Talk:Israel/Archive 38

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

One anonymous editor's simple solution
This seems like a much simpler issue than everyone is making it out to be:

a) Capitals are cities where a country's government is located.

b) Israel is a country, and its government is located in Jerusalem.

c) Therefore, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

Whether or not it is recognized as such doesn't seem to be relevant to the argument. 24.231.218.6 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not always. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IP, have a look at WP:OR. On the other hand, stating that Jerusalem is the "Seat of Government" is OK per many editors. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Seb, according to the dictionary, my above example is correct. I don't want to split hairs, but it is universally recognized that a capital is a seat of government. Dailycare, I am aware of the original research policy--but the argument seems to have devolved into one of semantics. There are plenty of verifiable sources that state that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. What people seem to be debating is what a capital *is*--the dictionary definition is clear. We may not be able to use OR in an article, but I see no problem in using it (to an extent) on a talk page to re-affirm a consensus. 24.236.185.254 (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear 24.231.218.6, You are right that dictionaries define capital as "seat of government". Why, then, do almost all countries of the world think that Jerusalem is not the capital? Don't they read the dictionary?


 * Or maybe they think that "capital" means something more than just "seat of government". And, if that is the case, shouldn't we take their almost unanimous opinion in the matter into account? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Does East Jerusalem physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government, as defined in Capital City?
If not, then Jerusalem is de jure capital and West Jerusalem is de facto capital (sounds odd...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.174.51.1 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Alas, would it were so. But, no, Israel has built many government offices (Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior, etc.) in East Jerusalem.--Ravpapa (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A new source for Statistics about Israel
Hello all,

Today I've launched a website containing 25,000 data series about Israel (all taken, with permission, from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics):

http://statil.org/

All of the images and the data series on the site are licensed under CC, so to allow them to be included in Wikipedia. I hope people in this project will be interested in including more statistical graphs about the state of Israel.

With regards, Tal Galili (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 September 2012
1. Israels Capital Jerusalem should be in brackets disputed. Not only Jerusalem. 2. Israel is not part of ASIA

Please fix this problems!

Akaa100 (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:
 * There is a note next to Jerusalem that explains the controversy better than the word "disputed" would.
 * Israel most certainly is in Asia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Israel page vandalized with swastika
Someone vandalized the Israel page with a giant swastika. It needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.109.12 (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was template vandalism by Special:Contributions/12lobbykeep. They've already been blocked. If the flag is still visible the IP will need to clear their browser's cache.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"Government"
The government should say "Parliamentary unitary state, br Ethnic democracy for a more concise description. IMO, it more correctly would have Ethnocracy last, being that it is more applicable in describing its relationship with the territory's indigenous population. However, as far as being official, the state of Israel is un-controversially described as an ethnic democracy. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No comment on the content issue but I think you used an outdated or incorrect URL in your citation. The paper appears to be here.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any question about the fact that most RS do not call it an "ethnic democracy"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Describing Israel as an ethnic democracy or ethnocracy is a fringe viewpoint. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe Israel as a parliamentary democracy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the majority viewpoint, until established otherwise, is parliamentary democracy. The "ethnic democracy" viewpoint could be a feature in Criticism of the Israeli government. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Cite_quick can avoid size/speed problems
The article "Israel" is one of several which are nearing the template include-size error, plus some exceeding the 60-second timeout to cause "wp:Wikimedia Foundation error" because {cite_news} or {cite_web} is too slow/large to be used over 350-400 times per page. Another over-size article is "Arab Spring" or "2011–2012 Egyptian revolution". Currently, new Template:Cite_quick can be used to reduce the size/speed problem, to be coded in the article as. Now, other editors have come to support progress, and we can again continue to streamline those huge articles. Next year, when the Lua script cites are installed, then the {cite quick|news} usage can be edited to remove "quick|" and use the new, faster Lua-based {cite_news} which seems to run about as fast and small as {cite_quick}.

If there are no other concerns, then in a few days, I can change the citations in the article to use {cite_quick} and reduce the edit-preview, or reformat, time of the entire page from 45 seconds to within 14 seconds. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Have things changed about the templates usage? And if so (point to conversation) why is the new coding not being implemented into the main cite template?Moxy (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Cite_quick for some pages while updating {cite_web} too risky: There have been 3 sets of TfDs for fast-cite templates. The final TfD, for Template:Cite_quick, was closed as "Keep" in use, with no restrictions because it works, where other templates fail for wp:CS1. Meanwhile, the plan to update {cite_web} from {cite_web/smart} was derailed by another TfD which renamed {cite_web/smart} as {cite_web/sandbox4}, and hence non-usable separately until "tested" for all 1.2 million articles using {cite_web}, as a formal upgrade systemwide. Meanwhile meanwhile, tests of {cite_quick} discovered alarming problems with invalid parameters in existing articles, where "author=" null would override "last=xx" to blank the author's name. It would be nice to update {cite_web} soon, but some/many articles depend on bugs in {cite_web}, and simulating those bugs in a new version is complex. Consequently, other users have considered {cite_quick} to be a "choice" as another citation style, where it does not need to mimic {cite_web} exactly, and can be used with slight differences. Whereas {cite_quick} has only 43 parameters with only billion trillions of combinations (43!=~6.0415e52), the complexity of {cite_web} has over 230 parameters, with umpteen zillion zillion combinations (230!=~7.76e444), which could not be tested fully if tests were run 1,000 per second since the dawn of time with the age of the universe. Only by using a new template within a few more articles, each time, can the results be safely tested, little by little. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with it. What is really needed is the ability to create subpages where you can store the full reference info for each reference, and then simply refer to it in the article as, and it would simply grab all of the reference information from the subpage. -- Jethro  B  00:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lua-based cites will be lightning-fast per second: I have spent weeks testing the Lua script cites planned for Spring 2013, running on test2.wiki, with Lua test2:Module:Citation, and can confirm rapid formatting, such as for article "Barack Obama" (see: test2:Barack_Obama). The Lua-based cites format at about 125-per-second, but perhaps could be improved to 200-per-second. At such rapid speeds, then the footnotes would be less of a problem. However, I like the idea of clicking on a small footnote which can link to a fuller note in a separate references page, as could be done with 200 basic footnotes which rarely change. For example, external footnotes could be numbered as "x1" or "x2" within the text: "Israel has a mixed climate[x1] [x2] with ocean, desert,[x3] and mountain regions" whereas the internal footnotes would avoid the "x" prefix. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The first part of your passage is complete gibberish to someone like me, with the fullest respect! While I have a background in computer programming and know HTML, XHMTL, CSS, and some JavaScript, I am not that advanced and am totally unfamiliar with this lua and test2.wiki stuff.  Sounds very technical.  Sorry!
 * As for the laat part, that's a good idea too, I wasn't even referring to that. I was thinking more of having a subpage for each article, where the full coding for each reference would be found. Then on the actual article, we'd just have a special short ref tag that we use, whose full code would be on the subpage.  The reference itself would still be in the reference section, just the amount of coding on the page itself would be eliminated.  Perhaps we should move this to a different venue? -- Jethro   B  04:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

