| Revision as of 00:06, 16 April 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,054 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Israel/Archive 48) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:26, 20 April 2015 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,093 edits →RfC - what should the lead say about the initial borders of Israel: closeNext edit → | ||
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
| == RfC - what should the lead say about the initial borders of Israel == | == RfC - what should the lead say about the initial borders of Israel == | ||
| {{rfc top|In an area this contentious, you need a lot more input to constitute a consensus. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Please select which (possibly more than one) of these options (possibly with wording changes) should appear in the lead, or suggest your own: | Please select which (possibly more than one) of these options (possibly with wording changes) should appear in the lead, or suggest your own: | ||
| # The ] specified the borders for the new Jewish state. The plan's borders were ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries. | # The ] specified the borders for the new Jewish state. The plan's borders were ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries. | ||
| Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
| ::How about: "The UN partition plan prescribed borders for the new Jewish state but neither Israel or neighboring countries chose to accept its prescription". As far as I see it both sides royally fucked up here and I think that it is worth presenting this case as clearly as possible. ]] 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | ::How about: "The UN partition plan prescribed borders for the new Jewish state but neither Israel or neighboring countries chose to accept its prescription". As far as I see it both sides royally fucked up here and I think that it is worth presenting this case as clearly as possible. ]] 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{re|Precision123}} Do you suggest to include both 1 and 2 ? 2 mostly repeats what 1 says with some elaboration. 3 can work with either. ]]] 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | ::{{re|Precision123}} Do you suggest to include both 1 and 2 ? 2 mostly repeats what 1 says with some elaboration. 3 can work with either. ]]] 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| {{rfc bottom}} | |||
| == First paragraph last sentence again == | == First paragraph last sentence again == | ||
Revision as of 12:26, 20 April 2015
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Israel is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Index
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
| Toolbox |
|---|
RFC: Creating a NPOV Israel article in regard to massacres and bombings
Closing RFC per an AN request. There is insufficient participation to assess consensus about the question posed. Sandstein 12:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 #This article details Jewish casualties but not Arab casualties, is it giving a NPOV? 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 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. “WarKosign” 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. “WarKosign” 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."“WarKosign” 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 Misplaced Pages'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)
- @GregKaye: I was referring to as partisan, a serious newspaper quoting opinions of an established historian is a much better source.“WarKosign” 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)
- @GregKaye: 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 ?“WarKosign” 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @GregKaye: 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 ?“WarKosign” 21:01, 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)
- -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)
RfC - what should the lead say about the initial borders of Israel
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please select which (possibly more than one) of these options (possibly with wording changes) should appear in the lead, or suggest your own:
- The UN partition plan specified the borders for the new Jewish state. The plan's borders were ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries.
- The UN partition plan specified the borders for the new Jewish state. The plan was accepted by the Jewish public and by the Jewish Agency but rejected by the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee.
- Israel's declaration of independence did not specify any borders.
- The only reference in the text of the declaration of independence to the borders of the new state is the use of the term "Eretz-Israel".
Threaded discussion
Please note that each of these options is sourced and is already mentioned in the body of the article.
Comments/!Votes
- Comment Not too keen on the word "vote", but I would favour option 2 though I would definitely say "Israel" rather than "the Jewish public". The "Jewish public" expressed no opinion, most of the "Jewish public" did not leave in the area at the time.Jeppiz (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, my grandparents in the US didn't have any say in this. I'm surprised someone said Jewish public rather than Palestinian Jews. Also, yes, vote is a terrible word to use even with exclamation point for negation. People will be more likely to treat it as a vote as a lot of people don't understand how the consensus polling works. Hell, I don't even understand it myself as I don't think that article really defines what a consensus is (always had this vague idea that it's something most people agree on that is in accordance with the rules. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 25 Shevat 5775.
- The article body says "The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan". The UN plan's article lead says "The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations". "Israel" won't do since the state of Israel didn't exist at that point of time. Perhaps "The Jewish public/community in Palestine" ?
