Talk:Israel/Archive 83

Note on annexation in lead
I have made a clarifying edit in the lead that replaced the words: [Israel] "...extended its civil law" with "...effectively annexed" in relation to East Jerusalem in the Golan Heights. This is for two reasons: annexation was not previously mentioned, though this effective annexation is reflected in the article and obviously of a high-profile and important nature. Two, the precise way in which civil law has been extended to these areas is highly ambiguous, as well as not all discussed in the articles, making it a violation of MOS:LEAD. This edit has been contested, and one of the reasons was that the lead as is was likely arrived at as the result of consensus, but I searched the talk archives, and the only pertinent discussion that I could find was this one, where replacing "extended its civil law" with "annexed" was already discussed and the consensus was in fact indeed that "annexed" or "effectively annexed" was more appropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @WarKosign: Did you not read this, or are you just WP:STONEWALLING by will of habit? My edit comments were clear with respect to Wikipedia guidelines, and I have further elaborated in this talk that my edit DID INDEED have pre-existing consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At the moment I'm too tired to carefully consider the meaning of your change and your reasoning, so I don't know whether I support your cause or object to it. I am, however, certain that I object to edit warring and to violations of WP:1RR and WP:BRD. You started this discussion, now please give people a chance to respond. There is no rush to apply your change, if it is what is decided eventually. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 22:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * True, there is no rush, but the original edit comment provided for the revert of my guideline-based edit was so utterly nonsensical and in disregard of the guidelines that I felt compelled, in this instance, to immediately revert (just 1RR) in response. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct about MOS:LEAD, so something should be done about it. Some time ago, the body used to mention the "pipelining" of Israeli law. The sentence was: The sentence was reworded and the mention removed from the body but not from the lede. If there's no further opposition, I think the rewording you proposed is fine. But I don't understand the rush. Gees.  -   (talk)  22:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any dispute over the fact that Israel applied its civil law to EJ. Just "annexation" won't do - Israel maintains that it did not annex EJ. We can say that many experts consider this application of the civil law to be effectively the same as annexation, but per WP:NPOV we should also present the opposing argument. I don't see any problem with the current sentense and prefer to keep it. If your concern is that application of law to EJ is not mentioned in the article - let's mention it, Israel already talks about Jerusalem Law, so it would be the proper place to add it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The Israeli Supreme Court has regarded EJ as annexed even since 1967. Example (I think it is not the only example), Justice Y. Kahan in 1970 ". . . As far as I am concerned, there is no need for any certificate from the Foreign Minister or from any administrative authority to determine that East Jerusalem. . . was annexed to the State of Israel and constitutes part of its territory. . . by means of these two enactments and consequently this area constitutes part of the territory of Israel." I don't think Israel's avoidance of the term changes the fact(domestically), a lot of RS describe either the 67 or the 80 events (or both) as annexation. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is this potential discrepancy between the acknowledged reality of de facto annexation despite the possible lack of a formally 'certified' notice of annexation, etc. is what led Nableezy, in this earlier discussion to suggest the phrase "effectively annexed". As to the existing phrasing, I am not sure what it conveys ... what does the "extension of civil law" mean exactly? Is it just that? So civil law but not criminal or military law, etc.? And does that sentence sufficiently convey the full gamut of changes that have been brought about in this jurisdiction as part of the effective annexation of the area? "An extension of civil law" sounds overly reductive. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is a lot of RS that many are of the opinion that Israel annexed EJ. This still doesn't make it a fact, and thus per NPOV we must attribute the opinions to their holders and perhaps balance it with the opposing opinion. Then we are running into the WP:UNDUE territory, with too much detail given to this subject in the lead. What is wrong with extending the law, again? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You say there is an opposing opinion, I would be interested to see that, can you give me a reference? The comment you just made could be applied equally to extending the law ie there are those who say that's what it is and those who do not etc etc. You might also wish to give your opinion at the move discussion at Reunification of Jerusalem where, if it is moved, it will solve this problem in that we can then just wikilink it. Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's one. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a 404, this is it (the archive link). Yes, there Lustick makes an argument that it has not been annexed (properly) but only after acknowledging, "Nonetheless, the widely held view, both in Israel and outside it, is that the State of Israel actually annexed East Jerusalem either in 1967 or in 1980, when the Knesset promulgated the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel and has fully asserted its sovereignty there." He makes no mention of the court decision and we have multiple sources dated later than this one asserting it is/was an annex. Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Two things are wrong with the existing phrase of "extending the civil war": first, the violation of MOS:LEAD by mentioning material not mentioned in the body text, and secondly, its lack of precision. As @Daveout noted, even the sentence in the body that this used to be based on referenced the imposition of laws (in general) AND administration in East Jerusalem, which would not adequately summarized (even if it was still in the body) by just "extending civil laws". Cutting it altogether is an alternative. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @WarKosign If the Supreme Court has issued an interpretation that says it is in effect an annexation and EJ is a part of Israel, we have the highest legal authority in the country stating that, legally, annexation is the correct description of events. How much more factual can it actually get? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems you need two things, official proclamation or not, taking of territory and application of seizor's law in the seized territory. I am OK with the expression "effective annexation" ie for all practical purposes it is an annexation even if all the i's have not been dotted and all the t's not crossed.Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "applying the law" version is better, for the reason I stated above. Effective annexaction is acceptable, so if there isn't any strong objection from anyone else let's have it your way. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that everyone now seems at least ok with a wording along the lines of "effectively annexed", and that this is know the second time this wording has achieved a consensus in a talk page discussion, I will make the change if further objections are not forthcoming. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

limited recognition
I know the visitors of this page are pretty much a bloc so this is unlikely to get anywhere but the "limited recognition" in the infobox is the apex of euphemisms. A couple dozen countries would be "limited recognition" not THREE COUNTRIES. That's less than even Abkhazia and South Ossetia. An immediate UN resolution backed by 128 countries promptly proclaimed the move to be retarded. I think it used to say "internationally unrecognized" but then some good samaritan changed it when Trump did a Trump thing. I highly value what the regulars on this page would have to say about this. Surely they will carefully consider all sides of the issue instead of calling his opinion by a certain popular buzzword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:6E:B4EA:164:1793:5F4:AF12 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:6F:60F7:D909:1CFC:A9B9:7C0E (talk)
 * If anything, the recognition comment in the infobox should be removed. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because Israel says so. It doesn't matter who recognizes this fact: Capital city "is the municipality holding primary status in a country ... usually as its seat of the government". International recognition is not a part of definition of a capital city. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Palestine says EJ is their capital, better put that in as well, then :) Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * SoP artice actually does say that Jerusalem is their proclaimed captial. They are fully within their rights to proclaim whatever they want. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just joshing, capital is one thing, sovereignty is another, they are frequently confused. The infobox should deal with both issues don't u think? Selfstudier (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's true then why is it such big news when a country recognizes Jerusalem as their capital? Clearly it does matter what other countries think. And that's not how it works anyway. Saying a city is your capital means you claim it and place it within your borders. There's this thing in international law called territorial integrity that is violated by this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:6F:60F7:D909:1CFC:A9B9:7C0E (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, for example, the US has recognized Jerusalem as capital but at the same time has made clear that it does not mean recognition of sovereignty which remains a final status issue. It must be like that because internationally, East Jerusalem is classed as occupied. Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2022. >Add 6.5 Real Estate under 6 Economy<

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * actually, we did apply the change (and then fixed it a bit). See discussion bellow. I did forget to mark the request as answered, though. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't clear what the end result was, and the last reply gave me the impression that the editor had the request open to use the link to their site. No worries though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Real Estate
