Talk:Israel/Archive 44

This is an archive of past discussions about Israel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

→

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2015

This edit request to Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

English Please add the English as official language in Israel. Israel was never established law that defines the language formality. It was decided on three major languages are Hebrew, Arabic and English. (Primarily for Hebrew). In addition, English is widely used in signs, and for external relations and trade. 85.65.44.158 (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This source says that Arabic is the second official language. If you can find some reliable source that says that English is also an official language in Israel, please paste it here and re-active the request. “WarKosign ” 20:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

This edit request to Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the missing information in the independence section on the right side of the page: The existence years of the "Kingdom of Israel" and these of the "Kingdom of Jehuda" so that people will not be misled about Israelis historic connection to their land and about the fact that Jews lived in Israel way before Arabs did which is believed by many as the opposite and creates an unfortunate untrue belief that there is no place for Jews in Israel. 24.84.133.58 (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the modern State of Israel. It already has a section dedicated to ancient history and links to Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and Kingdom of Judah. “WarKosign ” 07:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This article details Jewish casualties but not Arab casualties, is it giving a NPOV?

Editor Ashurbanippal changed (via a revert)

This was a major cause of the Arab revolt of 1936–39 in which the British killed 5,032 Arabs and wounded 14,760, [Hughes, M. (2009) The banality of brutality: British armed forces and the repression of the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936–39, English Historical Review Vol. CXXIV No. 507, 314–354.] and resulting in over ten percent of the adult male Palestinian Arab population killed, wounded, imprisoned or exiled.[[[Walid Khalidi|Khalidi, Walid]] (1987). From Haven to Conquest: Readings in Zionism and the Palestine Problem Until 1948. Institute for Palestine Studies. ISBN 978-0-88728-155-6]

to

This was a major cause of the Arab revolt of 1936–39 and led the British to introduce restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine with the White Paper of 1939.

This is typical of the editing throughout this very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab non-NPOV article. When every a small number of Jews are killed, it is discussed in great detail. If any editor attempts to mention Arabs or British casualties, the edits are immediately removed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to argue for neutrality, please start acting accordingly. Without taking a stand on who is right or wrong, your description above is heavily biased. It's not the case that Ashurbanippal changed it. What happened is that you changed the article, and Ashurbanippal reverted your edit. I'm not saying it was right (or wrong) of Ashurbanippal to do so, but if you want to argue NPOV, start by giving NPOV accounts of events. As for the article being POV, you're free to give examples. I think it manages to be surprisingly NPOV, and the best proof of that is that POV-warriors from both sides regularly accuses it of not being NPOV, so clearly we don't give in completely to the POV of one side or the other.Jeppiz (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps English is not your first language, but what I said was “If any editor attempts to mention Arabs or British casualties, the edits are immediately removed.” If I, or any other editor, attempts an edit that included information on Arabs or British casualties, it is immediate reverted by a pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pusher. Above is an example of that. The article history section includes information like “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured.” Why is that more important to Israel’s history than 5,032 Arabs being killed and 14,760 wounded? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

So first you misrepresent what actually happened, and when this is pointed out then your next strategy is a personal attack? For the record, I do agree with your edit but when an edit is reverted the correct strategy is to go to the talk page and discuss it calmly in a factual way. Making strong accusations against other is seldom the right strategy.Jeppiz (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I just think "immediately removed" and "immediately reverted" mean the same thing in the English language. I don't understand what you think the difference is. Maybe if I said "Editor Ashurbanippal changed (via a revert)" instead of just "Editor Ashurbanippal changed" it would be more clear? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: before your edit, there was no mention of casualties of the revolt on either side. You apparently decided that the casualties number of this specific event in whole of Israel's history is important enough to mention, but only for one of three sides. It does not sound like very NPOV to me. It also seems UNDUE - could you elaborate what's the reason to tell the number of casualties of one side of this specific conflict, when (as far as I see) there is no mention of casualties numbers for any of the wars (which had far more casualties), only links to their appropriate articles ?“WarKosign ” 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to mention the relatively small numbers of British Security Forces casualties (262 killed, c. 550 wounded[8]) and Jewish casualties (c. 300 killed), I have no problem with that. Given many events with much smaller Jewish casualties are include in the article (for example, “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured.”) I do not think it is UNDUE to include the over 20,000 Arab casualties here. I would disagree with calling it a "war" from a NPOV, it was really a genocide of indigenous people to clear room for Jewish colonialists, so using the current "revolt" term is more NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to add all casualties to the revolt here; if someone wants to read full details, he can click on the main article. Maybe you can start yourself if you are so one-sided on this topic. Many of the British policies were actually pro-Arab during the 1930's and 40's, and overall the Arab population had a huge population growth and their numbers doubled during the 25 years of the Mandate. That's the opposite of "genocide". Yuvn86 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the very unbalanced treatment of Jews and Arabs throughout the article. If Arabs kill Jews, casualty number are included, regardless of whether you can click and get information. For example, in the “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured” statement currently in the article, you can click on Coastal Road Massacre and get the casualty numbers, but you don’t have to because Jewish casualty numbers are almost always included and Arab casualty numbers are almost never included. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