- I think it was either meant to be an obvious reference to the Jewish community in Palestine using poor wording, or the Jewish Agency saying it was the will of all Jews or something and maybe the UN trying to make it look like they solved the age-old problem of no Jewish homeland. I assume the former. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 25 Shevat 5775 14:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- The article body says "The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan". The UN plan's article lead says "The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations". "Israel" won't do since the state of Israel didn't exist at that point of time. Perhaps "The Jewish public/community in Palestine" ?
- Yeah, my grandparents in the US didn't have any say in this. I'm surprised someone said Jewish public rather than Palestinian Jews. Also, yes, vote is a terrible word to use even with exclamation point for negation. People will be more likely to treat it as a vote as a lot of people don't understand how the consensus polling works. Hell, I don't even understand it myself as I don't think that article really defines what a consensus is (always had this vague idea that it's something most people agree on that is in accordance with the rules. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 25 Shevat 5775.
- See !vote. "!" is used as a symbol of logical negation in many programming languages. “WarKosign” 14:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not to be argumentative, but not everyone knows that and given how most of these contentious non-votes turn out, most people, don't know that or make the connection with the idea that it means we're not voting. Many don't base their non-votes on policy, but rather stated reasons that are wholly irrelevant for purposes of helping the article. Also, I didn't know there was a glossary. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 25 Shevat 5775 14:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, I assumed it's well known what a !vote is, apparently I was wrong. “WarKosign” 15:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I figured it out after a year or two of editting, but I've seen disastrous move proposals where you would have tons random people coming in who just didn't get how it works. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 25 Shevat 5775 15:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, I assumed it's well known what a !vote is, apparently I was wrong. “WarKosign” 15:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not to be argumentative, but not everyone knows that and given how most of these contentious non-votes turn out, most people, don't know that or make the connection with the idea that it means we're not voting. Many don't base their non-votes on policy, but rather stated reasons that are wholly irrelevant for purposes of helping the article. Also, I didn't know there was a glossary. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 25 Shevat 5775 14:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- See !vote. "!" is used as a symbol of logical negation in many programming languages. “WarKosign” 14:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Option 3, as the shortest and most relevant. Per WP:LEADLENGTH the lead should be short and to the point. UN partition plan which was not implemented is less relevant than the declaration of independence which was. If the consensus is to mention the UN partition plan, then Option 2 should be preferred since it is the one that does not WP:CHERRYPICK but describes the reasons for the plan being "ultimately not recognized". “WarKosign” 10:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Option 1 or 2 or a combination of 1 and 2. Option 2 needs the info added that the plan's borders were ultimately not recognized by Israel. As Jeppiz said above "What the declaration said or not said is of relatively low interest. History is filled with not-yet established states making declarations of independence and claiming territory. ... What is relevant is that all members of UN at the time voted on a plan to establish an Israeli state within defined borders." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Doesn't Option 3 when added to 2 say exactly what you want to add, that ultimately Israel was declared without recognizing the plan's borders ? “WarKosign” 11:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, it does not. There could be many reasons a declaration of independence does not include borders. The one for the USA doesn't have them, and it is not because they disagreed with a UN plan. Even it the case of Israel, most historians I have read place the time the Jewish Agency ended it's support for the plan borders at some time after the war began, and it became clear the UN was not going to commit the troops necessary to defend Jerusalem. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- We can quote this source which says "the document ... implicitly denies to the UN the right to determine the borders of the Jewish state. Having gotten from the UN a plan whose main accomplishment was the end of the British Mandate, the UN was now removed from the decision making process"“WarKosign” 18:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Option 3 is the better one. If the concensus would like to elaborate, than it should not be in the lead.