Housing prices in Israel are listed in the top third, with an average of 150 salaries required to buy an apartment. As of 2022, there are about 2.7 million properties in Israel, with an annual increase of more than 50,000. However, the demand for housing exceeds supply, with a shortage of about 200,000 apartments as of 2021, and thus rising house prices. As a result, between 2020 and 2021 there was a significant increase of 10% on average in housing. High prices don’t stop Israelis from buying properties. In 2021, Israelis took a record of NIS 116.1 billion in mortgages, an increase of 50% from 2020. Graffz (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This section looks good to me, so if nobody objects I'll copy it tomorrow into the article. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 23:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Done&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @WarKosignI have only one concern the ref to site bhii seems to me like spam of commerical site this account previously tried to promote it Shrike (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems a more reliable source, quoting CBS, but they only support 5.6% increase in the last year. Before I change, do you see any problem with it?&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No objections Shrike (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am indeed guilty. First I did try to insert the link to the "Housing in Israel" article, however I felt it was a bad idea, so I spent a lot of time working on my article on bhii, using different resources, and finding out that the change was an average of 10% (8-12% depending on the city). You seem to think that I did this selfishly in order to promote my own website, and you probably will be right, although I did try to benefit the readers. Anyway, it's up to you whether keep the link, or remove itGraffz (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit
can you point me to the consensus you are referring to? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:Israel/Archive_80  nableezy  - 16:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn’t notice that; looks like the discussion lasted 48 hours and had two supporters. A few things seem to have slipped through: (1) we now have instability amongst editors around how the Gaza Strip occupation is worded, whereas this had previously been stable for a long time – the footnotes were helpful to make this point clear and avoid endless circles; (2) the point about part of the West Bank being under Israeli law (i.e. more than just occupied) was lost; (3) the notablity of the occupation as the world’s longest was also lost. None of these points were discussed and I don’t think their removal has consensus.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A single supporter. Don't count me as one, I supported the first version before the bloat. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just with regards to point 2, that is now covered I think by the linked Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant the settlements in the rest of the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, agree that perhaps does need a short note at an appropriate place. And perhaps another one to deal with the Gaza occupation.Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The pipelining bit is not lead for the country article worthy, and it was not just two users, and this has been stable for months now.  nableezy  - 19:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The 'longest military occupation' part is already in article's body (section on Israeli-occupied territories). It's not lost, although it isn't in lede nor should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:600:2D0E:0:0:C402:8DF9 (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything in the lead should be in the body, making that a non-argument. Id be ok returning that bit, though I dont know if it is vital.  nableezy  - 21:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Revert
A recent revert with edit summary "WP:NPOV; many countries recognize East Jerusalem as part of Israel,"

A patently untrue statement. "Thus, the UN as a whole, as well as its individual member states, has expressly withheld recognition of the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem." (https://www.nrc.no/globalassets/pdf/reports/the-legal-status-of-east-jerusalem.pdf).

It is true that the Palestine and Israel are in dispute but internationally, the Palestine claim to East Jerusalem is supported while the Israel claim to the same place is not. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Even when the US recognized Jerusalem as the capital they specified it did not make any determination on the status of EJ. That is a plainly untrue statement. Reverted.  nableezy  - 18:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article's Israeli-occupied territories section, which transcludes Template:Administration in the Palestine region, indicates without citations that China and Russia recognize Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem. The whole table is in need of citations, and it might be better to remove it until is substantively verified. If not, we should either source the China/Russia claims and keep the "disputed" description or remove the China/Russia claims and restore the "unrecognized" description. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The template shows that Russia and China accept SoP claim over East Jerusalem, not that of Israel.Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was very confused. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * According to https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cezw//eng/xwdt/t854964.htm, the Chinese Government supports an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, however please take caution as they never explicitly state their official stance in that document. Both the template and the article seem incorrect.
 * Russia recognizes West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It says that it supports East Jerusalem as the future Palestinian capital, but this could be interpreted as implying that they do not recognize it as such at the moment.
