Talk:Israel/Archive 48

Propose lead text 2
Propose lead text such as: "Israeli legislation designates "Jerusalem, complete and united" as being the capital of Israel but, without agreement having been achieved with Palestine and with East Jerusalem being located, in West Bank territory, this is internationally disputed. Tel Aviv is the largest city to the west of the 1949 Armistice Agreement Line (that dissects Jerusalem).  Tel Aviv serves as the country's financial centre and is home to many foreign embassies."

This is coded as: "Israeli legislation designates "Jerusalem, complete and united" as being the capital of Israel but, without agreement having been achieved with Palestine and with East Jerusalem being located, in West Bank territory, this is internationally disputed. Tel Aviv is the largest city to the west of the 1949 Armistice Agreement Line (that dissects Jerusalem).  Tel Aviv serves as the country's financial centre and is home to many foreign embassies."

How does this sound?

The text currently reads: "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv,[13] while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, although Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is not recognized internationally.[note 1][14]"

GregKaye 00:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The part about not achieving an agreement with Palestine doesn't work chronologically. Israel passed the Jerusalem Law in 1980, while State of Palestine was proclaimed in 1988 and Palestinian National Authority was established (and recognized by Israel) in 1993. PLO didn't recognize Israel before 1993 either. The only entity that Israel could potentially negotiate with regarding Jerusalem was Jordan, being the previous controlling/occupying force. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 04:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * WarKosign I am certainly open to changes but dispute the view that the text doesn't work chronologically. The text directly relates to the current time situation that the Israeli designation "... is internationally disputed".  It can also be noted that the proposal of an Arab State has been on paper since at least the time of the partition plan.  I also think that it is also worth acknowledging that, in the fluid nature of Wikipedia content, the Wikipedia article State of Palestine was recently moved from Palestinian territories and that a text that, in regard to the earlier title, that referenced "representatives of the Palestinian Territories would have been equally relevant.
 * However my originally suggested wording " without agreement having been achieved with Palestine " can easily be replaced by something like " without agreement having been achieved with representatives of people in Palestine ", " without agreement having been achieved with representatives from the Palestinian people " or something else relevant. How do you think this should be worded?    GregKaye 11:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How about ""Israeli unilateral legislation designates "Jerusalem, complete and united" as being the capital of Israel, [text removed] and with East Jerusalem being located in West Bank territory this is internationally disputed. " ?
 * Israel did not reach an agreement with representatives from Palestinian People, neither did it reach an agreement with Jordan. I think my version makes the same point in less words. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign I think that a more descriptive text is, arguably, warranted in context of the complex history of the region. The whole area has gone from a situation in which the whole of Jerusalem was meant to be internationally shared to a situation in which two separate states both claim the whole territory.  "Claims", "designations" or however editors want to present them, are disputed and I think that it is fair to present this.  The UN declared all of Jerusalem Law as "null and void" and I think that the full extent of related disputes, on both sides, should be presented.  GregKaye 13:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As a short remark, I'm not too sure about "Israeli unilateral legislation". The legislation of any country is almost always unilateral, so it's a bit of a tautology. I understand the intention, of course, but it still sounds a bit awkward to talk about unilateral legislation.Jeppiz (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeppiz Ha, I agree in principle in regard to countries outside the European Union. (I don't know of any legislation here that is not influenced or able to be challenged by higher powers).  However, in this case Israel may be judged to have made a move against other national views.  I believe the gov of George W Bush made some moves towards support but this is, I believe, all.  GregKaye 19:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not very happy with "unilateral" either, I was looking for a short expression that would mean "done without agreement or negotiation". Can you suggest anything better ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How about: "Tel Aviv is Israel's financial center[13], and the most populous city (within internationally recognized borders). Jerusalem is the Israeli government’s designated capital, although Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is not recognized internationally.[note 1][14]" Getting into the 1949 Armistice Agreement Line in the lead seems a little too detailed to me. Also, there is a lot of useful info in [note 1], I would not delete it. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I like it better than 's version, but would like to have it also mention that Jerusalem is the largest city in the territory claimed by Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Tel Aviv is Israel's financial center[13], and the most populous city within internationally recognized borders. Jerusalem is the largest city inside Israeli occupied borders. Jerusalem is the Israeli government’s designated capital, although Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is not recognized internationally.[note 1][14]"
 * ? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a definite improvement on my wording. GregKaye 19:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Tel Aviv is Israel's financial center, and the most populous city within internationally recognized borders. Jerusalem is the largest city within borders claimed by Israel and was designated by Israel as its capital, although Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is not recognized internationally."
 * It is tighter, changes "occupied" to more neutral "claimed" and the unrecognition of Israeli sovereignty responds to both Jerusalem being largest and it being the capital.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the Israeli government uses "claimed" terminology for areas of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but the UN and the world community continues to refer to the same areas as "occupied", I think "occupied" is more NPOV from a world community standpoint. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Occupied" is one POV. "Legally annexed" is the opposite POV. I specifically avoided each of the terms since using either of them would be taking sides. Per WP:NPOV "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides". Saying "this POV is more NPOV than the other" is meaningless. I suggested "claimed" since it means "to assert in the face of possible contradiction". The contradiction follows immediately in the form of the sentence about sovereignty not being recognized. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * “Claimed territory” is one POV, the opposite POV would be “colonized territory”. To avoid these POV terms, the UN and NPOV headings like the “Israeli-occupied territories” section of this article have use the NPOV “occupied” term. I am not aware of any UN document ever using the POV “claimed” term. Many UN documents use the NPOV “occupied” term. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two sides having two different points of view. Neutral point of view is one that does not agree with either of them, that is doesn't use the term that either side prefers. Term used exclusively by the sides can't be neutral by definition. Where did the term "colonized territory" come from, which side ever used it ?
