, and de facto. It's Israel seat of government, and Israel designated it as its capital - thus it's the capital. International recognition plays no part in this. Any objections other countries may have cannot change that simple fact, and that's why we should only mention them in a footnote for the lead. Yes, we do put content in footnotes, I don't know what you're surprised about.
I'm removing the tag. The article received FA status with this wording, which enjoys a wide consensus, for being factual and accurate. We can't place tags every time an editor is unhappy with something. okedem (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
First, this article being FA does not mean it's indisputable and untouchable, editors may have concerns about the neutrality and factuality about this FA.
Second, about Jerusalem, and about your later edit, concerning the occupation of West Bank and Gaza: East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza, are recognized by the international community to be occupied by Israel, there is an international consensus about this. Naturally Israel denies and opposes this, providing its own claims. What you are doing here, is that you are promoting minority views; Israel's view related to the international view is considered to be minor. We have an entire article talking about the complex situation of Jerusalem, putting the simple sentence "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" in this article would be way unfactual. Imad marie (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You're ignoring what I said. "Capital" is a simple word, found in every dictionary. If you go and search for it, you'll find the definition is usually "seat of government", or close to that. Jerusalem has been designated as capital by Israel, and so is the capital de jure. And it is Israel's seat of government - housing the Parliament, Government ministries, Prime Minister's quarters, President's quarters, Supreme Court and others - so it is the capital de facto. These are the simple facts. While other countries choose not to recognize Jerusalem's status as capital, they cannot change that status. By the very definition of the word, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. International recognition plays no part in this matter.
The difference between "held" and "occupied" is a fine legal matter, concerning the existence or lack thereof of a sovereign in the territory. For example, as Syria is the internationally recognized sovereign in the Golan heights, it is "occupied" by Israel. On the contrary, no country was recognized as legal sovereign in the West Bank or Gaza before or after 1967, and no country claims these areas (Jordan dropped its demand for the West Bank back in the '80s. The term "held" does not mean it's any less severe than occupation. Anyway, I won't argue over this, the distinction isn't very important.
The article being FA does not mean it's perfect. It does mean that the phrasing in it is in the consensus, and means that when an editor disagrees with something, they should not hastily place tags. They can discuss the issue on the talk page, but still - unless shown otherwise, the phrasing on the article most likely still represent the consensus, and so will remain. You have to understand something - few editors are completely pleased with the phrasings here. We reached them through a process of compromise. okedem (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There are a few facts that show that Jerusalem is not an undisputed capital of a country. To start with its eastern part is not part of a recognized country. Therefore we should not show 'Jerusalem capital' as a fact. We should expose the considerations to this end.
No-one says it's "undisputed", but that is irrelevant. The definition of capital does not require any recognition from other countries, the sole criteria being the seat of government, and the country's choice (look the definitions up). Embassies etc. have nothing to do with this. Thus, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. okedem (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to repeat that 'Jerusalem is Israel's capital'. I understand that this is important for you. This is not the point of my question. My point is that Jerusalem being capital is disputed. The 1st words of the capital article are 'A capital is the area of a country'. Whether the whole of Jerusalem sits in Israel is disputed. Therefore the capital status is debatable. You just wrote 'No-one says it's "undisputed"'. From there comes the question: should disputed notions appear above the table of contents: in the definition paragraphs and the top-right table? I propose that in these two sections we could simply replace 'capital' by 'biggest city': no dispute there any more but still the important mention of Jerusalem. Winetype (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I can repeat it a few more times, because it's the fact. International recognition is irrelevant, only the facts. And the facts are, Jerusalem answers the criteria for capital. Whether or not Israel should control the whole of Jerusalem is in dispute; the fact that Jerusalem serves as Israel's capital is not. Borders disputes etc. can't change facts. okedem (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes but you are hiding the fact that this is highly disputable, citing the dispute in a footnote is not enough. Imad marie (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not hiding anything. The dispute is secondary to the facts - Jerusalem is the capital. What other countries think of it is of lesser importance than the fact. The footnote calls enough attention to this. okedem (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a disputed fact and should therefore not be presented on top. Let's replace 'capital' by 'biggest city' in the parts above the Table of Contents. Winetype (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No. If France decided that Canberra shouldn't be Australia's capital and moved its own embassy to Sydney, that would not mean Canberra is no longer Australia's capital. If dozens of countries did this, it wouldn't change things. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
So what is disputed about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. Jerusalem is the seat of government and it is the capital according to the Jerusalem law. Thus Jerusalem is the effective and the official capital. What is disputed is whether East Jerusalem is a part of Israel or occupied by Israel, but that has no bearing on whether Jerusalem is the capital or not.
The fact that most countries choose not to recognise Taiwan as a country out of deference to China doesnt mean it cant claim to be a country. The capital of East Germany was Berlin even though the Western part of the city was in West Germany. Gacole (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting example. The capital of East Germany was East Berlin. Consequently it would be correct to say that West Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vic242 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If dozens of countries decided that Canberra shouldn't be Australia's capital and moved their embassies to Sydney, that would not mean Canberra is no longer Australia's capital. Yet it would imply that the Australia article should mention this fact to follow Wikipedia:NPOV.
Indeed there is a strong perspective to show that Jerusalem as a whole is seen by notable parties as not being the capital. This must be stated in the body of the article alongside the state POV. Explaining all this in the lead or the top-right box is too much. Winetype (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I opened a thread about this here. Imad marie (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Gaza and occupation
Calling Gaza "is occupied since 1967" was pretty absurd. It's also improper to inject controversial politics into the first paragraph.
Reverted. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right about that. Gaza is not occupied nowadays. (Sidenote - Gaza was occupied from 1948 to 1967 by Egypt, which had no legal right to the territory) I do think some note of it should be made in the lead - I mean, right now the phrasing is: "The West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are partially administrated by the Palestinian National Authority, are also adjacent", which begs the question - what about the other part? I mean, "partially administrated by the PLA" - so who administers the other part?
We need to find a good way to phrase this. I do think the occupation/administration of the territories deserves a mention. okedem (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
(reply to okedem) I haven't looked up the definition in the dictionary (not yet), however I'm sure this definition applies to non-occupied cities. Also, politically, Jerusalem has been divided into West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem , some claiming that the first is the capital of Israel and the later is the capital of the assumed future Palestinian state.
My point is, I think we all agree that Jerusalem has been the center of a very large dispute in the past 60 years, that's for sure, so you cannot put the simple statement: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", that would be ignoring all the opposite facts and claims. I'm looking for a more neutral language, though I'm not sure what this neutral language is yet.
About the occupation. Again, Israel occupies East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza, this is what the international community says. It's true there was not legal sovereign then, however that was the case at that time in the Mandate of Palestine following the Ottoman rule, and that's not an excuse to occupy the land from its inhabitants; the Palestinian people. Israelis strongly disagree with this, but what matters is that we present all significant views fairly. Imad marie (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
None of this matters to the question at hand. The way a place becomes the capital of a country is that the country selects it as such. There is no historical precedent for a third country, or a lot of third countries, to impose their opinion regarding the location of a sovereign states' capital. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because Israel says it is. That's how sovereignty works. And how Wikipedia works is that we report the fact that Jerusalem is capital of Israel; then, in the appropriate place, we report that this is controversial. The appropriate place isn't in the boilerplate information about countries. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, you're confusing the existence of a controversy over what should be, with what actually is. By the very definition of the word "capital", Jerusalem is Israel's capital. No amount of international scorn can change that fact. This is what we present. It's as simple as that. There are no "opposite facts" to this (actually, no "opposite facts" to anything - facts are facts). Occupation or non-occupation is irrelevant to that point, only thing that matters to this point are the facts - did Israel designate Jerusalem as capital? Yes. Is it Israel's seat of government? Yes. Thus - it's Israel's capital.
Regarding "occupation" etc. - I've explained my view. The justification for the wording "held" (or close) is the fine legal point, not trying to take land away from anyone. Fact is, the laws of occupation are applied to land captured from sovereigns, not land with no political designation, as the West Bank/Gaza. Also, Gaza is not occupied by Israel. Israel left it almost 3 years ago.
As I said, to compromise, I won't pursue this whole "occupied"/"held" point. okedem (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Image of Sports section
I think it'll be more appropriate to put the picture Ramat Gan Stadium with israel's fans rather than a league team.
I think that's a good idea. The Stadium picture is clearer, and more representative of sports in Israel. I've made the switch, hope no one objects. okedem (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Are the 3 operational Dolphin class submarine and the two additional ones which are 2x100% 1x50% and 2x33% gifts from Germany notable enough for the main article or should they be added to the military sub article ?--Stone (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably not notable enough for this article, although they may be notable enough for the Israel Defense Forces article, which is also a parent article to dozens of sub-articles. Also it needs to be mentioned of course in the article on Dolphin-class submarines, as well as the Israel Sea Corps article. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is the focus of a disinformation campaign
Read:
"A pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged.
A series of emails by members and associates of the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), provided to The Electronic Intifada (EI), indicate the group is engaged in what one activist termed a "war" on Wikipedia."
I can't imagine why editors on this page shouldn't be aware of this. It is also being discussed here. I don't think it describes existing editors - but I think it might well be relevant to future work on this page. Okedem, please be careful about deleting material from a talk page; I don't think your intentions are bad, but it seems that it might appear to others as an attempt to suppress information. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's irrelevant to this article; it's completely inactionable; and seems to be placed here merely to insinuate editors here are part of it, as was done in Talk:Jerusalem (maybe by the same editor, I don't know).
You'll forgive if I don't accept "electronicintifada.net" as a credible source, and regard their claims and interpretations as unreliable. I read part of the PDF they refer to, and did not find a basis for a claim such as : "pass off crude propaganda as fact". All I found were calls to make sure the articles are NPOV and accurate, in face of users trying to defame Israel with whole lies and half-truths, something I've watched happen too many times to count.
Do I think such "operations" are a good thing? No, I don't. But there's nothing to be done in the matter, except act according to Wiki policies, as always. It doesn't matter if users of a certain POV operate by group or not. Many of us find support for action from other editors, depending on the matter at hand. This is not the first nor the last time pressure-groups will try to use Wiki for some purpose, wholesome (working for accuracy and NPOV) or otherwise (distorting facts; using article to promote products). We must not pretend these things don't happen, or get too worried when they do. We need to follow Wiki policies and procedures, to ensure edits are backed by reliable sources, and phrased neutrally. Who makes the edits, and to what purpose, is, in the end, completely meaningless.
Such inflammatory comments have no place here, and keeping them is little more than feeding trolls. Furthermore, your last sentence is of great importance ("it might appear to others as an attempt to suppress information") - this is exactly the excuse users can apply to get any conspiracy theory/claim to remain on these pages, regardless of their relevance or veracity. okedem (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's there to reflect something that is happening. It is sourced and the source is sourced. It therefore lives up to its title.