How Israel was established
So, won't you write something about how Israel was established?!, As far as i know, Wikipedia does accept all true things that you write, so go on and write about Israel and how Bloodthirsty it really is, of course i have read some other articles that talk about countries and how they were established, so we need you to show us how Israel was established and how many Palestinians has Israel killed, or you are afraid of something?, am i going to be blocked?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.18.152.150 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The confrontational tone could be done without. 66.183.104.162 (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Israel was established by the declaration of its establishment. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.   The US immediately recognized this as true. talknic (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IP 46.18.152.150, I believe a brief summary of the establishment of the modern nation of Israel can already be found within this article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Independence_and_first_years. It would be much appreciated if you took the time to look if such information already exists before you request it be added. If you are looking for casualty count of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Fatalities_1948.E2.80.93present, which contains data on both Israeli and Palestinian deaths. You may also be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine#Beginning_of_the_Civil_War_.2830_November_1947_.E2.80.93_1_April_1948.29, which is an account of the beginnings of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, your statements regarding Israel show that your tone is decidedly biased against Israel, and per Wikipedia policy, is something you should seek to correct before making more edit requests or attempting to contribute content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such, must provide information from a balanced point of view. Jonathanfu (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that part of the article could do with a slight rebalancing in that Palestinan motives are always implicit rather than explicit in the account. That leaves a lot of room for misunderstanding by readers from all sides. 138.251.234.158 (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

i agree that we need to show the ethnic cleanising that the zionist paramilitaries commited against the palestinian people in the 1948 war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Imam in Istanbul clearly reflects Turkish foreign policy against Israel.
"Once Turkey grows strong enough politically and economically it will stop recognising Israel with the first chance, and once we do this Israel will be wiped off the map", Imam in Istanbul during the summer.

Thousands of reporters and commentators have made it clear that Turkey tries to find the chance -irrespective of goverment in power- to harm Israel and become the leader of the Muslim world. Of course someone must be very ignorant to beilive Turkey is a real democracy. The suppression of minority rights and the imprisonment of Islamist goverment's opponenets are two of the various indications that Turkey is controlled by an elit, and that elit plans the harm or even more advocates the destruction of Israel. There are many years that a religious fundamentalist sentiment is fuelling in Turkey, is not something recent. And of course this is reflected by the current goverment in power also. Turkey through its established membership in NATO steadily undermines Israel's stance in Europe and the US. Its links with European and US military is a clear indication that Turkey is more harmful than any other Israeli enemy.

Anyways when I find the artcile that writes about this event I will post it in Foreign Policy section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsrArmen (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Imam's are not government officials in Turkey. They do not set policy. If all you can find are Imam's speeches, then your content will not make it into the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly - our article will indicate that foreign-policy relations between Turkey and Israel are those reflected by the balance of reliable sources, and unless these state that the opinions of a particular Imam are of any significance, we won't. And in future, please give new sections neutral headings, rather than using them as a platform for your obsession. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A Jewish minority state, according to the Israeli Ministry of Finance
This new fact of "unparalleled importance" (according to Haaretz) deserves mention in the lead. Any suggestions where it might fit? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on what little I can see, since there is a pay wall, your link does not support the claim that Israel is a "Jewish minority state." The article claims that in the entirety of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, there are more non-Jews than Jews... but that area contains more than just the State of Israel. It includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Forgive me for not wanting to go around into circles on who controls what and all of that, but the current legal situation is that Israel has not annexed these areas. Within the State of Israel, the population is 70-75% Jewish, hardly a minority. What I am guessing the article is getting at is that if all of the areas that Israel "controls" are included, thus including the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, you have to include some 4+ million non-Jewish Palestinians, and then Jews are not a majority. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the 4% of Israelis (300,000), ethnically defined as "others", who are Russian-descendants of Jewish origin or family who are not Jewish according to rabbinical law, but were eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. So the Jewish population could be considered an 79% instead of 75%. By the way, Druze and Bedouins don't consider themselves Arabs nor Palestinians. --Sonntagsbraten (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion piece, so "unparalleled importance" is not according to Haaretz, but according to Akiva Eldar. I agree with OC above. You seem to have not read the article (or just the bit you can read) very carefully. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks OC. I will ignore NMMNG's false assertion. Here is the key quote:
 * "According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (which is subordinate to the Prime Minister's Office ), of the 12 million residents living under Israeli rule, the number of Jews is just under 5.9 million (as of April 25 ). Twelve million minus 5.9 million Jews equals 6.1 million non-Jews. In other words, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, there is a pretty Jewish state as far as its laws and customs, but the reality is not so democratic. Foreign sources report that Jews had already become a minority in the area of the greater Land of Israel several years ago. From now on, it is an official statistic. There will certainly be those who argue that the 12 million includes the resident of the Gaza Strip, which Israel evacuated, and that I should have deducted 1.5 million people from the number of non-Jewish residents. But the 12 million, which does happen to include the residents of the Gaza Strip, is an official figure appearing on Ministry of Finance stationery. If this population "is not considered" for purposes of the demographic balance, the Finance Ministry should be so kind as to deduct it from the limit for receiving the tax breaks and from the balance of its income."
 * Hope that clears up your questions. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless this is based on some new census that has not been released to the public, this does not answer my questions at all. There simply are not 12 million people living "between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea" unless you include the Palestinian Territories, and not just the State of Israel. The continued use of "Israeli rule" also makes me suspect this. There are an estimated 8 million people living in Israel, the state. There are 2 million non-Israelis living in the West Bank. There are 1.7 million living in the Gaza Strip. The only way you approach 12 million is to add all three numbers together. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote the article: "But the 12 million, which does happen to include the residents of the Gaza Strip, is an official figure appearing on Ministry of Finance stationery." So we could add a sentence such as "According to Israeli Ministry of Finance figures, Jews comprise a minority of the total population living under Israeli rule". OK? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not OK. The article's numbers do not add up. In addition, by your own claim of their wording, they are still including the West Bank... meaning not just the State of Israel. Maybe if you can find some confirmation, especially something not behind a pay wall so that we can all see it? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless the argument is that the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel (the subject of this article), the detail about what the demographic composition of the total area is doesn't belong here. And I'll note again that this is an opinion piece, you can't use it to state facts. Perhaps if someone supplied the actual document he's talking about, we could see what it says. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, this (opinion, in Hebrew, probably not RS but read on) contains a link to the original MoF document Eldad is ostensibly using as a source. It does not include a figure of 12 million. The rest of his opinion piece is based on using a number that doesn't exist, then subtracting actual CBS figures from that to reach a conclusion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Haaretz article is not an op-ed, it's a news article. And the link you referred to is not just "probably not RS". It's a transparant piece of propaganda (used Google Translate). With that said, I agree that the jewish minority fact does not belong in the lead and probably not in the rest of the article either. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken about the Haaretz article, it's obviously an opinion piece, but as long as we agree that this stuff doesn't belong in the article, that really isn't important. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, your suggestion is based on a misinterpretation of the article. What the article says is "A Ministry of Finance memorandum on the amendment to the law notes that in 2011 the population of Israel and the Palestinian Authority exceeded the 12 million mark, which enables manufacturers who market to these consumers to enjoy a tax break." That is to say, the figure includes the Palestinian Authority (as well as Gaza), which, as the memo makes explicit, is not part of the state of Israel.