For the first intifada the article says "More than a thousand people were killed in the violence", without mentioning Israeli casualties. There should be a policy that determines when and which casualties numbers are included and not every editor free to add numbers that promote the POV they like. “WarKosign ” 22:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to WP:SOAPBOX. Calling the Jews returning to their homeland (which they never abandoned) "colonials", and calling the Palestinians (who did not exist as distinctive people before 19th century ,coinciding with Zionism, and who happened to multiply rapidly just as Aliyah commenced) "indigenous people" is a wild misrepresentation of history. “WarKosign ” 15:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

While some feel there was no distinction of "Palestinian" Arabs from other Arabs prior to the 19th century, the history of both Jews and Arabs in Palestine extends well over 2000 years. The term colonialist refers to people being thrown off their land without payment to make room for immigrants. None of this has anything to do with the central question. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources on History of the Palestinian people prior to 1834, you should add a section there. Don't forget that before people were thrown off "their land" (or sold it, or left on their own), they colonized this land after previous inhabitants were "thrown off without payment". If you want to trace back, trace all the way to the Canaanitess or Philistines, if they still were around they would have the most valid claim on the land. “WarKosign ” 18:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to edit the History of the Palestinian people article, and I don't even know if all Arab history in the area of today's Palestine belongs in that article. If you are interested in the subject, I suggest you read the Islamization of Palestine article which includes the Arab conquest of Jerusalem from the Byzantine Romans in 636 and some of the Arab history following. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This far Gouncbeatduke has given one example of "just Israeli victims", the massacre in 1978. If Gouncbeatduke would like to start being constructive instead of pointy, they could either make a list of cases instead of just mentioning one single case or make a rational argument for what should be changed.Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to the Question

I think the central question here is: Why should the article detail Jewish casualties (for example, the “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured.” statement) and not detail Arab casualties (such as the 20,000 Arab casualties of the Arab revolt of 1936–39 or the 107 Arabs killed in the Deir Yassin massacre)? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't. In most cases, if a fatal incident doesn't link to a dedicated article than it's probably not notable enough to be mentioned, especially in such level of detail. If there is a dedicated article then the causalities are already numbered there. “WarKosign ” 17:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A life is a life. Israel has territories in its occupational perimeter and, as it has so far "failed" (for want of a better word) to release these territories, then they remain Israel's responsibility. A life is a life and every life within the responsible borders of Israel should be equally and fairly accounted for. Greg Kaye 19:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well said. Unfortunately, the POV-pushing editors will never allow this to happen unless more people stand up to them. All reference to the Deir Yassin massacre has been removed via reverts, as well as any reference to the 20,000 Arab casualties in the Arab revolt of 1936–39. When Jews are killed, such as the 38 killed in the the Coastal Road Massacre, the numbers are itemized in the article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Both Semitic casualties should be mentioned. Kashta (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to do so might etymologically be regarded as being anti-Semitic. I think that any editor who has deleted relevant references to lives lost in Israel should be challenged potentially on prejudice/partisan attitude and certainly on POV and with reference to this thread.

However I don't know whether it is relevant to limit the issue to Semites. As per Demographics of Israel#Ethnic and religious groups there are other groups that can have representation.

I think that it would be fair to also permit commentary on the figures. There are a lot more Arab casualties (with an even larger number when other groups are factored in) than Jewish casualties. I think that care must be taken that this does not become a soapbox for any Palestinian antagonism but there must be a fair representation of the facts. Greg Kaye 11:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You are bundling together Arabs who died on the territory of Israel and Arabs from neighboring states . This article deals with Israel, so it makes sense to concentrate on casualties in Israel + disputed territories, of the citizens/inhabitants of either ethnicity. Here are total numbers of casualties in all the Israel-Arab conflicts. If you sum up casualties of terror, riots, intifadas and operations in the disputed territories you'll see the numbers are quite similar (12K vs 15K). “WarKosign ” 15:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library is a very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab web site that should not be cited in any NPOV article. Even the web page you are pointing to at this very biased web site shows the "total" deaths in the conflict to be about 25K Jewish and 91K Arab. There is nothing at the web page that supports your original research numbers (12K vs. 15K). Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Arab–Israeli conflict gives essentially the same numbers (22K vs 91K), but without breaking them into to specific wars. GregKaye made the OR claim that there "a lot are more Arab casualties" without providing any evidence, and I gave a proof that this OR is wrong. Vast majority of these Arabs were not Israeli Arabs nor Palestinians but citizens of countries that attacked Israel. You can't expect an article on a country to focus on casualties in other countries that chose to attack it and suffered the consequences. There are slightly more Israeli Arab/Palestinian casualties in internal conflicts, and the article should treat all loss of life similarly. “WarKosign ” 17:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign sorry for the lack of quotation but I thought this would have/ should have been common knowledge. My background is from having connections to Israeli, Arab peace groups where both sides were well aware of the proportionately high level of casualties on the Palestinian side. Here are a few references that immediately came to hand from a search on palestinian israeli death ratio.

These are just talk page references and clearly article contents should be properly checked. All lives within the demographic area of the borders of Israel must be considered equally with whichever statistics are chosen to be used.

