Jump to content

Talk:Israel/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58→Archive 60

Attested observance of kosher laws

We have just had the assertion added that "About half of the Jewish population keeps kosher at all times." with this article about a 2008 survey given as the source—specifically the statement that "According to the survey, 50 percent of Israeli Jews don't keep kosher at all times." Saying that half of them don't keep kosher at all times is not the same as saying that half of them do keep kosher at all times. We need another source for this. I would also advise the the usage of wording along the lines of "X% attest to keeping kosher at all times" rather than simply saying without qualification that whatever proportion does, as the definition of keeping kosher varies widely from person to person. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Before my changes the section said "Most Israeli food is kosher and cooked in accordance with the Jewish Halakha", without citing any sources.
I agree with adding attest to, even though the source does not say this explicitly - it can be understood from the fact that the source describes a poll.
The source says specifically "50 percent of Israeli Jews don't keep kosher at all times". It's impossible for one not to keep kosher at *some* times, since anyone keeps kosher while not eating. The only way I can read this quote is that 50% either intentionally keep kosher part of the times while violating it occasionally or make no effort to keep it at all, while the other 50% do their best to keep kosher at all times. “WarKosign” 20:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
This article anyway was a poll from a non-neutral organism with an agenda. Here is a study by the Avi Chai Institute in 2009 [1]. It's in Hebrew, sorry, but page 15 is about Kashrut - 76% of Israeli Jews eat Kosher food at home, 70% eat Kosher food outside the home, and 63% separate meat and milk. Benjil (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Avi Chai is an example of a non-neutral organization with an agenda "to encourage those of the Jewish faith towards greater commitment to Jewish observance and lifestyle by increasing their understanding, appreciation and practice of Jewish traditions, customs and laws". Even if one trusts this Avi Chai's data, there is no contradiction - Avi Chai's 76% indicates people who *sometimes* keep kosher, while ynet's 50% indicates people who *always* keep kosher. It makes perfect sense that at least some of those 76% who eat kosher at home would occasionally eat non-kosher outside. “WarKosign” 20:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick replies WarKosign and Benjil. OK, this is informative, but we shouldn't conflate the 76% and 50% figures in the article if we want to avoid violating WP:SYNTHESIS. Regarding the original point, if 50% do not at all times, that does not necessarily mean all the rest do at all times; for example some could, as you say, eat kosher at home but sometimes not outside. To use another example, IDF soldiers in theory (but not in reality) always keep kosher on base, but they might not do so when off duty. I'm not even going to get into the sundry different ways Israeli Jews might consider a given set of eating habits to be kosher or not. Anyway, whatever figure we cite should be directly taken from the source to avoid this kind of issue of the figure being challenged. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I still don't see how source's "50% don't keep kosher at all times" is different from my paraphrasing that the other 50% do keep kosher at all times. Do you think that the source meant "50% never keep kosher, not for a single moment in their lives?" I consider this interpretation impossible, so it could only mean "50% keep kosher occasionally but not at all times", which must mean that the other 50% keep it all the time, which is what I wrote. “WarKosign” 08:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree the wording in the source is less than ideal and I think our disagreement illustrates perfectly why. I think it's best we just leave this and find a less equivocal source. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Avi Chai Institute is a very serious and respected institution, and this study was done in cooperation with the Israeli Institute for Democracy, a perfectly secular and liberal institution. Anyway we also have this study from the Israel Bureau of Statistics from 2009: 32.5% of Jews "very strictly keep Kosher" [2]. The definition of keeping Kosher is very subjective and changing. Does someone who eats only fish in a non-kosher restaurant keeping Kosher ? He would say yes, an ultra-orthodox would say no. Benjil (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind to switching to IBS's data. Note that it's 32.5% of adults above 20. Presumably the children follow the customs of the parents, and in the religious families there is a tendency to have many children, so for the general population the percentage is probably higher, but we don't have this data. “WarKosign” 08:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I remember a figure of around 60% of Israeli Jews regularly keeping Kosher, I did not find it yet. The ICBS data is about people "very strictly" keeping Kosher, and indeed includes only people over 20, when younger people are even more religious because of the very high religious birth rate. And it was in 2009 meaning that the numbers are probably slightly higher today. Benjil (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I would be okay with using the IBS figures, while making clear that the figure is from 2009, and refers only to those over 20 and attesting to very strict observation of the kosher laws. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani seems to have taken this in hand well. Cheers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Arminden: when the reader sees a link titled Israeli Declaration of Independence, they expect it to lead to information on the declaration. Linking to an article on a different (somewhat related) subject is a clear violation of WP:EASTEREGG. Please remove the link, especially considering that Cliftonian already added the same link without a misleading title under more appropriate Foreign relations. Also note that you violated WP:1RR and did not follow WP:BRD. @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: ping