What alarms Eldar is the expansionist factions of the Israeli government, that want all the territory of the West Bank incorporated into Israel. For the time being, those forces have not taken the steps to make that expansion, so it would be wrong to include the populations of Gaza and the Occupied Territories as part of Israel. The government is now considering implementation of a report that would indeed obfuscate the legal distinction between Israel and the West Bank (the Edmond Levy report), thus de jure annexing the West Bank. However, for the time being, such a change in the article would be premature. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I know that it has no legal effect whatsoever, but the official website of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies (Australia) on the page dealing with the Geography of Israel includes Gaza, the West Bank (Samaria and Judea) as part of Israel. Victoria, South Australia  and Western Australia  incorporate the page in their respective websites.Trahelliven (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem
Its not KISHINEV POGROM but CHISINAU POGROM. KISHINEV is not the official name of Chisinau (Republic of Moldova) anymore. --Octavix (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You should be taking up this issue on the page for Kishinev pogrom, but to answer your question, the most commonly used term in cited sources use "Kishinev" after the Russian spelling and pronunciation (as the Russian name was the official usage during the pogrom, when Chişinău was part of the Russian Empire). Unless a consensus of reliable sources begins to use "Chişinău pogrom" as a name, it will not pass into the wiki's usage. If you can find a source using "Chişinău pogrom", that can be provided as an alternative name in-article. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Apartheid mention?
One of South Africa's recent investigations declared Israel to be an apartheid regime. I feel that should be at least noted in the article. --120.147.16.209 (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Arabic
Why is "Arabic" in the "Official languages" box of this article on Israel? --68.103.165.33 (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it is an official language in Israel. D'uh. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in Languages of Israel and Demographics of Israel.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to the Energy Triangle in the article of Israel - the joint naturalgas extraction between Cyprus, Israel and Greece
Energy Triangle between Israel, Greece and Cyprus

Energy Triangle refers to the joint natural gas extraction between Cyprus, Israel and Greece that is estimated to begin in 2015. Officials from all three countries have agreed to the establishment of a gas pipeline from Aphrodite gas field and Leviathan gas field to a liquefied natural gas plant in Vasilikos Power Station by 2019. According to Noble Energy, a total gross unrisked deep oil potential is enough to cover the supply of natural gas to Europe for 20 years, the supply for Israel for 150 years and for Cyprus 200 years.

This collaboration is part of the strong alliance between the three countries.Kotsia2 (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

'Conflicts and peace treaties' section
Malik Shabazz, I deleted link to the List of wars involving Israel from hatnotes because all these wars were with Arab countries, and there's already a link to Arab–Israeli conflict which covers this more comprehensively. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 11:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

a problem with the article
there are 2 photos of israeli air planes, i think they aren't such fit to this article, but to another who deals with israeli made weapons, thanks.


 * There is one plane in the Military section and another in a section dealing with the Economy in Israel, both pictures seem to be in suitable categories and areas in the page, there is no reason to move them. Silvertrail (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A criticism section is needed
Very, very badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.149.187.98 (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. Encyclopaedic articles don't have separate 'criticism' sections, but incorporate such material into the remainder of the text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Criticism_section. 216.149.187.98 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Anon, to give you the benefit of the good faith, please give us a list of existing country articles with criticism sections so we can judge how to create one per WP format. With some lite surfing, I couldn't find any. --Shuki (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the list of independent states article, Israel seems unique in that it is the only one with 33 countries that don't recognise it. The other countries on that list either have no other countries that don't recognise them, or just one. There is no other country like Israel on earth, its unique, so your argument about other country articles not having criticism sections does not apply 125.253.96.174 (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If focusing on recognition of a country, that would only argue for discussion of recognition, not an open listing of everything a country has done right/wrong. Should we also list the pros/cons of every nation? --207.237.215.72 (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no other country like Israel on earth, its unique, so your argument does not apply. 216.149.187.98 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Taco


 * Can we start the USA criticism section yet? Apparently our democracy fails the Russian test...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/11/mil-121106-rferl01.htm Russian Election Report Concludes U.S. Vote Will Be Neither Free Nor Fair