It's very actionable: keep an eye out for deliberate and concerted disinformation. That simple really!- Original Poster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.91.231 (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
We're always doing that anyway. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Crap, they're onto us!--Woland (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Okedem, if there is no wiki rule breaking then you have no reason to remove a comment from a talk page. Talk pages exist to allow other views to be aired without affecting the main page. You may regard them as crazy or a conspiracy (as I too often do). However the fact remains you have no right to remove a comment unless both parties agree. I am not accusing you of hiding anything but I do second the request for you not to delete comments from talk pages. --Nano —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanolover (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages aren't for people's views, but for discussion on how to improve the article. That is their only reason for existence. Any comment which does not serve that purpose may be deleted. okedem (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree, the comments posted have nothing to do with the content of the article and to give creedence to such blatently biased opinions is nonsense.Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
disagree.
a discussion only exists if there are diference in opinions, or alternatively, if everyone had the same opinion, there would be no discussion. The concept of "uselessness" is for most part subjective, therefore passive to debate.
Whereas a comment on the talk page MAY not have a imediate "usefull" purpose (by your definition), erasing it effectivelly negates ANY possible use.
One should not use an absolute remedy for a relative problem.
because this is a talk page, opinions written here should be kept, barring exceptional and extenuating circumstances.129.252.69.43 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree that these discussion pages were not meant originally for airing views. But that is what most evolve to and the edits grow out of the discussions. You have been a main player in many discussions on these pages. I don't think it's too much to ask you not to delete comments. If you feel they are inappropriate, fair enough, say so and get support. Because lets face it you (or me) are not the voice of wikipedia. I strongly suspect the authors of the deleted comments would contest that their comments are, at least indirectly, discussions on the articles. Please don't think this is a personal attack on you. As I said before I don't think you have been up to anything like this section accuses. However I do think given you extensive interactions on this page you should strive to be transparent to avoid possible future accusations. --Nanolover —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanolover (talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand your view, and I don't take it as an attack. Please understand that if we allow every irrelevant comment to remain here, this would quickly turn into another "conflict discussion forum", and become useless as an article talk page. I say again, and this is stated right at the top of the page - this page is solely for the purpose of discussing ways to improve the article. Anything else should be deleted. This specific comment was in a grey area - it does relate to the article, but it serves no purpose, and is inactionable. okedem (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This is very scary, but okedem it's not inactionable. To say that is to be blind. I have developed an interest in this article, and after reading the story on EDI (which although seems to be nothing more than opinions framed as news), and this particular story looks legit. I'll be keeping an eye out for such editors appearing. Beam 02:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It is inactionable, since there's nothing to be done, that isn't already being done. Every edit requires neutral phrasing and reliable sources. Regardless of the editor's motives or affiliations, these requirements don't change. On pages as contentious as these, every edit is subject to review by multiple editors, and these rules are applied. Thus, nothing more can be done to avert this risk. okedem (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Turkish army
I am writing regarding a perhaps overlooked statement on your web page. I would greatly appreciate if you could help clarify that statement. Specifically, it says:
"Of the 19 states in this broad region, only 2 Israel and Turkey are democratic (though in Turkey the military still retains a veto on many important issues)."
This was taken from a USAID web page, however does not reflect an accurate picture of Turkey to outsiders.
Army is an important component of Turkey because Turkish culture has always been influenced by army culture. From very early ages of history, Turks appreciated horse riding, bowing, sword fighting, wrestling, etc. Therefore, the role of army in Turkey and its perception among Turkish people is perhaps different than that in some other countries in the world. The dynamics are different. In a way, army is people and people are army.
For example, in Turkey, every young man has to do his military service before he can be counted a "real man". A lot of times marriage or job decisions are deferred because a young man has not completed the army service yet.
Having said that, Turkey has made a lot of progress on democracy. The country is ruled by democratically elected local and state government. Army DOES NOT retain a veto on many important issues. When you make a statement like "the military still retains a veto on many important issues" it is incorrect. There is an 70 year of democracy in Turkey, and it seems to work well.
I think the statement needs to be revised to reflect the current picture more adequately.
Since the passage is referenced with a source considered reliable, you would have to come up with another reliable source that says something different about the issue in order to argue successfully for a change here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I am bringing up valid concerns about a distorted statement, which sounds funny. I think people can provide "reliable" sources for many different points. As it is right now, it sounds very insulting to Turkey and Turkish people. I am only bringing it up really. You can take this feedback and do whatever you want to do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.98.167 (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully beg to differ. That USAID is WP:RS is debatable. Personally I cannot see that it fits the criteria. Therefore I propose to simply delete the disputed sentence. Winetype (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody show how USAID is RS? If nobody objects I'll delete the disputed sentence. Winetype (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is from WP:RS: a source must have 'a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. USAID has not. Winetype (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Another person states that the statement is no NPOV: quoted from above in the Talk: "There are no glowing reivews of Israels democracy as far as I can tell - unless you count the comparison with Arab states." So I am deleting.
Someone has already deleted the disputed part today. So I guess it's settled. Winetype (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
We should reintroduce the statement in a modified form, using for example the Democracy Index by The Economist as a source. This index rates Israel the highest in the Middle East, followed by Palestine (though the index was compiled before Hamas assumed power in Gaza) and then Turkey. Novidmarana (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
So the source is outdated. Nevertheless it could be interesting to find an up-to-date assessment. In my view spelling out 'democracy' cannot come without mentioning human rights concerns and civic rights. Solution: create a 'Human rights' section. Winetype (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Democracy is Israel's system of government, and that's why we mention it in the lead, just like in other country article. There, too, there's no mention of human rights, and no connection between stating the system of government, and the human rights situation. okedem (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Editing process - avoid massive changes in a single edit
Quite apart from the actual content of the edits performed today by User:Winetype, which I'm sure quite a few people will have concerns about, I would imagine it is preferable to make changes in smaller chunks. A very substantial re-write like this is difficult to unpack and assess. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining this. I am now editing small chunks.Winetype (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Israel has had a long and eventful history. During the FA (Featured Article) discussions, a lot of work was done to make the article, including the history section, more concise. I can't really see a way to cut it down further. If you think specific sentences or details could be dropped from the section, without hurting completeness - please detail them here. okedem (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it seems difficult to cut it down further. All the details are meaningful. It's just that it actually takes a big chunk of the page. Which is why I propose to simply keep the summary which we already have and migrate the rest (to History of the State of Israel or History of the Jews in the Land of Israel).
Winetype (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to do so. If one doesn't wish to read the history section, they can simply go to the following sections. The history paragraph in the lead is way too short, and removing the historical information from the article would badly hurt it. I encourage you to review some other country articles, and see the history sections there are much, much longer than the summary you propose we leave here. okedem (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The History section is way too long, not every detail is meaningful enough to be here. I will review the history section and present which details I feel need to be dropped. Beam 02:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed many country articles - some have shorter history sections, some have longer (like Bulgaria), and most have history sections of the same approximate length as this article. I see no need to shorten it. That said, if you find specific details which are of little interest, removing them could improve the article. okedem (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oke you seem to forget one thing: all those other countries have existed for more than 60 years!!! If you look at it relative to the length of existance than this article's history section is WAYYYYYY too long.
With this being a fact, and per WP:SUMMARY we should shorten it asap. Beam 00:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you have no idea which countries I'm talking about, so why do you assume they've existed for so long? Israel is a young country, but there are a whole lot of younger countries out there.
Anyway, by that logic, the history sections of countries like Montenegro, Kosovo and East Timor ought to be about one sentence long, whereas Japan's ought to be about 20 pages long. As you can plainly see, that is not the case. The time of a country's existence is not a parameter in this. Mind you, this article achieved FA status with this history section, so its length seems fine to many experienced editors. okedem (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that there are established guidelines for the length of a 'History' section. Okedem is understandbly intent on having it long. The balancing idea is to have a country article that stays of a reasonable length and moves further explanations to other articles.Winetype (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(I've corrected your link to my page)
I also don't know if there are guidelines regarding this specific point, but I don't think there's much need for those. The section isn't especially long, in comparison to other articles. There's obviously no relation between a country's age and the length of the section, so that's meaningless. Now, even if there are guidelines, we also have our common sense, since every case is special. Israel has had quite a turbulent history, which merits some extra space.
If you think we can shorten the section, without removing important information, please make your suggestions. I say that honestly, I have no special preference for the text now, or to the specific length. I don't think we can shorten it a lot, but maybe some details here and there. I do ask you raise the suggestions here, so we can discuss them, and not make them directly in the article. FAs do deserve some more gentle treatment. okedem (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
When the history section was written there was no decent history of Israel. since there now is a significant seciton with that title we could try cutting down the history section.
Telaviv1 (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh I like that! So we have two good articles on the history of Israel. We could move the current content of the History section to them. We could also move the 2nd paragraph of the article down to fill in the History section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winetype (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hold on. A user shouldn't have to go to a separate article just to read some history. Review other country articles, and you'll see the lengths of their history sections are similar to this one. I oppose any radical cut-down. If you'd like to suggest specific details to be removed, or shorter phrasing - please do. okedem (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, "Other countries are doing it", isn't a good excuse. I have been slacking on reviewing it lately. But when I read the whole article about 3 or 4 times I remember thinking it was long. But you're right none the less, we should always discuss changes first, which I know I will. Beam 11:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The length of the History section is appropriate for a country article. Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Jews return
The current article sentence is 'Jews living in the Diaspora have long aspired to return to Zion'. This is factually false on several accounts. Almost all 'Jews living in the Diaspora' were not born in Palestine or Zion. Therefore there was and is an impossibility for each or any of them to 'return' to Palestine or Zion. What is true is that more and more Jews aspired to settle in Palestine. The related Jewish political movement is Zionism. Using 'long' as a description is vague and thus has no place in an encyclopedia. The Zionism doctrin was shared by nobody at the start and then by more and more people. Still there has been a steady opposition: many Jews opposed the idea of creating a nation state in Palestine. Some still do ([2], [3], [4], [5].)
More generally the term 'return' goes against NPOV. It tries to encompass the Jewish people as a single (monolithic) entity having moved out of the land of Israel and now moving back in. The historical facts are more complex and should thus be explained.
(The term 'law of return' is a historical fact.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winetype (talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The return to Zion has been central to Judaism since the Jews were expelled from it. The return is of a people to their homeland, not of a single person. Judaism revolves around Israel, and nowhere else. That's why, for instance, we have the verse: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten" (Psalm 137:5). The return to Israel is separate from the establishment of a state there (Zionism). The main religious opposition to Zionism is that the Jews should wait for the coming of the Messiah, and then re-establish the Jewish kingdom in Israel. That's how several Ultra-Orthodox communities live in Israel, but oppose the state.