 * UN calls the territories, including East Jerusalem occupied.
 * Israel calls the West Bank "disputed" and East Jerusalem "legally annexed".
 * Neither side uses the term "claimed". It is too strong for UN and too weak for Israel, therefore I consider it neutral. Feel free to suggest a reasonable compromise, without the "UN is neutral" nonsense. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you said the State of Palestine was one side and Israel was the other, I could understand your argument. The UN is neutral world group that trys to determine reasonable compromise between combatants. It is a much more reliable source for a NPOV than any one Wikipedia editor. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two contradicting points of view. Wikipedia does not take side, it's explains all the sides. One sides point of view belongs to Israel, the opposing one belongs to the Palestinians. UN's supposed neutrality doesn't mean that wikipedia should present whatever point of view UN has as NPOV - an objective truth. WP:NPOV is achieved by describing each of the sides.
 * For example, in case of Shebaa farms UN agrees with Israel's position. Nonetheless, the contradicting position of Lebanon and Syria is described as well, since wikipedia is not the official media venue of the UN. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * &#8220;WarKosign, can you clarify your proposition regarding the use of annexation related terminology because, as far as I can see, it flies utterly in the face of usage in sources. Please consider the following search results in Books
 * "palestinian" "occupation" gets "About 325,000 results"
 * "palestinian" "occupied" gets "About 553,000 results"
 * "palestinian" "occupied territories" gets "About 201,000 results"
 * "palestinian" "annexation" gets "About 38,100 results"
 * "palestinian" "annexed" gets "About 20,400 results"
 * "palestinian" "annexed territories" gets "About 346 results"
 * "palestinian" "annexed territory" gets "About 273 results"
 * "palestinian" "annexed land" gets "About 201 results"
 * Please be clear about your reasoning for your proposed reference to annexation terminology. You present it as polarised as the UN saying occupation with Israel saying annexation but, it seems to me, that the presentation of the UN is on the base of a great preponderance of reference in published sources.  To what extent have you been aware of this predominant usage?  How is it that you are, I think, pushing for the use of a one sided POV description?  Is there something that you think I have missed here?  GregKaye 13:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Political status of the Palestinian territories is disputed. The territories are considered occupied by most of the states and international organization, so it justifies article titles such as Israeli-occupied territories. Annexation is a minority view held by Israel, so it is tempting to apply WP:FRINGE, however it is not fringe since it is "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers". I am not proposing to write in the lead "Jerusalem is legally annexed" since it would present a minority POV in wikipedia voice, NPOV, but it is appropriate to say that Israel sees it as annexed since the city is de-facto administered by Israel and all its inhabitants are Israeli citizens or permanent residents.
 * A problem with "Jerusalem is the largest city inside Israeli occupied borders" is that it implies that the following 3 are of the same status: Israel within '67 borders, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. While Jerusalem (east+west) is the largest city in all the territories controlled by Israel (Israel + west bank), Israel did not make an official claim for any of these territories except East Jerusalem, therefore I prefer the term "claimed" - East Jerusalem is not only phyiscally controlled by Israel, it is also claimed legally. I am also ok with "Largest city administered by Israel". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign it seems to me that the topic of annexation is already disproportionately mentioned within the article in comparison to occupation. The search results indicate a ratio of mentions at ~10:1 when considering the ratio of mentions shown in books as in the searches above.  The text "occup"... appears 22 times in the text (before references) of the article.  The text "annex" appears 7 times in the same section of writing.  My originally proposed text presented a relevance of the armistice line which surely has great relevance.  Yet another call for a reference to annexation is surely excessive.  The article even contains text such as "In 1981 Israel annexed the Golan Heights, although annexation was not recognized internationally".  Again I view texts like this to be problematically presented as they present the deficit as being with a seeming lack of comprehension and failure of the international community.
 * Now you are proposing mention of annexation within the main article on the topic of Israel before the issue of occupation has even been raised and, as far as I understand it, this is a POV push which ignores the most regular scholarly description used in regard to the topic. I honestly don't see any relevance to any "largest city" reference.  The continuous urban area associated with Tel-Aviv in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area dwarfs Jerusalem even should the city be considered "complete and united".  In the UK we have an area the City of London.  On this basis it would be really easy to divide the rest of London into a variety of cities and, for instance, declare Birmingham, in the largely higher altitude Midlands of England.  This, of course, would not be representative of the actual situation.  A major reason why Tel Aviv is the dynamic, active and exciting city that it is, is that it is surrounding by a large urban population that, in general, contributes to the cities activities.  I find the whole concept of the urban area league table within the article to be utterly questionable and I am sure that people who have visited Tel Aviv will appreciate this.  Tel Aviv, in context, is by far the larger city.  GregKaye 16:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be better to avoid mentioning occupation vs anexation this earl in the lead, this is why I prefer the more neutral "claimed" or "controlled"
 * Gush Dan is the largest metropolitan area, but Jerusalem ("complete and united") is the largest city according to the sources. We are here to represent to reality and not to create it.
 * I personally support division of Jerusalem in a peace agreement (if it can be ever reached). At the moment, however, Jerusalem is the largest city claimed, administered, controlled and populated by Israel, according to reliable sources. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign, in no sense are you agreeing. The fact is that the Jewish State has expanded and occupied territory.  Occupation is the commonly used term used and it represents what, in reality, has happened.  Jerusalem is the second, by some margin, largest continuously populated area and, according to international views, is not in Israel.  The current presentation of the template is vastly misleading of realities.  GregKaye 18:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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 20:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Propose changes in article sequence
At present the article is sequenced as follows:


 * Lead
 * 1 Etymology
 * 2 History
 * 3 Geography and climate
 * 4 Politics
 * 5 Economy
 * 6 Demographics
 * 6.3 Education
 * 7 Culture

I suggest a change to:


 * Lead
 * 1 Etymology
 * 2 History
 * 3 Geography and climate
 * 4 Demographics
 * 5 Politics
 * 6 Economy
 * 7 Culture
 * 8 Education

GregKaye 20:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What are your reasons ? Order of importance ?&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * People live in an environment. Demographics is a subset of Geography.  Politics is an activity of people.  Politics and economics are closely linked.  It seemed like a logical sequence.  An alternate (2nd) sequence might run: History; Politics; Economy, Geography and climate; Demographics, or a third option might run History; Politics; Geography and climate; Demographics; Economy; Culture; Education.  GregKaye 20:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015
31.59.104.49 (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC) regime Child killer
 * The request is empty, so I'm closing it.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Independence war
I agree that MShabazz's version is better worded, but it removes one important bit - that the explanation the Arab leaders gave about preventing further bloodshed was to suite the Western ears. Assuming that this appears in the sources (I couldn't find it so far, but I didn't look hard), I think it should be restored in some form. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest beginning the sentence "An apparent purpose ...". Different adversaries locally may have had a variety motivations including blind of otherwise hatred of Jewish people fed by prejudice of Islamic or other base leading to purposes which may have included just wanting to cause pain, suffering and death.  I do not doubt that there may have been a variety of unsavoury purposes in some quarters and it may be questionable to WP:CRYSTALBALL what "the purpose" was.  If there is a wider picture of prejudice maybe this can also be presented.  GregKaye 14:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to remove any sourced content, but the grammar and spelling were too bad to let the edit stand. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Arab forces, such as there were, intervened primarily in the area assigned to the Arab state in the partition plan. They were invited into the country by the Arab Higher Committee to prevent the Zionists from depopulating Arab villages (this was already going on). I don't have strong opinions on the exact wording of the text, but it at least shouldn't contradict this. --Dailycare (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - I apologize for my English and thank you for re writing it. I  am especially happy to read yours "I didn't mean to remove any sourced content", since there is another editor is repeatedly deleting supported and important text.
 * - I support User:WarKosign proposal add the issue of "preventing further bloodshed was to suite the Western ears". Ykantor (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please point us to the exact quote in the source, so we can figure how best to add it ?&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"''But, in public, official Arab spokesmen often said that the aim of the May 1948 invasion was to “save” Palestine or “save the Palestinians,” definitions more agreeable to Western ears. The picture of Arab aims was always more complex than Zionist historiography subsequently made out. The chief cause of this complexity was that fly in- the-ointment, King Abdullah. Jordan’s ruler, a pragmatist, was generally skeptical of the Arabs’ ability to defeat, let alone destroy, the Yishuv, and fashioned his war aim accordingly: to seize the Arab-populated West Bank, preferably including East Jerusalem. No doubt, had his army been larger and Zionist resistance weaker, he would have headed for Tel Aviv and Haifa;21 after all, for years he had tried to persuade the Zionist leaders to agree to Jordanian sovereignty over all of Palestine, with the Jews to receive merely a small, autonomous zone (which he called a “republic”) within his expanded kingdom. But, come 1948, he understood the balance of forces: the Jews were simply too powerful and too resolute, and their passion for self-determination was not to be denied.Other Arab leaders were generally more optimistic. But they, too, had ulterior motives, beyond driving the Jews into the sea or, at the least, aborting the Jewish state. Chief among them was to prevent their fellow leaders (especially Abdullah) from conquering and annexing all or too much of Palestine and to seize as much of Palestine as they could for themselves. This at least partly explains the diffusion of the Egyptian war effort and the drive of its eastern arm through Beersheba and Bethlehem to the outskirts of Jerusalem. It is possible that the commanders of the main, western wing of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, advancing up the coast from Rafah, were instructed to halt, at least for a time, at Isdud, the northernmost point of the southern portion of Palestine allotted by the United Nations for Arab sovereignty. But had the Israelis offered minimal resistance and had the way been clear to push on to Tel Aviv, I have no doubt that the Egyptians would have done so, in line with their public rhetoric. Their systematic destruction of all the Jewish settlements along the way—a phenomenon that was replicated by the Arab armies in the West Bank and Jordan Valley—is indicative of the mindset of the armies and governments involved. "'' (Morris, 2009, p. 396)