 * Overall I would interpret all this as a rather ambiguous approach for both countries. As SelfStudier pointed out, the template says that it is actually recognized as the capital of the State of Palestine. Which means the template is also wrong, as the reality is somewhat more complex. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The reality is that they do not recognize the Israeli claim over East Jerusalem and neither does anyone else, your OR interpretations notwithstanding. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * but the claim that is not correct as it seems from the template only two states support it Shrike (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to FirefangledFeathers.
 * I have no idea what you are trying to achieve with WP:OR, I'm just explaining the scenario and how the template used is incorrect. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "this could be interpreted" <-- OR
 * "I would interpret all this as a rather ambiguous approach" I don't care about your interpretations, you have clearly demonstrated that you don't understand what it is you are editing.
 * Get sources and make edits, all you need to do.Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2022
Can I correct the Gini index ? It’s worng thanks Tamar274 (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please write what exactly you want to change, from X to Y, and provide a link to a source. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Location of Israel?
Is Israel located in the middle east (The Levant) or western Asia? Please clarify. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3FC0:F740:9B3:5082:A0E:EF0C (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia currently favors Western Asia in its terminology, per UN definitions I believe, regardless of how confusing that may be to most people. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Middle East is not its own continent, rather, it is a region located within the western Asia portion of the Asian continent. The Levant is not the entirety of the Middle East, nor is it synonymous with the Middle East. Rather, it is a smaller region within the Middle East, primarily the western portion of it bordering the Mediterranean sea. Israel is located within the Levant, which is located in the Middle East, which (depending on your terminology) is either located in or synonymous with western Asia, which is a part of the continent of Asia, which is located on the planet Earth, which is located within... --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I always thought it was ME but that's "Eurocentric" and "discriminatory" apparently, so West Asia it is :) Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I find Ngram quite incisive in revealing quite how ridiculous this whole 'West Asia' malarkey is, and that's before we even get onto the whole 'Eurocentric' debate, despite the fact that the Arab terminology is also "the Middle east" (As-sharq al-awsat). But clearly the region needs some non-Eurocentric Europeans to lead them back towards better terminology. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Israel is a country on Earth, centered around 31°57′7″N 34°53′17″E ...". Is it neutral, or perhaps it's too Earth-centric? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Centered around...". Google says that is near Old City so no. Selfstudier (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually this is a random point in Lod, nowhere near an old city (of whatever city). &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 22:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Both. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the articles on the Middle East and Western Asia, there's one on the Levant, the other region mentioned. In addition, there are articles on Eurasia and Asia. Each of those articles contain a map. Editors can draw their own conclusions.      ←   ZScarpia  16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the articles on the Middle East and Western Asia, there's one on the Levant, the other region mentioned. In addition, there are articles on Eurasia and Asia. Each of those articles contain a map. Editors can draw their own conclusions.      ←   ZScarpia  16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022
I want to change Incorrect and refined information 109.64.95.191 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you please update the economic data for 2022? score IMF 2022 https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/ISR GDP 520,700 ranked 28 GDP per capita 54,690 ranked 14 GDP PPP : 478,100 48 GDP PPP per capita : 50,200 ranked 28 Tamar274 (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2022 (2)
Hi regarding Israel's GINI rating. The rating 48 is incorrect and irrelevant. I searched and did not find an up-to-date list of country rankings according to the GINI Index. But the 48 rating is incorrect and irrelevant to the country. The right thing to do would be to change the rating from 48 to Medium without rating because there is currently no up to date list thank you very much !. Tamar274 (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no appropriate rating for 2021. But the Israeli GINI index is 39.1 which is a mediocre place. (Rating 48 is irrelevant). And there is no really accurate rating but it is in a mediocre place so for it to be accurate you have to delete the 48 and write medium next to thanks! Score: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=IL Tamar274 (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think is right. Currently infobox entry on GINI links to List of countries by income equality with the caption "48th", but in the linked article there is no indication that Israel is in 48th place in anything related to income equality. Articles on several other countries that I checked give GINI as a number and not as a place in some list, so unless someone knows what's the origin of "48th" (and can give us a source that supports it) - I'll remove it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes you should remove it. There is no source that the number is 48. According to the World Bank GINI of Israel is 39.1 which is a mediocre place. I checked and there is no source that the number is 48. Thank you! Tamar274 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you changing it? Tamar274 (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll wait a day, and then remove it if nobody objects. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I searched again and didn’t find any score of information that confirms that Israel's ranking is 48. Tamar274 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The given chart (ref 24) shows Israel Gini at 0.348 for 2018. Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Gini coefficient says "If all people have non-negative income (or wealth, as the case may be), the Gini coefficient can theoretically range from 0 (complete equality) to 1 (complete inequality); it is sometimes expressed as a percentage ranging between 0 and 100". All the countries I looked at used value far above 1, so it seems to me it's obvious that 34.8 fits the source with trivial WP:CALC. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tamar274 (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you please update the economic data? 2022: score IMF 2022 https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/ISR GDP: 520,700 ranked 27 GDP per capita 54,690 ranked 14 GDP PPP : 478,100 48 GDP PPP per capita : 50,200 ranked 28 Tamar274 (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022
I would like to edit this page as I believe I can give information from a different perspective. Jamiel1shot (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you please change the economic data for 2022 ? Tamar274 (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight on apartheid paragraph
Is this paragraph really needed here? Isn't it better to leave it to the main 'Israeli apartheid' [sic.] article. It also seems one sided, there's no counter-arguments etc... -  (talk)  13:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There, fixed it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323: You are very mistaken. WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus before reinserting disputed content. Apartheid controversy was already mentioned in a balanced manner a few paragraphs before, probably as a result of previous consensus which had nothing to do with the sock. Somebody please remove that "survey" which is undue weight and one-sided here. It's already covered in the article on Israeli apartheid with all the other details.Eastern Geek (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I cut it down to a short single sentence so it's DUE now, if you want more refs, no problem, it was widely reported.Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The single sentence edited by @Selfstudier seems perfectly due in a section characterising the occupied territories. (With the longer exposition on the Apartheid page.) Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2022
Hey, I want you to please update the economy data for 2022: score IMF 2022 https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/ISR GDP: 520,700 ranked 27 GDP per capita 54,690 ranked 14 GDP PPP : 478,100 48 GDP PPP per capita : 50,200 ranked 28 Thank you. You can check the details. Tamar274 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

IMF 2022 world economic update: GDP: 520,700 ranked 28 GDP per capita 54,690 ranked 14 GDP PPP: 478,100 ranked 48 GDP PPP per capita :50,200 ranked 28 Tamar274 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you please update the economic data for 2022? GDP rank 28 GDP per capita rank 14 GDP PPP rank 48 GDP PPP per capita rank 28 By IMF Tamar274 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ I can see the raw numbers are correct, but couldn't verify the rankings. Are you just sorting by value and then counting from the top? I checked GDP and got 29th. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I will explain The GDP is 28(or 29 if you consider Taiwan as a country) The GDP per capita is 14 because it’s increased 5 places from last year Which it was ranked 19. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe GDP PPP 48 because Ukraine GDP decreased 35% in 2022. And GDP PPP is ranked 28 I checked on the wiki page. Tamar274 (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I checked and I am sure this is the right ranking. Tamar274 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure how you got your numbers. I'm counting Israel as 15th on the GDP per capita list, for instance. Why did you link to the Europe article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you updating ? Tamar274 (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita I count and it ranked 14, and 28 in the PPP Tamar274 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I count the ranking in the IMF website. Tamar274 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you updating the economic data for 2022 ? Tamar274 (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm working on it. I'm going to include the exact rankings provided by the source, so you might start thinking about why certain entries should be excluded (Taiwan, Hong Kong SAR, etc.). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * now ✅. Please double check. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank for your update but the GDP PPP per capita is ranked 29 can you check It? And change? Tamar274 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I just counted again, and Israel is 34th on the list "GDP per capita, current prices : Purchasing power parity; international dollars per capita". Are we looking at different lists? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked in the IMF website and Israel ranked 28 Tamar274 (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPPC@WEO/ISR?zoom=ISR&highlight=ISR I counted 28 Tamar274 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I looked at your link, which appears to show the same table as my link, and still count Israel 34th on the list. Perhaps you're excluding some list entries. I have not been, as noted above and in my edit summary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPPC@WEO/BHR/BEL/BRN/DNK/FIN/FRA/DEU/HKG/ISL/IRL/ITA/KOR/KWT/LUX/MLT/NLD/NZL/NOR/QAT/SAU/SWE/CHE/TWN/ARE/GBR/AUS/AUT/CAN I counted all the countries with GDP PPP above 50.2 and it’s appears Israel is at the 29 position Tamar274 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That link takes me to the same table. I'm still getting 34. You said you "counted all the countries". Are you excluding some list entries? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I also included countries and territories like Hong Kong and Taiwan for example and Israel came in 29th place. In addition, the Czech Republic was also ranked 29th, even though its GDP per capita is lower than that of Israel. In any case, it should also be deleted in the description below that Israel is the country with the nominal 31st GDP in the world. In addition, the population of Israel is ranked 93rd in the world today and not 99th. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population Tamar274 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking at the url, it looks like you've selected specific countries, but some from the full list above Israel are missing. Singapore is one example. You should try resetting your selection. I updated the nominal GDP statement in the text of the lead. How did you get 93rd for population? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population Israel has now overtaken Tajikistan in population size. Ranked 93rd place. Tamar274 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Also Japan ranked 27rd in GDP PPP per capita with lower GDP PPP as well Czech Republic. I am pretty sure that the right ranking is 29rd but I will check it again. Tamar274 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey just counted again and the right rank is 32th. 43 less 11 territories marked in yellow https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita Tamar274 (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If you sort that table by the IMF estimate, you get 34 again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

No, in this table there are 11 territories that are n/a, Israel rank is 32. Check the list and see… Tamar274 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you don't count Macau and Hong Kong, Israel is 32. But we're not citing the Wikipedia table, we're citing the IMF data, which does include Macau and Hong Kong. You are welcome to make the case for which entries should be excluded, and why. I continue to be inclined toward parroting the reliable source, but others might very reasonably disagree. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I agree. Another thing, in the text below is that “Israel ranks high on the HDI list”, but Israel rank as "very high". In my opinion, you should add the exact ranking “19th” Tamar274 (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

״the country ranks high on the global HDI list.״ it’s should be changed. Because it’s ranks “very high” also I think you should add the exact ranking “19th” Tamar274 (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I wonder maybe we should add the Israel is regional power in the Middle East? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_power Tamar274 (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey the population of Israel is ranked 93 now ,can you change it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population Tamar274 (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Recognition by United Nations members
Why was my contribution reverted? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=1085303599&oldid=1085295539)

The introduction mentions the capital of Jerusalem limited recognition with a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Jerusalem so it could be useful to mention also the limited recognition of Israel with a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel, like done on the introduction of the State of Palestine article, which mentions the limited recognition of Palestine as well. --Baptx (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought it was potentially controversial so I thought it would be better to discuss it first. I'm not sure whether Israel's limited recognition is that relevant as to be mentioned in the lede. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I would like to know what other editors think. -   (talk)  19:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Potentially controversial is not a reason to revert something. What exactly is the objection?  nableezy  - 19:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As said, I'm not sure whether Israel's limited recognition is that relevant as to be mentioned in the lede. I don't think Israel's and Palestine's statehood status are that similar. (And if it gets restored, I think it should preferably be placed somewhere at the bottom of the lede) -  (talk)  19:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem limited recognition is mentioned in the first paragraph, that's why I think it is the best place to mention Israel limited recognition just after it. Baptx (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I support inclusion, though I think the comma needs to be a semicolon, and I'd favor placing it at the end of the third paragraph. I'd still favor inclusion in one of the other suggested locations over total removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Daveout. The issues of recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital vs recognition of Israel are distinct. The former has historically been exceptionally rare (limited), which cannot be said for recognition of Israel. Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Daveout and Nishidani. Recognition of states can be a deceptive matter. The status of Israel and Palestine are really incomparable. Israel is a full UN member, while Palestine has a non-member observer state status. While Israel is fully sovereign, Palestine is partially sovereign, and is usually described as a de jure sovereign status. In reality, it is ruled by the Palestinian National Authority, which exercises partial civil control only on some areas of the West Bank. As stated in the International recognition of Israel article, "Israel's sovereignty has been disputed by [...] mostly as a consequence of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and broader Arab–Israeli conflict"; this recognition has nothing to do with the actual reality on the ground. Tombah (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Partition Plan acceptance and rejection.