"Long" - if you'd prefer "for two-thousand years" instead, I wouldn't object. okedem (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining the difference between the political and religious oppositions. So we have two types of oppositions to settling in Palestine -- which are two arguments against the article simply saying 'Jews [...] have long aspired to return to Zion'. An explanation would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winetype (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you missed the point. The Ultra-orthodox Jews did and do want to live in Israel (the region), they just don't think there should be a sovereign Jewish state there until the messiah comes. There were and are pragmatic oppositions to Zionism, but the concept of returning to Israel is central to Judaism. okedem (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Winetype is right. The article as it's written now makes it sound like these Jews were already there and are simply just going back. We should work on rewording it or at least including an explanation so that the reader understands the inference. Beam 00:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it seems unclear, we can rephrase it. Perhaps something along the lines of "The aspiration to return to Zion has been a central tenet of Judaism for two-thousand years". okedem (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The above phrasing is marvellous. I wonder if it's useful to place it in a article about Zionism, though. If we decide it is then we could balance it with an explanation of the dissiding views: orthodox and diasporic.Winetype (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the country wouldn't exist without Zionism, I think it's essential for this article. I'll get back to you about the objections, but I do think we can incorporate that issue. okedem (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... return would still need to be explained. I mean I understand the way you put it, but that's because, obviously, I know the history. What about The aspiration to live in/occupy/inhabit/settle in/to Zion has been a central tenet of Judaism for two-thousand years Also, what's the source for this? Beam 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not just "we heard Israel's great, let's go there". It's - "our people came into being in Israel, we ruled there independently for centuries, our holiest city is there, we want to come back, live in our holy land, our ancestral land, again". It's a return, and this is important. This is the whole point.
I haven't looked up a source, but it shouldn't be difficult. okedem (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh... I see. Why don't you just put it like that. "Jews want to live here because they lived here thousands of years ago." If that's how you feel it is... and of course source it. Beam 14:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Okedem's version is good; there's no question it is return, at a collective level. Also don't forget that there has been a continuous Jewish presence there for centuries. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Okedem phrasing is very good but it explains Judaism not Zionism. Furthermore the 'return' will must be balanced by explanations of what return means (it's 'as a nation') and of dissiding idea currents (orthodox and diasporic); Winetype (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Zionism is based in Judaism, it's not separate. I don't know how you want to explain the return thing. Can you suggest a phrasing?
I'll think about phrasing the objections, but I don't want to make the history section even longer than it already is. okedem (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
How's about the word "reclaim" 207.164.21.130 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is another phrasing -- it could be placed further down in the article:
Zionism is about the Jewish nation collectively 'returning' to Palestine. The 'return' must not be understood on an individual basis in so far as the Jews living in the Diaspora were not born in Palestine. The modern Zionism movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe.[9]'.
According to Eliezer Schweid the rejection of life in the Diaspora is a central assumption in all currents of Zionism.[10] Underlying this attitude was the feeling that the Diaspora restricted the full growth of Jewish national life. It is therefore understandable that much Jews outside of Palestine resisted Zionism in the XXth century[citation needed].
There's nothing whatsoever wrong with the current wording. Jews have indeed longed for a "return" to Israel - and there's no need to use the roundabout "Zion" in its place. Despite the fact that 90% of Palestinians were not born in Israel, they also insist on a "right of return". Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)g
I inserted a mention of Plan D in the section 1948 war, with 2 separate sources. Okedem deleted it with the comment "rv - Pappe is not an RS; this was civil war, with these villagers attacking Jewish villages; concurrently, Arabs raided Jewish villages, expelling Jews (like in Kfar Etzion". So we have one reliable source and one disputed source but a blaring ommission of an important fact (Plan D). How can we mention it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winetype (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Plans of a disputed nature aren't very important. The actions are. When you insert a claim like: "Israeli military units led by David Ben-Gurion raided hundreds of villages and made the inhabitants flee", you are ignoring the whole story (and inadvertently misleading our readers). The facts are, the situation was civil war. Arabs were attacking Jews, Jews were attacking Arabs. The Arab villages that were attacked were, in most cases, bases of very hostile population, used for launching attacks against neighboring Jewish villages and nearby roads (like the road to Jerusalem). During the war, Arabs attacked many Jewish villages and towns, trying to kill and expel Jews. In some cases they succeeded, like in Kfar Etzion, Kfar Darom, etc. The Jordanian Legion expelled all the Jews from the Old City's Jewish quarter, for instance.
A point to remember is this - in the territory of Palestine conquered by the Arabs states no Jews remained. They killed or expelled them all. In Israel some 20% of the post-war population was Arab, mostly from villages who chose not to attack Jews.
Just mentioning Arabs were expelled, without discussing the causes, and entire scenario, and the Arabs' actions (before the war too), is misleading. okedem (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's misleading. But clarification can't hurt. But when you "In Israel some 20% of the post-war population was Arab, mostly from villages who chose not to attack Jews." it is misleading. Beam 01:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not just clarification. You can't tell only one side of the story. You either tell it all, or relegate it other articles.
And I see nothing misleading about what I wrote. It's entirely factual, and I'm saying it here, in the context of a discussion. okedem (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
here is another source talking about it. Page 2. Imad marie (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added the discussed mention into the article, with the 3 references. Winetype (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted that. You're painting a very one sided picture here. The situation was that of civil war, with armed units on both sides, and raids on villages of both sides. Arabs attacked many Jewish villages, killing people and expelling them. They did that long before the war too, just attacking civilians, because they're Jews. They managed to expel Jews from quite a few villages, and tried to do so to a great many others. I don't know if they have a plan for that, or were just trying to kill every Jew they knew about, but the result stays the same. I will not let you talk about just one half of the facts here. okedem (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
He has put in severely sourced content, you don't have a right to remove it per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I refuse to get in an edit war, please reinstate this content. Thank you. Beam 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, this article will be on the main page in less than an hour. Edit wars on the main page featured article do not result in page protections, but blocks for those involved. Please keep that in mind going forward. - auburnpilottalk 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
So, will you revert Okedem's changes prior to this edit protection? Beam 00:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Okedem has been reverting many things he probably does not like. According to WP:NPOV: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'." It would be more constructive to try to improve the passages in question. As you know the policy states "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." So here is a proposal of a version for the 1948 war. It takes into account competing approaches. Someone could improve on it and post it.
In April and May 1948 The Zionist units enacted their plans to seize the land, primarily Plan D[16], completed on March 10, 1948[17][citation needed]!!!. Israeli military units led by David Ben-Gurion raided hundreds of villages and made the inhabitants flee[18]. Some Arabs attacked neighboring Jewish villages and nearby roads (like the road to Jerusalem)[citation needed]. Jews were expelled from Kfar Etzion and Kfar Darom[citation needed].
The State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948, one day before the expiry of the British Mandate for Palestine.[19] Not long after, five Arab countries – Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq – attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.[19] The Jordanian Legion expelled all the Jews from the Old City's Jewish quarter[citation needed].
I believe this is a good version, Zionists had plans to expel Palestinians from Palestine, this is referenced, the above passage seems good version to present this information. Imad marie (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Still not representative enough of the facts of civil war, and the continuous Arab aggression. There's no mention here of the fact the Arabs were attacking Jews in Palestine for years, requiring the Jews to arm themselves for self-defense. There's no mention of the fact that many of the villages were of hostile population, and served as bases for attacks on road and Jewish towns. Also, the sources used are very one sided. Pappe is not an RS by any stretch of that word, Khalidi has a very obvious POV to his writings, and the NYT articles clearly talks about one perspective - and here in the text it's treated as "the truth". okedem (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
In an article related to Israel, it is undue:weight to talk about the controversy (!!!) concerning the Plan Daleth. This is quite obvious. First, what Walid Khalidi (and later Pappé) wrote concerning Plan Dalet was not followed by the other historians. This is highly controversial. Secondly, this plan is really anecdotical in that war. It was written by soldiers in march and was not transmitted to OC before june.
On the other hand, It must be written that around 750,000 Palestinians fleg or were expelled. But without more development. These events are at the heart of the 1948 conflict and with the Independence of Israel, this is the main consequence of that war.
I cannot easily find anything about the working week / non-working days, except that the official day of rest is Saturday. Maybe something could be added to this article or Culture of Israel or somewhere where it is easily found. Nurg (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Israel has a 6-day work week, Sunday-Friday, although some offices are closed on Friday, which is a half-day. --Gilabrand (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Israel topics
On the article Israel there is no Template:Israel_topics. Many country or high-level articles have such templates. It is convenient for showing sub-articles. I propose that we add it. Springwalk (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually there is a template. I just saw it now. Please consider the question closed. Springwalk (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
universal suffrage?
if this isn't subjective politics, I don't know what is. I wouldn't comment but this is the first thing that pops up when I go to the Wikipedia main page. should be an embarrassment to all 148.87.1.170 (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
and your comment is an embarassement to you. Novidmarana (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! You are the first person to complain about the article's potential bias while the article's on the Main Page! Take a look at universal suffrage, and you'll see Israel fits the criteria outlined there accurately. Further, the line which mentions Israel's universal suffrage is sourced. -- tariqabjotu 00:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, you could have avoided massive embarrassment merely by replacing "this is the first thing that pops up when I go to the Wikipedia main page" with "this is today's featured article". --70.124.85.24 (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
actually universal suffrage there is a caveat by Israel. would be appropriate for that same caveat to be included here. and what happened to no personal attacks??? 148.87.1.170 (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
But it's a silly caveat. It presumably refers to people who are not Israelis. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You attacked yourself. I'm just rubbing it in, that's all. --70.124.85.24 (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No, what you are doing is personally attcking others over something that they have every right to question.Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Main page
Wow, we're the featured article. everybody, brace yourselves. :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Your enthusiasm is nice. The 'we' and 'everybody' are specious. It shows that you consider that this article belongs to Israel-lovers. According to the Wikipedia policies it should not belong to anybody. Competing perspectives are encouraged (Wikipedia:UNDUE). Winetype (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It shows no such thing. "We" here simply refers to those who edit on this page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity is correct. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
...and given the immediacy of the response, Steve was clearly prescient when he warned people to 'brace themselves'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Grammar
Umm, perhaps a small quibble, but the word meanwhile in the first paragraph seems to be less than the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia, much less a featured article. Maybe its just me though...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.237.213 (talk • contribs)
Early roots
It's just a quibble, but the reference in the "early roots" section to the Bible being placed in the late 2nd millennium BC isn't correct - the composition of the Torah is usually placed in the mid-1st millenium BC. A PBS tv documentary isn't a very good source to quote on this. Also, the term "Judaism" isn't normally used for anything before the Second Temple period (latter half of the 1st millenium) - the usual term for the religion of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel is Yahwism. (Oh, congrats on being FA). PiCo (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an excellent point. We lack a source to change it as you say. Winetype (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Try Finkelstein & Silberman's David and Solomon. They have the Deuteronomist writing under Josiah (pp. 23-24 of the French edition, no idea on the page numbers in the English one; they refer to The Bible Unearthed for more info, but I haven't got that yet). The lead's "The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), a concept central to Judaism for over three thousand years" doesn't gel with their reconstruction. "Nearly three thousand" would be closer to their estimate. Angus McLellan(Talk) 22:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
civil war, 1947
It is a mistake not to state that the passing of 1947 UN Partition Plan led to (or was followed by) a civil war. Simply stating that Israel declared independence the following year and the Arab states suddenly chose to invade the next day makes it look like there was nothing else going on up until then, or that only a formal inter-state war occurred; in fact, the Arab states essentially intervened in a violent conflict that was already ongoing between the Jewish and Palestinian communities.