Can I ask if there are any Arab/Palestinian residents within Israel who have become casualties the conflict who are not accounted for in your re-conning of "Israeli Arab/Palestinian casualties". What are your references. Greg Kaye 18:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that 2 of the source deal on with Operation Protective Edge, while one covers only events since 2000. My comment was about all the deaths since before founding Israel; not just the recent years. I was looking at this source, but I don't think there is major disagreement on the facts between the sources, only on their interpretation. I'm not sure about your last question, Here is a partial list of Palestinians killed by other Palestinians. “WarKosign ” 20:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Greg Kaye, your problem is you are presenting well cited, NPOV facts. The Wikipedia editors that control the Israel article only allow pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pushing original research to be included in the article, any NPOV citation of NPOV secondary sources is immediately reverted. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I think a NPOV article on Israel would contain reference to the Deir Yassin massacre and King David Hotel bombing, and include the casualties of the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. The article already includes many events with mostly Jewish casualties, such as the “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured” statement. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign Can I suggest that if you want to continue a discussion regarding the ratio of fatalities between Jews in Israel in comparison to other resident ethnic groups in Israel, that you consider doing this in a new thread dedicated to the topic. This thread started by posing the very specific question, "This article details Jewish casualties but not Arab casualties, is it giving a NPOV?, Gouncbeatduke then restarted this discussion under the heading, "Back to the question". At present, on this important issue, I fear we are straying off topic. Demography is the study of human populations and, in the article being discussed, we are discussing the demographic facts as they relate to Israel, a country placed in categories such as "Western Asian countries", "Arabic-speaking countries and territories", "Member states of the Union for the Mediterranean", "Member states of the United Nations", "Middle Eastern countries" and "Republics". Surely the article on Israel should adopt a similar practice in presenting figures on populations with the same impartiality as other articles. First we have a simple question relating to the relevance of placement of information casualties from, for example, the Arabic ethnic group. Another discussion can then debate the specifics regarding the specific contents to be included. the following signature was added in retrospect. Greg Kaye 19:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to the question resumed

The question has been presented by Gouncbeatduke proposed in the form: "This article details Jewish casualties but not Arab casualties, is it giving a NPOV?.

Comment has subsequently been added by, Jeppiz, Gouncbeatduke, WarKosign, Yuvn86, GregKaye and Kashta. Further RfC responses relating to the above mentioned question are welcome. Greg Kaye 12:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the POV-pushing edit warriors are no longer going to allow this discussion. The POV tags for this subject have now been reverted from the article repeatedly. Gouncbeatduke (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be more constructive to write here a list of non-neutral mentions of casualties and discuss whether/how each should be fixed to achieve neutrality. Putting the neutrality tags on a whole section is not (always) enough to know which spot you consider biased. “WarKosign ” 18:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It is very clear from comments above and below that support is given for the concept that well cited information of casualties regardless of their ethnic roots (and the trifling differences in their DNA) should be added into the article. If information is cited then its inclusion may be disputed in the talk page but I would regard its removal without discussion to be disruptive. Sources such as those like Amnesty should be used. I am very wary of the use of citation information from sources like jewishvirtuallibrary.org within the article (which currently receives 14 links from the article) and would prefer WP:RS sources to be used that may be less prone to bias. However, if sources like the jewishvirtuallibrary.org can be used then I think that this opens up a wide range of potential source use. Greg Kaye 12:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Doesn't this fall under discretionary sanctions? If people are actively making the article less neutral, report them to Arbcom. They'll probably get topic banned or blocked. And, yes, of course one standard needs to enforced for both Palestinian and Israeli casualties. One suggestion that I saw earlier in this conversation is that no conflict should be described unless it has an independent article. That seems like a fairly reasonable rule-of-thumb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- NinjaRobotPirate There may be listings by credible agencies of casualties that go beyond Wikipedia articles. The teenage soldiers of the IDF carry riffles and security forces have detention facilities in which people have been known to die. I was on the bus in Israel chatting to an IDF soldier and I asked (these might not be my exact words) for a bullet. I was informed that all bullets are accounted for but, when he saw that I was disappointed, he gave me one saying that they always carried spares. Greg Kaye 11:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The current “On 11 March 1978, a PLO guerilla raid from Lebanon led to the Coastal Road Massacre, in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed and 71 injured.” statement in the article would set the "standard" at 38 deaths. Are we in agreement to undo the reverts of casualties numbers where the Arab revolt of 1936–39 is covered in the article, as the deaths are greater than 38? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Israel as Representative Democracy

I was informed we had to talk to resolve this, so... let's talk to resolve this. Sabot Cat (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, checking it myself, I don't need to talk to resolve a dispute, I just need to find reliable sources and add them. That's what I did. Sabot Cat (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no shortage of reliable sources taking either side of the Representative Democracy debate (see [Peled, Miko (2012). The general's son : journey of an Israeli in Palestine. Charlottesville, Va.: Just World Books. ISBN 978-1935982159. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)][BARAT, FRANK. "Why Israel is Not a Democracy". Retrieved 15 September 2014. Ilan Pappé: No, Israel is definitely not a democracy. A country that occupies another people for more than 40 years and disallow them the most elementary civic and human rights cannot be a democracy. A country that pursues a discriminatory policy against a fifth of its Palestinian citizens inside the 67 borders cannot be a democracy. In fact Israel is, what we use to call in political science a herrenvolk democracy, its democracy only for the masters. The fact that you allow people to participate in the formal side of democracy, namely to vote or to be elected, is useless and meaningless if you don't give them any share in the common good or in the common resources of the State, or if you discriminate against them despite the fact that you allow them to participate in the elections. On almost every level from official legislation through governmental practices, and social and cultural attitudes, Israel is only a democracy for one group, one ethnic group, that given the space that Israel now controls, is not even a majority group anymore, so I think that you'll find it very hard to use any known definition of democracy which will be applicable for the Israeli case.][Gorenberg, Gershom. "Is Israel a Democracy?". The American Prospect. Retrieved 20 September 2014. Whether it ends the occupation and discrimination against Arab citizens within its borders will alter our perception of whether the nation began as an imperfect democracy or a false one. Today's political battles, strangely enough, will determine not only its future but also its past.]["Israeli-Occupied Territories". http://www.freedomhouse.org/. Freedom House. Retrieved 15 September 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)] ). The central question here is: Can a country occupy another country for 48 years, allow Jews in that occupied country to become citizens and vote in Israel, not allow Arabs in that occupied country to become citizens or vote in Israel, and still be a Representative Democracy? As no country other than Israel has done anything like this in modern history, the issue is a subject of debate. As it is unlikely ~~all~~ most of the editors here will every come to agreement on this issue, the best option in just to leave the disputed tag in place. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