“WarKosign” 12:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and WarKosign: I don't know why I bother. The very sense of the "see further info at" tag is - to indicate to the reader that a CLOSELY RELATED page exists, where they can find more RELEVANT info. It's a discrete tag, not "in your face" by any stretch of the imagination, and it takes extremely pedantic and/or militant editing to remove it. Btw, in this huge Israel article, the related page "International recognition of Israel" wasn't mentioned ANYWHERE. It was me who brought it to attention, after discovering it totally by chance; wasted info, until now. Cliftonian & I reintroduced the tag absolutely simultaneously, I've never seen such a thing, the programme didn't even show the usual "edit conflict" flag. Anyhow: the existence of a state always has two aspects - its own struggle for independence, usually connected to some declaration independence, AND its int'l recognition; these are two halves of one single diplomatic & political unit. As I wrote in my edit summary: ask Abkhasia, Transnistria, Crimea - and, much closer to this topic: ask the Palestinians what a declaration w/o recognition is worth, and even de jure recognition w/o de facto control. It's more than appropriate to link the two (declaration & recognition) ANYWHERE, and the more so in the case of Israel: a) Zionism is the only national movement who migrated from one place (E Europe) to another, and received int'l recognition; b) w/o recognition and subsequent arms deliveries, the War of Indep. in '48 would have been lost, and there would be no Israel to write page after page on WP about today; only a topic for history papers, much like the Jewish governorship under the Sasanians after 614 or the Temple reconstruction attempts under Julian the Apostate. So yes, declaration & recognition go together like light & shadow or Yasser & Arafat.
What goes against logic, common sense, and a minimal IQ, I will continue to disregard. Ban me or whatever, it's too silly to argue. I won't keep on putting back in the (correct) link either, it's in the edit history, now it will take its way. In general terms I still am an optimist, believing that logic does have an edge over obtuseness.Arminden (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Arminden: I think I know what happened. You thought you were adding another parameter to the {{further}} tag, while in fact you (surely unintentionally) modified a wikilink inside a {{further2}} tag and made a link titled "International recognition of Israel" that actually lead to "Israeli Declaration of Independence", certainly a WP:EASTEREGG. Next time when someone corrects you, please double check yourself in case they are actually right. “WarKosign” 20:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Regardless, it's in the "Foreign relations" section now, which I think is quite a good place for it. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@WarKosign, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Jeppiz, MShabazz, and Cliftonian: WarKosign, you're right. Thank you for the Sherlock Holmes work, I appreciate it. Sincere apology to all the others. I checked to see how it happened. I am well accustomed to Further|xyz tags, but somebody had overkilled it and used smth. I've never come across before, Further2|xyz - with those additional brackets, [[ ]]; I still don't know what it's good for, maybe linking to external pages, but the one at hand is a WP page. I did what I'm used to do, added |xyz to the tag and--there you go. This as an explanation, nothing more. Sorry again.
Now that that's out of the way, how can we mention the int'l recognition also there, next to the declaration? The immediate recognition by the US (de facto) and USSR (de iure) meant immediate influx of immigrants, of whom many became part of the war effort before they knew it, and of arms, mainly from Soviet-controlled countries like Czechoslovakia. Without those, there would have been no Israel. Up to you now.Arminden (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Arminden, I wrote that on your talk page more than eight hours before WarKosign "figured it out". In the future, please use the "Preview" button before you save your changes. See Help:Show preview for instructions. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want to link to international recognition of the declaration of independence, Israeli Declaration of Independence#Context and aftermath would be a better choice. International recognition of Israel describes current recognition which is not the same. Iran, for example, recognized Israel almost immediately after the declaration but does not recognize it since 1979. Current recognition belongs with current foreign relations. “WarKosign” 13:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Museums

I think Yad Vashem should be on there. Not sure if I saw shrine of the book. Might be worth adding a section on water use too. --Telaviv1 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the lead state that Israel is a "partially recognized state"?