Ommitting this simple information seriously changes the impression one gets of the whole period. Although we should by no means go into any details, it would take a sentence or less to simply mention that conflict/violence ensued after Resolution 181.Bob Praz (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If you've got any reliable sources on that subject, feel free to add it. -- Kesh (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm waiting for this article to be unprotected or until I'm autoconfirmed. If anyone happens to edit it themselves meanwhile, this is a source: Vincent Cloarec and Henry Laurens, Le Moyent-Orient au 20e siècle, Armand Colin, Paris, 2007 (ISBN2200266141 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum)Bob Praz (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
In the current revision of the opening paragraph it says: "The West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are occupied by Israel since 1967 but partially administrated by the Palestinian National Authority, are also adjacent." Would Gaza be considered occupied by Israel? Not to engage in any political discussions, but it 'is' run by Hamas, not Israel. While Israel does control the borders, Hamas runs the show in there. In the West Bank there is shared responsibility between Israel and Fatah. So would we really consider Gaza "occupied" by Israel? Israel pulled out from there in 2005 during the Unilateral Disengagement. Valley2city 04:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Israel doesn't control the borders of the strip, just it's own borders. The Gaza-Egypt border is controlled by Hamas and Egypt. We didn't quite find a good phrasing for that, one that wouldn't be too awkward and long. If you can think of something, that would be great. okedem (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "occupied" is not the right word for Gaza. But, in relation to borders: yes, the border with Egypt is controlled by Hamas and Egypt, but Israel controls Gaza's access to the sea (and perhaps the right word is "prevents" - though that might be too strong). In more general terms, Israel still regulates key aspects of Gaza's interactions (travel and trade, in particular) with the rest of the world. Again, not occupation - but also, not nothing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to concur: Israel does not occupy Gaza but controls most borders and the air. Winetype (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It also supplies/restricts Gaza with electricity. add? trespassers william (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Egypt has built a wall, lol. I mean seriously, Israel is still the occupier there, controlling what goes in, and what goes out. Beam 10:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Beam -- as you know this no place to make fun of a group of people.
Nomoskedasticity -- please avoid personal remarks.
Both -- We can be constructive by playing by the rules. Winetype (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not making fun of anyone. What does that mean? Beam 11:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there not 18 yr old girls in Israel? And your text above mine clearly agrees with me, so what's your problem? I've studied Israel for about 4 years now, basically from a military stand point, as I'm very impressed with their military ability. I'm now just started to study the culture side of Israel. If you don't mind, I'll be sticking around, and even if you do mind, I'll be sticking around. Beam 11:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
beam -- Some of your remarks border on insulting. I suggest that you take a break from Israel-related articles for a few hours. Then -- of course -- please come back and contribute. Winetype (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
So does anyone have an idea to a potential rewording of this sentence? Valley2city 17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
In the end, I'm not sure if discussing Gaza would be too much detail for a summary that relates mainly to Israel itself, so I think the best option would be to make a footnote specifying the status of Gaza. I think the original sentence still correctly describes the "official" status of the territories, but trying to describe de facto situations on the ground would complicate things too much and should be left to other sections and/or other articles.99.241.36.140 (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Moving Gaza to a footnote would be unbalanced. Let's say things simply in the opening paragraph:
The West Bank and Gaza Strip are also adjacent.
The complexity of the situation can be presented in a modified version of the relevant section. It could start someting like so:
The term was also used to encompass the Gaza strip. In 2005, Israel removed all of its residents and forces in the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the West Bank as part of its unilateral disengagement plan. Israel still controls Gaza's access to the sea and to the air. Israel also regulates Gaza's travel and trade with the rest of the world[citation needed].
What do you think? Springwalk (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I am editing the change proposed above. Winetype (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion
Now that Wikipedians have collaborated tirelessly on making this a Featured Article, and now that it's on the main page, I suggest that a delegation of Wikipedia editors get on the first flight to Tel Aviv as diplomats. If we can achieve peace on Wikipedia, we can achieve peace in the Middle East! In all seriousness, excellent work on this article. pinotgris 04:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but the article needs a lot of work. It almost reads like a brochure for Israel. And before "certain" editors say "Look at other countries blah blah blah", I'd say that people who live in a country shouldn't be the main forces behind that country's article. Because it turns into a brochure. And when you have a country in which 80% have the same religion, than people with that religion also sympathize with the country leading to more editors with a bias. I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened here, as I just recently garnered an interest in this article.
Let me also note that my interest was prior to it becoming a featured article, I wish I had been here months before that. But, I'm here now, yay! Beam 10:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
"I'd say that people who live in a country shouldn't be the main forces behind that country's article... And when you have a country in which 80% have the same religion, than people with that religion also sympathize with the country leading to more editors with a bias." Excuse me, but, at the risk of sounding arrogant, I think it's quite clear that I was the primary (although not the only) force behind bringing this article up to featured status last (Northern) summer. I am neither Israeli nor Jewish, so I'd appreciate it if you were to keep your presumptuous comments to yourself. Articles do not become featured just because a few people working on the article, Jewish, Israeli, or otherwise, say so. This article has undergone a good deal of peer review from many editors on Wikipedia. Sure, an article never is perfect, but you suggestion that bias is seeping from this article is ridiculous. Everyone seems to have an opinion on this topic, and there's always someone who thinks there isn't enough condemnation of X, Y, and Z. If you have improvements in mind, suggest them on the talk page (or, if they're not too drastic, change them in the article). -- tariqabjotu 13:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you read what I said at all? Or did you just read those lines and flip out like a (Personal attack removed)? Read it again, than you can apologize if you want. Beam 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I read what you said, and I'm not issuing an apology, especially when you suggested I'm a "kid throwing a tantrum". I know you said "I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened here", but the meaning of your comment is obvious (This article is biased because it's written by Jews and Israelis.). Your last couple sentences do not make up for your allegation. It's too late; you alleged it (and in your first paragraph, it doesn't sound like there exists any uncertainty about its truth). -- tariqabjotu 17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
First off I didn't make this a new section. Second off, I said I just got here, I wasn'there when the article was made, so I don't know how it was made. And you continue to make poor assumptions and accusations regarding...well accusations that I never made. So continue, at least you're entertaining. Beam 22:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I made a separate section out of your concerns because they seemed unrelated to the overall section. -- Kesh (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't. If it bothers you that much delete my comments. I was just responding, I do not want to start a new section. Apparently my general comments have angered some editors, so I might delete them anyway. I simply was stating my view of contentious articles and possibility of bias combined with tyranny of numbers could lead to a brochure like article. I didn't want to piss people off to the point they become upset. Beam 22:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
We should not delete discussion statements. (I am not accusing anybody of doing it.) Springwalk (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Wording "Israel's main financial center"
De last sentence of the opening paragraph states:
"Jerusalem is the country's capital, seat of government, and largest city,[1] and Israel's main financial center encompasses Tel Aviv."
It think this needs a rewording. It should probably be "...and it's main financial center encompasses Tel Aviv." or "and it has Israel's main fincancial center." If no objections I will change to the first alternative. Pukkie (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the entire sentence is misleading. I'll leave you to choose the wording, but it should say that Jerusalem is the capital and largest city, while the Tel Aviv metropolitan area is the main financial center. The word 'encompasses' inserted here in any way is confusing. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 07:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a wording based on yours:
Jerusalem is the seat of government and largest city, while the Tel Aviv metropolitan area is the main financial center.
This wording avoids the word capital not because Jerusalem would not be the capital but because a disputed fact should not appear in an opening paragraph but rather it should be presented further down (with competing views). Winetype (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Capital is a word, a word that describes Jerusalem accurately. If certain countries and organizations do not want to recognize it as such as a punitive measure (much in the same way most Arab countries don't recognize Israel as a punitive measure), that's their prerogative. However, that does not change the fact that, by all definitions, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Recognition by other countries as such is not a prerequisite for it being considered that. -- tariqabjotu 13:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Tariqabjotu (talk·contribs) contests the presence of the following clause in the article lead (edit), following the discussion of Israel's human development ranking and press freedom ranking:
stating that "information about human rights abuses are almost never put in the introductions of country articles; this paragraph has been examined significantly, so bring suggestion to the talk page".
Seems to me that you can't have it both ways. It's important for Wikipedia's credibility that this article is balanced, not (as somebody put it above) a "brochure".
The clause is well-sourced (citing the US State Department [6]; and Amnesty International [7]), and accurately reflects the comments of the lead at Human rights in Israel, which it links.
If the article is going to blazon the best points of the Israel's human rights environment (and why not), then for balance it should also reference the limitations. I note that there is already concern that the article needs more balance on this point expressed further up on this talk page.
I have thought about Tariqabjotu's comment, but for these reasons I am reverting. Jheald (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Tariq opposes the paragraph, only its inclusion in the lead section, and I agree. Countries with a much worse human rights record (e.g. Iran) don't have it mentioned in the lead because it's not as important as other information about a country. Israel's human rights record is already covered extensively both overall in Wikipedia, and in this article in particular. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 14:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You ignored my point entirely. There are several countries around the world known for egregious human rights abuses, and almost none of their articles state that they have been criticized for potential human rights abuses in the introduction. And they shouldn't be. "De facto discrimination against minorities?" The same could be said about the United States, but it would be laughable to include that in that article's introduction. Points about Israel's human rights record are mentioned in the body, so the idea that this article reads like a brochure is unfounded bitterness. If, however, you think that part of the article could be developed further, you'd more likely receive less resistance there.
Let me remind you that this article, and specifically the third paragraph of the introduction, has been discussed extensively, over several months, before and after the article was made featured. It has evolved, but only after lengthy discussions. Until I prompted you to come here, you had not even so much as made a comment about your change. We can't just let people like you be judge, jury, and executioner for what is or is not balanced. It's discuss first, then change; don't short-circuit the collaborative process. -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. Everyone gets to be judge, jury, and executioner -- at least for one edit. Even "people like me". :-)
There are articles which do mention human rights in the lead, for example Saudi Arabia. But more to the point, it's unusual for articles to highlight countries' democratic credentials in the lead, and even more unusual to trumpet their free press. If you're going to open a discussion on political and human rights in the lead like that, then per everything WP stands for, the discussion has to be balanced. It cannot just cherry-pick the most favourable aspects.
