This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WarKosign (talk | contribs) at 18:37, 26 April 2015 (→The borders of the new state were not specified.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:37, 26 April 2015 by WarKosign (talk | contribs) (→The borders of the new state were not specified.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. ????
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:
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)
Why is the main map not consistent with maps of other countries with occupied territories, such as Morrocco and Russia where Western Sahara and Crimea are shown in light green or with green stripes?--Thorbecke2012 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 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)
- Yes, it is too detailed. It could become an own article or perhaps be at Geography of Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Restoring stable version of the lead regarding borders of Israel
An RfC closed without consensus, which according to the policy means that that the last stable version should be used. Before the discussion (and the accompanying edit warring) began, the stable version at least 500 edits back did not say that the borders were specified by the UN proposal, it said that the borders were not specified at all. This is the version that should be restored according to the wikipedia policy. If you see a policy reason to do otherwise, please say so. Please do not begin discussing the content again, this is exactly what the RfC was for and it is clear there is no consensus.“WarKosign” 19:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- WarKosign The RfC was closed by Guy with the comment "
In an area this contentious, you need a lot more input to constitute a consensus
". In what way does this justify your objection to a continuation of discussion? Did not hear what? Please can you specify which topics or areas of discussion you now view as taboo. Can you cite the WP:PG reference related to the above. - You advocate reverting to a version of text "
The borders of the new state were not specified
" that was not even included in the options of the RfC. How is this justified? GregKaye 19:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)- @GregKaye: Please read WP:NOCONSENSUS, specifically "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". The issue of the borders in the lead was stable until you added a {{cn}} tag and there began discussion + edit warring. Since a consensus was not be reached this way I began an RfC. JzG closed the RfC with the comment "In an area this contentious, you need a lot more input to constitute a consensus", which I understand as "there was no consensus reached". In such cases the policy requires us to restore the last stable version that existed before any contested changes, and this is what Plot Spoiler and Ykantor did. Please disregard my own attempt to do so, I should not have done it. What is your concern, that a different procedure should be followed or that this is not the stable version prior to any changes that should be restored ? “WarKosign” 20:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- "The borders of the new state were not specified" was added on 17 September and was not disputed for over 4 months and therefore gained consensus via WP:SILENCE. Another part that was restored was "which was, however, neither a binding resolution nor subsequently implemented". It was originally added in the same edit but was soon removed. I was under the impression that it existed for a long time but I can't find it in the history now so apparently I was wrong, I'm fine with removing it. “WarKosign” 21:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- You'd be much better off trying the question at a venue that will gain more input. I am astonished it got so little here, maybe we're making progress and this article is no longer a battleground. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: When you presented your unsigned/undated RfC, as of 13:26, 14 February 2015, you presented options as:
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".
You did not even mention the option of the text "The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration
"
At the time of the opening of the RfC the text read: "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries
" which also was not amongst the options that you presented.
This text had been in the article since 19:20, 29 January 2015 with the content having been widely discussed in threads Talk:Israel/Archive_47#UN and Israel views on borders which was initiated by Gouncbeatduke as of 18:40, 22 January 2015, Gouncbeatduke cannot now respond to this situation due to an iban that has been placed between the two of you. The text was again discussed at Talk:Israel/Archive 47#The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state. in a thread started 23:19, 13 February 2015 to discuss your edit to the thread title text. My response with the same, I think, justifiable indignation that I again feel was: "For fucks sake WarKosign, this has been extensively discussed at Talk:Israel#UN and Israel (now in archive as mentioned) views on borders with the title of that thread having been unilaterally changed by me from Talk:Israel#Edit Warring by User:WarKosign. I don't want to regret having been bothered with having made this change. The added text is clearly gratuitous POV in the context of existing text in the lead and with a lack of immediate reference in the lead to the image that I have again placed here to the right. Please stop edit warring or first bring your thoughts here for discussion.
" You then responded with unjustified accusation which following challenge you thankfully struck.
Now you have had, I think, the temerity to have gone back to a previously discussed and discarded text that you did not even deem to mention as a serious proposal in the RfC. No. GregKaye 22:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- @GregKaye: Temerity is to insist to keep
yourchanges that you support, even though there is no consensus, no matter how longyou draggedthe discussion went on, and not even on an RfC. - Please tell me which of these points you do not understand or dispute:
- The description of the (lack of) definition of borders in the article's lead was stable for 4 months prior to January 22.
