Talk:Districts of Israel/Archive 1

Untitled (terminology)
Anyone can elaborate what the term "natural regions" refer to in this article?

I have a suspicion that it should be "regional councils"... (In Hebrew: Moatzot Ezoriyot (plural), Moatza Ezorit (singular))

If you count these as sub-divisions of "Nafot", then you should also include city councils and local councils, which are all forms of municipal entities...

Well, it's not what I thought... the so-called natural regions are really some sort of sub-division entities... I must admit that I live in Israel many years and never heard about these mysterious sub-dibision creatures... they might exist in the files of the ministry of interior, but the common Israeli citizens have no business with them...

i'd like to add that the whole districts thing is irrelevant to the israeli citizen. we pay our taxes to the municipal authority and the central government, and elect them in the elections. nobody knows who is the head of his district, because they are appointed by the ministry of internal afairs. i believe most people don't even know what district they are in. until i read this article, i didn't know my district capital is Ramla (and i've lived in petah tikva [tiqwa] all my 30 years). this is mostly a beurocratic thing of the ministry of internal affairs. he:User:צחי
 * Districts are useful for statistical stuff and administrative purposes, and they are known by many Israelis. Just because you don't know details about them does not mean 'this is nonsense' (according to your edit summary). Maybe this article will help you understand districts better. On a side note, natural regions (אזורים טבעיים) means just that. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * i didn't mean districts are nonsense by themselves, but that they are nothing more than internal beurocarcy of the ministry of internal afairs, while this article make them seem like some kind of governing authority. well, they are not. they are no more than a channel between the mayors and the mininster of internal afairs. he:User:צחי

note
can someone look into the "note" in the article lead? I'm not certain what it's trying to say...but if it's what I think it's for, it should not be in the article... Tom e rtalk 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Population statistics
Can anyone add population per district? --JWB 09:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will try to add this asap, CBS should have all the necessary data. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Translations
I don't know if this appears in other encyclopedias or sources, or it is an "invention" of whoever wrote this article, but the word mahoz (מחוז) never means "district" - it means "province". The Hebrew word for district is ezor (אזור) which is never used officially. This is true also for nafa (נפה), which roughly means "municipality" though this is inaccurate - but who has ever heard of sub-districts? 85.250.218.52 13:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * - clearly says district and sub-district. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So the government decided it? 85.250.218.52 19:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I bet Amir Peretz decided it. 85.250.218.52 05:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Map Edit War
This edit war going on about whether or not to include the “Map of the districts of Israel” image Israel_districts_named.png, in this article, Districts of Israel, is getting out of hand. Let us quickly review the history:


 * 1) The map was created by User:Golbez and added to the article nearly a year ago, on 12:55, 2005 December 24.
 * 2) The edit war began on 20:12 (UTC - as are all following times), 2006 December 2, when anonymous user 72.92.109.129 removed the map.
 * 3) User:Khoikhoi restored it 6 minutes later.
 * 4) On 02:40, 2006 December 4 User:Kahanechai removed the map, claiming “POV” issues, meaning (presumably) that Wikipedia's NPOV - Neutral Point Of View policy has been violated.
 * 5) and again, 1 minute later, Khoikhoi restored it.
 * 6) Fourteen hours later, on 20:34, 2006 December 4 User:Shuki again removed the map, claiming that it was irrelevant and inaccurate.
 * 7) Khoikhoi once again restored the map, roughly 15 hours later.

So there have been three different accusations made against this map, that it is not NPOV (or that it is biased), that it is irrelevant, and that it is inaccurate.

In accordance with Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures, I propose that we discuss the issue and reach a consensus, so that there will be no need to escalate the matter, for example under the 3-Revert Rule.--Eliyahu S Talk 16:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, I've also left a note on Golbez's talk page. Khoikhoi 16:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have invited User:Golbez, User:Kahanechai, and User:Shuki, as well as you, to meet here and reach a consensus.


 * Here I am. --Golbez 19:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in advance to everyone for participating calmly and civilly. --Eliyahu S Talk 16:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What this page is
For starters, it seems to me that we should agree on what the page Districts of Israel is about.

As far as I can tell, this article is meant to describe the administrative districts into which the government of Israel has divided the country. As such, the single most authoritative source of information should be the Israeli government, itself.