Secondly, if you read the State department report, you'll see that there is a lot more instutionalised and state-mediated discrimination than you would say about the United States. That difference is important.
And no, I don't think it is particularly well covered in the body of the article. Interestingly the general word "discrimination" doesn't appear once in it at all. Nor any of the specific ways highlighted by the State department report in which Israeli Arabs are given second best, and treated like second-class citizens. It does not appear in the body -- not even a reference.
So, like several contributors above, I fear this article is not well balanced. The last paragraph of the intro is perhaps especially poorly balanced and brochure-like. This half a line I thought would make it more even-handed. Jheald (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
We have talk pages because this isn't about one person deciding what should be in the article. The present state of the article was not just due to what one person -- myself or anyone else -- wanted in the article. Many people who initially disagreed about the state of the third paragraph discussed the matter on the talk page, and came to an agreement on something with which both sides were satisfied. They came to consensus. The version agreed by multiple parties is what we have now. You are free to disagree with it, but you are going to open up another discussion about the paragraph (as you sort of have done now).
Indeed, there is discussion about inserting more information surrounding human rights, but none of the discussion in #Discrimination is about the introduction. Your addition of that is not supported by that thread. Further, the discussion there is still ongoing; wait it out or participate (which you haven't done so far). We are not "highlighting [Israel's] democratic credentials". We are summarizing the article by talking about its political structure and its economic standing. This is a formula used in many other featured country articles, including Japan, Peru, and Germany. The fact that other countries in the Middle East do not match Israel's political and economic standing is not Israel's fault and does not mean that mentioning Israel's standing in this article is a tacit put-down of Arab countries.
Now onto the actual comparisons ("Israel ranks high among Middle Eastern countries on the bases of human development, freedom of the press, and economic competitiveness."). This is perhaps the most interesting aspect, in part because it was not included in what I believe is the last major discussion about this paragraph. However, one could argue (and I'd agree) that its merely a continuation, an elaboration of the previous points. Perhaps though "freedom of the press" can and should be removed as its not in line with the general nature of the other two comparisons, but the other two are merely continuations of discussions about Israel's political and economic structure. -- tariqabjotu 17:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't actually have a problem with mentioning the freedom of Israel's press; but I do think a mention of concerns about institutionalised discrimination is appropriate too, in summarising a discussion of its political nature -- particularly in view of the earlier discussion you mention as to whether, due to this very issue, Israel should appropriately be considered a "liberal" democracy. Jheald (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Jheald's reasons are those of NPOV. The article should show good facts and bad facts, with 'competing perspectives'. Winetype (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Apart from mentioning the high ranking in the press freedom index the lead does not blazon Israel's human right record, presumably because this is one of the few indisputed aspects of Israel's human right record. If one wants to present the perspective that Israel is a human rights violator, one should also present the perspective that Israel's human rights record is satisfactory, a perspective that is so far missing in the article.
But then, something tells me that this has been discussed over and over again, and the current state of the lead and the article is the result of all these endless discussions. I am to lazy to dig into the archive, but I am sure that we are trying to reinvent the wheel. Novidmarana (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Proclaiming Israel's human rights abuses (in the introduction) doesn't balance out anything, because the other side of the coin isn't mentioned. As I said, I could see the "freedom of the press" piece disappearing because it does not fit the overall theme of the paragraph. -- tariqabjotu 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it blazons Israel's apparently liberal democratic nature; and fair treatment of permanent minorities is an important aspect if a system is to truly deserve that estimation. Jheald (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It only says representative democracy and not liberal democracy. Novidmarana (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Every minority in every country is discriminated against to a degree. Singling out the lead of the Israel article for special treatment not afforded other articles about countries with similar (e.g. France) or considerably worse (e.g. People's Republic of China) records in this regard is just the opposite of WP:NPOV, and is in particular a violation of WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
While we discuss the point, one should not suppress the information (as per the Editing policy). Springwalk (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a nice attempt to use policies to support going against consensus, but it won't fly. okedem (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I do nothing against consensus. Currently there is no consensus since there is a discussion. Springwalk (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Than you misunderstand the concept of consensus here. The lead is the most discussed part of this article. Its current form is a compromise between many editors, and was accepted by them. This is the form that was voted upon when this page got FA status. These points mean it is the consensus form. The consensus doesn't disappear just because you don't like it, and you have no justification for forcing your preferred form on the lead without consensus, in place of the widely supported current form. okedem (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is: gain consensus for changes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop claiming that people who reject your edits are "suppressing" information. It's both impolite and untrue. Jayjg (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Okedem and Jayjg are misrepresenting things. Springwalk has not attempted to create a sentence into the article since 6 May. The lead did contain a 'discrimination' part which Tariqabjotu [8]. Springwalk merely reverted that.
Now to the 'discrimination' question in lead: currently we lack competing perspectives -- as expressed in many ways in this page -- and as a consequence the article is a brochure. Winetype (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The 'discrimination' bit in the lead was added on May 8 by Jheald ([9]), and reverted by Tariq. By re-adding it, Springwalk made it his own edit, and he's the one arguing for the change. If anything, you are creating the false impression the sentence was there for long, a sort of "stable version", and we're the ones trying to remove it. Check your facts before making accusations. (i.e. - try to make an effort to learn something about the editing history of this article, and all the discussions and compromises in the lead, before arguing for changes just because there's some phrasing you don't like).
Adding any such caveat is giving seriously undue weight, and applying a different standard to Israel, regarding any possible discrimination of minorities. You'll find allegations of discrimination (true and false) from minorities in most countries in the world, including the Western democracies - and there's no mention of the in the leads of their articles.
The territories have nothing to do with it. This article is about the country, Israel, and we're talking about what happens in that country. As the territories are not a part of Israel, whatever we say about Israel's political system or freedoms is separate from whatever is the case with the territories, and that's self evident. We even mention the territories as adjacent in the lead, making it clear we are not discussing them. okedem (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
By re-adding the 'discrimination' sentence in the lead Springwalk countered the removal of information thus complying with the Editing policy. Okedem -- You may as well stop accusing people.
In a reply to what you said above: the occupied territories must be explained in the article. They are now.
On still another issue: discrimination must be explained in the article. It is not now. Winetype (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
On your last point - several people, including myself and (I think) okedem, are in agreement on the general issue, the need to add something about the situation of Arabs in Israel (though not all would accept "discrimination" as the right label for it). There will surely be progress on it - slow progress, but progress nonetheless. However, your approach on this business of edit history is really off the mark. The only misrepresentation here was yours; Okedem's "accusation" (description of who was performing what kind of edits) was entirely correct. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
And here I was, thinking it might be possible to have a discussion with you. As I said, and as anyone can see be reviewing the article's edit history: The discrimination sentence was a new addition, and I linked to that edit. A short time afterwards Tariq removed it, and rightfully so. Then Springwalk re-added it. I'm not accusing anyone, but presenting the facts, as anyone can plainly see. Your accusation of me is disgusting.
If you add something to a stable version, a featured article, to a lead which has undergone incredibly long discussions and revisions - and your change is in dispute, it is removed, pending discussion and consensus on the talk page. You do not get to keep your contested addition while there's a discussion. okedem (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) But Israel does control Gaza. Beam 19:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
How is that a reply to what I said? The territories are not a part of Israel, and so it's obvious we're not talking about them when talking about Israel's democracy and freedoms. okedem (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Gaza and other territories controlled by Israel need to be in this article. Just like I think Puerto Rico and Guam should be in the USA article. Beam 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I also think they should be in the article. That's why I wrote the section about them. However, they have nothing to do with the lead, where we discuss the government and freedoms in Israel. okedem (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I think that freedoms in Israel should be contrasted by the treatment of the areas that Israel controls, as well as the refugees that live in actual Israel that are treated so differently. But the lead may not be the best place, even though I think it needs to be mentioned there, all in all the prominence of these issues should be felt in the article. Beam 21:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
We are obviously discussing the country, not the territories. The freedoms the people in the country have, have nothing to do with whatever happens outside the country.