Several users have insisted on inserting "partially recognized state" for Palestine. I was against it, but given the number of users supporting it, I guess it's fine. Then the same of course applies to Israel as well. If Wikipedia is to remain neutral, we cannot very well describe one side (Palestine) as partially recognized while refusing the same description for Israel. Both are "partially recognized states", so the factual accuracy is the same for both. Jeppiz (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, that was a disambiguation page, not the main article. Second, you are misrepresenting what's going on on that disambig page. Someone changed the longstanding version. Another editor objected. Per BRD, at this point there should be a discussion, but you jumped in and edit warred. Third, OTHERSTUFF. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you mean WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not WP:OTHERSTUFF (which is about an argument to avoid in deletion discussions). Perhaps you ought to read what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually says:
This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology. (emphasis added)
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Israel is a member of the United Nations. It has no recognition problem, it is accepted by all five of the UN security council. Palestine on the other hand is not recognized by USA, France and UK who impose a veto on it's legal sovereignty. Just like there is no dispute on Kosovo and SADR who both have a sginificant amount of recognizers (Kosovo is even recognized by most of the world, especially the Western world), there is no dispute that Palestine, is a partially recognized state.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, all of that is irrelevant. There are lots of countries not recognizing Palestine and lots of countries not recognizing Israel. Being a member of the UN or not is a completely different thing, we're not discussing whether to say they are UN members. Both are partially recognized states, both of them recognized by a large majority of the world, and I see no reason not to say it. Jeppiz (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think "partially recognised" is a meaningful phrase and I don't think we should use it at all. In journals of international law it barely appears. (Most examples refer to Kosovo.) UN membership is one measure of the acceptance of statehood by the international community, but failure to get past a UN veto (just one: USA; not three, that's silly) is irrelevant. There was about a whole decade when the USSR vetoed membership applications from every state that it did not have reciprocal relationships with—nobody argued that the states involved, such as Italy, thereby weren't really states. Zerotalk 07:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

List of earthquakes

On Feb 12, Triggerhippie4 dropped the list of earthquakes because they're duplicated at List of earthquakes in the Levant. The article is over 300 KB, so I think removing the list was a good move, but today the content was returned by Avaya1. I'm not sure why, because the edit summary seems like the edit was focused on the (longstanding) images, but maybe they meant the list as well. I don't feel strongly about this. In fact, I'm only a once-in-a-great-while editor on this article, but it seems to me that offloading the list was a good move 1) due to the long length of the article and 2) the embedded list disrupts the flow of prose. Dawnseeker2000 02:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

While Avaya1 may have intended to restore the old images, their edit undid many other improvements to the article—such as the deletion of the list of earthquakes. Consequently, I undid Avaya1's edit. If they wish to restore the old images, they will have to restore the old images, not undo 40 cumulative changes by 10 different editors. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Malik Shabazz, for revert but I have to disagree with "If they wish to restore the old images, they will have to restore the old images." New images are improvements too - they are great, I spent a lot of time collecting it, gave summaries for it, and can explain further if needed. I've also added images to not-illustrated sections and removed images not relating to the text. Avaya1 not only reverted other edits but restored all images citing "longstanding choice." There wasn't "longstanding choice," its just nobody bother to find better choices for some of the images for years. Some of the pics Avaya1 restored are so obviously inferior its clear the user didn't actually looked at it, and also WP:SMN, WP:OWN. Sorry for my English. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Triggerhippie4. I know you spent a lot of time choosing images, and I appreciate the choices you've made. What I should have said was "If they wish to dispute the images in the article, they should start a discussion about that." (Is that better? ) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 31 external links on 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

I've started discussion on User:Yossimgim disruptive edits related to this article at the administrators' noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Yossimgim. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Israeli Foreign Aid

The blurb in the Wikipedia article about Israeli foreign aid states that their aid is 0.01%. The statistic is taken from a newspaper article which quotes the OECD. However, the OECD clearly states on its website that Israel's foreign aid has been above 0.07% since 2007 (https://data.oecd.org/oda/net-oda.htm#indicator-table) (you can click the table button to see it more easily). This should be changed ASAP. Thanks guys

Aqz101 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Count the zeroes. The article says that Israel spent less than 0.1% of GNI on foreign aid, less than recommended 0.7%. According to the table in 2014 Israel spent 0.07% of the GNI, which is 10 times less than 0.7% and indeed less than 0.1%. “WarKosign” 12:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

The wording of the Balfour Declaration states that the government "view with favour" which is quite different from the existing text as copied below. It also goes on to add the condition that "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

existing text from Wikiedia page on the Balfour Declaration

The Second Aliyah (1904–14), began after the Kishinev pogrom; some 40,000 Jews settled in Palestine, although nearly half of them left eventually.[110] Both the first and second waves of migrants were mainly Orthodox Jews,[114] although the Second Aliyah included socialist groups who established the kibbutz movement.[115] During World War I, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, that stated that Britain intended for the creation of a Jewish "national home" within the Palestinian Mandate.[116][117]

would you please edit to show "view with favour" instead of "intended" and add the condition stated. Roger Watson-Starship (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

re@Roger Watson-Starship: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 10:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Should the same language be used in the lead for Israel and for Palestine?