:I see some merit in the post above (of course it's problematic that Jews and Arab inhabitants of the West Bank are treated differently). Still, there are also a few errors in the above post, I'm afraid. There weren't any Jews in the Jordanian and Egyptian territory Israel occupied in 1967, so it's not a question of letting Jews become citizens and not letting Arabs. In the area that did become Israel after 1948, both Jews and Arabs became citizens. As for tags, the idea is never to leave a tag in place. Tags are placed to initiate a discussion, then remove the tag when the discussion has reached a conclusion. Last point, all editors don't need to come to a conclusion.Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I misspoke when I said "all", I should have said most. I believe the problem of citizenship does exist as children born in the Jewish West Bank settlements become citizens and eventually vote, while Arab children in the West Bank do not. Gouncbeatduke (talk)

But that is the case almost everywhere, it has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine. If children are born to Israeli parents in London or Paris, they also get Israeli citizenship. While there are a few countries that grant citizenship to anyone born on their territory, most countries grant citizenship to infants based on the parents' citizenship. If an Israeli couple gets a kid, no matter if the couple is Jewish or Arab, the kid will also get Israeli citizenship. I don't see how this question is connected one way or the other to the question of Israel being a representative democracy.Jeppiz (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It has everything to do with occupied Palestine and the settlements in occupied Palestine. Even strong Zionists like Theodor Meron said the Jewish settlements in occupied Palestine would be illegal under international law for exactly these reasons. Having a child in a foreign country while living there under a legal visa and having a child in an illegal settlement in an occupied country are two different issues. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the logic. Are you saying that anywhere in the world, a kid born to an Israeli couple should get Israeli citizenship except in the West Bank. Moreover, how do you connect this to the question of democracy. Kids born to Israeli (or Swedish or British) couples are Israeli (or Swedish or British), no matter where in the world they are born. Kids born to non-Israeli (or non-Swedish or non-British) couples aren't Israeli (or Swedish or British). In this matter Israeli is like any other country.Jeppiz (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There's several issues with your sources, or I'd gladly incorporate them into the article. The first of which is that they're mostly opinion pieces, WP:QS states that among other things, questionable sources are those that rely primarily on opinion. Unless we're documenting the opinions of someone, it's not appropriate to cite opinion pieces this way. Furthermore, you're cherrypicking information from Freedom House, which lists Israel as Free [1] and an electoral democracy [[2]] which is explicitly defined as being as a democracy with elections "representative of the public will" [[3]]. I personally understand your concern with deeming Israel as representative democracy without caveats, but I haven't been able to find sources which dispute its status from any reliable political index or neutral text. Sabot Cat (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There was a long discussion a few months ago about this which went unresolved. I've opened an RFC which will hopefully come to a more concrete conclusion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"disputed" tag

As with section #Edit Warring issues January 2015 above (which raised issue with a different editor) I have unilaterally changed the section title to the above from "User:Gouncbeatduke entered a "disputed" tag" on the view that it is best not to highlight editors names in section titles but to address content. I believe that there is guidelines support for this change but this change does not reflect my position on the issue concerned. Greg Kaye 11:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

to Gouncbeatduke: You are an experienced user, and know the rules. Where are the wp:rs that are backing your "disputed" tag? -Pape and Karsh are not a wp:rs for this purpose, even if they are wp:rs for other purposes. -Karsh indicated text is not dealing with the issue, nor does the "Freedom House." - BTW when you using this tag, it must include a pointer to a relevant talk page section. Ykantor (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not originally add the tag to the article. I reverted the removal of the tag as I believe this is just more pro-Jewish/anti-Arab WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Disputed territory

The map in the Russia article has Crimea marked in light green on the grounds that the peninsula is "de facto administered by Russia." Now, Israel de facto administers the Golan Heights, to say nothing of the Judea and Samaria Area. Why no consistency?124.180.140.187 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Because most Wikipedia editors allow a NPOV on Russia, but only allow pro-Israel/anti-State-of-Palestine views to be expressed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comparing a very recent event to a long term situation. The Israel maps usually show dashed lines or other methods to demonstrate the dispute. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The map in the infobox of the Israel article has no dotted lines or any other indication of the occupation of the Golan Heights. The only border shown on the map regarding the Golan Heights is the pre-1967 Syrian border. A better map is needed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Should we also have dotted lines to indicate Israel's borders as defined in the Partition Plan? --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine, is more reacent, and it's light green.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine 5.29.165.246 (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Russia's control of Crimea is indeed a recent situation, but Morocco's control of Western Sahara certainly isn't. The map on Morocco's page has Western Sahara covered in thick green stripes, which are only really visible when you zoom in - otherwise you can barely see the difference.