"the refugees that live in actual Israel that are treated so differently" - Israeli Arabs have equal rights, and they are not refugees. okedem (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
(Undent) The Palestinians in East Jerusalem aren't treated the same. Beam 17:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As I suspect you know, Palestinian in East Jerusalem are free to take Israeli citizenship. Regardless of what you think about their reasons for not doing so, it is not lost on anyone here that your single sentence fails miserably in capturing the complexity of that situation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope it's not lost on anyone that the sentence wasn't meant to describe the complexity of the situation. What it did do was respond to Oke saying something that didn't have to do with what I said. I hope that wasn't lost on you either. And let me tell you what isn't lost on me: your dislike for those who disagree with you. Your previous personal attacks on me haven't been lost, and your continuous eagerness to condescend me are actually entertaining. To me at least. So, with all that being not lost, and the fact that what is lost may be found again, everything is freaking great at the moment. I look forward to your next comment. Beam 18:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
So how about the suggestion of creating a new section "Human rights", where the relevant information can be inserted. Imad marie (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I sustain that. (See related section above.) Winetype (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that Israels human rights record in Israel is comparable to other Western countries (see Human rights in Israel) I don't see the need for an extra section. But if one is willing to write a neutral and factual section that would be ok with me. Note that the emphasis is on neutral and factual, what is a huge disclaimer as I don't see that this will be that easy. Novidmarana (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
line 5: administrated -> administered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.91.203 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks but the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary shows both forms. Winetype (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer administrated because of the use of administrator and administration. Sounds much better than administeration ;). Beam 16:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My personal preference would be for administered, but it may be a commonwealth/american english thing Adacore (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection
Main page featured articles are not suppossed to be protected. 198.203.177.177 (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Great Britain was not granted the mandate for Palestine, the United Kingdomwas. Can someone modify the British mandate section? I tried to, but it was reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starviking (talk • contribs) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I will if you find me a source that it is the United Kingdom and not Britain. I remember in my studies that it's usually named as Britain as opposed to the United Kingdom. I'm actually pretty sure of it. Can you find the actual UN Mandate or the like? If you can source it I will change it in the article and throw it as a footnote up in the end. Ok? Beam 22:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't notice this part in the article, just going through talk page, but hopefully I can be useful here - Great Britain refers to the island of Britain (England, Wales, Scotland) and is not a country, but the United Kingdom is often referred to as Britain/Great Britain as a shortened version of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" I believe. Point being, it is incorrect to say that "Great Britain" was granted the mandate for Palestine. It would be correct to say "the United Kingdom" was granted mandate for Palestine. I hope that was the point Starviking was making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.225.76 (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That's all good and swell, but I'm pretty sure they were referred to as Britain or Great Britain. I know what the UK stands for etc. Beam 23:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The article on the state which exercised the Palestine Mandate , and which was allied with France and Israel in 1956, is called United Kingdom. (Nitpicking, there are in fact two articles, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland being that which deals with the state which existed when the mandate was first established, but this may be excessive detail for this article.) The Great Britain article, on the other hand, is about the world's eighth-largest island. Angus McLellan(Talk) 00:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well as I said, if you can point me to the actual UN Mandate that states "The United Kingdom", than I'm sure the edit will stand. However, as it is now, it is a consensus version which has withstood many editors. This is not to say it's correct. So, get a source, post your source here. Than it can be changed, throw the source in a footnote. Beam 00:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The text is here. No Great Britain to be seen there. But that's the League and you asked for the UN. So there's Resolution 181, or Resolution 186. For "proof" that "His Britannic Majesty's government" and the "United Kingdom" are synonymous, see the British White Paper of 1939. But this is all totally irrelevant. The articles are called what they are called, and if you don't like the names - for example, if you felt that Great Britain ought to redirect to United Kingdom - we have the requested move process to deal with that. No additional footnotes are required, although it would probably be best to change the source of the mandate text from the current Halsall one, with its apparently confusing introduction, to the commentary-free Yale one. Angus McLellan(Talk) 01:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Buddy, it's not that I don't like the name, lol. It's just the editors here are a little testy and well... it would just be best if we had the actual Mandate, and it stated United Kingdom. So, where does it say it's the United Kingdom and not Britain was granted the mandate? Beam 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Resolution 181 perhaps: "The General Assembly ... Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine ...". Of course, you could have at least skimmed the links the first time I suggested they might be useful. You still can, just as you can skim the Great Britain and United Kingdom articles to see which of them is the correct one to link to. In print it doesn't much matter whether you call the mandatory power the United Kingdom [of Great Britain and [Northern] Ireland] or Great Britain or Britain or England. On Wikipedia, however, the six possible choices - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, Great Britain, Britain and England - link to five quite different articles. Here it does matter which term you use. Angus McLellan(Talk) 02:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I looked at this and it doesn't mention the UK once. Maybe Resolution 181 is good enough. I didn't think I'd have to tell you because you seem experienced, but Wikipedia isn't a source. Let's just use a direct source. What's the quote without the "..." from Resolution 181? I hope you know I'm just helping you, so that the changes you want can be made to the article. I'm just slowly guding you along. Beam 02:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a suspicion that the League Mandate doesn't mention Great Britain either. For the lacunae in the quote for Resolution 181, why not click the link above, the on that says "Resolution 181", and see for yourself? As for Wikipedia not being a source, I quite agree. But that's something quite different from arguing that we can't consider the content of Wikipedia articles when deciding which of several possible choices is the correct one to link to. In this case, the most correct choice is United Kingdom in 1956 and United Kingdom in 1922. Finding books or documents which suggest otherwise won't change matters. Angus McLellan(Talk) 02:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
So the documentation regarding the Mandate says Britain? If it does, than that's what it will say here. Now friend, I'm just trying to get you to help yourself. Don't take offense from me asking for a citation for your suggested change. So did you want to bring all of the text from your edited quote of Article 181 to the talk page here, or are you good with this article, Israel, stating Britain? Beam 03:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I've done enough work for you. Read the stuff yourself. Angus McLellan(Talk) 03:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting a change. You misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Beam 05:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The mandate couldn't possibly have been given to Great Britain, as that's not an political entity, but an island. The political entity which conducts foreign relations is the United Kingdom. Though they are often referred to as "The British", or "Britain", the correct name is "the United Kingdom". okedem (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless you read the links to the documents, and the Wikipedia articles too, there's no way we can make any progress here. I can only provide pointers, but the reading, and the thinking, those you need to do for yourself. Read the League Mandate, read Resolution 181, read Great Britain and United Kingdom. Until you've done that you'll just be wasting time and space here. Angus McLellan(Talk) 11:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Go for it bro. I'm all set. I was trying to help YOU. Beam 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Anyway man, the changes have been correctly made. I went through and made sure that The United Kingdom was used appropiately. I don't know if you understood this conversation but I was on your side. I simply was trying to help you provide a source/evidence so that the resident editors here wouldn't complain or revert. Yet you somehow took offense to that. But no worries, it's been changed now, and we're all the happier for it. :) Beam 15:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Display issues - template
It seems we reached the limit of templates in this article. Some change in the number of templates here caused us to cross the limit, presenting errors such as those discussed in Wikipedia:Template limits ("Node-count limit exceeded"). I removed a few useless "convert" templates (replaced them with the text - makes way more sense, as the definition of mile isn't going to change), but that didn't help enough. So I removed all the bottom templates ("Countries in Asia", etc). Those templates are full of templates themselves, as every little flag in them is actually a template, like "{{flag|Libya}}", generating: Libya.
Until this issue is resolved, perhaps by fixing the templates themselves, please do not restore these templates. Frankly, we can do fine without them (which is why they're hidden by default - I'm willing to bet no more than a few percent of readers even know about them). okedem (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's I think an item of interest. What do you think of it? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
How did the Blue turn Red so fast? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the outrageout phenomena of Holocaust denial relevant to this article on Israel at 60. Wasn't Israel formed in part by Zionism in response to such Antisemitism which continues to exist? Isn't it true that Israelis believe that Israel must exist as a haven from such phenomena? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
But here's great positive matterial to write about regarding Israel at 60Salim Mansur: "Isarel deserves admiration"[10]] --Ludvikus (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I cannot think of a more accurate and beautiful depiction of the History of Israel than by this great Muslim scholar. We should incorporate what he has to say into the article on Israel. Also, I noticed that the article about him - which is relevant to this article - seems to have been neglected since 2007. Why? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
"In the early 1970s, Palestinian groups launched a wave of attacks against Israeli targets around the world, including a massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics." This sentence is so much POV, and does not reveal all sides of the story. It should be either removed or balanced. Imad marie (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
A comment on a broader scope: in the section "Conflicts and peace treaties", and also "Independence and first years", a number of hostiles is mentioned, Arabs and Palestinians attacking Israel. I believe the article should better present information, I mean, why did those hostiles occur? Why did Arabs attack Israel? the answer is somehow complex and it should be presented in brief. Imad marie (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is about events and not their causes. Causes are of necessity POV. A number of important massacres are not mentioned (most importantly Ma'alot) becuase Munich is famous it made sense to mention it and provide links for further information. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
When your introducing events (specially if they are about killings and murder), you should provide the context of those hostiles, this is basic NPOV. The two sections present Israel as the peaceful country who is always attacked by its neighbouring Arab countries (and Palestinians) for no reason, and this is contrary to the truth. Let's not forget this poll. Imad marie (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The "causes" (in a nutshell) appear very clearly in the article:" The Arab League rejected the plan, but on May 14, 1948, the Jewish provisional government declared Israel's independence. The new country's victory in the subsequent Arab-Israeli War expanded the borders of the Jewish state beyond those in the UN Partition Plan. Since then, Israel has been in conflict with many of the neighboring Arab countries, resulting in several major wars and decades of violence that continue to this day.[9] Since its foundation, Israel's boundaries and even the State's very right to exist have been subject to dispute, especially among its Arab neighbors." --Gilabrand (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions Israeli settlements, the expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948 and other less salubrious issues. It aims to be a summary and is not meant to provide an in depth study. those who want to know about "context" have to read elsewhere. Bear in mind that context is likely to be a product of opinion. NPOV is very elusive in this conflict. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. However I think that those two sections neglect some significant and key issues in this context, like Pan-Arabism, and the PLO's claim to "liberate the homeland via armed struggle" through Jordan and South Lebanon. I'm not calling for details, just 2-3 sentences somewhere, maybe in the section lead.
And about Munich massacre, this should be removed or balanced, preferably removed. There were dozens of massacres in the conflict history, some with no less significance, like Deir Yassin massacre. IMO, the inclusion of Munich massacre here is not neutral. Imad marie (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I get the point about the PLO's commitment to armed struggle but not the relevance of Pan-Arabism, can you explain?
Telaviv1 (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The 1967 and 1973 wars were motivated by Pan-Arabism, specially the 1967 war with Gamal Abdel Nasser. Pan-Arabism is notably directed against the Israeli "occupation". Imad marie (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I put a sentence in the lead about the rise of non-state actors and the PLO's commitment to armed struggle. I also put in a sentence about the settlements as that was missing. I think that Munich should stay as it has a relevance outside the local conflict. Basically its either Munich massacre, Operation Entebbe or Ma'alot massacre which need to be in here and after a debate about six months ago we left in Munich, so I'm not inclined to change that. I think Pan-Arabism is interesting but probably belongs elsewhere - we need to keep this article short and the history is too long already. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The commitment of the PLO to armed struggle should be contrasted by Israels commitment to armed defense, albeit obvious. Beam 18:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's absolutely ridicules. okedem (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Israel has vowed to put down any attack by Palestinian extremists in Israel's occupied/controlled territory. I'm speaking of the incursions they make into these areas to take out specific targets. We should mention these attacks as a response to the attacks of the Palestinians. Beam 00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, we should mention the Israeli hostiles as well, and not just as "response". A sentence like: "both parties were engaged in hostile activities" is NPOV. And I still object to the mention of Munich massacre, if we are to include this then we should neutrally include other Israeli massacres.
Aside from that, I added some information what would better present the context of the (Arab/Palestinian)-Israeli conflict. Imad marie (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the bit only sourced by opendemocracy, which has an advocacy group is not a reliable source and changed "liberate the homeland via armed struggle" to "armed struggle as they only way to liberate the homeland", as this is more in line with the cited source. Although the best would be to keep the text as it in order to avoid a bloated history section, after all there is an article devoted to this part of Israeli history that gets into the details.
I don't really understand why the inclusion of Israeli "massacres" and "hostilities" would make the text more neutral. Neutrality is not balancing the actions of one side by the same actions of the other side. This approach to neutrality is especially problematic if we are dealing with an assymmetric situation as we have it here. Rather neutrality is staying with the facts and presenting only the historically significant events.
I am more inclined to keep the current version of the article, as it is short and stays with the bare facts, without trying to interpret the actions of Israel and the Arab states. This is also given that there has been already a lengthy discussion, so I don't see the need to discuss this again and again. Novidmarana (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, but I think the actions of the controlled territories are more important than actions of the Arab states. Beam 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
By more important I mean should receive more detail. Beam 15:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the small intro I added is needed to illustrate why the Arab armies attacked Israel, I don't think the added material is biased but if you think opendemocracy is then give me some time and I will find better sources.