Does everyone agree with this?--Eliyahu S Talk 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right:
 * A) the article is merely about the division into districts, not whether they are legal, or legitimate or whatever.
 * B) The Israeli government has decided to call the 'west bank' district - Judea and Samaria - this (the naming) is a fact. They could have called it Puerto Israel and this would also be the legitimate description on the map for this article. There is no West Bank district, even adding this in brackets on the map would also be false, sort of like someone adding in 'Carmel' to the Haifa District, or 'Gush Dan' to the Central district.
 * C) What does the security zone in Lebanon and the DMZ in Syria have to do with admin districts - nothing. The UNIFIL zones are irrelevant to this article.
 * D) The map needs to be replaced. Just because no one noticed it for a year does not mean much at all. Keeping the map up for the image effect is misleading.

--Shuki 19:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So, if I understand you correctly, you would like to see the map changed as follows:
 * The red area marked “West Bank” relabeled “Judea and Samaria”;
 * The purple “United Nations buffer zones” removed.
 * Do you have any issue with the labeling of the red area as “Palestinian Territories” in the map legend?
 * --Eliyahu S Talk 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You got a point there. 1) yes, 2) as for the gaza strip, frankly I don't know if its status is clear even today, but since other countries' official names appear, then the official name of the gaza strip, or P.A. should appear there. The issue of the other countries is secondary. To be entirely NPOV on this image, perhaps all non-Israeli (or non-Israeli controlled territory or claimed territory) entities should not be labeled. --Shuki 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of creating a simpler map (see right) in accordance with the real Israeli administrative divisions. The Gaza strip is not included at all, the West Bank (since it's not like the other districts) is a different color, while the Golan Heights are included in the North District, which is how the Israeli government sees it. All districts are also labelled properly. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ynhockey, that is very useful.
 * Does anyone else wish to join me by going on record regarding Ynhockey's new map?
 * Please post your yeas or nays below. --Eliyahu S Talk 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO, I think the map should reflect the geopolitical reality. Show the districts as Israel sees them, yes - but also show the competing claims. A good example would be my map of Nagorno-Karabakh, and on the flip side, my map of the Subdivisions of Azerbaijan - which shows Nagorno-Karabakh, but only in a different color, with the map being dedicated only to Azerbaijani divisions. Likewise, this map should focus on the Israeli divisions, and thus should use "Judea and Samara" and include the Golan. However, some indicator should be made that these regions are disputed, not just locally but by other nations. This map does have a use - to show the Israeli perspective, just as we have a map showing the Taiwanese perspective of China (which still includes Mongolia) - but as a map of the districts of Israel, it fails neutrality. I'll work on a new draft of my map so we can have another one to discuss. --Golbez 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In your new draft, please make sure to include East Jerusalem also. Another issue is the Golan Heights - unless all sub-districts are included in the map, putting a label on the Golan is very confusing for a reader who doesn't know what it is. It will look like a special district or something, where it's really just a sub-district of the North District. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Golbez here. Yes, the Israeli government is an important source, but it's not the only POV out there, and we shouldn't forget that Judea and Samaria District is not recognized by the UN and most nations as being part of Israel (see WP:NPOV). It wouldn't reflect a neutral point of view to only have Judea and Samaria on the map. Khoikhoi 06:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi all! First of all, I LIKE Ynhockey's map! As mentioned above, Wikipedia should "carry" such a map somewhere, a map depicting Israel's official stand, and this is the appropriate place.


 * BUT, the map shouldn't say "Judea and Samaria District " but rather just "Judea and Samaria" (or "Judea and Samaria Area" - its official name) . [Now bear with me while i split hairs here]. That's because Judea and Samaria District is very anomalous; it's a district ONLY for the purpose of classification of Israeli citizens residing there, in statistical abstracts and for bureaucratic registration. But the territory is NOT registered as being in the "Judea and Samaria District"! The "Judea and Samaria District" has residents but no area! Therefore, the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics omits the "Judea and Samaria District" from its chart "population density per land sq. km. by district".


 * That region shouldn't be labeled "West Bank" if only because the two are non-coterminous; the "West Bank" includes the area annexed by Israel to Jerusalem's municipality, and perhaps also the "no man's land" areas like Latrun and Kfar Rut, "Judea and Samaria" doesn't. Besides, it's not the name of the "District".