There is clear consensus for Option 2 on the basis of WP:NPOV. Neither Israel nor Palestine should denote the nations as "partially recognized states" in the lead. Some editors supporting Option 1 or an alternative were concerned about Palestine's fight for recognition being lost if they aren't denoted as a partially recognized state, but this can be covered in the article body, just as it can for Israel. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 06:33, 11 April 2016 (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.

As both Israel and Palestine are partially recognized states, should the opening sentence in the lead of:

  1. both Israel and Palestine (and State of Palestine) say partially recognized state?
  2. neither Israel nor Palestine (and State of Palestine) say partially recognized state?
  3. just Israel but not Palestine (nor State of Palestine) say partially recognized state?
  4. just Palestine (and State of Palestine) but not Israel say partially recognized state?

I think those are all the possible options. Jeppiz (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Option 1 I first thought that neither article should say it, but then reflected on it and saw that the leads of other partially recognized states (such as Kosovo) also say partially recognized state in the opening of the lead. The current solution, saying partially recognized state for Palestine but not for Israel, seems to be a rather strong POV. So I think options 3 and 4 should be excluded as POV options, and between option 1 and 2, I support option 1 as it is in line with similar articles. Jeppiz (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are we limiting this to just these two? Looking at Partially recognized states, I see the same issue applies to China. Perhaps a wider discussion is needed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, Israel and Palestine are closely linked and part of WP:ARBPIA is to try to make sure we treat articles related to the ARBPIA field neutrally. China is not covered by ARBPIA, but Israel and Palestine both are (not that I mind you opening a discussion about China at talk:China, go ahead). Jeppiz (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what ARBPIA has to do with it. We're supposed to treat all articles neutrally. Since there's an issue here that's wider than just these two articles, I think it would make sense to have this RfC where more editors would participate. That would also make it more likely we'd get participation from more uninvolved editors, rather than just the usual suspects as we're most likely going to get here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Option 1 per Jeppiz's rationale but with the explicit caveat that my support for this usage is, until further reflection, limited to the specific article occurrences of both Israel and State of Palestine.
{Explanation: text on dab. pages such as Palestine is necessarily more concise and to state, in the very short definition/description sentence there "State of Palestine, a modern partially recognized state in the Middle East" may very well give undue weight to the dubiety of the State of Palestine's very existence by just mentioning at all its current diplomatic status. Certainly it does seem a rather unbalanced sentence when our dab. page regarding Israel (Israel (disambiguation)) just has the sentence: "Israel commonly refers to the State of Israel" and the page at the article named 'State of Israel' continues to be just a redirect to Israel. BushelCandle (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, now I have reflected more on the situation, I have concluded that the powerful Israel lobby here will ensure that there is never any wording in the first few hundred words of any Israel related article that ever hints that Israel is not completely recognised by all polities and organisations or that the plain single word "Israel" ever becomes a disambiguation page like "Palestine" currently is. Consequently, with and dependent on that understanding, I am changing my support and striking thru' my support for Option 1. I do agree that this discussion page is perhaps not the ideal page for asking for comments, since the issue is indeed wider than just 3 pages. Kudos to Jeppiz for raising the whole issue at all!
Consequently I now
Support Option 2 BushelCandle (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the above, a blatant example of so is Palestine entry in List of state leaders in 2016, discussion underway on talk page to change. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment. Those reservations backfire because they apply also in good part to Israel, which has never defined its borders, exercises only partial control of areas it claims to be part of its own territory, and is denied recognition as having sovereignty by many of those who 'reside', by force of circumstance, in those areas (East Jerusalem, for example) over which it claims sovereignty. All these factors are equally anomalous for the concept of a modern state. What is sauce for the goose is sores for the gander.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
First of all, Israel has three defined and internationally recognized borders, the Israeli-Egyptian border following the agreement in 1979, the Israeli-Jordanian border (Without most of the Jordan River part) following the agreement in 1994 and the border between Israel and Lebanon was recognized by the UN in June 2000.