 * I am worried about the copyright position, so will you please delete or concise this long quote one you read it? thanks Ykantor (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume you paraphrased the first sentence. The bit about western ears is the Moriss's opinion and he doesn't say it was done intentionally to fool the Westerns, so I think it's safe to omit. Currently the article says " The Arab league explained that the invasion was to restore law and order and to prevent further bloodshed.", I think it's already an adequate paraphrase, except the word "explained" has to be switched to something neutral per WP:CLAIM so it is not implied that this explanation is true. Is "stated" ok with you ? I agree with 's suggestion to add "apparent" to purpose (assuming it was about "The purpose of the invasion was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state at inception"). &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a copyright problem, but I collapsed the quote just in case. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, It is fine to to add "apparent" and to use "stated". Concerning the "Western ears", I do not understand what do you mean by "you paraphrased the first sentence". It appeared in the footnote and not in the article body. The severe Arab rhetoric ("sweep the Jews to the sea") is well known, so there is a clear contradiction between the Arab League formal purpose and declarations of the Arab leaders. Anyway, perhaps it is too detailed for an Article about Israel. Ykantor (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article gives 3 intentions of the invasion:
 * The (apparent) intention to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state at inception
 * Some Arab leaders talked about driving the Jews into the sea. The Jews felt that the intention was to slaughter them
 * The intention stated by the Arab League to save Palestinians and prevent further bloodshed
 * Morris's comments that #3 is more suited to western ears, but he doesn't claim that #3 was an intentional lie to fool the westerners, so I do not see much value in this comment. Yes, a normal westerner (or any reasonable person for that matter) presumably prefers "saving" to "slaughtering", how is it noteworthy? Other than that, we have #1 which is supposed to be neutral view, #2 which is the Jews' view, and #3 with the the Arab's view&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My thoughts behind the "An apparent intention ..." wording was basically not to limit the reference to potential local hostility to the Jewish people. The period of history concerned comes not long after the time of the Jerusalemite Haj Amin al-Husseini and the Waffen-SS.  Motivations may IMO have included genocide or a forced return of Jewish people to a whipping boy status which may have fitted in with local prejudices and idealised stereotypes.  Who knows, some may also have had a partial motivation to thwart any British based proposal.  Ours is not to reason why but I think it relevant here to leave things open to permit any number of unsavourary motivations to have been involved with some but potentially not all of the local peoples.  GregKaye 17:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Bold change in section sequence
Following thread above I have boldly placed section content in the following sequence:
 * 1 Etymology
 * 2 History
 * 2.1 Antiquity
 * 2.2 Classical period
 * 2.3 Middle Ages and caliphates
 * 2.4 Zionism and the British mandate
 * 2.5 Independence
 * 2.5.1 The U.N partition resolution
 * 2.5.2 The Independence war
 * 2.6 The first years up to Suez Crisis
 * 2.7 The sixties
 * 2.8 The 1973 Yom Kippur War
 * 2.9 Further conflict and peace treaties
 * 3 Geography
 * 3.1 Climate
 * 3.2 Demographics
 * 4 Politics
 * 4.1 Legal system
 * 4.2 Administrative divisions
 * 4.3 Israeli-occupied territories
 * 4.4 Foreign relations
 * 4.5 International humanitarian efforts
 * 4.6 Military
 * 5 Economy
 * 5.1 Science and technology
 * 5.2 Transport
 * 5.3 Tourism
 * 6 Culture
 * 6.1 Language
 * 6.2 Religion
 * 6.3 Literature
 * 6.4 Music and dance
 * 6.5 Cinema and theatre
 * 6.6 Media
 * 6.7 Museums
 * 6.8 Cuisine
 * 6.9 Sports
 * 7 Education
 * 8 See also
 * 9 Notes
 * 10 References
 * 11 Bibliography
 * 12 External links

The sixth section was previously demographics containing language, religion and education.

GregKaye 14:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Orwellian writing
user:dailycare wrote (see diff page) : "better reflects these two sources, which BTW probably aren't particularly reflective of what most sources say. The Zionists also said a lot of things publicly and planned differently in private, why not include those, too?"
 * "The Zionists also said a lot of things publicly and planned differently in private". This is a brain wash, and on the verge of being an antisemitic propaganda, had the used term been "Jews" and not "Zionist". I wonder if the user would repeat this slogan about Arab politicians that fit this observation:
 * 1) "Azzam Pash, the Mufti and the syrian government would sooner see the Jews get the whole of Palestine than king Abdullah should benefit" . (at summer 1948, Glubb report, Shlaim & Rogan ,The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, p. 96 )
 * 2) Nasser infamous phone call to King Hussein, fabricating that the  U.S. and U.K are fighting together with Israel, and failing to mention that Egypt lost the war.
 * "better reflects these two sources" . This is a fine example of Orwellian writing, since he actually deleted a fully supported text.
 * "which BTW probably aren't particularly reflective of what most sources say". Again, a brain wash. where are those supposed sources?
 * I call user:dailycare to explain this problematic writing or to delete it. Ykantor (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we need to recognize there are two narratives here that will continue to be intensely debated for the foreseeable future because they affect land rights. It is not the job of Wikipedia to pick the “right” narrative; it is Wikipedia’s job to fairly represent both narratives. The Jewish narrative tends to be along the lines that Arabs attacked with the intent of wiping them from the Levant, so Jews have a right to assume a more defendable position than the 1948 UN borders. The Arab narrative tends to be along the lines that Arabs only intervened to stop the population transfer, and there is nothing wrong with the 1948 UN borders. Wikipedia should fairly represent both views. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Zionist leadership publicly accepted the partition resolution, and in private planned to expand to as much of Palestine as possible. That amounts to issuing misleading public statements of their true intentions. p.s. if you want people to respond to your comments, may I suggest that you assume a more compact writing style? I'm OK with the current text. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For example: 1937 Ben-Gurion letter. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - - I agree with every single word of yours, in this section. I am an Israeli but it is not my job to defend Israel by all means. Israel has its share of wrong doing and we all have to recognize it. Ben Gurion was indeed expansionist but he was also very pragmatic. e.g. at the end of the 1948-9 war, some generals advised him to conquer more territories, since Israel had a relative strong and big army and could make it. But Ben Gurion said that his priority shifted to absorbing the expected huge Jewish immigration to Israel, and have not accepted this proposal.
 * -Why should be more than one narrative? . There was one history only, and we know nearly all the facts. Your description of the invasion purpose is correct, and the Arabs and the Jews had different and even contradicting views concerning the invasion purpose. It is usual that different groups of people has different POV but the facts are still the same. Is it a Zionist narrative that the country was nearly empty when the Jews started to immigrate to Palestine? No, it is just not true. Is it an Arab narrative that the Jews wanted a "real" war on 1948 in order to use it to expel all the Arabs? No, it is just not true.
 * -I opened this section because of the bad / aggressive tactic and not because of the content. Yes, Zionists politicians said A and hoped for B, and the Arabs has done it as well, as shown in the examples (and there are a lot more). But here user:dailycare incites against the whole group of Zionists. Had he used the word "Jews" instead of "Zionists" that would be a plain Antisemitism. In my opinion he should apologize for that and admit the Arabs behaved similarly and actually that is a universal phenomena among most of the politicians. Ykantor (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You really should apologize for your baseless personal attacks Ykantor. 70.53.71.219 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 70.53.71.219 There are things that I don't agree with in Ykantor's editing such as a vote to state in Wikipedia's voice that Jerusalem is "of Israel" in the template but I think that the level of your aggression here goes beyond call. Ykantor has raised a point by point set of issues with Dailycare and has received no point by point reply.  Issues raised that you say are attacks are baseless then please make your clear point or points.  Otherwise, if you can't be bothered to do this or to develop a regular presentation on wiki with a login that people can relate to, then I think that you should back out.  All you have done is bring me into defence of Ykantor.
 * I think that we should also note that the first post above relates to an edit summary which by nature has a content limit. This summary has been  called into question.  There is a right to reply.  Why not let the editors directly concerned discuss?
 * By nature all the Jews that had come to Israel to be part of a Jewish state were Zionists by the most basic definition of the term. I can say that the British had abusive practices in X location and say that quite truthfully without giving indication that every British citizen was in favour of or responsible for the abuses.  (Jewish people, maybe not always the same ones, have also performed benevolent actions).  I don't see the problem in specifically declaring things that the Jews did.  Bullshit words like anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have come into/been brought into the vocabulary and I think it would make things a lot clearer if we could just talk about Jews and Israel and Arabs (and related peoples) and Palestine.  GregKaye 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Concerning point by point response, specifically, I feel that the version which I changed was aligned selectively with one narrative which of course isn't appropriate. I belive the edit summary conveyed this, if not, apologies. Concerning the "fully supported" bit, I believe this reflects a misunderstanding that if something is in a book, it's OK to cite it verbatim in an article. Obviously, that isn't always the case since NPOV and WEIGHT need to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