 * Duh, of course a billion dollar election isn't "Free". Hcobb (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop trying to change the subject, if you have a problem with the US take it up on that page 216.149.187.98 (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the issue here, exactly? If 98 is suggesting that there should be a section in this article entitled "Criticm of Israel", then we should be discussing what we'd write in this section, based on which sources. There are several articles that deal with aspects of Israeli policy that have drawn criticism, such as Criticism of the Israeli government. Why not use those? --Dailycare (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly, these articles complain about the actions of the government, not the land. What exactly would be the criticism of the country? "Dry and full of fanatics"? Wouldn't that just mark it as a typical Middle Eastern country? Hcobb (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No need for POV in the article and as for the Anon claim that there is no other country like Israel so only in her case criticism section is required -I think he would have to explain why we don't have one on Iran, Syria, Pakistan (which want to execute mentally retard 12 years old child for tearing the Koran and even that according to only one eye witness) Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, N.Korea and the list can go much longer if the one who roll his eyes up and want us to push his anti-Israeli agenda into the article insist. --Gilisa (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists According to this wiki law, then Encyclopaedic articles do indeed need it. Especially the sort where people are trying to Game the system of wiki as it did here "August 18, 2010). "Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups". The Guardian. Retrieved February 16, 2012." So agreed, there definatly should be a criticism section displaying the sourced facts about the racism in israel and the anti-non jewish policies that is being kept. Not just as a seperate article itself ONLY. Especially the anti-non jew part should be added, the human rights record on controlling the press by violence is just another example http://www.btselem.org/beating_and_abuse/20120913_assault_on_jornalists_in_kafr_qadum 109.225.103.178 (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Criticism (essay) - "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies".Moxy (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Israel is already the target if criticism and anger, we do not need to add to that. For the sake of the country's honor, we should focus on saying positive words about it. (Written by a person in the U.S.) 98.246.39.52 (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article should be focused on retaining a neutral viewpoint towards Israel, not a positive or a negative view, see WP:Neutrality. Silvertrail (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2012
Please could you change Tel Aviv to the capital city of Israel. Jerusalem is not officially recognized as the capital, neither by any International country or the United Nations.

Dan.s.Jones (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Tel Aviv is not the capital city of Israel.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dan.s.Jones is partially correct, Tel Aviv is the unofficial capital of Israel whereas Jerusalem is stated by Israel as it's official Capital, perhaps Tel Aviv can be included as the unofficial capital on this page if it is not already somewhere on here. Silvertrail (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

just an edit
I can't edit, although it may be interesting to note under the literature section that Israelis publish more material per capita than any other country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglefingers (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A factlet like that needs a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is one: http://www.biblicalzionist.com/facts.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglefingers (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't a reliable source.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Defined as "Jewish" in its "Basic Laws"?
The article says "In its Basic Laws Israel defines itself as a Jewish and Democratic State". The full text of the Basic Laws are at http://main.knesset.gov.il/Activity/Legislation/Pages/BasicLaws.aspx and I don't see any "Israel is a Jewish state" there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.78.54 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See the Human Dignity and Liberty law
 * the Hebrew site = "להגן על כבוד האדם וחירותו, כדי לעגן בחוק-יסוד את ערכיה של מדינת ישראל כמדינה יהודית ודמוקרטית"
 * the English site = to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
 *  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * but having values as "Jewish and democratic state" is diffrent from In its Basic Laws Israel defines itself as a Jewish and Democratic State". the qouted basic law does not say that Israel deinfe itself As a Jewish and Democratic State (POV issue)19:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't Israel a country?

Lebanon and Turkey are "parliamentary democracies" too. Why is only Israel described as such in the article's opening sentence? This has a strong smell of propaganda...

Tomás Rosa Bueno (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Israel's human dignity and liberty law does show that it is a Jewish and democratic state, anon. Tomas Rosa Bueno, why does it smell of propaganda if that is included in the Israel lead?  If it is a fact about Israel than it may very well be included, Lebanon and Turkey are indeed democracies too, the fact that they are not stated as such is subject to the talk pages on their respective articles and sources material. Silvertrail (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jewish and democratic state could you find the quote ? because the law only states that laws should have the values of the state as such109.226.49.93 (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional Education section information
Shall we include more information regarding the specific education in Israel, such as the anti-Palestinian sentiment being taught to young Israeli minds? According to the Israeli language and education professor Nurit Peled-Elhanan, young Israeli students are receiving a biased viewpoint on the subject of the Palestinians, it may be important to note this in this article's Education section, as it deals with Education in Israel.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/book-review-how-israeli-school-textbooks-teach-kids-hate/11571 Silvertrail (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * electronicintifada is not an WP:RS on Israeli Palestinian conflict109.226.49.93 (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The book cited in the article and the author of the book cited are reliable sources. Silvertrail (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Muslim rule section
It is strange how this article devotes a single paragraph to 1100 years of the history of the region. &mdash; goethean 17:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If the article is about, not the region, but the modern state, the article really should start with the rise of modern Zionism in the late 19th century. Trahelliven (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Trahelliven's assessment above, the Muslim rule section was not 1100 years of rule of Israel, the region was then Palestine, this article's history should begin in the late 19th century when Israel was created in Palestine. Silvertrail (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of the name Israel
Keep hearing and reading that the name Israel is simply a combination of three godnames: Isis, Ra, El. Same as "amen" in prayer is taken from the Egyptian god Amun or Amen. Would be nice if this could be added to the article because right now the word "Isral" isn't properly explained in the Etymology section at all. Some guy was "given" the name from god - yeah sure. Wikipedia should do better in an "etymology" section. 178.191.32.99 (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * source? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to come from a 1901 book by astrologer John Hazelrigg, which itself doesn't state any supporting evidence. So it's interesting, but not WP:RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems to have no scholarly support so we shouldn't report it. However anon is correct that the etymology section is weak.  We only have the popular "struggle with God" version, cited to a dictionary, that has little scholarly support either.  The fact is that nobody really knows what it means but many possibilities have been proposed.  I started collecting. Zerotalk 09:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew/Arabic languages
The languages should appear like this:


 * Indented line

Actually, no, it shouldn't as there is 49% of the population that speaks Hebrew, and 18% who speaks Arabic. Changing the order would be silly thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achiron (talk • contribs) 07:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, Hebrew should be listed before Arabic. Achiron, I have a question however, 49% of the population speaks Hebrew and 18% speaks Arabic, what do the 51% that do not speak Hebrew speak? Silvertrail (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent elections government negotiation is over, new members of parliament.
That's al, it need to be updated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achiron (talk • contribs) 07:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Apartheid is not mentioned once on this page
that should be changed because currently this page is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.231.141 (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have a specific suggestion for improving the article? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it really Kosher to just move all criticism of Israel to a separate page? I think there should be some attempt made to mention the stuff from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Israel on this page, and also to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism in Anthem Song
Around the 28th second of the Israeli anthem, there are some offensive words that appear over the black screen. This should be changed asap. Wormpy (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks for pointing that out. Evidently it's been like that since 2008, or that's what File:Hatikvah instrumental.ogg says.
 * I've removed the audio file until a new recording can be uploaded. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've reported the problem and asked for assistance at the Commons help desk. If anybody is familiar with ogg files and is able to help, please reply there. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been fixed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 April 2013
Well you have a major mistake, you are writing that about 20% of the population in israel arab arab.(70% jews). you are comparing apples to oranges. jew is a religion. arab is a decent. most of the jews in israel are of arab decent. you should be writing 20% moslims, instead of arab.