 * Jerusalem shouldn't be marked differently on this map; it's irrelevant to the issue at hand: "Districts of Israel" (ditto about the Golan). This map should, as mentioned, present the administrative subdivisions of Israel, for its own internal workings. Those have absolutely no bearing on anyones stand on the matter in the international political arena, so the two realms shouldn't be forced upon each other. Any map that would try to present the "internationally recognized" boundries would be inaccurate; even the US, whose Congress "recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel", doesn't register their Jerusalem-born citizens as have been born in “Israel”. Most foreign countries don't recognize even "west" Jerusalem as being part of Israel. therefore, it's almost easier to say what isn't than what is. Shilonite 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes you are correct, it is called Judea and Samaria Area (Ayosh). I changed the map accordingly. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the holidays have sapped my time to work on this; I won't be able to work on it til after Christmas. Put up another one as a stopgap if you'd like, but I'd still like discussion to continue. I'm not sure now whether or not Gaza should be included - do Israelis consider it part of Israel or not? --Golbez 04:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll for updated Districts of Israel map

 * In favor of using the new map from Ynhockey . --Eliyahu S Talk 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on Golbez' offer to modify the original map using the feedback generated here, I retract my support and hereby abstain, with the recommendation that we wait a few days for Golbez to offer an updated image.--Eliyahu S Talk 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure my vote is neutral, but I vote support (as above). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, until the map reflects WP:NPOV. I appreciate Ynhockey's work however. Khoikhoi 06:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support' - great work! Khoikhoi, 'undue weight'? Either your missing the point of the article or your trying to make a WP:POINT. Would a map of the states that form the republic of the US also be required to show former/disputed Mexican and Russian territory? --Shuki 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because it's former. There's nothing former about the disputes over Gaza, Golan, and West Bank. --Golbez 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * True, and I agree with Golbez' dismissal of Shuki's argument. But, even when a dispute in this region seems to be settled, it can afterwards be declared as “disputed” all over again.  The Shebaa farms region is a typical example of the impossibility of consensus building here; as soon as one party is satisfied, another expresses dissatisfaction. --Eliyahu S Talk 08:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In favor of using the new map from Ynhockey. Gaza is omitted from the map, and even without the Golan, and the West Bank, much of Israel's borders are disputed or unrecognised. (see what i wrote above) Shilonite 21:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose voting and oppose, until I can present mine. --Golbez 10:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we understand that by “present mine” you are offering to produce an alternative map? If so, I for one would be willing to wait a few more days to see it.--Eliyahu S Talk 18:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the argument started over my map and I'm willing to edit it. I'm not saying the proposal isn't good, it's better quality than mine, but I don't think it should lack Gaza, among other POV issues. Last I heard, Israel still claimed Gaza - they just aren't in it militarily. --Golbez 20:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment from a third party - First, i am pleased to see you discussing the issue instead of edit warring. Second, i am here because of Khoikhoi request to have my view. So here it is. I've been into a similar case (i.e. Morocco's map). Most of you know the dispute over Western Sahara region between Morocco and SADR. We somehow reached a concensus to use a striped map with a clear explanation on the bottom of it using footnotes. Please have a look at it and see if a similar solution would serve to this issue. --  Szvest   [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]]  Wiki me up ®  12:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Szvest refers to the Morocco page and to the map Image:LocationMorocco striped.png which appears there with the legend:
 * The striped area on the map shows Western Sahara, most of which is de facto administered by Morocco as its "Southern Provinces". Its sovereignty, however, is currently in dispute (see main article).