Now what does this mean about Mexico, Colombia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Lebanon, Turkey, Azerbijan, Armenia, India, China and Pakistan who all have areas in which they claim sovereignty but don't fully control? And what about areas with no civil authorities intervention worldwide?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Disputed borders is not the same as total lack of defined borders. Are you disputing that Israel controls (as much as any state can) all of the territories within its borders (as Israel sees them), and also partially controls some territories outside its borders ? “WarKosign” 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The question is moot because Israel refuses to define its borders, making phrases like 'outside its borders' meaningless. I think we should hew to MShabazz's advice and not let a humongous thread develop. Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment No one can deny the fact that Israel and Palestine are not sharing the same legal status. Israel shares the same legal status of China, Cyprus, North and South Korea etc. who are full members of the UN but no reocgnized by all of it's members. Palestine on the other hand is currently fighting for recognition. Palestine is a de-jure state since the Palestinian National Council, the governmental body of the State of Palestine, doesn't practice any administration over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, while the Palestinian Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority does. In order to become a legal member of the United Nations, you need to have the recognition of France, UK, USA, Russia and China. Palestine lacks the recognition of three of the UN security council permenent members and therefore it is not yet a legal member of the UN. Palestine has the same status of Kosovo. @AusLondonder: said that Palestine has the recognition of 70% of the world. This is nice, but Kosovo has the reocognition of 55% of the world so by this Wikipeida "de-legitimise Kosovo"? And what is exactly the legitimacy of Palestine as long as they don't have what they need to become members of the UN? It's not like Vatican or Switzerland (until 2002) who chose not to be members, the State of Palestine is simply not yet a legitimate state because although most of the world recognize it, the US, UK and France has a veto power on it. The fact that in 2012, the SoP (technically PA)'s status was upgraded from an "entity" to a "Non-member state" in the UN doesn't change the fact that there is a veto on it's membership.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Request I know it can be difficult, but please, everybody, try to stick to the subject of the RfC, which is whether Palestine and Israel should be described as partially recognized states. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It's important *not* to stick to the subject if the RfC asked the wrong question. The real question is whether Palestine and Israel should use the same description, and the answer is definitely no, because their circumstances are very different. “WarKosign” 18:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 preferred per NPOV but Option 1 is okay too since it is a fact in both cases. Both articles should of course include details about the extent of recognition and non-recognition. The scope of this RfC should be restricted to Israel and Palestine to prevent scope creep and distraction. Other RfCs can be created by editors who want to deal with other states and/or the broader issues. This RfC should focus on fixing something that is broken because of the nature of the ARBPIA topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 is probably okay, although this question is a bit misleadingly set. What the article on Israel says, is determined by sources that describe Israel. Likewise, what the article on Palestine says, is determined by sources that describe Palestine. We should resist thinking along the lines that this question suggests, namely, that we should use similar terminology if we consider the circumstances to be similar. Of course, exceptions exist. I don't recall the expression "partially recognized" to be widely in use to describe either country, so option 2 gets my nod. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Houston, we have a problem. When I read Palestine is a [partially recognised] state I naturally understand it is de facto as fully fledged state. The facts, however, are that Palestine controls only a small part of the area it claims and even that part is prone to IDF raids. The question of recognition is the small problem in describing th State of Palestine. DGtal (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for stating the obvious. The elephant in the room is that there is no State of Palestine so all this discussion is pure nonsense. Benjil (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2. A partial recognition is an information that is wp:undue for the lead. This being said, Israel is a State. Palestine is a proto-State. Both are recognized. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Palestine is just a disambiguation page for a variety of subjects and should just use neutral language when pointing to its sub-pages per WP:DISAMBIG. -- Kendrick7talk 18:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2. In terms of the "partial recognition" issue, Israel and Palestine should be treated the same way. Israel is not recognized by 32 countries, whereas Palestine is not recognized by 59 (195 minus 136) countries. So they are in a qualitatively similar position. Here, the focus is on the "partial recognition" issue and nothing else. Tradediatalk 05:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 because options 3&4 aren't serious options and option 1 isn't necessary as they are both widely enough recognized. Sepsis II (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Result

@Jeppiz: was this set up as a formal RFC? We need someone to close this now and bring this to a conclusion. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Etymology

I want to refer to the statement written in the last paragraph of the "Etymology" section: "From 1920, the whole region was known as Palestine (under British Mandate) until the Israeli Declaration of Independence of 1948"