In pro-Israel literature, pointing out that the Jewish Agency indicated acceptance of the UN Partition Plan while Arab representatives rejected it is popular. Statements to that effect are repeated several times in the article. There are a number of facts or beliefs relating to that which may be worth pointing out:


 * Firstly, the most important point. While the UN investigation was under way, the Jewish Agency pushed for the creation of a separate "Jewish" state while Arab representatives pushed for a unitary state (which would have had an in-built Arab majority). That a unitary state was unacceptable to the Jewish Agency was a major factor behind the recommendation made in the majority report for partition. Therefore, the Jewish Agency was indicating acceptance of a recommendation which it had pushed for, while Arab representatives were rejecting a recommendation recommending something they had been opposed to.
 * The Partition Plan made detailed recommendations about matters such as economic union and borders, none of which the Jewish Agency had any intention of abiding by. Really, its acceptance was confined to the creation of a "Jewish State".
 * Revisionist Zionists rejected the Plan. They believed that the whole of Palestine should become a Jewish state. The Jewish Agency also believed that, but were more realistic about what the UN would be prepared to offer. Once a Jewish state had been created, they would be able to expand its borders. If Bedouin are taken into account, the Partition Plan recommended a Jewish state be created on territory where half the population on partition would be non-Jewish. There is a belief that, underlying the recommendation, was a hope that maximising the territory of the Jewish state in that way would delay moves towards exanding its boundaries.
 * A false impression is given that the opinions of the different sides were sought. The reactions were just that, reactions. Although presumably the Plan wouldn't have been enacted if both sides rejected it, the indication of acceptance or rejection was not procedurally part of the UN search for a solution to the violence in Palestine.
 * Revisionist Zionists rejected the Plan. They believed that the whole of Palestine should become a Jewish state. The Jewish Agency also believed that, but were more realistic about what the UN would be prepared to offer. Once a Jewish state had been created, they would be able to expand its borders. If Bedouin are taken into account, the Partition Plan recommended a Jewish state be created on territory where half the population on partition would be non-Jewish. There is a belief that, underlying the recommendation, was a hope that maximising the territory of the Jewish state in that way would delay moves towards exanding its boundaries.
 * A false impression is given that the opinions of the different sides were sought. The reactions were just that, reactions. Although presumably the Plan wouldn't have been enacted if both sides rejected it, the indication of acceptance or rejection was not procedurally part of the UN search for a solution to the violence in Palestine.
 * A false impression is given that the opinions of the different sides were sought. The reactions were just that, reactions. Although presumably the Plan wouldn't have been enacted if both sides rejected it, the indication of acceptance or rejection was not procedurally part of the UN search for a solution to the violence in Palestine.

   ←   ZScarpia  19:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So basically you're saying that the Jewish Agency accepted the plan while the Arab representatives rejected it? Great, then what we have in the article is correct. If any of the further details are not yet mentioned in United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine article - they probably should be added, with appropriate sources. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "So basically you're saying that the Jewish Agency accepted the plan while the Arab representatives rejected it?" That's a very peculiar and inaccurate interpretation. For one thing, note that I wrote: "Really, its acceptance was confined to the creation of a 'Jewish State'."
