Jump to content

Talk:2010 in Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The new headline names for the subsections

[edit]

I tried my best to the article to be more balanced by improving a subsection title ("Notable Palestinian Arab militant operations and attacks against Israelis") and adding an additional subsection ("Notable Israeli military operations in the Palestinian territories"). Please share your opinion of these change and if you believe they should be changed again, please provide your suggestions here for us to discuss, before I go ahead and implement these changes in the rest of the articles. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the caption "Notable Palestinian Arab militant operations and attacks against Israelis" is preferable, being less contentious than the previous caption, although the adoption of the new caption should not preclude the describing of certain of the events as acts of terrorism. As to the new subsection, although I have some misgivings regarding the use of the expression "Palestinian territories" (since I am of the opinion that, until such time as a Palestinian state is created, the word "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are geographical terms pertaining to, at the least, the whole of Mandate Palestine, west of the Jordan), such term does appear to be the least contentious of the various alternatives. Davshul (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So do you think I should go ahead and make the same changes in the rest of these articles? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to proceed with the changes. However, I have looked at the additional changes made by you and have the following comments:
  • The hyphen between "Palestinian" and "Arab" is not, I believe, correct.
  • The words "Israel" and "Israeli" should not be Wikilinked, in light of the subject matter of the series of articles.
  • In addition, I believe that we can dispense with the introductory sentence to the list of events ("The most prominent..........during 2010 include:"). They add nothing to the text that is not already clear from the captions.
Davshul (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. I believe that "Palestinian-Arab militant operations" is less confusing than "Palestinian Arab militant operations" since people immediately have a tendency to think that Any "Palestinian" person is a "Palestinian-Arab" (this has actually become acceptable around the 1960s, mainly due to the mass media coverage and since no other population group in the region of Palestine reffers to themself as "Palestinians" anymore), Nevetheless, since we are going to use these headlines back to 1948, I believe that the term "Palestinian-Arab" works better and if we do not use the hyphen it would seem that the word Arab is redundant.
I disagree with you on this one. Although my views on the current use of the word "Palestinian" may be somewhat antediluvian, the use of the hyphen is definitely incorrect. The hyphen in English, in this instance, would denote the combining of two unrelated peoples (such as Palestinian-Israeli, Anglo-American). Rather than being less confusing, it is actually more confusing and, at the best, ambiguous, possibly denoting that these are acts of Palestinians and/or of Arabs anywhere. Davshul (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. That sounds acceptable by me. Please remove any of these Interwiki links if you find them.
3. I believe it is essential to point out as clearly as possible that we are only interested in including the most prominent events in these sections of these articles since I predict that we are going to have a lot of future debates about whether certain militant operations and/or Israeli counter-terrorist operations were notable/prominent enough to be included in these sections. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In light of your additional comments, shortening the caption and expanding the introductory sentence, I will go along with with you on this one. Davshul (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a couple of more adjustments... please share your opinion on these changes. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a number of suggested modification (including the deletion of the hyphen, referred to above), and await your comments. Davshul (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again.. I've made a couple of tiny adjustments. What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I still prefer the previous introductory sentence to the "counter-terrorism" section, I will go along with your changes. Davshul (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imanuel

[edit]

My edits on the Beit Yaakov Controversy have been undone three times. I should be able to edit this line. The following statements were sourced: Both Ashkenazi and Sephardic parents were jailed. There are both Sephardic and Ashkenai students in the original Beis Yaakov that the Supreme Court ordered the parents to send their daughters to, which they refused. There was no trial. I should be able to add this pertinent information without my edits being undone. I am open to hearing your feedback. 93.172.53.180 (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current summary of the events at Imanuel is inaccurate. One understands the need for brevity on this page, but not for inaccuracy. Tkuvho (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some suggested amendments to the summary, which I hope correct the inaccuracies, but maintain the brevity. This was clearly a complex issue, but the discussion of the issues should appear in the article and not on this page. Davshul (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I feel that footnotes should be re-instated. If you feel the need to mention the ethnicity of some of the girls in the Chassidic school, then it must be put in context of the concurrent founding of a Sephardic Shas girl's school in Immanuel. I do not feel that you can conclude that the early release was due to the protests unless you have a footnote. I have removed the judgement that the girls in the original school are less religious, you need a quote for that. Here are some suggestions:

Immanuel Beit Yaakov Controversy. Parents of girls [1] in the West Bank settlement of Immanuel [2] begin a two-week jail sentence ordered by the Supreme Court of Israel (without a hearing)[3] after the parents refused to implement a court ruling requiring their daughters to return to the original Beit Yaakov.[4] This imprisonment is followed by mass protests in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak of about 100,000 Israeli Ultra-Orthodox Jews. [5]

or:, with footnotes:

Parents of girls in the West Bank settlement of Immanuel begin a two-week jail sentence ordered by the Supreme Court of Israel (without a hearing) after the parents (predominantly Ashkenazi Haredi) refused to implement a court ruling requiring their daughters to return to the original Beit Yaakov. Concurrently, a Sephardic girl's school had been founded with government funding. This imprisonment was followed by mass protests in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak of about 100,000 Israeli Ultra-Orthodox Jews.[2] The parents were released early and a chassidic girls' school was established without government funding.

or, with foornotes:

Parents of girls in the West Bank settlement of Immanuel begin a two-week jail sentence ordered by the Supreme Court of Israel (without a hearing) after the parents refused to implement a court ruling requiring their daughters to return to the original Beit Yaakov. This imprisonment is followed by mass protests in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak of about 100,000 Israeli Ultra-Orthodox Jews.[2] The parents were released early and a chassidic school was established without funding.

Thank you for your consideration 77Line (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1.http://www.jpost.com/Features/MagazineFeatures/Article.aspx?id=180822 "The haredi world’s new heroes"

2.http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=16328 The Rav of Immanuel: "Lallum has the Wrong Address"

3.http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-49148-00.html?tag=02-34-4549210-00.html?tag=02-33-07 tragedy of sentencing error

4.http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=178999 The Sledgehammer Approach

5. http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/segregated-school-affair-fathers-arrive-in-jail-mothers-fail-to-show-1.296746 |title=Ultra-Orthodox parents evading jail-time in segregated school row to spend Shabbat at home

Hi 77Line. First, may I say that I have no problem with the issues or the facts as presented by you, which have clearly been thoroughly researched. I just consider that this page is not the place to present them in such detail. I consider that the purpose of these "Year in Israel" pages is, where there is a relevant article on the subject, to refer users to the article, not to discuss detailed issues irrespective as to how significant they may be. The Immanuel controversy was already the longest item discussed on the on the page (four times as long as, say, the conviction of an ex-President for rape), and you propose that we add five additional ciatation. I do not consider every single fact presented on this page needs ro be independently sourced, provided the requisite sources appear in the main article. Having said that, the entry should be factually correct. As suggested by you, I have removed reference to the early release being due to the protests and the reference to less religious girls, and trust that you do not now consider the corrent text to be inaccurate or misleading. Davshul (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Davshul. WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia policy, is very clear on such matters, which present undue weight. The Year in Israel articles are for briefly summarizing events, not going into detail about them, which is why events are allowed to have their own articles anyway. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. The footnoted HaAretz article continues the mi9sinformation that this was a Sephardic - Askenazi split. Added footnotes do not threaten brevity and supply the much needed balance for noted misinformation. If you mention the ethnicity of the girls, you must contextualize, or leave it out. Context would be mentioning the Bass report, in which is noted that no one was rejected, so how can there be discrimmination, and the concurrent founding of a Shas girl's school, and the sttement submitted by the Sephardic parents to the Supreme Court that their ethnicity is not their highest value (see http://beisyaakovemanuel.blogspot.com/). Since this would threaten brevity, the summary could read thus:

June 17 – Immanuel Beit Yaakov controversy - Haredi parents of girls in the West Bank settlement of Immanuel begin a two-week jail sentence given to them by the Supreme Court of Israel (without a hearing)[footnote 3 above] after the parents refused to implement a court ruling requiring their daughters to return to study at the original school. [footnote 1 or 2 above] This imprisonment is followed by mass protests in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak of about 100,000 Israeli Ultra-Orthodox Jews,[2] Thank you.77Line (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your comments, I have replaced the footnoted Haaretz article with footnote 1 above, a Jerusalem Post article, and have removed part of the text so that the text only relates to the very basic facts, all of which I believe are mentioned in the JP article. I see no need for any futher footnotes on this page nor a need for any sort of "balance", as there is no misinformation nor any view that needs to be balanced. Davshul (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the Beit Yaakov summary. It is no longer than other summaries on this page. Because many secular voices protested both the fact that there was no trial and protested judicial activism, it would be inaccurate to state that the only protesters were ultra-orthodox. The following voices from those who are not ultra-orthodox can be found on the Beit Yaakov Controversy Wiki page: attorney Mordechai Bass, attorney Nitzna Darshan Litner, attorney Aviad Visoli, professor Daniel Freedman, journalists Shmuel Kofer, Ben Dror Yemini, Shira Lebowitz-Scmidt, Larry Derfner, etc.

Thank you.

77Line (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manifestation in Jersualem.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Manifestation in Jersualem.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Manifestation in Jersualem.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_in_Israel&oldid=1196578799"