Some consistency is definitely in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbecke2012 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Biased Lead

Why does the lead not talk about human rights? Or international law? It takes devotes a whole paragraph, the final one, talking about how wonderful Israel's democracy is? What about its negatives? For example, it mentions that "Neighboring Arab armies invaded Palestine on the next day and fought the Israeli forces. Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, in the course of which it has occupied the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula (between 1967 and 1982), part of South Lebanon (between 1982 and 2000), Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. It annexed portions of these territories, including East Jerusalem, but the border with the West Bank is disputed". This leads the lay reader to believe that Israel, out of desperation from being attacked by the evil Arabs, annexed these territories. Why is international law and the fourth Geneva convention not mentioned?

Furthermore, this completely ignores the ethnic cleansing of Palestine's indigenous population. The vast majority of scholars and academics, including the Wikipedia article on ethnic cleansing itself, recognizes the 1948 Palestinian exodus to be a form of ethnic cleansing, so this is within the bounds of WP:NPOV. It leads the reader to believe that after the Jewish state was declared, Arab states just, at whim, declared war on it. (David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization... declared "the establishment of a Jewish state...Neighboring Arab armies invaded Palestine on the next day) No historical context is given. Is ethnic cleansing, a recognized crime against humanity, not important enough to be included in the lead? Is the plight of the Palestinians at the hands of the state of Israel insignificant relative to how awesome it is that Israel has universal suffrage? JDiala (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there is at least one problem here, namely the border between Israel and the West Bank isn't "disputed" as far as I know. I'll look into this in the coming days provided I have the time. Otherwise, the content of the lead should reflect the contents of the article, and the ethnic cleansing of 1948 isn't a major point in the article so it may not be something that we mention in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. You haven't addressed my point. I suggest you re-read what I said, and if you think that the 1948 exodus isn't a major point in the article, which I find to be utterly loathsome considering it was such a serious historical event, then I think it ought to have a place. It's like having an article on Germany without mentioning the Holocaust as a 'major point'. JDiala (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

While JDiala raises a point that should be included, that is that the State of Israel is located on land the ownership of which is disputed, the tone of his initial post is anything but evenhanded and his comparison (above) of Israel to Germany and the Holocaust is, for obvious reasons, so contemptible that it destroys any credibility JDiala might have had.Gillartsny (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that JDiala brings up this point in an very opinionated fashion. Some see comparing German actions in the Holocaust to Israeli actions concerning the Palestinians as blood libel. However, we do have to consider that the Arab world (and some on the left) view Israel as a pariah state founded by British and American imperialism. Given the importance this point of view has in past and current events, perhaps a short section dealing with the criticism should be considered, as well as the Israeli response. I haven't entirely read the main article, Criticism of the Israeli government, that deals with this. PizzaMeLove (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

JDiala's comparison of the 1948 exodus with the Holocaust is insulting and absurd (both in nature and extent). It calls Holocaust denial or banalization.

A more appropriate comparison for the "Nakba" would be some hypothetical day commemorating the German defeat in World War II, resulting in the expulsion or flight of many Germans from the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. After all, when you attack people and start genocidal wars, you live with the consequences.

To say that Israel is a "pariah" state is false and POV (it's a recognized state by the international community, many important organizations and 85% of all countries in the world). The complex events surrounding the 1948 war are widely explained in the proper articles and the 'history' section of this one (The United Nations estimated that more than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled during the conflict from what would become Israel). There's also an entire article to satisfy those who want to use an encyclopedia to vilify the Jewish state. I think it's more than enough. Let's keep the lead clean from propagandists and haters. Thanks.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wlglunight93, slow down there. What I was suggesting was a section that explains some of the current controversy surrounding Israel within the Israel article itself given its notability. I am NOT pushing that Israel is a "pariah" state! Nor do I hold such a position! You'll find that I've mentioned the POV of the Criticism of Israeli government article on its talk page talk:Criticism of the Israeli government. PizzaMeLove (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies to you. I misunderstood what you said. You are not a POV user. It's a great idea to balance the article 'criticism of Israel' by expanding the "response" section. But I don't think such a political controversy (full of arguments and counter-arguments) belongs to an article based on facts like this one (which is about Israel as a country, not Israel as the "evil Zionist entity that takes the blood of Palestinian children to make matzot"). If this were the case, we should add something about criticism in many other articles, including the United States, Europe, China, Venezuela, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Arab and Muslim states, as well as many South American countries that expelled authentic indigenous populations without a previous provocation. It's already explained in the proper section that 700,000 Arabs fled or were expelled during the 1948 war. It's correct that there is a suspicious and disproportionate media's obsession with Israel, despite the fact that all of its neighbors have much less than a clean record when it comes to the treatment of their own people... but this is not the right place to explain it. If someone wants to investigate about accusations against Israel (which are not necessarily true), they have an entire article. This is not the place for that.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been several months since I've participated on this talk. Nevertheless, I've noticed one that none of my arguments have been responded to. Rather, it's essentially just ad hominem, and the absurd fixation on the Holocaust comparison. The substance of my argument has not been addressed. I will make my point once more - there is absolutely no reason the massive expulsion and flight of the indigenous population, during 1948, should not be included in this article. I will also stand by the comparison to the Holocaust; the Nakba is to Israel what the Holocaust is to Germany. The only difference is that Israel denies it, and maintains its hasbara narrative that the Arabs left 'voluntarily'. Wlglunight93 is quite emotional and binary in his reasoning. "Criticism" of Israel isn't acceptable, though criticism of Germany is. "Criticism" of Israel necessarily means that I'm a "POV user" on a mission to demonize the "Jewish state" (though criticism of Germany doesn't mean I'm anti-German). Having a criticism of Israel article does not mean that that is the only article "criticism" is allowed; it is still allowed in the article related to the actual country. Wlglunight93's attitude—the impetuous assumption that I lack good faith—towards this topic, in my view, embodies the Jewish victimhood complex quite well. JDiala (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have brought this up before, the phrase "It annexed portions of these territories, including East Jerusalem, but the border with the West Bank is disputed." is problematic because it implies other borders isn't disputed. It implies East Jerusalem and Golan Heights as being part of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