- On January 22 a series of edits and discussions began
- After several rounds of discussions it was clear that it is not going anywhere and I opened an RfC
- The RfC concluded with "no consensus"
- It does not matter what were the options in the RfC since none of them was accepted
- The policy in such cases is to go back to the last stable version before the dispute
- The stable version is the one that existed before January 22, namely "The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration"
- Please say on which of these procedural points we disagree so I can focus there and perhaps explain it better. I asked for assistance at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance to help us resolve this issue. “WarKosign” 14:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- @WarKosign:
- 1. The changes were made by Gouncbeatduke and not me. Please strike your comment "your changes"
- 2. Where have I insisted on keeping any particular change? There is a clear problem with the previous text as is very well presented below and there may be various solutions to reconciling these issues. Please strike "insist to keep".
- 3. Where did I drag the discussion. Again please strike.
- Despite your repeated behaviour in similar situations I will directly answer your questions.
- 1. I agree that an undiscussed edit occurred four months prior to it being challenged on January 22 with my addition of a {{cn}} tag. Please note that this does not constitute any start or "edit warring" as you have labelled it above.
- 2. I do not have a record of the edit history of that content. I only know of the widely discussed edit as mentioned.
- 3. After some time of editing in previous discussion you also had the option of opening a sub heading within the existing thread so as to keep the relevant information in context.
- 4. The RfC was closed, perhaps without reference being made to the large amount of content in the previous discussions and which were not cited in the opening post with which you started the RfC or anywhere at a later point in that relatively short discussion.
- 5. Of course it matters. If the text: "
The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration
" had been presented then very strong and clear objections would have been presented against this content. - 6. As I have already quoted, the WP:PG at WP:NOCONSENSUS says "
In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit
". Your RfC was not written to call into question any particular edit and, as mentioned, neither mentioned an earlier or a present form of the text. Given that the RfC had a focus on the future development of the wording then a clear solution would be in favour of "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal
". However there is a discussion below within a non problematic or a non problematic removal of text can be addressed. - 7. A text that was, as far as I am aware, previously undiscussed read: "
The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration
" Four months is a short space of time and, I consider that there is weak claim for stability as based on an edit made as recently as 17 September, with no edit summary. - GregKaye 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- We got an answer: "This means that the change for which there currently is no consensus should be reverted in favor of the version for which there was a long-standing silent consensus, and a new RfC should be opened". GregKaye, if you wish please create a new RfC so anyone can respond, worded as you choose. Meanwhile I'll remove "which was, however, neither a binding resolution nor subsequently implemented" which was not in the long-standing stable version. “WarKosign” 05:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- WarKosign I am pleased that your comment: "
Please do not begin ], this is exactly what the RfC was for and it is clear there is no consensus.
" has not carried. - Perhaps we will need to develop options for an RfC. GregKaye 06:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- @GregKaye: I meant - please do not begin discussing the content again *before we have a stable version*. What are your concerns with the current version that you would like to address ? My main concern with the attempted changes was the mix-up between the UN partition plan and the declaration of independence. The way I see it - the partition plan proposed/specified borders, but since it was not fully approved nor implemented, these proposed borders were never a base of the declared state, and the actual State of Israel was declared without specific borders. In my opinion the lead says it adequately at the moment (once we add the clarification + citation as proposed two sections down).“WarKosign” 07:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- WarKosign I am pleased that your comment: "
- We got an answer: "This means that the change for which there currently is no consensus should be reverted in favor of the version for which there was a long-standing silent consensus, and a new RfC should be opened". GregKaye, if you wish please create a new RfC so anyone can respond, worded as you choose. Meanwhile I'll remove "which was, however, neither a binding resolution nor subsequently implemented" which was not in the long-standing stable version. “WarKosign” 05:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
nothing like the previous version
@Gouncbeatduke: : what do you mean by " this is nothing like the previous version"? Ykantor (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The borders of the new state were not specified.