 * I hope that helps to understand what he's talking about. --Eliyahu S Talk 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Ynhockey's new map. I don't see the POV issues, or the need for a solution along the lines of  Szvest , since this isn't a "Map of Israel," but rather just a documentation of existing administrative divisions. Maps that note the various territory disputes exist on other entries.  Tewfik Talk  23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point! But I still recommend that we give Golbez a few days to update the original image. --Eliyahu S Talk 10:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Tally: 4 support, 2 opposed, 1 abstention --Eliyahu S Talk 10:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Its been close to two weeks, so I was WP:Bold and added Ynhockey's map. If a new map is produced or something changes, let me know. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I really think we should try to come to a consensus first. Let's wait for Golbez's map. Khoikhoi 03:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it has been quite a while without any activity, and I believe we should operate the best we can with the two maps that we currently have, and if/when a new map would be produced, then take that into account. Let me know,  Tewfik Talk 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So perhaps we should include both maps? Khoikhoi 00:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that would help. I have no problem making modifications to my map if they are agreed on in this talk page. However, no unanimous suggestions were brought up. The main problem I see with Golbez's current map is that it doesn't correspond with the content of the article. This means Judea and Samaria, which does not appear on the map (won't be clear to unfamiliar readers), the Gaza Strip is even there, while it is not mentioned in the article in any way, and it doesn't make it clear that the Golan Heights are part of the North District. East Jerusalem is part of the 'West Bank', while it should be part of the Jerusalem District. Also the UNIFIL zones. I think these 5 problems alone should put the use of the map into question - whether it's NPOV or not is irrelevant, because it's factually incorrect. I agree that my map may be POV out of context, but it is the only one so far which correctly displays what this article talks about. If you insist on waiting for Golbez to create a new map, I have no problem with that, but IMO in this case we should use neither map until the dispute is resolved. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This article however, unlike your map, clarifies that Judea and Samaria Area is not recognized by the UN and most nations. In the map it shows it like it's an undisputed fact that it's part of Israel, which is false. Therefore I disagree that it correctly corresponds to what this article talks about. I suppose we could remove both maps if you want, however. Khoikhoi 11:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it does separate the Judea and Samaria Area by color. True, out of context it would look like a part of Israel, but within the article it's clear that it is not, as the color shows. I could easily add a legend for clarification purposes but I think the purpose of legends on the whole are to explain things on the map, which the article already does, so there's no need to clutter the image, IMO. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is now mute as per the consensus. No one has been able to provide a 'better' map than Ynhockey, and Khoikhoi is pushing a POV into the article that is inherently devoid of one. --Shuki 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Consensus" does not equal "majority". Also see Polling is evil. Shuki is pushing a POV into the article that is inherently devoid of one. Khoikhoi 21:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is the case, we may never reach 'consensus' on the grounds of your opposition alone. Polling should not decide everything, but majority matters. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 01:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Khoikhoi, you are out of line. Your refusal to accept consensus because it is opposite to your POV is disturbing. The map you continually replace is not relevant. What is so hard for you to understand? The map/article does not decide anything defacto. It merely describes the divisions of the land the government 'occupies' from Metulla to Eilat. --Shuki 20:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, there is no consensus yet. Simply declaring there is will not help. Khoikhoi 00:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Golbez to update us about the changes he offered to make to his map.