This statement is not entirely correct. The area, under the British Mandate was called "Palestine EI" where the EI stands in Hebrew to "Eretz Israel" i.e. Land of Israel. It appears clearly also on British Mandate stamps, where it is written "Palestine" in English and Arabic, alongside with א"י in Hebrew, means as I wrote "EI" which stands for "Eretz Israel"/ Land of Israel/ "ארץ ישראל". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.181.12 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you quote a reliable source that supports this ? “WarKosign” 12:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Ditto WarKosign. As the IP himself points out א"י was only included in the Hebrew rendition in any case. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's one document, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine_passport#/media/File:1924_Palestine_travel_document.jpg, taken from: Mandatory_Palestine_passport that shows that in Hebrew it said Palestine EY, and doing an image search clearly shows passports with Palestine EY in Hebrew. Here is a link to a coin from the same time period also showing that Palestine EY was used in Hebrew, http://pinterest.com/pin/309481805616320282/ Sir Joseph (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, IN HEBREW, but not in English or Arabic. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Correct, but I think that was the OP's point. In Hebrew the area wasn't just called Palestine, it was called Palestine EY, and therefore the Etymology section should reflect that. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
In a footnote, maybe. It is splitting hairs rather if you ask me. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Could be, but I added as a note. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
(ec)We don't make deductions from wiki. 98% of historical works on the period refer to Palestine. That stamps etc., for internal circulation catered for the linguistic abilities of the three major political and ethnic constituents doesn't affect the broad term used by the British and the world. In any case, think analogically: would an Indian make this kind of argument for East Africa based on the Gujarati script on the old East African shilling banknote issued by Great Britain?Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The government documents don't say פלשתינה, they say (פלשתינה (א״י

The EY was part of the official name of the Mandate, as you can see amply sourced at the Mandate article. Of course this should be noted if you're describing the name of the area during Mandate times. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not quite. WarKoSign and Cliftonian rightly are following wiki procedure to the letter in requesting sourcing for this equation. It has a complex history and one should not, even if understandably, let oneself be influenced by the fact that Israeli historical works generally tend to refer to Mandatory Palestine as eretz yisrael, esp. since this is rare in English historical usage (Ulrike Schultz, Gisela Shaw (eds.) Gender and Judging, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013 p.87).
The Zionists certainly pressed for this equation, while the Palestinians opposed it. Caught between hammer and anvil the Poms allowed alpha yod on currency, stamps and official documents as a concession to the former constituency, but denied Zionists permission to pronounce the full word in broadcasting. It was effectively forbidden to read out the term in any Hebrew transmission.(Andrea L. Stanton, "This Is Jerusalem Calling": State Radio in Mandate Palestine, University of Texas Press, 2013 pp.174f.)(Nur Masalha, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion, Pluto Press, 2000 p.6).
One can therefore rightly note the fact that Alpha Yod was on those items, but not infer that the Mandatory Authority accepted the use of the word that combination of letters allusively ciphered. It's a fine point, I know, but this is an encyclopedia, based on precise sourcing, and not on inferences made from stamps, currency etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
That's not a "fine point", it's well poisoning. EY was part of the official name of the Mandate in one of its official languages. That should be noted. The fact "Israeli historical works generally tend to refer to Mandatory Palestine as eretz yisrael(sic)" should also be noted. That should also go in the etymology section, obviously. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
NMMNG you are absolutely wrong to suggest that the "EY was part of the official name of the Mandate". The mandate was official only in the languages of the League of Nations, which were England and French. The א״י was added as part of the "national title" in one of the three languages to be used on stamps, passports and currency. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The Mandatory government, not the Mandate instrument. They used these official languages for everything, not just stamps and passports. All announcement, forms, etc, were all in the 3 official languages. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Which sources would you cite?     ←   ZScarpia   22:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

UN Partition Plan

In the material about the UN Partition Plan, it would probably be worth mentioning that it was never implemented, the British government refusing to implement a scheme that was not acceptable to both sides, necessitating the use of force. The associated resolution was non-binding.     ←   ZScarpia   22:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Query word

"The great majority of Israeli Arabs are settled Sunni Muslims, with smaller but significant numbers of semi-settled Negev Bedouins".

What does "settled" mean in this context? I don't think it will be clear to most readers. Tony (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Not nomadic. Living in villages/towns/cities, as opposed to nomadic. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The fact that I had to ask, and only now understand, suggests it could be more clearly expressed, don't you think? Can you come up with a better wording? (And I was wondering whether it meant that they'd (finally) settled on Sunni rather than Shia ... settled in the other sense.) Tony (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews live in homes, like nearly everyone else. The word 'settled' has been introduced to make, uniquely, the Arab component 'settled' just as Jews 'settle' in the West Bank. Very devious POV pushing. It should be removed. A single line focused on nomadic Bedouin (a different origin from the Israeli Arabs by the way) is all that needs to be retained.Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that is reading waaaay more intention than the writer did when actually drafting the paragraph. Not everything is about conflict. Settled vs nomadic are common use anthropological terms. The Israeli Arabs were not being called "settlers." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The edit was made here by User:Averysoda, one of countless sockpuppets of AndresHerutJaim, a racist ultra-nationalist extremist. So Nishidani's assessment is likely to be correct. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Made a minor change to address concerns.--TMCk (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Saw that: thanks. Tony (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Herbert Samuel

Hello, Could someone add this sentence about H.Samuel;

>> Herbert Louis Samuel was the first Jewish zionist to govern the historic land of Israel, as High Commissioner of Palestine.