They are parts of Israel.124.180.140.187 (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, in the course of which it has occupied the ... Sinai Peninsula (between 1967 and 1982) ... . Of course, Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula briefly in 1956 as well. ← ZScarpia 11:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is the source for a dispute about the West Bank border? The Israeli government itself recognises the Green Line as the border between the Occupied Territories and Israel. The only dispute I am aware of is the status of Jerusalem, but no other country or international organisation in the world recognises East Jerusalem as part of Israel. Clarification please. KingHiggins (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If other countries and "international organizations" want to live in a fantasy world where Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, that's their problem. The reality is that Jerusalem (all of Jerusalem) is the capital of Israel. And there is no such thing as a "State of Palestine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.73.142.175 (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that statement is that it dismisses a viewpoint held by a lot governments and organizations that can be sourced. We are not permitted to disregard the viewpoints found in reliable sources. This is against WP:NPOV some mention is allowed by WP:WEIGHT. AlbinoFerret 15:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

New section: controversy

This article treats the subject as if Israel were "just another country" like Canada or France. The reality is that a huge portion of the world views Israel as illegitimate and it is perhaps the most hated country in the world. Regardless of whether editors agree with these opinions, it is intellectually dishonest to exclude the enormous controversy inherent to Israel from what is intended to be an informative article. While it is mentioned that Arab and Muslim countries consider Israel an enemy, it is not mentioned that they (and almost certainly the majority of people around the world) hold particular exception to certain Israeli policies such as the persistence of military occupation over millions of people, discriminatory housing legislation in "Israel proper", settlement expansion and creeping apartheid policy in the West Bank, the ongoing siege of Gaza, indiscriminate use of force against civilians in Gaza as well as neighboring countries, continuous violations of other countries' sovereignty, etc., as well as being a state created out of a premeditated act of ethnic cleansing facilitated by ruling European colonial powers. To exclude these crucially important events from an article dealing with Israel is bias.96.33.227.245 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There are articles dedicated to Antisemitism and Criticism of Israel. Wikipedia has a policy of Neutral point of view: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." “WarKosign ” 19:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Unbelievable low level anti Israel propaganda. Israel is not perfect of course, but such a biased view which is full of lies I have not seen yet. Ykantor (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's quite literally impossible to dispute any of the things just listed. You can, for example, say "I agree with the ethnic cleansing because...", but you can not say "the ethnic cleansing did not happen" with any more seriousness than saying "the holocaust did not happen." In any case, what the other poster referred to as "criticism of Israel" has played a massive role in Israeli history and policy, and it is impossible to understand any of Israel's apparently bizarre decisions without understanding the fact that it is hated, and why it is hated. This is why it needs to be included in the main page.96.33.227.245 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

- Lies :"Israel as illegitimate...discriminatory housing legislation...apartheid policy in the West Bank...ongoing siege of Gaza...state created out of a premeditated act of ethnic cleansing...facilitated by ruling European colonial powers."

-"Arab and Muslim countries consider Israel an enemy"- some does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel and wants one Arab state instead of Israel and the PA, in which most of the Israeli population will have to disappear. Here the description is totally misleading.

-turning upside down the reason and the resulted action: "indiscriminate use of force against civilians in Gaza as well as neighboring countries...continuous violations of other countries' sovereignty" that means that when Israel is attacked with rockets and shooting it is fine, but when Israel reacts it is condemned.

- Such low level propaganda is a shame. Ykantor (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you indeed want to improve the article and not only to promote your opinion, what specifically would you like to change in the article ?“WarKosign ” 20:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