I am also very sorry to see that the page was WP:3RR locked. I had hoped to avoid that. Tewfik was sincere and made a change once ... why Khoikhoi and Shuki then got into an edit war over it just leaves me confused. I don't understand why you two did that when we were trying to work things out here?

I apologize for not being here to counsel patience more vigorously.

Sign me “Disappointed”. --Eliyahu S Talk 05:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are we waiting for Golbez? Since when does WP wait two weeks for someone to add info? Is Golbez an expert on the subject? If anyone's page should be protected, it's khoi's who did the 3RR, an admin who is abusing their position on a regular basis. --Shuki 19:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, because I actually said above that I was delayed, and I wouldn't mind if people went on ahead with whatever they were doing, as long as my submission gets considered when I can provide it. --Golbez 04:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That settles it then. I see no reason not to replace with Ynhockey's map for now. As Golbez says, when he produces something, we will discuss it. WP shouldn't wait in this manner.  Tewfik Talk 05:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC) I've requested that Alex Bakharev unprotect the page, which he has. With all due respect to you Khoikhoi, seeing as you are the only user here who objects, I'm going to move ahead with this change. If/when Golbez has something else to offer, we should continue the discussion. I can't see anything else worse than this ending in an edit war (that goes to everyone), so lets try to keep this calm and on Talk. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm quite baffled at this point, as despite all but one of us (including Golbez) being in favour of adding Ynhokey's map, Khoikhoi promptly reverted my latest edit, which I believe represents consensus, with the edit-summary rm POV map.  Tewfik Talk 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Khoikhoi missed the latest Talk when he removed the map, so I've readded it in the hope that he recognises the consensus here.  Tewfik Talk 16:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Khoikhoi has again removed the map despite my pointing to the clear situation on Talk. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what to do?  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 00:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We should add the internationally recognized name for "Judea and Samaria" to the map. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also add the name "Golan Heights" to the map and make it a different color because Syria claims it. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It is good to see you back on Talk. I believe the point which the other editors have made is quite important, that is that the map represents internal Israeli divisions, which by definition cannot also display what parts of the international community may think the internal divisions should be. I'm afraid I don't see how displaying the Israeli position (clearly labeled as such) is nonneutral - can one then never display a contested position?  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that we should only show the POV of the Israeli government in the map. It's also important how other governments and the rest of the world sees things. For example, this map of Nagorno-Karabakh shows both the Armenian and Azerbaijani POVs - the de jure and de facto situations. I think that Israel has a right to call its districts whatever it wants to call it, but that doesn't stop the rest of the world from not having an opinion. Per WP:NPOV, this should be expressed in the map. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the world doesn't have an opinion on how Israel should district, only on what should belong to it. Additionally it would be impractical as well as confusing to include both sets of information in one map (I can just imagine the dotted lines and mini-legends for the Golan Heights, West Bank, E. Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, the Latrun Salient etc. criss-crossing the Israeli district borders - areas that are no-man's land, annexed, or occupied; your Nagorno-Karabakh does not attempt this task), as well as unnecessary, as Ynhockey and others have pointed out that the de jure situations are quite clearly explained in the appropriate areas.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 03:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This article treats thing differently however. For example, the "Judea and Samaria Area" section states:


 * "This district is not recognized by the UN and most nations (as being part of the state of Israel), and has not been annexed by Israel. The entire 'district' has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967."


 * However, the map treats J & S like it is just a normal district, and that it is not disputed at all. This can possibly mislead readers, and it need to be made clear in the map. Same for Golan. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 03:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Khoi, first of all, I'm glad you finally accepted that this article is about how the Israeli government has divided up the land for which it has decided to adminster and that the content of the decision/article is not POV at all. Are government decisions POV? Secondly, the map is not the place to explain what is disputed, the article is. The map merely shows the divisions the government decided. If Israel declared part of the moon her territory, that would go on the map as well. --Shuki 08:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, a map should not only show one POV while the actual article shows many. The map should reflect the article. Acting like nothing is disputed and only having the name "Judea and Samaria Area" is POV. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is getting so lame. Absolutely no one disputes the divisions the government has chosen and neither do you, or frankly can. The disputed issue is about the land divided, and that is not even the subject of the article, only the administrative divisions. --Shuki 21:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A map that reflects NPOV will show both the way Israel sees it, and the internationally recognized status. The current map acts like the West Bank isn't disputed, which will mislead readers. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Those who oppose Israel's control of the West Bank do not believe that Israel's districts are not as appears in the map, it is because they recognise that Israel defacto annexed the Golan, E. Jerusalem, and occupies the West Bank that they present their dispute. Anyone can read the note on this article, or see the plain facts of the dispute on any one of dozens of articles and maps on WP. This is only about internal Israeli districting, and I just don't understand why you are making such a 'big deal' about this, especially when the lot of us don't see the problem. And lets please stop the edit warring, maybe a 1RR for the map for everyone? Exasperated,  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 05:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added it again and tried to address Khoikhoi's concerns to leave no confusion about the status of the areas in question. I hope that we can work out any remaining differences through compromise.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 18:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I've fixed the map per the internationally recognized status. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Internationally recognised status does not challenge the name of the Israeli district, nor is "West Bank" an accurate replacement or even synonym for "Judea and Samaria area", as the two are not coterminous. Sorry, but this is exactly what we've been trying to get across.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 05:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What I've been trying to get accross is that Israel can chose its own districts, but it also matters if countries chose to recognize them or not. An NPOV map should not only show the de facto status. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 05:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't clear beforehand, my last edit quite explicitly pointed out all the problems, and any user can follow the links to the appropriate entries to view other maps. Any map that would fit your specifications would also not actually portray Israel's position. There is no POV here, just practicality.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 06:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Map discussion
Seems obvious to me that Israel districts.png should be on the page, is merely a graphical representation of what is in the article. Thus clearly it is the one that should be. And it seems very silly that there is no image at all on the page at the moment, so I'm putting it back into the page. After all, an image is worth a thousand words and this article and image is just perfectly suited for an image and each other. Mathmo Talk 23:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Khoikhoi, with all due respect, we have polled, discussed, explicitly included your concerns in the text, and the witnessed practically the problems with your solution. I don't think it is fair at this point for us to keep the map out after all this time. In the meantime you or Golbez or whoever are welcome to continue to attempt an accurate map that represents you concerns, but as Mathmo says, "it seems very silly".  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 05:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on this comment, not to mention all the other comments on this talk page I'm not going to leave the article without an image and am restoring it. Mathmo Talk 06:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you actually wanted to try to address my concerns, the map would look different by now. But it doesn't. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 07:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, your variation of the map on the right does not include anywhere the Judea and Samaria Area, which is talked about in the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So let's include both names for the region. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The version to the right is not his version, I put in my earlier edit the one that I support.Khoi then changed what I wrote, have fixed that now. Mathmo Talk 06:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys and gals, I as an editor believe it is wrong to have a map that is biased to one side. Whether we want it or not the English speaking world calls the area West bank much more frequently than Judea and Samaria. The least we could have is to just put West Bank in brackets, labelling the area Judea and Samaria Area (West Bank). It would remove many problems and it is close to the text of the article. If it is not acceptable we could start an RfC on the article Alex Bakharev 07:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd support what you suggested, it sounds very sensible. However until then we ought not to leave this page all naked without an image! As the majority supports the image to the right (i.e. Israel districts.png), could you please restore that image until this alternative image is created. Mathmo Talk 07:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new version of the image implementing Alex Bakharev's proposal (see right). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but why is the word "West Bank" all faded? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 15:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, "Judea and Samaria area" is not coterminous with the West Bank, at least one part of which has been annexed by Israel. That they share a great deal of territory has been noted in the article.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have since created a new version taking into account Tewfik's comment. The West Bank and Golan Heights have less contrast with the rest of the map because they are there to denote international opinion, but are not actually relevant to the subject of the article (which, I remind, is Districts of Israel). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just adding my vote of support that yes I find that new version acceptable, and the sooner we add it to the article rather than leaving it blank without a picture the better. Mathmo Talk 03:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, there does seem to be a great deal of support for this version, you seem to be the odd man out here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I noticed. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 05:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that mean now you have noticed it you will abide by the majority descion so that the page can be unprotected once again? Mathmo Talk 12:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is unfortunate and makes it more difficult for everybody else. You are being very disruptive. Mathmo Talk 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus here has bent over backwards to accommodate your concerns. Like the tango, compromise takes two.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 05:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I like the compromise. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So then we can request unprotection and add this map?  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 05:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can even add it myself once the page is unprotected. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird parentheses
The copy editor in me is irked by this setence, located both in the article and the template:


 * This area is not recognized by the UN and most nations (as being part of the state of Israel).

Why not write the sentence as this?


 * This area is not recognized by the UN and most nations as being part of the state of Israel.

However, because this pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's possible that this grammatically bizarre use of parentheses is actually the result of some torturous back-and-forth NPOV dispute that lasted weeks. Thus, I thought I'd ask here to see if anyone objected to their removal before removing them. --Jfruh (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Assistance?
If anyone here speaks Hebrew, I could use your assistance with this webpage that has mapping areas only in Hebrew. If you could contact me offline via the email link on my wiki page, I would really appreciate it. Thank you! Rarelibra (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you want translated? The link you provided includes a dynamic mapping system which has practically unlimited info, most of which is not relevant. Also much of the info is found in other text publications, like here (also in Hebrew). Please be more specific. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Grey sub-district map
The grey map of Israel's sub-districts (nafot) is not correct, and does not include the entire territory of the Jerusalem District and the Jerusalem Sub-District. I could easily create a map of sub-districts similar to the already accepted district map (through consensus), however, since creating the population density map, which clearly includes sub-districts, I don't feel this is necessary, and will be content to simply remove the grey map. Any thoughts? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What About Judea and Samaria District
The link for Judea and Samaria District is a redirect to Judea and Samaria, which is basically an excerpt of the West Bank article. If there is indeed a mehoz for J & S, then it should be linked from here with the same statistical information as other mehozot. Whether or not “the UN and most nations” accept the district or not is immaterial, especially when it is, as the thread above notes, more of a bureacratic / statistical entity than a political / administrative one. If someone originally created the wikipage and someone else removed it, then it should at least be noted in the Talk pages, both here and on the redirect page. --Eliyahu S Talk 20:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the word "control" with "military occupation" as the area has been under a military occupation since 1967, with all that this implies. The word "control" is misleading as the Israeli military, not civil authorities are in control of the area. Some will suggest that "military occupation" will be too politically loaded, but it simply reflects the reality on the ground in a far more accuate manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.187.232 (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You came here to initiate a discussion. I thought that was a good sign.  But almost immediately, before the discussion could get underway, you went back to reasserting your edit, unilaterally and repeatedly.  We are here to edit collaboratively, and that involves seeking consensus on controversial edits, not endlessly reintroducing them even if we think our statement obviously reflects reality. As you show so little interest in such collaboration, I see no point to addressing the issues here.  If you continue to reintroduce your controversial edit, you can expect to see it reverted again.  Edit warring is disruptive of the work we do here, wastes everybody's time, and is a violation of the rules. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I was not fully aware of how the system works as this is my first major edit. As no one had responsed to my discussion I continued to edit. Again, I apologize, I do wish to engage in a discussion and will not change the edit again and will change it back to "control" until we can reason this out. I was changing because I did not recieve a response on the talk page. So please, respond to my criticism of the current status of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.187.232 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no question that “occupation” is a loaded term in connection with Judea and Samaria. I would call its use tendentious, as it assumes a conclusion that cannot be taken for granted, much as it is in widespread use.  Just whose land is occupied?  The last widely recognized sovereign over the area, the Ottoman Empire, is not around to lay claim.  The League of Nations Mandate promised the area as part of the Jewish Homeland, not because the League was giving it to the Jews, but in recognition that it belonged to them “from time immemorial”.  To make a long story short (because extensively detailed discussions of this topic can be found in a number of other articles and their talk pages), it is convenient to call these areas “disputed”, though that is in itself a compromise term.  I object to the use of the term “occupied” in the present context, with or without the word “military”.  "Control" is a more encompassing and neutral term.  Also, one could argue that the control is not exclusively military.  I hope others will join this discussion.  Thank you for your cooperation.  Please sign your messages on this page by typing four of these tildes (~) at the end. It would also be helpful to use the edit summary space to explain any edits you make to articles.  Hertz1888 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Occupied" has connotations that some disagree with, but it is the consensus term used by the media, UN, other nations, etc., regardless of how well or badly one thinks it fits the situation. The word as used in this article can be wikilinked to West Bank for easy access to a detailed discussion of the status of the territory.

There are more grounds for quibbling with "military". Yes, the Israeli military has been there and in overall control continuously, however for at least some of the time, some administrative powers over some of the territory have been transferred to the Palestinian Authority. Also, publications usually refer to "Israeli-occupied territories" without always including "military" in the phrase. Actually, "military control" would be less debatable than "military occupation". --JWB (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

At present there is no soverign in the "Palestinian" Territories (since Jordan gave up its illegal claim), and Israel does not claim soverignty, thus what exactly is being "disputed"? If the military of a sovereign state (in this case Israel) invades and remains in an area that does not belong to that state, does not annex it, and controls the area without the consent of the local population how is this not an "occupation"? The Israeli army is clearly the law of the land, except for in the settlements. While the PA may have some limited control over things like garbage disposal, the Israeli military can enter at will and the Israeli airforce can bomb at will. Would not the land that is being occupied be that of the yet uncreated Palestinian state, since the 1947 UN Resolution is still on the books? (PS, is this the correct way to use the tildes (~)?): 72.241.187.232 (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

- the last sovereign over the area before the israeli military occupation was jordan (jordan abstained from it's claim in 1988 in favour of the palestinians). before, it was, with the rest of palestine, under british mandate. and BEFORE that, it was part of the ottoman empire.

- "Judea and Samaria" is a loaded, tendentious, controversial term! it's a term, used by the jewish/israeli right to legitimate their claim to this palestinian lands.

- when did the league of nations promise the westbank to a jewish state? interesting that you don't mention the UN resolution 181 according to which it would belong to an arab state, mr. hertz....

- to envisage the presently occupied westbank and gaza as a future palestinian state is for itself a compromise!

- the territories which israel conquered in 1967 and still occupy are considered - as others here have already mentioned - by the international community as occupated. that counts, not that someone finds that this "cannot be taken for granted" and that here "neutral terms" (yes, i can rob somebody's wallet and then call it "disputed"...) are appropriate. to strike a very polite note is witless inasmuch as this is only a method to promote very nationalistic standpoints...