- One author's view of what is "implicitly" intended in a document, without ever being explicitly stated, is hardly something that belongs in the lead.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Doesn't Option 3 when added to 2 say exactly what you want to add, that ultimately Israel was declared without recognizing the plan's borders ? “WarKosign” 11:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I think this kind of discussion isn't the right way to address this. What's in the lead is determined by what's in the body, and what's in the body is determined by sources. The second paragraph in the current lead is huge, taking space from other, more central topics that should be covered instead of details of 1948. The first paragraph of the lead already mentions borders and seems to be perfectly adequate concerning borders for the lead. If I have to choose, of the options listed 1 seems best, since the plan recommendation wasn't genuinely accepted by either side. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Dailycare: There was a long discussion and yet there is no agreement. The article contains all these statements, the question is what's the best way to represent them in a short form in the lead. Of course "do not mention the borders" or something new entirely are also valid options. “WarKosign” 20:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Dailycare, there was already a long discussion in the "UN and Israel views on borders" section, with the majority of editors agreeing the current wording was fine (and one editor who refused to WP:DTS) Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- What Gouncbeatduke probably meant is that there was long-standing stable version, and then a couple of editors came along and changed it despite the disagreement of the rest of the editors. Anyway, this RfC should determine what the lead should say. “WarKosign” 22:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Dailycare, there was already a long discussion in the "UN and Israel views on borders" section, with the majority of editors agreeing the current wording was fine (and one editor who refused to WP:DTS) Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Dailycare: There was a long discussion and yet there is no agreement. The article contains all these statements, the question is what's the best way to represent them in a short form in the lead. Of course "do not mention the borders" or something new entirely are also valid options. “WarKosign” 20:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- A combination of Option 2 and Option 3 seem to cover all the bases in sufficient clarity and completion. --GHcool (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason why sentences 1–3 should not be included. Sentence 4 could go in the body but I don't feel too strongly about it either way. --Precision123 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- How about: "The UN partition plan prescribed borders for the new Jewish state but neither Israel or neighboring countries chose to accept its prescription". As far as I see it both sides royally fucked up here and I think that it is worth presenting this case as clearly as possible. GregKaye 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Precision123: Do you suggest to include both 1 and 2 ? 2 mostly repeats what 1 says with some elaboration. 3 can work with either. “WarKosign” 20:36, 6 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 Kellerman 1993, p. 140 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKellerman1993 (help)) 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 GregKaye) 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. “WarKosign” 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- @GregKaye: 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 ?“WarKosign” 14:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- WarKosign 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)
- @GregKaye: 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. “WarKosign” 18:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- “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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages terminology Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is doubted so I think that Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
- @GregKaye: 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. “WarKosign” 17:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- WarKosign 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. ????
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)
Longest military occupation - session 2
The term "Longest military occupation" was added to the article as a result of the previous discussion. However, I happened to have a look in the Western Sahara article. There are claims that this territory belongs to the native Sahrawi people .
"The Polisario Front has won formal recognition for SADR from 53 states, and was extended membership in the African Union. Morocco has won recognition or support for its position from several African governments and from most of the Arab League" (source: Western Sahara ).
Should we accordingly revise the the article text: "Longest military occupation" ? Ykantor (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source that says Western Sahara has been occupied longer than Palestine? If not, why are you asking? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 21:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- According to this fellow in the Independent, the occupation of Western Sahara has been going on since 1975, or forty years. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 16 Adar 5775 14:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the interesting source. If the western Sahara is under Morocan occupation from 1975 and prior to that year it was occupied by Spain for more than a 100 years (?), than it is the longest occupation in modern times. What is your view? Ykantor (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- According to this fellow in the Independent, the occupation of Western Sahara has been going on since 1975, or forty years. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 16 Adar 5775 14:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Personally, I think that might be getting into the realm of WP:SYNTH. It's also two separate occupations (Spain: you can have independence now!; Morocco: jk, lol! All ur resource are belong to us!). We could also make the same claim about, say, British rule over India through the East India Company (when they weren't busy chasing Jack Sparrow), and then the Raj which falls within the Modern era and was much longer. All this would be better discussed on the relevant talk page, and after I've had some drinks and hookah as it's been a long day, of course. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 21 Adar 5775 19:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- - It is true that these are 2 separate occupations, but from the POV of the natives, it is a very long continuous occupation, at first Spain and later Morocco.
- - Your example of India past rulers differs from this case because the alleged mistaken sentence here is ""Longest military occupation in modern times",". the term "modern time" is rather vague, but the editors here referred to the period starting the 2nd world war, or possibly the 20th century beginning. Will you accept that the Western Shara occupation is the longest in modern times? (comprised of 2 different occupiers.) Ykantor (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Ykantor: I agree with you, however we need sources that agree with you. “WarKosign” 15:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I don't doubt that the Sawarai feel that way with every right, but as WK says, we need sources (sauces would also be nice) that show this is the general view re: occupation of a Western Sahara.