76.91.245.107 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is as is it in the source and I think it is commonly understood that Jewish is an ethnic as well as a religious designation, so that it can include, for example, Jewish people who are atheists. Plus, many Arab Israelis are Christian, so we can't convert "Arab" to "Muslim". Sorry, I don't think your suggested change can be made. Formerip (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Another major mistake: at another section it says and I quote "Since 1964 Arab countries, concerned over Israeli plans to divert waters of the Jordan River over into the coastal plain,[99] had been trying to divert the headwaters to deprive Israel of water resources, provoking tensions between Israel on the one hand, and Syria and Lebanon on the other." so far - correct. Now it goes on: " On the other hand, water resources were confiscated for the benefit of the Israeli settlements in the Ghor." --- That't a major mistake since there were no Israeli settlements in the Ghor in 1964, as the Jordan Valley (the Ghor in Arabic), together with the rest of the west bank, was captured only in 1967. This seems to be an attempt to justify pre-67 aggression against Israel by its Arab neighbors, by a mix of chronology.

Now it goes on: "Palestinian irrigation pumps on the Jordan River were destroyed or confiscated after the 1967 war and Palestinians are not allowed to use water from the Jordan River system. Furthermore, the authorities did not allow any new irrigation wells to be drilled by Palestinian farmers, while it provided fresh water and allowed drilling wells for irrigation purposes at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[100] Arab nationalists led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to recognize Israel, and called for its destruction.[12][101][102] By 1966, Israeli-Arab relations had deteriorated to the point of actual battles taking place between Israeli and Arab forces.[103]"

As evident in this bit, this mix of chronology goes on. it should have been something like: "Arab nationalists led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to recognize Israel, and called for its destruction.[12][101][102] By 1966, Israeli-Arab relations had deteriorated to the point of actual battles taking place between Israeli and Arab forces.[103]" And ONLY THEN "after the 1967 war, Palestinian irrigation pumps on the Jordan River were destroyed or confiscated and Palestinians are not allowed to use water from the Jordan River system. Furthermore, the authorities did not allow any new irrigation wells to be drilled by Palestinian farmers, while it provided fresh water and allowed drilling wells for irrigation purposes at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[100]" Since this is the later part, chronologically speaking.. But it is still way one sided. To explain what happened right after 67' is quite easy - all residents were required to connect to the national water grid and pay for their water. Water in Israel are considered property of Mekorot, or the national grid. So this bit is correct, only presented in a one-sided fashion, since Palestinians could use as much water as they liked, provided they payed for the water. The settlers pay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.139.161 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it's not clear from your comments on what changes you are actually asking to be made here. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone obviously edited the article with a malicious intent. Maybe these frustrated "OpIsrael" guys?
Read the following bit: "Since 1964 Arab countries, concerned over Israeli plans to divert waters of the Jordan River over into the coastal plain,[99] had been trying to divert the headwaters to deprive Israel of water resources, provoking tensions between Israel on the one hand, and Syria and Lebanon on the other. On the other hand, water resources were confiscated for the benefit of the Israeli settlements in the Ghor. Palestinian irrigation pumps on the Jordan River were destroyed or confiscated after the 1967 war and Palestinians are not allowed to use water from the Jordan River system. Furthermore, the authorities did not allow any new irrigation wells to be drilled by Palestinian farmers, while it provided fresh water and allowed drilling wells for irrigation purposes at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[100] Arab nationalists led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to recognize Israel, and called for its destruction.[12][101][102] By 1966, Israeli-Arab relations had deteriorated to the point of actual battles taking place between Israeli and Arab forces.[103]"

So, what's wrong with this part?.. obviously, the phrase "On the other hand, water resources were confiscated for the benefit of the Israeli settlements in the Ghor" is a recent addition which is not chronologically in its proper place, as the Ghor (Jordan Valley) was only taken in 67'. There were no "Israeli settlements in the Ghor" in 1964.

The next phrase is one sided and misleading as well. But you could say it is marginally correct, since water in Israel are scarce and considered property of the national water company, they must be purchased. So yes, the Jordan is channeled into a pipe and large amounts of water are desalinated. This is why the residents were not allowed to take water from the Jordan or drill wells for private use. Water which are drilled dry out the equifer. They were requested to pay for the water just like anyone else in Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.139.161 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The information comes from the United Nations source that is cited. I think you are misreading it because the "On the other hand" makes it ambiguous and making an invalid assumption to conclude that it is wrong. It doesn't say that there were Israeli settlements in the Ghor in 1964. It is talking about what has happened since the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as you can see from the source.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 May 2013
Hi, after this paragraph:

"Palestinians prevented from using water from the Jordan River system or drilling new irrigation wells, Israel provided fresh water and allowed wells for irrigation at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." i would like to add the following reference:

Barah1964 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement is already supported by the United Nations source so I'm not sure it's necessary. The source may not qualify as a reliable source for that kind of information either. Also please see Coi, which may be relevant.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the ISBN you gave doesn't appear to be valid - it doesn't appear in any of the online searches I tried. ❌. -- El Hef  ( Meep ? ) 20:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's ISBN 9781908099006.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 May 2013
I wish to add more to the "Independence and first years" section. The inclusion of this extra information provides background information to the formation of the Askenazi and Mizrahi ethnic identities. It also nuances the issue of immigration and stops are immigrants coming to Israel during the late 1940's and early 1950's from looking the same. Below are the potential added sections. They are placed between two examples of already existing place to provide context.

Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations by majority vote on 11 May 1949.[85] In the early years of the state, the Labor Zionist movement led by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion dominated Israeli politics.[86][87] These years were marked by an influx of Holocaust survivors and Jews from Arab lands, many of whom faced persecution and expulsion from their original countries.[88] Consequently, the population of Israel rose from 800,000 to two million between 1948 and 1958

Immigration to Israel during the late 1940's and early 1950's was aided by the Israeli Immigration Department and the non-government sponsored Organization for Illegal Immigration, called Mossad le-aliyah bet. Both groups facilitated regular immigration logistics like arranging transportation, but the latter also engaged in clandestine operations in countries, particularly in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, where the lives of Jews were believed to be in danger and exit from those places was difficult. The Organization for Illegal Immigration continued to take part in immigration efforts until its disbanding in 1953.