  • Jewish Virtual Library Herbert Louis Samuel (1870 - 1963) [3]

Thanks --Youyou gag (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I sorry Youyou gag but it don't see where will this sentence be put in this spesific article. I will however, add it to the article "List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel has a dedicated article. “WarKosign” 08:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, nobobdy cares, thanks anyway,

cheers --Youyou gag (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Israel is not 20.7% Arabs

The box on the right hand side says "20.7% Arabs" but actually you mean "Muslims".

Arab is a nationality or source of origin (from the Arab gulf). Most of Israel's Muslims are not Arabs, but wither were born in Israel (so they are Israelis) or their parents moved from Lebanon (that is not an Arab country), Persia or even the Lavant. Some Arabs are actually Christians. There are also lots of JEWISH Arabs living in Israel as the recent UN Jewish refugees claimed. So to summarize, the table needs to refer to either religion (Jewish, Muslims, Others) or to country of source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.218.106 (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This data is based on Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. See Arab citizens of Israel for more details. Out of these Arabs, 82% are Muslims - and there is probably a negligible number of non-Arab Muslims. “WarKosign” 14:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
An aside: Israeli nationality law does not automatically give citizenship to those born in Israel, it uses the principle of jus sanguinis under which citizenship is passed down based on the citizenship of the parents. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


REMOVED POST

• Removed until citations and references linked. contribs) 11:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a nice piece of original research. Thank you for sharing it with us, but unfortunately it can't be used on wikipedia. “WarKosign” 12:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
So to get it added I also have to add its cited references? What is the proper method for this addition?“icarusfactor” 11:50 AM Tuesday, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, references is the first thing. Second, those references need to say exactly that, meaning we don't add texts consisting of a user drawing conclusions from references. Third, the references need to be reliable (so no blogs, personal websites etc.). Jeppiz (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response this is my first text addition that was not mediawiki script, which do not need citation for stuff like that, just has to work.I will remove the links until I get the rest of the citations and references then re-post. “icarusfactor 4:08:28 PM Tuesday, June 7, 2016 UTC

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2016

You have here a fatal falsification of the truth. In this page, you have entered a map of israel, where you cut 8% of the countrie's territory. In yours maps, the Golan Heights belongs to syria, whitch is a falsification. This territory belongs to Israel since 1967. Please correct it.


79.181.154.216 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Golan belongs to Israel only according to Israel—according to the rest of the world it is a part of Syria under Israeli occupation. Our articles and maps reflect that. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Since Syria does not exist anymore this is really ridiculous, as almost all the stances about what belongs to whom in wikipedia. Benjil (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Syria doesnt exist anymore? Wow, you got a source for that? nableezy - 21:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Annexed or occupied

I changed "annexed" to "occupied" regarding Jordan and the West Bank.[4] I explained in the edit summary "The word "occupied" was used before in connection to Israel, why should the word "annexed" be used for Jordan?" I was reverted rather quickly by Sepsis II. His explanation was: "Are you claiming they didn't officially annex it and that the next sentence is false? Did Israel annex the West Bank?". My point is the following.

This article states that the Golan Heights were "captured and occupied". The article also states that "Israel has applied civilian law to the Golan Heights". That is, if I am correct, about the definition of annexation. For more information regarding this, see Golan Heights#Israeli annexation and civil rule. Why then will the article not use the same word for both cases, either "annexed" or "occupied", but the same?

My point regards only the Golan Heights. If for this we need to split the sentence and differentiate between the Golan Heights and the West Bank, then so be it, but that is not a reason to use an incorrect term in a POV manner.