96.33.227.245 While I sympathise to an extent to what you say I think that you should get things in context. Please see the List of states with limited recognition to find a host of varyingly controversial Geopolitical entities. Unlike some of the entities mentioned Israel has a mandate from the UN to exist as described within an original proposal for a partition of Palestine. I think it is important to differentiate between the existence of this form of Jewish State and the current condition of a nation exerting military, political, economic, financial etc. influence over other populations. Greg Kaye 10:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign From what I have seen there are some quite marked the differences in the content, tome and stance of the Antisemitism article and that of articles such as Anti-Americanism and Anti-British sentiment and I personally think that this too is a sign of WP:Tendentious editing. It is also of personal concern to me that terms like "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Zionism" have been adopted when the common designation for Jewish people is Jewish and the common designation for Israel is Israel. As I am sure you have had the chance to see Criticism of Israel acts as redirect to Criticism of the Israeli government. While I fully support the existence of Israel I can also see that it could be relevant to start a section on Criticism of Israel. Greg Kaye 10:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an article on Criticism of the United States government, but there no such section in the article on USA. Why should there be such a section in this article ?
The term Antisemitism was coined by the antisemites in an attempt to give scientific credibility to their prejudice. The term is a known misnomer, but we are stuck with it.
Zionism is the ideology that culminated in the reestablishment of the modern state of Israel. Not every criticism of Israel's government is anti-Zionism. Israel's extreme right wing traditionally criticizes the government for being too soft. Neturei Karta are an example of Israeli citizens that oppose Zionism. Who and where confused "anti-zionism" with "criticism of Israel" ? There are opinions that often Israel is critisized out of blind hatred, i.e. new antisemitism. Comments made by the IP user are a good example - instead of legitimately criticizing problematic decisions made by Israel, the user requires Israel not to be treated like "just another country" but as "illegitimate and ... perhaps the most hated country in the world".
Criticism of a state is criticism of the actions made by the state, that is decisions made by the state's government. Is there criticism of Israel that does not concentrate on the decisions that a government (or the Zionist organizations before its founding) made ? Criticism of Weather in Israel doesn't sound like a very interesting article. “WarKosign ” 12:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The United States has not maintained extended control over other populations, has not controlled water rights to populations (I found a look at the article's satellite image to be quite instructive) and is not accused of systematically supporting apartheid type practice. A better analogy would be South Africa or a similar (POV word) regime.

Antisemitisch and Antisemitismus were the German words coined by Austrian Jewish and German authors respectively and we have since become stuck with anti-Semitic terminologies in English and a wide range of other languages despite the fact that the common name for Jewish people is "Jewish". My suspicion is that PR has historically performed some aspects of a good job.

I would say that Israel is both "perhaps the most loved country in the world" and "perhaps the most hated country in the world". Different strokes for different folks. However I would not go as far as to claim that either the love or hatred was totally blind. Blinkered may arguably be a better description. There is criticism of "Zionist" populations that have gone way beyond the establishment of a Jewish State and have established expansive settlements in Palestinian territories. There is criticism of various sections of Israeli population that foster extreme views. On the other hand there are plenty of really chilled out Israelis who have opposing views. Our job here is to present all relevant content neutrally and factually. I am not saying that this necessarily happens but it would be helpful if editors here did not consider criticism and critical observation to be rooted in hatred and anti-Semitism. In many cases constructive and observant criticism is the most beneficial thing that can be offered. Greg Kaye 12:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

- yours: "The United States has not maintained extended control over other populations". What about Poerto Rico? the Philippines? their relations with the Indians - the natives?

- yours:"controlled water rights to populations". What do you mean?

- yours:"systematically supporting apartheid type practice". This is a lie, marketed to people who does not know what is the meaning of apartheid.

- yours:"analogy would be South Africa or a similar". There nothing similar in this analogy. It is just a piece of unbased propaganda.

- yours:"My suspicion is that PR has historically performed some aspects of a good job." What do you mean?

- yours:"constructive and observant criticism is the most beneficial thing that can be offered." I fully agree. A fair criticism should use the same criteria for the same cases, and should not create special one of criteria in order to use it against Israel only.

- yours:"have established expansive settlements in Palestinian territories". I am an Israeli, and oppose the continuation of those settlements. However, in my opinion the main obstacle is the "right of return". The Israeli public will never accept this big scale population move that will convert Israel to one more Arab state with a minority of Jews. If you are interested in the Israeli public view, you can read Stop Giving Palestinians a Pass by Dennis Ross. BTW Dennis Ross was not shy when he criticized the Israeli government, so his not a pro Israeli addict. Ykantor (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

yours: "The United States ... their relations with the Indians - the natives?" that's powerful and pretty damn barbaric IMO. Re: Puerto Rico see Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012. The British certainly have not had clean hands over the centuries but, even though the UK shelled out vast sums to bail out Scotland at the time of the union, we were prepared to give a free pass to leave on the mere condition of a majority Scottish vote.

Ykantor

yours: "what do you mean?" See for yourself via search: "water rights" AND (Israel OR Palestine)

your: "This is a lie, marketed to people who does not know what is the meaning of apartheid." Its marketed in books like Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by the likes of Jimmy Carter a US president who was well versed in apartheid political issues.

yours: "There nothing similar in this analogy". There are certainly differences. People can use the same buses and shops but from my five years of living in Israel and my occasional trips into West Bank areas it became clear that preferential treatments are routinely given.

Yours "What do you mean?" I suspect that the use of referential use of Semitic and Zionistic terminologies have been proactively fostered. All other peoples use direct reference to the name of their people and their nation in relation to issues of prejudice.

Yours: "in my opinion the main obstacle is the "right of return"." This is something that I think is vital on a number of levels. Israel ranked a worrying third in the world on the Population Matters overshoot index relating to its population : natural resources ratio. I haven't been able to track down the article on immigration rights from africa but this was a case that I argued with against Wikipedia POV pushers that seemed to think that Israel could have open borders without consequence. We have similar immigration problems in the UK and I think that a number of countries, especially those in the middle east, will be fucked when non-renewables run out and we have to, for instance, grow our fuels. On other issues, two migrations were involved in the Partition of India. Something like this, with base references being made to area population levels at time or partition with later immigration also taken into account might work. Some situations of paying people to give up passports might also work. Greg Kaye 13:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

-@GregKaye: USA and Puerto Rico. Sure, there is a difference. The USA is one of the richest countries and virtually annexing the tiny Puerto Rico does not carry a risk of converting the huge USA to one more "puerto Ricans" state. Tiny Israel can not annex and give full rights to the Palestinians and then become one more Arab state. In my opinion the solution is immediate and unilateral Israeli retreat from the west bank, similar to the retreat from Gaza some 10 years ago. However, it seems that a majority of the Israeli public won't accept it, since there is a common belief that the Arabs want to slaughter us. (I am not joking). The situation was the same just before 1977 surprise visit of president Sadat in Israel, and then the Israeli public changed its mind overnight. I hope that the Palestinians would adapt Sadat's principles.