About hostiles from the Israeli side, this is necessary to better explain the context, you are showing only one side of the story, Palestinians attacking Israel, this is not NPOV. We need to show all sides of the story, I didn't include details, only a small summery. Imad marie (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I may add, it was not clear for the reader why were the Arab armies and Palestinians attacking Israel, the small intro explains that, in breif. Imad marie (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
All nice and well, I have no factual objections against the intro, but the article is already quite bloated and any addition makes matters even worse. I don't really see why this addition is necessary, as there are links to articles that cover this part of Israeli history in far more detail. Furthermore, the intro is not well-written, if you or someone else could please copy-edit and improve the English and wikify the citation, that would be nice. Novidmarana (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
But is this small sentence really a problem concerning the length of the section? IMO the importance of the sentence outweighs the length problem. And I tried to improve the language of the intro. Imad marie (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The sentence as is still reads like it comes straight from a newspaper, rather than being factual and concise. For example who are the Arabs? The Arab League, Egypt and Syria etc? What is meant by illegitimate? Isn't there are more precice term? And so on. Also, as this sentence tries to describe the motivation of the Arab countries, what is inherently difficult - just one source, especially as it is a random source, instead of a definite scholarly account is noth enough for something that is open to interpretation. This shows as the words liberate and avenge are used, and the only way that I could see the usage of the words here would be if they would habe been used in an official document or statement by the belligerent parties. Also, the citation is still not wikified. Novidmarana (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's better now. I wish wikipedia was as neutral as Encarta when it came to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Imad marie (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Israel Spain
Spain was 500 years ago the home away from homeland for the jews. More than 40% of all spanish were jewish and today many spanish are crypto-jews.There are hundreds of streets in Spain named Jewish Street Calle Judia and names like david raquel are common just as maria and jose.There is a modern rebirth in knowing about jewish history in spain that is well documented. As of 2002 Israel and Spain have developed collaboration in agriculture technology education medicine .Students from the top universities in Spain icade madrid murcia pass a year in israeli universities and viceversa. spains airforce trains with the israeli air force as our terrain is similar.. The 34000 jewish comunity in spain is the fastest growing in all europe as of 2004.
raquel samper jewish murcia comunidad judia españa
Please stop adding unsourced passages
I am referring here in the first instance to this edit by User:Telaviv1, but that is only the most recent. A sentence like this is a particular "take" on history, an explanation for how to explain what happened. It happens that in this instance, I agree that this is the right way to explain it (the rise of non-state actors after 1967) - but I'm troubled by the increasing tendency to simply add this sort of thing without a source and without discussion on the talk page. If one editor does it, then many editors will start to do it and this article will get out of control. Even with a source, this might be contentious - but a source seems like an absolute requirement for this sort of thing. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I will provide you with references tomorrow. No time today. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The Talk page heralds being bold. So it's not always mandatory to discuss before editing. On the other hand commenting edits is a minimum. In addition a source must be provided if the sentence is contentious. So please do complete edits: commented (and sourced if relevant). Keep your drafts out of the article until then. This is nothing personal it is just that we must behave to avoid that 'this article gets out of control.' Winetype (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Nomoske. I have worked on contentious articles and the key to editing them is well sourced and cited content. Beam 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact, it doesn't matter whose figures you take, the number still works out at "about 80%".
The number remaining inside the borders of Israel is known fairly exactly from census records to be 150,000 to 160,000
On the U.N. figures, 711,000 Arabs would represent 81.6% of (711,000 + 160,000)
On Palestinian sources according to [11], 800,000 represents 83.3% of (800,000 + 160,000)
On Israeli sources according to [12], 520,000 represents 76.4% of (520,000 + 160,000)
Even on Rabinovitch's 1959 figures, 420,000 represents 74.9% of 561,000
Some idea of the proportion displaced is valuable, I think. Which ever figures you take, rounding to one significant digit you still get 80%. So I think it's reasonable to restore the percentage. Jheald (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Support-With conditions - on condition that we include the percentage and evaluation of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries for comparison. Ceedjee's comment should be addressed to also. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Clarify per Ceedjee. 07:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment-Oppose I think it is a good idea to give the % but not written that way. This is not 80% of the Arab population. This is 80% of the Arab population that was living in what has become Israel. In Palestine, there were ~ 1,200,000 Palestinians in 1948. Ceedjee (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I too don't mind being that specific.Bless sins (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that 80% should be mentioned. Information about Jews that fled Arab countries should be posted in the respective country's article, not here, and vice versa.Bless sins (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that would create a false, one sided presentation on all of these articles. Wouldn't it be more balanced to present the entire Arab-Israeli refugee picture on each of them? JaakobouChalk Talk 15:24, 14 May 2008(UTC)
Support - No reason not to. Beam 17:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Support - I also agree to add a mention such as: it's 80% of the Arab population that was living in what has become Israel (meaning west of the green line). Winetype (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Error in page
The subsection "Occupied territories" contains a duplicate sentence. "In 2005, Israel removed all of its residents and forces in the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the West Bank as part of its unilateral disengagement plan" from paragraph two has been pasted onto the end of the fourth paragraph of that subsection. My apologies if this is intentional.71.238.65.13 (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Reference #4 shows the (well known) fact that Israel's GDP per capita is about $33,000. However, the entry shows a different number, while citing this reference... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.42.80 (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, the total GDP figure in reference #4, is not the one in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.42.80 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I changed that. Novidmarana (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this is me again with another correction. English is also an official language in Israel since the days of the British mandate. This rule has never been changed. However, Hebrew and Arabic are the main languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.37.10 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the status of English was changed after the creation of the state, and it is no longer an official language. okedem (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I am afraind that you are wrong. English is until these days an official language, and was also recognized as such by the supreme court. Try to check it with the Israeli authirities, such as the ministry of interior. Also, in the Wikipedia Hebrew enrty of "mediniyut leshonit beyisrael", you will be able to find an accurate description of the legal status of the English language in Israel. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.42.80 (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You're correct in that the situation is less clear than I thought. Regardless, English isn't used as an official language (governments documents, for instance, are published in Hebrew and Arabic, not English). De facto, English is no longer an official language. okedem (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Maps
The text covering Israel's geographic area is a little confusing. Could somebody please add some maps to show how Israel's borders have shifted over the years and how this compares to the original borders as set out before the First Arab/Israeli war?
I think it has been put a lot of effort into doing this great article as short as possible, and I reckon Israel is such a big subject that you can not expect the article to be much shorter than what it is now. I therefore propose that we remove the "too long" tag. --EivindJ (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There are several elements which aren't supposed to come into play when the size of the article is determined. That includes references. Considering we have nearly 250 references, the article is significantly shorter than the page size indicates. I put the current prose in User:Tariqabjotu/Israel size, and you can see it's about 47 kilobytes. (By comparison, in late September, the article was ~ 44 kilobytes in prose, as you can see by a previous version of that page.) According to WP:SIZE, that falls under the "May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" category -- that's not too long (60 kilobytes is considered the minimum for "too long", but even that's not a hard limit). That's not to say some things couldn't be cut out. I, for one, do not believe we need a blow-by-blow of how the 2006 Lebanon War started. We don't need three pictures depicting Israel's geography. Perhaps a couple of us could take the time to read through the whole article and weed out fluff, but I don't think good writing (i.e. writing that isn't simple) should be watered down because the article is too long. Just take out unnecessary details and recentism. -- tariqabjotu 13:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for a good reply. I agree that small changes may be done to make the page slightly shorter, and I will help in doing so. I removed the template since the size of the article really is not a problem. --EivindJ (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Theodor Herzl Picture Caption
The caption for Herzl's picture calls him "visionary" of the Jewish state. While this may be true, strictly speaking, I think it attaches a distinct positive connotation in its assessment. While I personally hold no strong opinions either way as to the Zionist movement, I feel a more value-neutral word would be appropriate, considering the heated debate that does go on.
Ma'ale Adumim, Ariel, et al. "settlements" or "cities"?
In my opinion Imad Marie's edit on this one was correct; Okedem, I urge you to reconsider your revert. For one thing, the sentence as reverted does not make sense - please read it closely. More substantively: "Israeli cities" sounds an awful lot like "cities in Israel"; "Israeli settlements" seems clearly more accurate/precise. We read in several places on this talk page that this article does not treat the West Bank as part of Israel, and I think we need to be consistent on that one here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
To me it makes sense. I think the distinction "Israeli" is needed, to clarify that these are not cities like Hebron, etc, with a mixed population, but cities built by, and for, Israelis. I think it's obvious we're discussing settlements - the sentence reads: "...lived in the West Bank settlements in Israeli cities such as". I think the word "cities" is meaningful, to convey their size.
Imad's reasoning makes no sense - there's no dichotomy between cities and settlement. However, your reasoning is more substantive, I think. I'll self-revert. No real need for this detail, I guess. okedem (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
A city is simply a form of government, and a size of political organization. A settlement can be anything, a town, a village, a farm, a city. Some of the settlements are small, self-contained cities, and it does not hurt the article in any way to note that - on the contrary, it removes information if we don't. Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Palestinian political violence
I will remove the wikilink to this article, the paragraph is talking about the attacks curried out by Palestinians in the late 60's and early 70's. The destination article claims Palestinian ideology, those are two different topics. Imad marie (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The destination article is, as the title suggests about Palestinian political violence and not about Palestinian ideology, so clearly they are related. Novidmarana (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The destination article discusses Palestinian violence as a presumed Palestinian ideology, starting from the 1920's until recent times. I don't see that connecting to the "wave of attacks".
Also, saying that the "wave of attacks" is considered to be political violence is OR, do we have any RS that defines them as so? Imad marie (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the article discusses only the history of Palestinian political violence and is thus relevant, as it gives more information than can be included here in the article. I am not sure what you mean by presumed Palestinian ideology, but this article does not make any claims that there is a coherent Palestinain ideology linking Palestianian political violence in the 1920s with the 1970s or the contemporary times. And that the wave of attacks was politically motivated, of course it was, but that is also discussed in the cited New York Times article. Novidmarana (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of Israeli apartheid
There are about 150 references that discuss the notion of Israeli apartheid (see this), whether arguing that it exists and is real, or that it doesn't exist and is a false allegation. Should we make some sort of mention of the debate in this article?
Furthermore, should we include, say a picture of the West Bank barrier/security fence in this article, as it has affected Israel's image?