During this period, food, clothes and furniture had to be rationed in what became known as the Austerity Period. Between 1948–1970, approximately 1,151,029 Jewish refugees relocated to Israel.[90] Some arrived as refugees with no possessions and were housed in temporary camps known as ma'abarot; by 1952, over 200,000 immigrants were living in these tent cities.

The immigrants came to Israel for differing reasons. Some believed in the Zionist ideology, while others moved to escape persecution. There were others that did it for the promise of a better life in Israel and a sizable number that were expelled from their homelands, like Iraq. The refugees were often treated differently according to where they were from. Jews of European descent were considered to critical to the strengthening and peopling of Israel, so they were generally allowed to enter Israel first and thus were given abandoned Arab houses to live in. On the other hand, Jews from Middle Eastern and North African countries were viewed by many Ashkenazi Jews as lazy, poor, culturally and religiously backward, and a threat to established communal life in Israel and remained in transit camps for longer periods of time. During the 1950's, the standard of living gap between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews widened so much that tensions developed between the two groups. This tension first moved to hostility during the Wadi Salib Uprising in 1959; other instances of domestic turmoil would occur over the following decades. " to the existing parameters. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC) ETA: Note the current template is an either/or. In order to have both a Capital and a SoG listed – as might be desirable for the Netherlands – a small template change would be needed. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia  08:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I agree with some kind of clarification in the infobox for Israel and the Netherlands regarding the city where governmental institutions are located. Although we could also add in the lead that Jerusalem is the proclaimed/designated capital, like in the State of Palestine.--Jurrikarsen (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My point of view may be strange but I think that :
 * Claiming Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is pov
 * but
 * Claming Israel's capital is Jerusalem is n pov(*).
 * My reasonning is that Jerusalem was chosen as capital by both Israel and the State of Palestine but the only capital chosen by Israel is Jerusalem.
 * (*) at the condition to refer in a note to th global political status of the city.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected concerning the infobox. I'm, equally OK with "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" and "Seat of government". --Dailycare (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The other problem with the infobox is it identifies Jerusalem as the largest city in Israel. Thats only true if you include portions of the city that arent in Israel. Otherwise Tel Aviv is larger than Jerusalem. I propose removing the listing of Jerusalem as the largest city, as it certainly is not NPOV to claim for Israel territory and population that the overwhelming majority of scholars and other states say is not part of Israel.  nableezy  - 16:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is clear that the population of East Jerusalem cannot be counted in the population of the Israeli Jerusalem. If it is the case and if Tel Aviv has a larger population than West Jerusalem then Tel Aviv must be considered as the largest city of Israel. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Im going to go ahead and set capital_type to seat of government.  nableezy  - 18:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We should have this entire sentence in the infobox: "Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital, this is not internationally recognized."--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Im also modifying largest city to specify that its only true if EJ is included.  nableezy  - 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the capital of Israel ?
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel whether you like it or not, in reality, it isn't even open for debate, and it shouldn't be open for debate on a site which brings information to many people around the world! It would simply mislead them with lies. אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted אשכנזישעיידן given the current consensus on the topic. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Israel - topic that sparks the most Wikipedia 'edit wars'
Hello,

My name is Harriet and I'm writing from the BBC World Service. The University of Oxford has released the findings of its research into topics on Wikipedia that spark the biggest 'edit wars', and top of the list is Israel.

I was wondering whether we might be able to speak to one of the main editors of the Israel page about how this is managed, do you frequently enter edit wars, how do you resolve them?

I'd be very grateful if you would get in touch here!

Thanks

Harriet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harriet114 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please have a look in my personal talk page for comments. Ykantor (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You might also look at two essays I wrote on the topic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravpapa/The_Politicization_of_Wikipedia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravpapa/Tilt


 * I would be glad to talk to you, but I have been much less active on this page in the last year or two, so you might want a fresher perspective. Ravpapa (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox parallelism with State of Palestine
I saw modifications to the infobox were made after a brief discussion above, and I must say that, when compared to the State of Palestine article, they don't make sense. The State of Palestine article has a Capital field [albeit with the tag "(proclaimed)"], but this article doesn't? The State of Palestine has "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" as its largest city (with no clarification about what that means), but here it mentions that this is if East Jerusalem is excluded?

Particularly on the capital point, it makes no sense to mention a capital for the State of Palestine and none here. I stand behind the suggestion I made above: include a Capital field here that says "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" and a Seat of government field that says "Jerusalem" [unqualified]. Or you can somehow combine that into one field, as is done at State of Palestine. The Jerusalem RfC does not provide grounds to expunge the wordcapital from the infobox. --  tariq abjotu  20:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I share your mind. The rationale for both infoboxes should be similar.
 * After an RfC to decide what was Jerusalem, we now have to focus on what are the capitals of the States of Israel and Palestine or better what to write in the infobox regarding this question... I hope this will not lead to complex and endless discussions. ;-)
 * The RfC stated that 2 sentences are not compliant with NPoV ("Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such".) I suggest that we conclude their counterpart would not be more neutral regarding the State of Palestine.
 * My mind is that the more accurate and detailed the information, the better.
 * What about this solution for both articles :
 * Capital : see Status of Jerusalem.
 * If discussions prove to be difficult, I suggest we ask for a mediator as soon as possible in the process who will guide the community in how to work on this question. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that too much parallelism is indicated. While West-Jerusalem is a city with seat of a national government, parliament etc. (and was so long before East-Jerusalem became an issue), although not recognised as Israel's capital because it is not recognised as belonging under Israeli sovereignty, East-Jerusalem has nothing of the kind, not in East-Jerusalem anyway. And the legal question is not the same either. So why the parallelism? Ajnem (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Tariq, I would just remove largest city from the State of Palestine article. It doesnt belong there, and actually most things involving territory dont belong there either. I dont think we can have both a capital and a seat of government field, at least I dont see how from looking at the infobox documentation, so I think its either capital = Jerusalem (proclaimed) or seat of government = Jerusalem (unqualified), but not both. As far as a capital in that articles infobox, the proclamation is al-Quds, and though Ive seen various statement saying oh we mean EJ, I havent seen anything official. So the proclaimed capital there, as it is here, is Jerusalem. I have no problem having both say capital = Jerusalem (proclaimed), and if there is a technical ability to also include seat of government here I wouldnt oppose it (though I would favor having just seat of government unqualified).  nableezy  - 20:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My proposition is to have in both article identical wording Jerusalem (proclaimed) Hope this change is acceptable without opening new chapter of discussion on this old question.--Tritomex (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does it say "proclaimed" when talking about Jerusalem?
This is not meant to be offensive, but Jerusalem *IS* the capital of Israel. "Proclaimed" is nothing more than an attempt to delegitimize the absolute fact that Jerusalem is the capital. Its possible someone might say that "consensus is needed to make changes". Well, consensus is not needed to say the earth is round. Its a fact that the earth is round.