- Modern times is rather vague, yes, and anyone looking it up on Wiki will be taken to the article on the modern-era. Everything post-WWII is generally referred to as post-War given that the War itself redirected the course of human history and reshaped many aspects of civlisation. I don't know what you call 20th Century onwards though The occupation of India did continue up into the very start of the the post-War period, but of course that came to an end. One addition that could be made if we go with the idea that it's one continuous occupation is refer to it as the longest ongoing occupation in the Post-War period. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 23 Adar 5775 15:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- It begins to sound like an Overly Narrow Superlative. “WarKosign” 16:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- One more candidate for this title is:"Guantanamo Bay has been under United States occupation for over a century". . see also:Raúl Castro demands that US return Guantánamo base to Cuba Ykantor (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- That source also says that the situation of Guantanamo has been formalized, and on the other hand it doesn't say that Guantanamo would be the longest occupation in modern times. --Dailycare (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- One more candidate for this title is:"Guantanamo Bay has been under United States occupation for over a century". . see also:Raúl Castro demands that US return Guantánamo base to Cuba Ykantor (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- It begins to sound like an Overly Narrow Superlative. “WarKosign” 16:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Personally, I think that might be getting into the realm of WP:SYNTH. It's also two separate occupations (Spain: you can have independence now!; Morocco: jk, lol! All ur resource are belong to us!). We could also make the same claim about, say, British rule over India through the East India Company (when they weren't busy chasing Jack Sparrow), and then the Raj which falls within the Modern era and was much longer. All this would be better discussed on the relevant talk page, and after I've had some drinks and hookah as it's been a long day, of course. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 21 Adar 5775 19:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- -@GregKaye, Oncenawhile, WarKosign, Jeppiz, Flinders Petrie, Paul Barlow, and Zero0000: , @Yuvn86 and Gouncbeatduke: : I would like to have your opinion concerning the "the world's longest military occupation in modern times". As said in this section, there are 2 longer occupations:
- Guantanamo Bay from 1898
-A continuous occupation of Western Sahara from the early 20th century, starting with Spain as occupier, and continuing with Morocco as a second occupier .
- In my opinion, those 2 territories are more suitable for the title "The longest occupation...". What is your view? Ykantor (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- (1) Western Sahara - as noted above, this is two separate "occupations" - we cannot add Spain and Morocco. Anyway, the Spanish rule was colonial civil rule to my understanding, not technically an occupation. Either way, it would be synth to add them together. (2) See the Cuban–American Treaty. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell from Cuban–American Treaty article, the "occupation" of the bay is opinion of the current Cuban government, but not an opinion supported by the UN or the international community. I agree with the editors who already stated that combining the two occupations of Western Sahara into one looks like WP:SYNTH, kind of like tacking on the time the British occupied the West Bank to it's current occupation. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Of course, editors' views on the subject are irrelevant and this talkpage isn't here for a discussion concerning them. This talkpage is here to discuss content of the article, which is based on sources rather than editorial opinion. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell from Cuban–American Treaty article, the "occupation" of the bay is opinion of the current Cuban government, but not an opinion supported by the UN or the international community. I agree with the editors who already stated that combining the two occupations of Western Sahara into one looks like WP:SYNTH, kind of like tacking on the time the British occupied the West Bank to it's current occupation. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- (1) Western Sahara - as noted above, this is two separate "occupations" - we cannot add Spain and Morocco. Anyway, the Spanish rule was colonial civil rule to my understanding, not technically an occupation. Either way, it would be synth to add them together. (2) See the Cuban–American Treaty. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- -@GregKaye, Oncenawhile, WarKosign, Jeppiz, Flinders Petrie, Paul Barlow, and Zero0000: , @Yuvn86 and Gouncbeatduke: : I would like to have your opinion concerning the "the world's longest military occupation in modern times". As said in this section, there are 2 longer occupations:
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 #POV edit 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 /Stalk 16:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- -@Malik Shabazz: 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 Misplaced Pages, 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?