POV edit
Ykantor made this edit,, in which he writes that "The war resulted in significant reduction of Israeli civilians killed by infiltrating Egyptian Fedaeen units." While the source says that "The war resulted in a significant reduction of Egyptian-Israeli and Jordanian-Israeli border tensions". No where does it speak of civilians let alone of one specific nationality while ignoring others or ignoring soldiers. Can someone this ungrammatical misrepresentation. 184.145.53.236 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits (6 March)

 * I will appreciate it if user:Malik Shabazz will apologize and undo the erasing of my edit . The deleted content is is indeed not fully supported but it is correct. According to wp:Verifiability "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". My deleted edit : "The war resulted in significant reduction of Israeli civilians killed by infiltrating Egyptian Fedaeen units" is not likely to be challenged since it is a fact which is recognized by all sides, and in my opinion there is no need to support it at all. If user:Malik Shabazz challenge the accuracy of this sentence, then I'll have to verify it with an appropriate wp:rs. Is the accuracy being challenged?
 * user:Malik Shabazz wrote: "deleting reference that isn't being used; in the future, please copy text CAREFULLY so that historians don't look like they can't spell or use basic grammar)". I have re-checked and my text is 100% identical to the source, except the in brackets content, which is my own clarification. Will you please elaborate on the grammer problem?
 * to be continued later. Ykantor (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ykantor I think that grammatically the text is missing an "a" before "significant" but I think that this would have been a picky criticism and not something worth SHOUTING about (with capital lettering) as per WP:CIVIL.  I would suggest that a conclusion related to results might best give an indication of results for all relevant sides.  This issue relates to the talk page section  above.  Perhaps views on the problem/justification can be further substantiated.  GregKaye 12:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not only will I not apologize, I will repeat my caution. With this edit you've made the same errors. I doubt that Morris refers to "the Egyptian" (and not "the Egyptians") and I suspect "Egypt refrain" should read "Egypt refrained". I suspect there's a letter or word missing from the last phrase as well. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - I apologize for those missing letters, and I have already fixed it. ( The page image ). In the future, I'll try to quote without missing letters and apologize in advance if it will happen again. Usually I add a quote to the source  because in my opinion it is better for Wikipedia, but there is a slim risk for some missing letters occasionally. Would it be better to link to the source only without a quote? I doubt it.
 * - Will you please tell me what is wrong in following the rules (as said) and adding a supposedly unchallenged text to the article without a link to the source? and if adding without a source is permitted, could it be that adding a partial support is forbidden?
 * - . Thank you for your kind words. Concerning yours: "I would suggest that a conclusion related to results might best give an indication of results for all relevant sides". I encountered these sentences while looking in the source for another purpose. It reminded me that the amount of killed Israelis decreased significantly after the Suez crisis and decided to add it to the article. I have not expected a problem since it is an undisputed factual sentence. It is fine if there will be  relevant results for Egypt too, although the Egypt article does not mention results relevant for Israel. Actually, it hardly mention the Suez crisis. Ykantor (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have a conflict of interest which is not allowing you to understand that selecting certain facts while cutting out other extremely relevant facts degrades an encyclopedia. You have taken a source which neutrally stated that border tensions decreased after the conflict and destroyed its neutrality by presenting only one part of one side. The original source's statement meant that Palestinian civilian deaths decreased, Palestinian militant deaths decreased, Palestinian attacks on Israelis decreased, Israeli attacks on Palestinians decreased, Israeli militant deaths decreased, but you decided that the source was wrong to give this information and that the only thing readers should know is that the conflict resulted in fewer Israeli civilian deaths. 184.145.53.236 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Usually I do not reply to anonymous persons. However, this person does not understand the quoted page, which mention decreased infiltration (i.e. from the Egyptian side) and does not mention retaliation attacks (by the Israeli army). Ykantor (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ykantor, please read WP:IPs are human too. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph last sentence again
The sentence currently reads:


 * "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed."