Someone needs to remove "proclaimed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.78.146 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's been rightly done. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Israel's Map
I think is a much more proper map to use in the article (as seen in the Hebrew version) instead of the. I'm not trying to be politically correct here but the West Bank, which was conquered in a defensive war and is considered a part of Israel by the U.S. and Israel itself, is clearly distinguished and is marked in pale green. It would make sense to use it because even though the international community doesn't consider the disputed area a part of Israel, it's under Israel's control. Any opinions? Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, your premise is wrong. The West Bank is not considered part of Israel by either the US or the Supreme Court of Israel (HCJ). Both the US and Israel treat it as territory held under belligerent occupation by Israel (as can be seen in numerous rulings by the HCJ) and it is administered on that basis by the military. Secondly, even if your premise were correct, and it isn't valid in any sense, color coding maps based on what Israel and the US believe doesn't make sense for a global encyclopedia unless the objective is to indicate the views of those countries. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What Sean said, plus of course that map's errors in regards to Syria and Gaza. Sepsis II (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright I didn't know that, however these territories actually are considered "disputed" by many as opposed to "occupied", but there's point in arguing this now. What matters is that it's currently under Israel's control whether we like it or not, and so it'd make sense to mark it in a similar color or pale green in this case. It's not about politics. By leaving it blank and empty, one can mistakenly think it's part or Jordan or some unclaimed territory. Does any other user agree? Shalom11111 (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost every change to Israel-Palestine articles heavily involves (and is about) politics, mostly in an attempt to balance the article. Changing the map to show the West Bank within the borders of Israel conveys a number of connotations that could unbalance the article, not the least of which is that the West Bank will seem like a part of Israel. As a contrasting example, when the United States occupied Afghanistan, the map of the US was not changed to include Afghani territory.  The West Bank will likely not be mistaken for Jordan as the map of Jordan does not include it, and it will definitely not be mistaken for unclaimed territory as there is very little unclaimed territory at all anyway.  AVAAGAA  ↪  18:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ISR orthographic.svg is a map of the State of Israel. The State of Israel doesn't include the Israeli occupied territories, and the ISR orthographic.svg map reflects that by not including those areas. The map you propose is not the map of the State of Israel. It includes the Israeli occupied Golan Heights for example. It seems that what you are actually proposing in effect is that the map is replaced with a map showing the State of Israel and the Israeli occupied territories. If that is the case, there are much better maps available than the one you propose, maps that clearly distinguish between the State of Israel and the Israeli occupied territories. But I think the current map is fit for purpose, factually accurate, neutral (in the sense that Wikipedia uses that term i.e. WP:NPOV) and uncontentious. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses guys, I understand your point. And yes, Sean.hoyland, this is exactly what I was proposing - whether it be the map I linked or another one you think is better. As I said, the map of Israel which I suggested is currently used in the Hebrew wikipedia and I'm sure in other places as well, but the majority here seems to disagree on the matter and that's fine, nothing will change. Peace Shalom11111 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the Hebrew wikipedia may contain many issues relating to the Mid-East conflict that would require attention. In general wikipedia articles can't be used as sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Unused refs in bibliography
I removed the following refs from the biblio since they had harv errors for not being used in the article: Add back as necessary. czar ♔  02:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

More unused: czar ♔  03:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding more information to the column about the founding of Israel

 * What do you guys think about adding more information to the column about Israel's past (Kingdom of Israel united monarchy, Kingdom of Judah and Kingdom of Israel, Yehud province of Babylonia, Yehud Medinata province of the Persian Achaemenid Empire, part of the Macedonian Empire, Part of the Seleucid Empire, Hasmonean Kingdom, Herodian Kingdom of Israel, Roman Tetrarchy of Judea, Roman province of Judea, Kingdom of Israel under Simon bar Kokhba, Roman province of Syria Palaestina, Byzantine province of Palaestina Prima, Jewish Sassanid Commonwealth, Byzantine province of Palaestina Prima, Jund Filastin district of the Ummayad and Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphate province of Bilad al-Sham, part of the Great Seljuq Empire, Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, part of the Ayyubid dynasty, part of the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt, the Damascus Eyalet of Ottoman Syria, the Syria Vilayet of the Ottoman Empire, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem in the Ottoman Empire, Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, British Mandate of Palestine and finally Israel), much like the article about Somalia has but maybe scaled back a bit because that's a lot of names. Csi.southpark (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The headnote to the article says "This article is about the modern country". While some may say that the ancient Kingdom of Israel is a sort of forerunner to the modern state, others won't agree. --Dailycare (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point(people think everything about Israel is controversial), I was just thinking it would be a good idea because a number of countries have it that way( France, Iran, Ethiopia, Germany ... to name a few). Csi.southpark (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Link to full conversation: talk
 * Sean.hoyland you win, congrats! I am beginning to understand that facts are no longer the most important aspects of Wikipedia, politics are. I realize that even if change it back tomorrow you or one of your friends will just revert it. I just thought that the article would look nicer this way and that since I included no new facts it wouldn't be controversial. I'll take solace in the fact that you still can't back up your point of view(yes the article is is about modern Israel, but the French article is about modern France and is still styled this way).