- - @GregKaye:. 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 /Stalk 03:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Notes
References
- ^ Michelle L. Burgis (2009). Boundaries of Discourse in the International Court of Justice: Mapping Arguments in Arab Territorial Disputes. BRILL. pp. 191–. ISBN 90-04-17463-X.
(p. 191) Moroccan occupation of the territory has rendered the Sahrāwīs unable to exercise the right to choose their own form of government... (p.195) Spain's declaration of a protectorate over Río de Oro, ... of the Berlin Conference of 1884; and finally, complete Spanish occupation of the inhospitable terrain from 1934
- Clark Butler (2007). Guantanamo Bay and the Judicial-moral Treatment of the Other. Purdue University Press. pp. 82–. ISBN 978-1-55753-427-9.
Guantanamo Bay has been under United States occupation for over a century
What is happening with the maps?
Syria, Lebanon or any other surrounding country of Israel will have a map on the wiki page with the territories clearly defined, Israel does not, even Palestine has a map come up albeit that is (ill try to keep this as neutral as possible) a zionist 'revision' of it. On google too a map for Israel no longer comes up on the right, but for any other country near by it does and again even Palestine has a map come up on the right. What gives? Sellingstuff (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Sellingstuff: do you mean a specific map in this article ? Generally Israel annexed Golan and eastern part of Jerusalem, both of which are disputed internationally so they are often displayed on the maps with both possible borders in dashed lines so not to prefer either position. West Bank is not considered a part of Israel but is under Israeli military control and thus is also sometimes displayed within borders controlled by Israel. “WarKosign” 08:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeh nevermind, sometimes when i google Israel a map comes up on the right on google search results sometimes it doesnt, must be my comp. Sellingstuff (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
_-_ISR_-_UNOCHA.svg)
- Sellingstuff A parallel those maps is File:Israel - Location Map (2012) - ISR - UNOCHA.svg (pictured). I agree that this is would be an informative addition to the article. GregKaye 16:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it would. Looking at previous discussions/edit summaries, it seems that the addition of a version of that map would have a better chance of surviving if somebody first took ten minutes to PhotoShop out the OCHA "watermark"/logo, which is allowed under their license terms and has been done for many of their other maps available on Commons. 2600:1006:B129:DF07:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sellingstuff A parallel those maps is File:Israel - Location Map (2012) - ISR - UNOCHA.svg (pictured). I agree that this is would be an informative addition to the article. GregKaye 16:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- How is it better than this one (which is already in the article) ?“WarKosign” 20:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign, to me it looks less cluttered, it doesn't have detail of a whole range of roads and railway tracks (the use of which would be restricted in some cases due to the placement of barriers and checkpoints). None the less I think both maps are flawed as they both present a clear border even when the Green line was only based on an armistice agreement. The first map is more user friendly. The second provides more information. The first map seems somehow less fuzzy. GregKaye 17:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- One thing that I do think would be useful would be to remove the magnifying effect from the globe map. I think that there is enough practice of unnecessarily putting Israel under the microscope in over inflations of issues including both rights and wrongs. A potential value of the globe image is that it may help people see the Israeli situation in a geographic perspective. I think that this is lost in current presentation. The globe is not centralised and unnecessary shading is placed around the country itself. GregKaye 17:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think using the green line should be OK for now, as the other option, the Partition Plan borders, isn't used in sources as a map of current Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Deletion effort
This deletion effort, relating to the Maccabiah Games (open to all qualifying Israelis and all qualifying Jews), may interest some followers of this page. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Epeefleche. You might want to list the CfD discussion at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 23:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Earthquakes
I think it is good for Misplaced Pages to have a list of earthquakes in this area, but I don't think it is appropriate for the main article on Israel. For one thing, it makes the article too long. It should become a separate article with no more than a sentence or two here. What should be here is a geological summary, of which earthquakes are but a tiny part. Zero 09:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Top-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Top-importance Judaism articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class Western Asia articles
- Top-importance Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press