Changing from "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN" to "The borders of the new state were not specified." is a clear misrepresentation of the truth. The borders of the new state were specified by the UN. The borders specified by the UN were accepted by the Jewish Agency for Israel. To sum all this up in the lead with the statement "The borders of the new state were not specified." is completely dishonest. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- - @Gouncbeatduke, GregKaye, WarKosign, Oncenawhile, Jeppiz, Flinders Petrie, Paul Barlow, and Zero0000::As a compromise, I suggest to write this text which is so important for you, but in the article body and not in the lead. The lead should be short and summarize the important aspects only. BTW we have to discuss this text. we might add Ben Gurion response to the idea of specifying the borders in the declaration: "Since the Arab state are invading and declared the intention to destroy us, we will have to defend ourselves, and if we succeed to occupy areas like Jerusalem and the road to Jerusalem, it will remain ours. (BTW I have to verify his exact text)
- - In the lead I suggest to return the sentence that you deleted but to slightly modify it, such as:" The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state." (declaration=> the independence declaration"), in order to clarify the meaning. (BTW it was already clear in my opinion). Ykantor (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Ykantor: The article body already contains some detail on the partition plan and the declaration of independence (and it's lack of mentioning borders other than "Eretz Israel"). The dispute was about the lead. The lead in fact does already mention both the UN plan and the declaration of independence. I agree with your proposal to clarify that "the borders were not specified by the declaration" in case someone may not understand it from the context.
- GregKaye originally was concerned that this statement did not have a source - here it is:
- "The initial draft stated that the boundaries of the state would be those established by the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947. The inclusion of this was rejected by the larger committee charged with approving the draft by a vote of 5-4."
- and
- "the document ... implicitly denies to the UN the right to determine the borders of the Jewish state"
- “WarKosign” 06:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- And of course the declaration itself can be used as a primary source - the text of the declaration is a proof that it does not contain any mention of the UN borders and it would be "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" “WarKosign” 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please WarKosign, genuinely please, the source that you present here is exactly the same citation that you added way back in your Revision as of 13:49, 22 January 2015. This content, which by no means justifies the text "
The borders of the new state were not specified
", relates, as indicated in the title of the source webpage, specifically to "The Israeli Declaration of Independence: ...
". - This source, if anything, indicates that there had been, as presented in your above quoted text, "
boundaries of the state
" namely "those established by the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947.
" - Please again look at the map. The idea that we can present the negative "
The borders of the new state were not specified
" remains laughable. GregKaye 07:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)- @GregKaye: This is the map of the partition plan. Of course the plan specified borders, the borders that it proposed. Now please look at the text of the declaration of independence. Do you see any specification of borders there ? Do you see any reference to any other document that specifies the borders ? The borders were specified by a proposal that was not implemented, they were not specified by the declaration of independence. “WarKosign” 07:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- WarKosign Again, directly responding to your request, of course I don't see any reference to this specifically in the declaration of independence. Thank you for your comments.
- The text of the second paragraph (sans refs earlier in the text) begins: "
On 29 November 1947, the ] recommended the adoption and implementation of the ] for ]. The end of the ] was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, ], the Executive Head of the ] and president of the ], ] "the establishment of a ] in ], to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate. The borders of the new state were not specified. ...
" - In this text the "
the United Nations General Assembly ... Partition Plan
" gets full and direct mention while reference to the "Israeli Declaration of Independence
" is only "declared
" within the context of a piped link. In such context an unqualified presentation of "The borders of the new state were not specified
" demonstrates a flagrant misrepresentation of the content. I had personally completely missed that the declaration was even mentioned. GregKaye 07:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)- @GregKaye: What if it's changed to "... by the declaration" or even "The Declaration of Independence did not specify the borders of the state", would it address this concern of yours ?“WarKosign” 08:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- One way to do things might involve adding a statement regarding the UN specifying borders and the declaration not specifying borders. Otherwise all that is being presented is a statement about a negative. GregKaye 08:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be too detailed for the lead. We could add it in the article's body, it does not say explicitly that the partition plan specified borders and what kind of borders it was. It seems to me quite obvious that a partition plan would specify partition, i.e border. It seems non-obvious that a state is declared without specifying where it is to exist (except a non-specific "Eretz-Israel"), so in my opinion it warrants inclusion in the lead. “WarKosign” 08:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- A content on the Partition plan would positively comment on a content that was there. I believe that it has already been discussed that declarations of independence do not regularly or notably specify borders and the information on an absence of information in the declaration agreement gives no significant contribution to the article. GregKaye 17:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- @GregKaye: Indeed, sigh, here we go again. I replaced the with references we discussed here and tried to clarify that the statement refers to the declaration. If you disagree with the version, let's go back to the stable version until we can agree on something on the talk page to avoid any edit warring.