I propose that the content should read:


 * "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem is both its designated capital and the most populous individual city under the country's governmental administration. Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed."

The footnote can remain unchanged so as to say:


 * "The Jerusalem Law states that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel" and the city serves as the seat of the government, home to the President's residence, government offices, supreme court, and parliament. United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 (20 August 1980; 14–0, U.S. abstaining) declared the Jerusalem Law "null and void" and called on member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from Jerusalem. The United Nations and all member nations refuse to accept the Jerusalem Law (see ) and maintain their embassies in other cities such as Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, and Herzliya (see the CIA Factbook and Map of Israel). The U.S. Congress subsequently adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which said that the U.S. embassy should be relocated to Jerusalem and that it should be recognized as the capital of Israel. However, the US Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the provisions of the act "invade exclusive presidential authorities in the field of foreign affairs and are unconstitutional". Since passage of the act, all Presidents serving in office have determined that moving forward with the relocation would be detrimental to U.S. national security concerns and opted to issue waivers suspending any action on this front. The Palestinian Authority sees East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. The city's final status awaits future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (see "Negotiating Jerusalem," Palestine–Israel Journal). See Positions on Jerusalem for more information."

The main reason for the change is a perceived POV problem with the statement that "..Jerusalem is the country's most populous city .." on the view that this statement indicates an ownership of Jerusalem by Israel which in reality remains disputed.

My other thought on this relates to the wording "most populous individual city". This is suggested that, in combination the several adjoining cities of the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area are, in combination, considerably more substantial than Jerusalem. However I am not sure how this may be best worded to give a good indication of the situation within the country.


 * (At present the sentence is grammatically incorrect. In effect the "while" is used twice.  It can either be used to indicate: "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital" or to indicate: "While Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed.")

GregKaye 15:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can live with that suggested sentence. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "most populous individual city under the country's governmental administration" means the same as "country's most populous city" but is far less clear. "City" means "individual city", and "country's" together with the comment on legality is the same as "under the country's governmental administration".
 * Who (beside ) suggests that Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area is larger than Jerusalem ? Note that I'm not disputing this fact, I just think it's irrelevant.
 * I object (weakly) to this change because in my opinion it is awkward and pointless. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign do you understand that claiming "Jerusalem is the country's ... city" is POV? Please.  Just answer directly to a direct question.  Yes or no?  NPOV regarding issues that are in dispute is not pointless.  It is a pillar on which Wikipedia is intended to be based.  In the RfC at Template_talk:Largest_cities_of_Israel you have stated 15 times with almost rhetorical repetition that Jerusalem is under Israel's administration.  This is the content that is beyond doubt and that is not in dispute.  Isn't it better to present undisputed content than disputed?  Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area has a population of 3,464,100 according to the 2012 census.  Jerusalem has a population of 890,428.  Do you suggest that the "Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area" is of a similar size or is smaller than Jerusalem?  GregKaye 12:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying "Jerusalem is the country's ..." without clarifying the legality issues is very POV and certainly unacceptable. Since the comment on legality is there, I consider your addition unnecessary.
 * You may want to count your own repetitions, I think we are about the same number.
 * Tel Aviv area is undoubtedly larger than Jerusalem, but why is it important ? Tel Aviv is important because it's the financial and perhaps the cultural center, Jerusalem is important because it's the disputed capital and an important city for 3 major religions, what is so important about Bney Brak or Rishon Le Zion to justify mentioning them (as a part of Tel Aviv area) in the lead ? Do you have another state article discussing the largest metropolitan area in the lead ?&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying something such as to say that "Jerusalem is a city under the country's governmental administration" has no POV. Why express strong, one sided POV in the text at all.  The previous text does not merely claim that Israel claims Jerusalem.  It said, with great POV, that Jerusalem is Israel's.  Then, after stating this presented fact, we then present dispute.  Its a double minded presentation.   We can present claim and dispute.  We can't present fact and dispute.  This makes no sense.  We cannot make statements on   ownership issues when these issues have not been resolved.  There is the old phrase that "possession is nine-tenths of the law" and I don't think that anyone here is qualified to pronounce a verdict.  We are not here to perform original research or to either push or carry opinion.  I have heard your repetitions that "Jerusalem is under Israel's administration" and I agree.  On occasion that views need to be presented, let's leave it at that.
 * One of my concerns for Israel is its burgeoning population. Wales (a country possessing similar area as Israel is accredited to have by the CIA) has Cardiff with a population of just 335,145, as its largest city and, in property terms, the city is detached.  The equally tiny Israel has the remarkably sprawling Tel Aviv "Metropolis" and, on condition that Israel came third most problematic in the world on the Population Matters overshoot index, there is cause for concern.  Presentation of metropolitan areas is an issue in relation to countries as is evident in Category:Lists of metropolitan areas.  However I have not to this point argued that any reference to the great comparative size of the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area should be added to the lead.  However I find it a great misrepresentation to any ill-informed reader of the article for it to state Jerusalem as the largest city in Israel when there is this comparatively vast urban sprawl just a short jump to the north-west.  This is the same reason why I find the template content, in the context of a section on demography, to be quite bogus.  Googles of Earth: Cardiff in the green and Tel Aviv and adjoining cities in their comparatively arid context.   GregKaye 15:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the purpose of your change and agree with it in general, but do not think it achieves it. In order for a reader to understand the distinction between "Most populous city of Israel" and "Most populous city under the country's governmental administration", the reader would need to be aware of the legal dispute concerning Jerusalem. If the reader is already aware of the dispute, then the distinction is not required. If the reader is not aware before reading the next sentence, the distinction would be lost on them and all they would notice is an unnecessary long sentence. Once again, I object weakly since I believe this text to be factually correct and neutral, albeit a bit awkward. If nobody else objects, let it be.
 * If you want to let the reader know that Tel Aviv area is the largest populated area in Israel, we can add it explicity: "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area is the largest metropolitan area in Israel. Jerusalem is both Israel's designated capital and the most populous individual city...". Simply adding "individual city" to Jerusalem doesn't achieve this goal in my opinion. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * &#8220;WarKosign ty. I have edited to: "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv.  Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area is the largest metropolitan area in Israel. Jerusalem is both its designated capital and the most populous city under the country's governmental administration. Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed."  Prior to the achievement of international recognition I still don't think that we can say in Wikipedia's voice either that Jerusalem is or isn't Israel's.  On a POV basis though I worry that the inference of the "...country's governmental administration" statement might suggest that, if Jerusalem may not be Israel's, then it would alternately be Palestine's.  This I think may be unfair to the Israeli position.  Jerusalem is a big issue in regard to both Israel and the newly designated SoP - but this is in a context of an original proposal was that it belong to neither "side".  Perhaps some of the content of the footnote or the Corpus Separandum article could be referenced.
 * To use Wikipedia terminology Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is doubted so I think that Manual of Style/Words to watch does not directly apply. However, as per WP:NPOV, I think that the text should ideally have some content that may equally quell suggestion of Palestinian claim.  This is not to say that a validity of something likd a corpus separandum should be pushed.  Non-the-less its mention may help balance "doubts" that should be equally weighed against both sides.  This is how I think the public should be best informed of the situation for times when new settlement proposals may emerge.  GregKaye 13:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion Jerusalem may be mentioned as the declared capital of each of Israel and the Palestinian authority. Ykantor (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