Note I'm not calling for either addition, but encouraging a discussion on it.Bless sins (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes but before including a picture, we should include the allegations themselves, there has been a discussion going on here on where and how to insert those allegations, the last suggestion was to insert them in the "Demographics" section. I have created a proposed structure for the section that the allegations can be inserted inside the "Ethnic groups" sub-section. Imad marie (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Allegation of discrimination can be discussed either in the section about the occupied territories (if discussing Palestinians), or in the Demographics section (discussing Arab-Israelis). Neither discussion should be too long. okedem (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Capital City
Canadian Monkey keeps removing any qualification on the claim that Jerusalem is Israel's capital despite the fact that no other country in the world recognizes Jerusalem and there is also a lengthy footnote that explains this. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral so it's wrong for this article to assert that Jerusalem is Israel's capital without any sort of qualification such as "disputed" or "not internationally recognized". Claiming that this is "original research" is just laughable- it's a well established fact and I really think Canadian Monkey must know this. Strongbrow (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. He's right, and I'll also continue to revert your edits. ref check out "Capital" from that reference. Beam 03:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll explain it too, because I'm nice ;). A capital is a seat of government, no one else has to support the country's designation of a capital. See Burma etc. Jerusalem by definition, is the capital of the Israeli state. Beam 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly your opinion but that's all it is. I'll be nice so I'll explain this carefully, Jerusalem is not recognized by any foreign country or the UN as Israel's capital and that needs to be expressed. Not doing that pushes means wikipedia is taking sides. See, for instance, what Britannica's sidebar on Israel says. Having a tiny little footnote isn't sufficient - there has to be a clear explanation that while Israel asserts that Jerusalem is its capital this is disputed or not recognized by the rest of the world. Strongbrow (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
But a foreign country nor UN has to recognize a Country's capital. A capital is simply where a country houses its government. I learned this at this very talk page myself, but I checked it out and it's true. It makes sense if you think about it. Certainly no one has recognize that Washington D.C. is the capital of the USA, and if no other country did recognize it, D.C. would still be the capital. Beam 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
From that article on Israel, in Britannica: "Jerusalem is the capital and the seat of government." Beam 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And from its sidebar "Capital (proclaimed): Jerusalem; international recognition of its capital status has largely been withheld". Strongbrow (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah their sidebar and our infobox are different. Heck, as I state on my talk page, Wikipedia (thankfully) is not a normal encyclopedia. It's a Wikipedia! Beam 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line is within our infobox we are stating that the Capital is simply the seat of government. Which doesn't need to be internationally recognized, since the country itself decides where its seat of government is located. I wont' edit it anymore, but I hope you try to gain consensus within this page before you edit again. If not, so be it. But rest assured that other editors will revert it back to the consensus version, that's how consensus works. Beam 04:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus here for your preferred version. Also, the global consensus is against you. Strongbrow (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Believe the dispute is at very least noteworthy. You may know, in Guatemala the maps show Belize as a part of Guatemala, but the country's Wiki page does not reflect that. Yes, different situations but the point is a country's territorial and political claims must be considered not only vis-a-vis Wikipedia editors' consensus but also within the international political consensus. RomaC (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's capital by any foreign government, however." Is this really necessary? 70.52.45.45 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not? It's factual even if you don't like it. Strongbrow (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see the prior discussion where this consensus came from --> Talk:Israel#Jerusalem_as_the_capital_of_Israel and Tariq's comments here Talk:Israel#Wording_.22Israel.27s_main_financial_center.22. And Strong and Romac, you guys have completely got me all wrong. Read my comments throughout this talk page. I am no Israel Brochure writer, and I would love for more criticism (rightful criticism imo) of Israel to be present in THROUGHOUT this article for neutrality's sake. The thing is that when it comes to the meaning of Capital, it is as Britannica says and most dictionaries say: simply the seat of government.
Within the article I definitely support that the dispute over East Jerusalem should be mentioned, and I'm pretty sure it already is. But within the infobox there is no need because Jerusalem is the capital. A capital doesn't need any recognition, it's just a fact, that's where the seat of government is. Again, go read up on myself on this talk page. Look at where my support lies as far as criticism of Israel and this article stand. Thanks.Beam 17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Solution ( the NPOV way): just make a (small) note of the competing claims. Both claims (of being capital and not being capital) are significant. Please make this note short as this article is about "Israel" not "rest of the world". Adding "(proclaimed)" is not a bad idea.Bless sins (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Support adding "proclaimed." RomaC (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you all not see Beam refer you to the ongoing discussion in the WikiProject? You can't just reduce this to a straw poll. However, let me correct you, Bless: you talk about two "competed claims" -- one saying that Jerusalem is the capital and one saying it's not. That second claim doesn't really exist, except as denialism. It is true that most countries, and the United Nations, do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but saying "I don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is not the same as saying "Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". No matter how many countries disagree with Israel's choice or the manner in which Israel has occupied East Jerusalem or anywhere else, it is impossible to change the fact that Jerusalem is, in fact, currently the capital of Israel. Israel calls it such and treats it as such, locating their executive, legislative, and judicial heads there. Adding "proclaimed" or "disputed" or whatever suggests Israel's capital is somewhere else, when it's not. Most countries want Israel's capital to be located somewhere else, but as for now, it's not. A footnote describing some details on the status of Jerusalem is already included. -- tariqabjotu 07:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it true that countries have left their embassies in Tel-Aviv, instead of moving them to Jerusalem? In that case wouldn't Tel-Aviv be the capital in the sense of foreign relations and diplomatic missions?Bless sins (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There are embassies in Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, Herzeliya, Mevaseret Zion, etc. But the location of embassies has nothing to do with the status of capital, so that's just irrelevant. okedem (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Are people still going on about this? Countries decide on their own capitals, it's not up for a vote, nor does it depend on the locations of embassies. Israel, like every other country in the world, has decided on its own capital. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
How about add a self proclaimed capital to solve this matter? I think it would settle this issue. - PHW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.67.181.231 (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Renewable energy is already mentioned, briefly, and I think that's enough. This article is a bird's-eye view, not a comprehensive analysis. I see no need for a topic "Climate change in Israel", since it would be rather devoid of content. There's very little evidence regarding climate change in such small regions, especially considering the large yearly variance. okedem (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
"Israel ranks high among Middle Eastern countries on the bases of human development"
This was changed from "highest". However the index that is referred to has Israel higher than other Middle Eastern country and in the top (high) category. Will someone please revert it back to "highest",and add a bit of clarification on this system of ranking? Lawabider (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Correction: this was changed to 'highest', then I changed it back. Aside from settling on this wording after months of recurring complaints about the prior third paragraph (which included 'highest'), there are many rankings that talk about the features noted in the introduction, and not all of them place Israel as highest among Middle Eastern countries. -- tariqabjotu 18:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh well the reference given clearly indicates "highest". If as you say there are other important references that disupute this then I think they should be used too.Lawabider (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there some policy regarding this issue? To quote "The Dude", "[The changes] really put the [article] toghether". JaakobouChalk Talk 16:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size: "Images should generally not be set to a fixed size (i.e. one that overrides the preferences settings of the individual users, see the Manual of Style)." As for the number of images, this just amounts to common sense. In the case of the Geography section, they were intruding on the next section (depending on resolution, of course). In the case of the Culture section, they would have been had they not had the images forced. -- tariqabjotu 17:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Best I'm aware, that is a guideline meant to protect users with 800x600 resolutions from oversized images. Clearly, there is more encyclopedic value in having the extra image in there rather than not. I believe this one falls outside the "generally" mentioned in the guideline but I'm open to hear other thoughts if you disagree (let me know).
I've just noticed the exact nature of the image "upright" extension. I'm thinking the 3 images can work well with one/two of them tagged 'upright'. Does this suggestion work for you? JaakobouChalk Talk 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
No; none of them are upright images. -- tariqabjotu 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Question: Anyone else got some thoughts/suggestions regarding this version of the culture section? I'm thinking it might work well without the 200, 170 px constrains, and also that in case of a preference towards 2 images alone, that the hora dancing image takes precedency over the bat-sheva dance group. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The Munich assasination is not 'marginally' relevent to the history of Israeli conflicts. It is an iconic event which cannot/should-not be downplayed. Just recently Sports minister Raaleb Majadle apologized and promised to correct and examine how a book about Israel's sports accidentaly had no mention of the event other than in the preface note.[16] I believe that the image is very relevent for a free educational purpouse and that there's no violation of the fair-use copyrights by adding it to an article about Israel as the image is iconing for both the event itself and Israeli history.
The image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic image. Use of this image to illustrate the event in question on the Wikipedia project where:
(a) The image depicts a non-reproducible historic event, (b) No free alternative exists or can be created, (c) It's in low resolution, (d) The use of the image on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright.
Qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.
Basically, rather than have it removed from the article, fair use rationale should be added to the image. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
There are other fair-use requirements, namely (from WP:FUP):
No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a free one that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)
Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.
It doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and there are probably free images available that would be useful here. This article isn't on the Munich massacre; it's on Israel. That picture isn't needed to illustrate Israel, and more specifically, Israel's history. -- tariqabjotu 17:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. (a) The image is iconic and certainly conveys the encyclopedic importance of this event in a manner not explained in the text and does indeed enhance the reader's understanding of the topic (see it's related paragraph about early "non government" activity). (b) The article subsection is about israeli conflicts and an iconic event such as this is needed to illustrate a definitive moment in Israel's history, which the Munich massacre is a part of.
I'm open to hear other opinions and suggestions, but your current position seems to suggest that Israeli history has very little to do with this event and I believe this to be a mistake and I've provided an external reference to illustrate this.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 18:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC) add link 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the external reference? The only source that follows discussion of the Munich massacre is Crowdy, and that isn't something you added, it's been there in previous versions of the page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm following the relevence of your comment. Are you asking for proof that this event is notable and that the image is iconic to Israeli history? JaakobouChalk Talk 20:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You refer in your previous comment (18:16) to an external reference. All I am asking is, which reference are you pointing to? Simple question... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said the first time, the article is about Israel, the section is about Israel's history, and the sub-section is about Israel's conflict and treaties during this time period. None of those topics necessitate a picture related to the Munich massacre. I'm not disputing that the event was important; I dispute that the event is so important that its significance outweighs the fact that we have other, free images to illustrate Israel, its history, and this period of time. It really is not that important, even if people know about or reference the event today. -- tariqabjotu 22:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Very well, I'm willing to concede this one. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
"A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to re-establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine." ("Zionism", The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition).
"The Political Zionists conceived of Zionism as the Jewish response to anti-Semitism. They believed that Jews must have an independent state as soon as possible, in order to have a place of refuge for endangered Jewish communities." (Wylen, Stephen M. Settings of Silver: An Introduction to Judaism, Second Edition, Paulist Press, 2000, p. 392).
"Zionism, the national movement to return Jews to their homeland in Israel, was founded as a response to anti-Semitism in Western Europe and to violent persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe." (Calaprice, Alice. The Einstein Almanac, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004, p. xvi).
"The major response to anti-semitism was the emergence of Zionism under the leadership of Theodor Herzl in the late nineteenth century." (Matustik, Martin J. and Westphal, Merold. Kierkegaard in Post/Modernity, Indiana University Press, 1995, p. 178).
^Bregman 2002, p. 40–1 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBregman2002 (help)
^W. Khalidi, ‘Plan Dalet: master plan for the conquest of Palestine’, J. Palestine Studies 18 (1), 1988, p. 4-33 (published earlier in Middle East Forum, November 1961)
^Pappé, Ilan: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld Publications, 2006, ISBN1851684670
Libya.