- Can you point to historical precedents where the declaration did not mention borders *while it was not otherwise obvious what the borders are*? One such example is State of Palestine and the article contains the phrase "The borders of the declared State of Palestine were not specified.". “WarKosign” 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- A content on the Partition plan would positively comment on a content that was there. I believe that it has already been discussed that declarations of independence do not regularly or notably specify borders and the information on an absence of information in the declaration agreement gives no significant contribution to the article. GregKaye 17:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be too detailed for the lead. We could add it in the article's body, it does not say explicitly that the partition plan specified borders and what kind of borders it was. It seems to me quite obvious that a partition plan would specify partition, i.e border. It seems non-obvious that a state is declared without specifying where it is to exist (except a non-specific "Eretz-Israel"), so in my opinion it warrants inclusion in the lead. “WarKosign” 08:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- One way to do things might involve adding a statement regarding the UN specifying borders and the declaration not specifying borders. Otherwise all that is being presented is a statement about a negative. GregKaye 08:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- @GregKaye: What if it's changed to "... by the declaration" or even "The Declaration of Independence did not specify the borders of the state", would it address this concern of yours ?“WarKosign” 08:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- @GregKaye: This is the map of the partition plan. Of course the plan specified borders, the borders that it proposed. Now please look at the text of the declaration of independence. Do you see any specification of borders there ? Do you see any reference to any other document that specifies the borders ? The borders were specified by a proposal that was not implemented, they were not specified by the declaration of independence. “WarKosign” 07:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please WarKosign, genuinely please, the source that you present here is exactly the same citation that you added way back in your Revision as of 13:49, 22 January 2015. This content, which by no means justifies the text "
- Comment I should explain that I reverted Gouncbeatduke in respect of Misplaced Pages's policies, not out of any personal preference. We should always avoid edit warring and we should respect consensuses. My reversion was not about taking sides. As a matter of fact, I agree with Gouncbeatduke (and some others) that the sentence makes little sense and should be removed, but it should be removed in accordance with policies to avoid any edit warring.Jeppiz (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate it, and you are very welcome to express your opinion.“WarKosign” 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- - I would like to propose the additional text, as said previously.
- - In the lead, I propose to adapt GregKaye text: "the borders were not specified by the declaration", or similar.
- - In the article: The Yishuv accepted the U.N partition resolution, with the mentioned borders. (and paraphrase Morris's text:)"The Zionist leadership initially was chary about violating the UN partition borders, lest this bolster the Arabs’ more general desire to overturn the resolution or give offense to the international community. The Zionist shift from unreserved adherence to the UN borders to expansionism was slow and hesitant. The pan-Arab invasion of mid-May ended the hesitancy: if the Arabs were defying the United Nations and were bent on destroying the Jewish state, the Jews would take what was needed for survival, and perhaps a little more. ". Ykantor (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. In fact, I just implemented the first part (except I wrote "in the declaration").“WarKosign” 18:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Israel was ranked the 11th-happiest country in the world (2015 report)
Hi guys.
I found the level of "happines" in Israel, and it's strong contrast to neighboring countries interesting. Should one consider to mention this in the main article?
- 11: Israel
- 82: Jordan
- 103: Lebanon
- 108: Palestinian Territories
- 135: Egypt
- 156: Syria
- 158: (Togo came on last place)
The summary in The Algemeiner seems to match the numbers in the World Happines Report 2015, but I have no idea if the publisher is credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleckwise (talk • contribs) 07:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Here is another source. “WarKosign” 07:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Notes
References
- Harris, J. (1998) The Israeli Declaration of Independence The Journal of the Society for Textual Reasoning, Vol. 7
- Benny Morris (1 April 2009). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. p. 197. ISBN 978-0-300-15112-1.
The Zionist leadership initially was chary about violating the UN partition borders, lest this bolster the Arabs' more general desire to overturn the resolution or give offense to the international community. The Zionist shift from unreserved adherence to the UN borders to expansionism was slow and hesitant. The pan-Arab invasion of mid-May ended the hesitancy: if the Arabs were defying the United Nations and were bent on destroying the Jewish state, the Jews would take what was needed for survival, and perhaps a little more.
- 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