new proposed text
following the 12 Mar comment above I would like to proposed the text:
 * "The Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area, the largest metropolitan area, accommodates the coastal city of Tel Aviv, Israel's financial center. Historically, the original Partition Plan for Palestine presented the intention for Jerusalem to neither be under the unilateral control of either a Jewish or an Arab state.  A subsequent history, inclusive of a series of wars has resulted in Jerusalem becoming the designated capital of Israel and the most populous city under its governmental administration.  Sovereignty over Jerusalem remains internationally disputed.

I have added reference to the partition plan here and, while I don't think that a little duplication with the following paragraph is a problem, that next paragraph may arguably be helped with a little editing to suit.

I have also changed "Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally disputed" to "Sovereignty over Jerusalem remains internationally disputed." Palestinian sovereignty is also not accepted and this seemed to me to be less "finger pointy" and "side takey". In the context I am not sure whether this last sentence is required at all as it may be implied. GregKaye 15:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye 15:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think mentioning the UN partition plan is far too detailed for lead which "should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". The mention of the UN partition plan in the next paragraph is already a subject of an RfC (that runs for almost a month so will soon close), so we should see if it's decided to mention the UN partition plan in the lead at all before we discuss adding a second reference. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that many would consider that there is no more important topic regarding the issue of Israel than Jerusalem.   We are talking here about a declared capital city that is commemorated with its own day but whose sovereignty is in dispute and which is also claimed as capital by another political entity.  I am not sure, when we say that the the sovereignty of Jerusalem is under dispute, that this means that the Palestinian claim is strengths or that the Israeli claim has weaknesses.  ????

RFC: Creating a NPOV Israel article in regard to massacres and bombings
This article contains reference to many events where Jews are killed, such as the Coastal Road massacre. When editors attempt to add events equally important to Israel’s history with a greater number of deaths but the victims where non-Jewish, the events are immediately reverted from the article. The Deir Yassin massacre and King David Hotel bombing are two examples; no reference to either of these events has been allowed in this article. I would like to know if editors support adding references to the Deir Yassin massacre and King David Hotel bombing to balance the currently included historical events, and, if now, why? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

==== Survey (if editors support adding references to the Deir Yassin massacre and King David Hotel bombing to balance the currently included historical events, wording to be discussed below before adding to article) ====


 * Support giving equal weight any side in any dispute here or elsewhere. This has been extensively discussed and resolved in the thread  above.  Any editor who is deleting relevant material is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia with balanced content.  Such editors should challenge themselves and likewise be challenged by others.  A life is a life and a non-theistic point of view would consider each life to be of equal importance regardless of what is taught in places like some yeshiva.  GregKaye 12:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, are you supporting the general idea or are you supporting the actual text below?Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose and possible support To make this clear, I support adding an NPOV mention, but strongly oppose the very un-ecyclopledic and heavily POV-text suggested below.Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How would you phrase it? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Unsure at this stage its not very clear what wording is actually being discussed.Cathar66 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the general NPOV principle, but I don't think the allegations of conspiracy to force a particular POV have been proven (though in a topic like this, they are very likely), and I don't know enough about the topic to have an informed opinion about the specific wording below, other than I agree with Gouncbeatduce in detecting some counter-viewpoint POV problems. See also WP:GREATWRONGS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Here is what I would suggest adding to 1948 history to help bring about a more NPOV:

During the massive 1948 ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel, numerous war crimes including massacres and rapes were committed by Israel Defense Forces and Zionist paramilitary groups.[] Some of the worst massacres were the Lydda death march, the Deir Yassin massacre, the Al-Dawayima massacre, the Saliha massacre, and the Abu Shusha massacre.[]

Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * These are quite exceptional claims that need a much better source than this partisan site. Not sure if Benny Morris's book is an acceptable source, but even if it is - it has to be balanced by other sources. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I ammended the wording to make it more NPOV.
 * The historian Benny Morris described this as justifiable ethnic cleansing which was accompanied by numerous war crimes including massacres and rapes committed by Israel Defense Forces and Zionist paramilitary groups.[] Some of the worst massacres were the Lydda death march, the Deir Yassin massacre, the Al-Dawayima massacre, the Saliha massacre, and the Abu Shusha massacre.[]
 * The reference is to the Haaretz site directly. Why delete?Cathar66 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea of an RfC is to request comments and to discuss and then insert the result of the discussion. The idea is not that everybody in the RfC insert their own versions, that is precisely what we're trying to avoid. As for your suggestion, based on what argument should we dedicate a paragraph specifically to Benny Moris's view, rather than hundreds of other historians?Jeppiz (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This version is better, but a few issues remain:
 * As Jeppiz asked, why is a single historian's opinion WP:DUE here ? It is already represented in 1948 Palestinian exodus.
 * The source talks about expulsion, not ethnic cleansing. From 1948 Palestinian exodus: "The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing, while others dispute this charge"
 * "According to Morris" or such must be added so it is clear that the term "worst massacres" as well as the list of the events are still in his opinion and not in wikipedia voice. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course if Morris is to be quoted, we mustn't cherrypick. He also said "You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that were perpetrated in Bosnia, that's peanuts. In comparison to the massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad, that's chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the population, you find that we behaved very well."&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Gouncbeatduke, I would suggest a rephrase, representation. Some of the wording seems gratuitous.  For instance I would not use "massive" unless weight was a factor.  We cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice about war crimes as we are not an international court.  We can only quote others unless a presentation of a clear case has already been presented.  I know people who have been in the IDF who are certainly far from being rapist material so I would suggest reference to whatever atrocity as being performed by "members of", "soldiers in" or some such.. "the Israel Defence Forces".  Even with ISIL I wouldn't allow "rapes were committed by ISIL forces" or by any group unless rape was used as a sanctioned weapon.  I am saying this, however, without being familiar with quoted reference from your citations.  WarKosign, what are the possible problems with Benny Morris who, by choice, might easily have been self designated as "Professor Benjamin..."  The article is stuffed with citations from sources like the jewishvirtuallibrary.org which has been suggested to be partisan.  Bringing in other sources seems to me a way to restore "balance".  GregKaye 20:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to as partisan, a serious newspaper quoting opinions of an established historian is a much better source.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign, If a suggested criteria for citation is the quotation of established notable people such as academics being quoted by serious newspapers, should we then expunge all the references from jewishvirtuallibrary.org and similar sources? GregKaye 20:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources that might be considered partisan should only be used for simple facts that don't leave much room for interpretation. jewishvirtuallibrary.org is used only once as the source for "The US is expected to provide the country with $3.15 billion per year from 2013–2018", and even then it's backed up by nytimes. Which similar sources do you mean ?&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point my edit was very NPOV because I used the phrase justified genocide as it was used in the article.Cathar66 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This was the edit that I think Cathar66 had in mind above. I have no problem here in regard to factual content although I am wary of reference being made to justification for ethnic cleansing.  We had a related issue raised in the ISIL article.  I would also like to see clarification of the extent that the ethnic cleansing involved killing or depossession of lands (also wrong).  I don't think that merely saying "The historian Benny Morris described this as justifiable ethnic cleansing..." without presenting reasoning for justification of provision of refutation may give the full story.  None the less I think that the presentation of Benny Morris's interpretation of events is a great step towards NPOV from the current one sided presentation of the article.  GregKaye 10:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe “During 1948, the historian Benny Morris describes a justifiable population transfer as accompanied by unjustified…” would be better? I find the Benny Morris description of justifiable ethnic cleansing fascinating, but I agree the ethnic cleansing term is problematic. Also, I agree your suggestion to say "by members of Israel Defense Forces ..." would be an improvement. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * -The horrible crimes are of course important and should be mentioned. However, the war section has about 270 words only(excluding the captions) and we have to consider what to add in terms of relative importance. There is hardly any description of the war operations or the Yishuv feeling that the invading Arab armies intended to slaughter them in accordance with their blood curdling declarations. Also, should we include massacres of Jews by Arabs ? (Haifa oil refinery, Kfar Etzion, the convoy of doctors and nurses to Mount Scopus in Jerusalem etc.)
 * - After the year 2000 2nd Intifhada Benny Morris changed his views. His personal opinions are that Israel could not have a chance to survive with the planned 40% (or more) Arab minority. But The historian Morris is not justifying crimes or expelling civilians. His books are very good and very honest. Please note that when he updated his book with more crimes against Arab civilians, based on new discoveries, it was already after he changed his minds. Ykantor (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should pick some neutral criteria and apply it equally to both sides, such as the number of war crime deaths. 38 civilians were killed in the Coastal Road massacre. I am not claiming 38 is the right number, just that it is a precedent set by the current editing of the article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)