 * "Basically", what I'm hoping for is a the addition of detail and a slight change in meaning, along the following lines:
 * The Plan recomended what the Jewish Agency had been seeking, the creation of a "Jewish" state, and it indicated acceptance, whereas representatives of the Arabs, who had, publicly at least, opposed partition, indicated rejection.
 * As an alternative, the current detail could be omitted altogether? In answering the question, "what purpose does it serve?", you might gain illustration of why it is not neutral.
 *    ←   ZScarpia  10:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "The Plan recomended what the Jewish Agency had been seeking, the creation of a "Jewish" state, and it indicated acceptance, whereas representatives of the Arabs, who had, publicly at least, opposed partition, indicated rejection" - I don't see the point of your addition. Of course each side accepted or rejected the plan because they acted in what they considered their interest at the moment, it's too obvious to mention.
 * "What purpose does it serve?" - to give immediate background to Israel's unilateral declaration of independence and following 1948 war. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "To give immediate background to Israel's unilateral declaration of independence and following 1948 war." In what way? And don't my additions also give "immediate background"? Perhaps you would like to comment on the difference between indicating acceptance or rejection (perhaps approval or disapproval might be a better choice of words, as acceptance or rejection tend to imply that the Plan was actually put to the different parties in some formal way) and the current form?     ←   ZScarpia  11:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WarKoSign's meme contrasts Jewish Agency reasonableness to Arab rejectionism. The 66% Arab majority was assigned 44% of the (less fertile) land, and the Jewish minority 30-32% was accorded 56% of the land. Reasonableness and rejectionism therefore have nothing to do with it, as the snippety meme implies.Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. The truncated, detail-poor, version of the facts which is popular in pro-Israel sources does tend to portray the Jewish Agency as virtuous and the Arabs as obstructionist. However, there's nothing virtuous in 'accepting' something you pushed for, particularly when you don't intend to abide by the unwanted adjuncts accompanying it.     ←   ZScarpia  12:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "virtous" or "obstructionist" is your interpretation. The facts are simple - one side accepted a plan, the other rejected. These are plain facts and there is no inherent moral judgement in stating these facts. Of course the side that accepted the plan thought the plan benefitted it, while the side that rejected the plan thought it wasn't good for them. Could anyone have expected them to act any differently in these circumstances? There is no point in writing this tautology, it's a waste of space on the artcle page and insult to the reader's intelligence. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is with the framing, i.e.: in terms of one specific plan, whereas there were in fact two plans: partition and unity. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Just as a comment, part of the discussion above seems a bit unfocused. If the argument is that the partition plan was unfair to the Arab population, then that is a personal opinion (it's an opinion I agree with, but that's beside the point). The argument that one side got what they wanted is also a personal opinion, and an inaccurate one as both sides wanted all of the territory, especially Jerusalem (which nobody got in the partition plan). That the Jewish side accepted it and the Arab side rejected is just a historical fact. So it's not clear from the long discussion above what changes anyone wants to make, and on which RS they want to base those changes. If the purpose is just to discuss the merits of the partition plan, it would violate WP:NOTAFORUM. Perhaps the OP can state clearly (1.) What should change, and (2.) what are the suggested RS to support the change. Jeppiz (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that Jewish authorities endorsed the plan (as a provisory step to larger ambitions). It is a fact that the Arabs rejected it. But we should be very careful of what selective facts do (rejectionism as characteristically 'Arab' is all over the literature, in place of facts or analysis. I.e. Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, etc. ). Adding the bare fact of the land and demographic disparity gives basic context for both contexts. Despite Tombah's predictable removal, it is factual, and considered in most accounts as a core feature of the fracture in Jewish assent/Arab dissent.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm inclined toward summarizing the summary present in the lead of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, something like "The Plan, devised in cooperation with Jewish organizations, was accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine but rejected by Arab leaders and governments." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing its that Arab leaders declined to cooperate with the commission so this part shouldn't be omitted Shrike (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)