Here is link to the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&oldid=577978178


 * Ugh, the modern state of Israel is not a continuation of an earlier state, it was founded by settlers who built the nation from scratch. Muscovy also started from scratch, but since then it has grown continuously passing on its institutions to succeeding states. Whether Dʿmt directly became Aksum or not is unknown but Aksum did become Ethiopia. Mexico began with it's independence from Spain, India began with it's independence from the UK. Sepsis II (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe not a direct continuation because of the long period of time in between but as my edit said it was a part of the Formation(an integral part) of the modern state. Just like D'mt probably was for Aksum, Ethiopia and the Frankish Kingdom was for France. Many articles on countries do have it written this way for the same reason and many don't but certainly could. One example of a country who's situation is the same as Israel's(being ruled by different empires and over time becoming independent again) and who's article is written this way is Egypt. It's nothing political, it changes nothing I just liked the way it looks and though it would be cool. Csi.southpark (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Israel was a country ruled by different empires? I guess the same will be said for the Olmec when they found a nation in 2870. Sepsis II (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you realize that Israel was a country that was taken over and made part of many empires and not just the ancient states you mentioned but the more recent ones under the Hasmonean dynasty and King Herod(Roman client state). It was a country just like ancient Egypt, ancient Persia, the Roman empire...ect until it was taken over and made part of various empires(Roman empire, Ayyubid dynasty, the many Caliphates, the Mamluks, the ottoman empire and many more). Csi.southpark (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the modern state of Israel who's history does not reach outside the 20th century. Sepsis II (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sepsis II okay that has been pointed out to me many times but then I don't understand why the article on the modern state of Egypt, the modern state of France, the modern state of Somalia... have it written this way. Csi.southpark (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nations' historys go back as far as they were continuous. Somalian governments have led into one another for millenium. France only goes back to 486 because that's when they started from scratch. Egypt goes way back because they never ceased to exist in some form as can be read at History of Egypt. Sepsis II (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that if you take a closer look at the History of Egypt article then you'll see that Egypt did indeed cease to exist when it became part of many different empires before it became independent again. You know I wouldn't mind a similar edit to the State of Palestine article perhaps starting with Jund Filastin or the conquest by the Ayyubid dynasty. Csi.southpark (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

== Britain defeated the Ottoman forces in the Levant with the help of Arab fighters which it promptly betrayed. Unjust creations such as this propaganda article and it's subject require protection from open discussion. ==

British forces invading from Egypt defeated the Ottoman forces in the Levant with the help of Arab allies they betrayed.

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014
On the right part of the page near the top, there is an incorrect name for Israel.

71.93.199.253 (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Tel Aviv as second capital in infobox
Although I do support the idea of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, would it not be appropriate to also mention Tel Aviv as the other capital in the infobox as it is disputed? 23haveblue (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tel Aviv is not a second capital, or indeed any capital at all. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, why bother having the word disputed in there? 23haveblue (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content has to be presented in a neutral way. In Wikipedia's terms that means information must comply with WP:NPOV, a mandatory policy. After about a decade of dispute over the issue of how to present the status of Jerusalem, the community decided that using Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice to state as a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel does not comply with policy. See Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem for details. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Some countries and some authors claim that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. Their reasonning is certainly that given Jerusalem's choice was rejected by the international community the former capital had to be given. Anyway, this is a [unsignificant] fringe's point of view and that, as far as I know, no WP:RS has put forward for years.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As an Israeli citizen, I've never heard that claim before. Historically, religiously, and legally, Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel. However, as can be seen in the article, Tel Aviv is indeed the country's undisputed financial capital. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm trying to suggest, we either remove the (disputed) from the infobox or we put both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as the capital. Comments?23haveblue (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not "getting at" anything. If Tel Aviv isn't the capital, it isn't the capital. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The capital is a city where the central government of a country, or part of a country, such as a state, province, or county, is. In the same aspect, Haifa is the capital of trade, Eilat is the capital of vacations, and so on. Hope that helps Shalom11111 (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This all affair reminds me the story that a Japanese newspaper, who "wanted to maintain NPOV" in Jerusalem as Israel's capital wrote that the Knesset is located in Tel Aviv. I don't know how many Japanese tourists visited Tel Aviv and searched in vain for the Knesset's building there. Jerusalem is the de-facto capital of Israel.  M ath K night  12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @ 23haveblue
 * We agree for Tel Aviv.
 * The problem of stating that Jerusalem would be the capital of Israel is that no country in the world does recognize this choice because of the political situation and because of East-Jerusalem. So it is disputed because nobody recognizes this. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume you're mistakenly calling the U.S., Israel, myself and millions of other individuals "nobody", so I just wanted to make this correction. The political situation regarding this topic is indeed complicated and if the Palestinians also want to call it their capital then so be it, but that won't change the reality. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The US does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's or anyone else's capital. Perhaps you should look into what/who it was that misinformed you and led you to believe something that isn't true so that you can avoid that source of information in future. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Shalom11111 might have been relying on the CIA sourcebook which states (rather baldly) that Jerusalem is the capital, though it qualifies that in a footnote(much as we do, by the way). But then, I rather agree with Sean that the CIA is not a source to be relied upon. Ravpapa (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We explicitly mentioned that as part of the set of source summary statements for the Jerusalem RFC via "Many sources list Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when there is little room for nuance, but in prose, sources often use qualifiers which show that the status as capital was achieved unilaterally", citing the CIA Factbook. I think the CIA are quite neutral on these issues in terms of their products, much more neutral than many editors e.g. their interpretation/annotation of File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map 3500px.jpg and File:West_Bank_July_2008_CIA_remote-sensing_map_3000px.jpg. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the CIA might be neutral in this case, but I would never call them reliable. I expect a reliable source to tell the truth most of the time, not just once in a while, when it suits. (anyway, this is neither here nor there). Ravpapa (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in this discussion months ago, April 2013 this article is quite worthy of noting the unofficial capital of Israel as Tel Aviv, for the reasons already argued, I see no harm in including it in the article as it would only improve the article by showing readers the unofficial capital which also serves as a major cultural hub for the Israeli populus. There's no intellectual reason to list an "official" capital that is highly disputed without listing the nation's unofficial capital for reference as well. Again, it's widely known as such,1. http://www.prima-hotels-israel.com/prima-hotels/tel-aviv-hotels 2. http://goisrael.about.com/od/JerusalemandTelAviv/Jerusalem-And-Tel-Aviv.htm 3. http://israel21c.org/news/tel-aviv-among-top-party-cities/ 4. http://www.chiff.com/travel/guides/israel.htm 5. http://www.go-telaviv.com/tel-aviv-israel.html Silvertrail (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yambarah the USA only recognizes a De Facto annexation of East Jerusalem. As I understand The Supreme Court of Israel only recognizes a De Facto annexation of East Jerusalem. A renamed West Jerusalem now known as Jerusalem may be the De Jure capital of Israel. Israel may have extended some De Facto control that it had over East Jerusalem to the Renamed West Jerusalem. However it's not clear if anybody recognizes the De jure annexation of East Jerusalem including Israel.198.45.184.25 (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)