- i will not start an edit war and undo the last change in the article. a wikipedia article is not the only source for issues like this.

--Severino (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, what's your point? What changes to the article are you suggesting? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Severino, before you start making suggestions, please read up in the Bible about what you claim is the loaded and 'controversial term' "Judea and Samaria". --Shuki (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

QED --Severino (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Population figures don't match
The population figures (for each district) here don't match the figure on each district's wiki page (in most cases) I'd guess the figures here are out-of-date but it needs to be checked...

Athaclena (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it up. Actually the figures on the individual district pages are outdated (although I'm sure there are newer figures than even this page has). I'll look into it later. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Assistance, revisited
I want to revisit this question. This webpage has mapping areas of localities in Israel, but the site is entirely in Hebrew. I would like to ask for someone who speaks Hebrew to assist me with this website, in particular

- is there a way to download the localities digitally (as some governmental websites have this capability)? - if not, can someone at least send me a quick translation as to the various components and how to navigate the site?

Thank you!

Rarelibra (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You reached the page with a link to a transportation statistics map only. What kind of statistics are you looking for? This page has most of the useful statistics for every municipality (but also in Hebrew). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ynhocket - not the statistics, but the boundaries. There are boundaries below the level of the sub-districts and natural regions (municipalities?). So I am referring to the boundaries... ? Rarelibra (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can download the vector map from CBS, but there is a more convenient and easy-to-use map with more features in the Ministry of Internal Affairs website (link). It's also in Hebrew though and you need to download an ActiveX control. But FYI, neither of those maps are quite up to date, and there have been quite a few municipality border changes since. Are you looking for something specific? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ynhockey - I have helped contribute to the |atlas of Israel and my layers include down to the natural regions. I am aware of the layers below, and I would like to find a good resource to update my database. Rarelibra (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Council groupings
At least all of the city councils, local councils, and regional councils are grouped by sub-district. However, which city councils, local councils, and regional councils are grouped by "natural region"? jlog3000 (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're saying. If you're saying that natural regions shouldn't be mentioned in the article, why not? They are an official grouping of sub-districts, even though municipalities are grouped into sub-districts. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Gaza strip
What was the Israel name when referring to the former settlements in the "Gaza Strip area"? I assume that there was some Israeli government naming - like the current "Judea and Samaria" for the "West Bank". I think this information should be noted in the article (as well as any other former district - if any). Also, the Gaza Strip should also be present on the map (named PNA Gaza Strip governorates - Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority?). Alinor (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Color coded map
A user is trying to add a color-coded map of the districts. There are a number of problems with the map, such as low graphic quality, unclear and incorrect boundaries, and a strange new district in the Sharon area. However, even if these problems as fixed, what is the point of the map? —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have fixed many off the aforementioned problems. Magister Scienta talk  (28 October 2011) 


 * It's good that some of the problems have been fixed. I can help you fix the other problems and give you the vector version of the map, but again, what is this map for? —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you're help is very much appreciated. The purpose of the map is to make the districts of Israel visually obvious in comparison to the beige map that is currently present. I respectfully remind you that semi-redundancy can never been a wikipedia criterion for deletion. MagisterScientaIcon.png Magister Scienta talk  (30 October 2011) 


 * Deletion, no; omission from an article, absolutely. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have said it better myself. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope in the future this image will in fact be added to articles seeing as all the aforementioned issues have been resolved. MagisterScientaEmblem.png Magister Scienta talk  (1 November 2011) 

Colouration proposal re: File:Israel districts.png


I have made a proposal at commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File talk:Israel districts.png] regarding the image displayed to the right to propose that this image should use the same colour scheme for the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem as it does for the Israeli designated "Judea and Samaria area". Please make comment on that page. GregKaye 20:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Districts of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518104937/http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton65/st02_15x.pdf to http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton65/st02_15x.pdf
 * Added tag to http://gis.cbs.gov.il/main_gis/shnaton60/map_h.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Number of sub-districts
Hello,

According to this article there are fifteen sub-districts, but when I check this article on WP:HE, it mentions 16 "nafot", not 15… so what is the source that would validate the number of 15?

Thanks for your lights about the subject.

2A02:2788:22A:100D:8837:D428:82D1:4BD7 (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like it depends on whether or not the Judea and Samaria Area is included. --Lasunncty (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)