Oh, and just to forewarn an incorrect argument, neither were/are internationally recognized (with the sole and negligible exception of the UK recognizing Jordan's unilateral annexation of the West Bank). Debresser (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll revert any half-assed edit which ruins the integrity of a paragraph. Take your time before you delete or add "occupied" to fit your POV. Sepsis II (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Excuse you? "half-assed edit", "ruins the integrity", "fit your POV". As you can see above, my edit was based on that very same paragraph. It therefore could not have ruined the paragraph's integrity. Even if you disagree with me, I think it would need a bit more than my edit to ruin the integrity of a whole paragraph. And why do you accuse me of POV editing, in blatant violation of WP:AGF? Not to mention the viciousness of this last post? Where did that come from? Debresser (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Umm, just a note. Your edit said Jordan occupied the West Bank in 1950. Jordan did not occupy the West Bank in 1950. Jordan occupied the West Bank in 1948, and in 1950 acted to annex it. That annexation was not recognized, except by maybe Pakistan (some conflict in sources, and Im doing this from memory), and the world generally continued to consider it occupied territory. That I believe is what Sepsis was getting at with half-assed edit and ruins the integrity. Try to pay more attention to your edits, you introduced a factual error into an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 21:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
If Israel assumed the territory it was assigned in Nov.1947 by the UN, in a deliberation which also assigned a large part of the West Bank to the Palestinians, in what sense should we say that Jordan, (which withdrew from Palestinian and only reentered it when Israel, with many army units way beyond its borders, declared its independence), 'occupied' territory assigned to the future Arab State? It occupied that land in the same sense, Israel occupied the territory and beyond assigned to it. Such is the contamination of our source language.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Jordan didnt represent the Palestinians though. A Palestinian state was to be created, not an expansion of the Hashemite kingdom. Doesnt really fit in this discussion though. nableezy - 23:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The following sentence mentioned "this annexation" and with Debresser's deletion of the annexation, the following sentence lost its sense. Sepsis II (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2016

I'd like to insert this short video showing views from Israel to the Demographics section.

A short video depicting Israel

Alleycat80 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a good reason not to include it, but no good reason to include it either. I suppose it falls under Wikipedia:Videos#Tour-type videos. If it belongs anywhere at all, it would be in the lead, since it shows an overview of many aspects of Israel. “WarKosign” 21:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm okay with that as well, of course. I'm just thinking it's a useful, rare resource to include actual footage on Wikipedia. So, what needs to be done to include it in the lead? (BTW I thought about the lead but since I almost don't edit on EN-WP, only other places, I was kinda anxious about suggesting that... Alleycat80 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Quite a few of the scenes are from places in neighbouring countries. It would confuse many readers. Sepsis II (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldnt add it for a few reasons. First, it strikes me as unencyclopedic with the trancey beat. Second, it shows a number of things that arent in Israel. nableezy - 21:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So, you would pass on adding something that would illustrate Israel for political reasons. If someone needs to get "un-confused" about the politics, they should read the letters around the videoclip. I thought that was the whole point in an Encyclopedia. I wanted to contribute, not get to a political argument. Guess I should think again, thank you for making Wikipedia better for everyone, and excuse the sarcasm... Alleycat80 (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Fairly certain thats not what I said. The first reason is the childish music that is unbefitting an encyclopedia article, the second reason is that it is not simply illustrat[ing] Israel, it illustrates Israel and things that are not Israel. If you think arguing against showing things not in Israel is any more political than arguing for showing things that are not in Israel then you are free to think that. I have my own view on how foolish that position is, but you may call it a political argument. nableezy - 23:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean to offend (it really seemed to me like you were arguing that), but I think that those issues are fairly small (1-2 seconds at most showing things that are disputed to be in Israel, and unbefitting music), in comparison to what an addition a video file to illustrate an article. But again, I'm the newcomer on EN-WP. It just seems to me a great addition, but I'm not willing to argue over it. Let the locals on EN-WP decide, I say. Alleycat80 (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is not an argument. Music is a matter of personal taste, so it's not an argument either. Some of the shots indeed show disputed areas, but it's easily corrected by labeling the video appropriately ("Overview of Israel and disputed territory claimed by Israel" or something in this vein).“WarKosign” 07:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Im sorry, but you dont get to just decide what is or isnt a valid argument. nableezy - 07:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't. There is an essay dedicated to that. You should read it. “WarKosign” 07:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
You should learn what an essay is before you try pointing to it as though it had some authority. Also probably shouldn't be assuming that there are pages here that you've read in the couple of years you've been here that I haven't seen. nableezy - 21:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the video is fine. As WarKosign says, there can be a caption about disputed territories if some users believe it's very important (personally I think it's undue weight but don't feel strongly about it). I support placing the video in the article. Maybe in the geography section because that's what most of the video relates to. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

if it's inserted it needs to explicitly say it includes images from the occupied Palestinian territories. I still think it's a foolish thing to include but yall want to have some disco beat playing in an encyclopedia article it's your lives. But it can't be presented as an overview of Israel or its geography when it shows things outside of Israel. nableezy - 21:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The images aren't just tainted with occupied Palestine but also occupied Syria. Placing the video here would be as appropriate as on the Palestine page. Sepsis II (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel/Archive_56&oldid=1079502907"