-Water rights and Palestinians. I read the BBC article (appears 2nd in your suggested search). It has only a slight bias against Israel, which is good of course. The article does not really explain what is the source of the current water problem in the west bank. Does Israel stop them from drilling more wells? I do not know. Generally, the BBC article misses altogether the dramatic change of the water situation, due to the relatively cheap availability of desalinated water. Anyway, the Water situation in Gaza is really poor, although Israel retreated about 10 years ago. I found an internet article (I guess it is pro Israeli) that claims: "Hamas and the Palestinian Authority in general failed to manage Gaza’s civil affairs. Even prior to the July 2014 Operation Protective Edge, an alarming collapse of Gaza’s physical infrastructures was evident: electricity, sewage, and most gravely, the supply of drinking water". So, it might be that their problems are self made. Do you know what is their real water problem?

-Apartheid. Israeli is indeed maltreating the Palestinians but Apartheid is something else. Apartheid is a racist principle. A black guy could not "move" to the whites class, but a Palestinian can get Israeli citizenship, mainly through marriage, and an Arab Israeli can not lose his citizenship. Black in Johannesburg were stripped of their citizenship and became citizens of remote black states, so they could continue to live in their home but as foreigners. (I am not sure to what extent it was really applied). There are a lot of other differences.

-Palestinians refugees. It is clear that the refugees should be generously compensated and start new and better life. Israel can not afford to let them return , but there is plenty of available space around, and in 2000 Camp David Summit there were discussions about proposing them to immigrate to Canada and other places. Ykantor (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor I greatly appreciate your reference to tiny Israel with it being, by my calculation, the size of a less well irrigated Wales. In my opinion the solution many years ago might have been a withdrawl to an approximation of partition plan "boundaries" but keeping control of a thoroughfare strip to a Jerusalem which was meant to have been under international jurisdiction. Then, if expansionist Zionists had wanted to try to buy land in "the Arab State" they might be able to do so in a similar way in which the US bought Alaska from the Russians. Israel has developed non confrontational relationships with Arab States such as Egypt and Jordan and I agree that this arms length policy should be extended to Palestinian lands. However, I think that a unilateral withdrawl just from the West Bank would result in Palestinians saying that they didn't agree to less than a withdrawl to partition plan boundaries.

I believe that it is a documented certainty that there are "Arabs want to slaughter" the Jewish people and I am certain that there are people who don't want peace. When I walked around Al-Quds university with a "Salaam / Shalom" tee-shirt, an Armenian friend who was with me was nervous for both his safety and mine. Ironically its the Arabs that Israel is in closest contact with that retain the greatest extent of animosity.

Apartheid is a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race and this certainly exists, or has done, across Israel controlled territory. On visits to the West Bank it was notable that the check point queues for Palestinians took a great deal longer than for other people. Israeli border guards would also regularly comment that I would be better off queuing in the non-Palestinian line. The British like a good queue lol.

I am uncertain of the extent to which compensation schemes would work in anything like the the current situation. There is hatred and allied dispositions prevalent amongst large sections of the Palestinian population and, in this context, I wouldn't doubt, that if compensation routes out were made available, birth rates might go up even further to take advantage. I suspect that there could be a risk of parallels to failed attempts to "control" population by opt in means in India.

back to the thread which started with the assertion "The reality is that a huge portion of the world views Israel as illegitimate and it is perhaps the most hated country in the world." The world is huge and a number of states have refused or withdrawn diplomatic recognition. There is widespread dispute regarding Israel's territorial gains including but not limited to the establishment of settlement. I agree with the nom that there are several situations with Israeli political situations that make the country (in line with several sometimes opposing arguments) a special case. Greg Kaye 13:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Israel is a special case. I don’t know if a new controversy section is the place to fix this. I think most of the issues being discussed here belong in an Israeli-occupied territories section. I think this article suffers from systemic bias, likely the unintentional result of the majority of the editors being English speakers from Israel, the United States and the UK, the three populations traditionally most sympathetic to Israel in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I think the Israeli-occupied territories section and several other sections need to be reworked, with editors paying particular attention to obtain a world community NPOV, and removing non-NPOV bias. I think more weight needs to be given to the UN and world community POV, to balance the article’s current focus on the Israeli Government POV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Israel should be treated much differently. In order to be neutral, its legitimacy as a state must be accepted axiomatically, and, with respect to human rights, we shouldn't have double standards; Israel, though its human rights record is appalling, is not much worse than its neighbours. Nevertheless, I do think that this article suffers from a general pro-Israel bias. Efforts should be made to curb this bias, especially considering how Israel is a pariah state in many ways, and continually violates international law. JDiala (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015

the capital of Israel is jereskam it is locatred on the continent of asia amd the Jordan river is near ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭its nationa lanthum is hatktiva and yes. ♯♭♭♦ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.66.243 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an actual edit request and so...

Not done Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 18:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)