This is an archive of past discussions. 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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
The first paragraph under "Science and technology" says "Israel's eight public universities are subsidized by the state. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel's oldest university, houses the Jewish National and University Library, the world's largest repository of books on Jewish subjects." However a quick check ( List of Israeli universities and colleges) shows that:
Am I missing something? -- CyberXRef talk 05:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
It's probably time someone updated these. 109.186.29.25 ( talk) 13:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Roy
Well 1912 and 1925. Thanks for the clarification. I will look for some references and update that section. -- CyberXRef talk 16:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
where it says state of israel add dawlat israeil under it 79.177.138.167 ( talk) 16:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
While it does not say dawlat israeil specifically as you have written it, it does say دولة إِسرائيل as Sean has pointed out. Also it says Dawlat Isrāʼīl and the Pronunciation [dawlat ʔisraːˈʔiːl]. In addition to it in Arabic it also has it in Hebrew. I don't see the purpose for your change exactly since it seems already included. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 19:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
You forgot to mention the Druze, Bedouin and Circassians in the ethnic groups. 213.57.32.206 ( talk) 21:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
If *my* country was dependent on another for the funding of its military, and I was a credible politician, I would be advocating ways for my country to become self-sufficient. Do Israelis simply not care how dependent on the US they are? Is that why Netanyahu doesn't have to advocate Israeli military independence? Why isn't this viewpoint discussed in the article? - 75.57.5.160 ( talk) 17:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The section Israel#Sports contains the following formulation:
In common parlance, teams or individual atheletes compete and play against each other. Playing "with" each other is far less common. Please adjust to:
Thank you! -- 89.0.205.5 ( talk) 23:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not really a correction. Play with has the same meaning. The usage is also common. You'll see it more in an informal setting, how ever. Pick up games for instance. Games like chess which is listed as a sport in the sports section can be played with. The change is fine however.
The thing striking to me is that the article used as a source does not include anything about the 1978 Asian games. This article along with other sources seem to point to Israel's exclusion being related to security concerns: http://www.jta.org/1976/07/26/archive/israel-barred-from-asian-games It seems to me a reliable source would be more necessary than this change. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 12:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Security and how to pay for it is a part of the political front. While I'm not opposed to including the questions of the real reason for the exclsuion it should be pointed out that the reason for expulsion was the security concerns. I'll make that change when I can get to it as I'm involved in something else out the moment. However anyone feel free to make that change with the above sources from the IP if they can get to it. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 20:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Some users have cited the General Assembly resolution that recognizes a state of Palestine in order to make edits that Israel shares borders with Palestine. Resolutions of the General Assembly are not binding, even at the United Nations. The United Nations Charter makes clear that only the Security Council can recognize states. (An editor made a baseless and unexplained accusation of "Palestine denialism" in his/her edit summary, which is completely unprofessional and non-collegial). Greater explanation of Israel's borders, the West Bank's borders, the status of Israeli–Palestinian negotiations, and Palestinian statehood is already included in the article, and in many cases already in the lead. We need not POV push when discussing which entities it currently shares a border with.
In addition, these territories are controlled by separate entities, with Hamas in effective control of the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority (along with the Israeli military) controlling the West Bank. The World Factbook has no entry on the Palestinian territories; it has entries each for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. See its map of Israel and its neighbors here. Most maps likewise name those territories as such. For the sake of neutrality and readability, the article states that Israel shares its border with the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Symbolic UN recognition, though significant, is a side issue here. No mainstream news source systematically refers to the territory as the state of Palestine. For more information, see this article, explaining how "the gap between the symbolic U.N. nod and the reality on the ground remains wide." Indeed, mainstream news reports and comments by government officials all indicate that a Palestinian state has not yet been established. See examples below, all published after the symbolic UN nod:
-- Precision123 ( talk) 09:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you perhaps point the section of of The UN charter that allows only the UNSC to recognize statehood? Do you perhaps mean that the UNSC is responsible for admitting new states as active members of the UN? Maps are made by map makers. The Indian Government has map makers put disputed territories of the Kashmir conflict into India while Pakistan does the same. Further States cover 80% of the worlds population recognize the state of Palestine diplomatically. That is their state departments by what ever name their state departments have. I can't think of any reason to remove it as it is. The only justifiable reason would be that none of the sources used are reliable to assert this claim. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 22:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually you don't need to mention East Jerusalem apart from the West Bank. Only thru illegal means did Israel gain East Jerusalem. I'd call it annexation but have yet to actual attempt de jure annexation. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Also other than being UN members these individuals recognize Palestine separately from the UN. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/sep/20/palestinain-state-israel-un-interactive That was before a request for UN membership and as In recall the change in sttus vote. That's representatives of 80% of the Worlds population. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 22:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Last, assuming arguendo that all this were the opposite, we would need several WP:reliable sources to substantiate the claim explicitly that Israel is bordered by Palestine. Per WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Thus, it is not enough to state, which you have done so, that reliable sources refer to the territory as Palestine. (Indeed, they all continue to refer to it as the Palestinian territories.) We would need reliable sources that stay explicitly that Israel shares a border with Palestine. From reliable sources:
We should follow the examples of other reliable and encyclopedic sources. I encourage a move back to West Bank and Gaza Strip. -- Precision123 ( talk) 17:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Your sources here forgo even the mention of a border with the Palestinian territories. These are internationally recognized borders. I'm not aware of any wikipedia policy that says that we should copy other encyclopedias. To follow the example of these sources we would have to forgo the mention of Gaza or a West Bank border all together. Let's not call them Encyclopedic sources. Let's use the term Tertiary source. All of the sources you use above are tertiary other than the Washington post. I see no reason to remove mention of the state of Palestine based on your arguments. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 20:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Tertiary sources can be used to provide broad summaries. It's a rather narrow summary however that the State of Palestine doesn't exist. Further those tertiary sources fail to offer that broad summary. With your usage these sources can in no way be considered reliable. One thing that is unclean though is if you are still also trying to remove mention of the Palestinian Territories as the Palestinian territories or have you decided that only the State of Palestine should be removed? Interesting Ramallah, West Bank? I guess Nashville, Tennessee isn't a part of the United States. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-v-whitbeck/the-state-of-palestine-ex_b_2431690.html John V Whitbeck views which he has posted in numerous publications. Need I also point out the Constitutive theory of Statehood? Governments 80% of the worlds population recognize the state of Palestine. The Majority of Governments of the World recognize the state of Palestine. 134 UN members have independently of the UN recognized the State of Palestine is what that means. 2 great powers are among those, Russia and China. For a state not to exist it seems to strangely exist. Again I see no reason to change this. The entity Known as the "State of Palestine" claims sovereignty over the Palestinian territories. With the exception of East Jerusalem (which is disputed) Israel has no claims over the Palestinian territories. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 18:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
1) Your are arguing for a negative. Your sources are reliable because of what they don't say as opposed to what they do say is your argument. Sorry I don't see why I should give such an argument any weight. I can't help but consider this original research. So if you don't mind I'll jut go ahead and ignore it. 2)So there's a book of rules that tell them how to write specific things? ......... 3)Those would actually be a secondary source. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/sep/20/palestinain-state-israel-un-interactive The Guardian isn't a Primary source. It's a secondary source. Governments that represent 80% of the worlds population and it's from a reliable publication.
The question was whether or not you now feel mention of Palestinian territories should be removed and not whether you think Gaza and the West Bank should be included. I see no reason to remove either. The State of Palestine exists. This is the official position of the majority of the world. We should avoid it because it makes a minority of people feel politically uncomfortable? I think I'll go ahead and pass on that. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 23:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Precision123:Reuters recognizes the State of Palestine as a De Facto state on the basis of that UN vote as many other sources do. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121130 The Guardian has provide a map of States that offer de jure recognition of the state of Palestine and these are the majority of States. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/sep/20/palestinain-state-israel-un-interactive I know all about style manuals. Do not misrepresent what I said. I did not say "the name of the place after the comma was not usually the name of the country." I in fact insinuated that was not always the case. Since WP:BALL Wikipedia is not a crystalball I have no way to know how the New York Times Style guide will change when Palestine meets the NYT definition of statehood. So if I'd just prefer to ignore that irrelevant information. In real terms a sovereign Palestinian state remains as elusive? As elusive as the landless Sovereign State Known as the Holy See. Allow to refer you back to Sean.hoyland's final statement above. I've provided reliable secondary sources. You just don't like them. Palestine is a recognized State. If you would like to make a note to point out that only the majority of States, 134 of 193 states, recognize the State of Palestine go ahead. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Precision123:There won't be any dispute resolution. It has ended due to unwilling participation. You don't understand Reuters recognizing De facto statehood? I'm unsure of how I can help you with that. The words in the article seem pretty clear to me. Do you need more sources of a de facto recognition? I'm not familiar with the international law that requires the recognition of news papers before one becomes a state. Could you give me a source for that? Russia recognizes The State of Palestine. As do the Majority of other states. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 19:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Importantly, it says "Palestinian territories," not Palestine, as even a possible option for a name. Reliable secondary sources are in agreement. -- Precision123 ( talk) 23:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)When we are dealing with material from disputed territories, we often name the place regionally, rather than by country, to avoid appearing to ‘take sides’ in our country names. For example – GAZA, JERUSALEM, or WEST BANK rather than ISRAEL or PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES. For a mix of any of the above we say: MIDEAST.
@ Precision123: De facto Here's an article on what de facto means. And take a moment and look at your argument. I really can't help but laugh. What Reuters article does equal is that Reuters does recognize is a De Facto statehood from this matter. You move then to an article on De Jure recognition. While doing this you ignore the ignore the De jure recogniztion by 130+ states (the majority to states). Then you mention Reuters style guide. You ignore "When we are dealing with material from disputed territories, we often name the place regionally, rather than by country, to avoid appearing to ‘take sides’ in our country names." Then mention hey guys they said Palestinian Territories. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Precision123: Facts? You mean reliable sources? The facts are that the existence of the state of Palestine is disputed. Dispute resolution? You can mention that the existence of Palestine is disputed. I recommend one of those reference notes. Beyond that all I'm going to do to resolve this dispute is tell you to make your case. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 01:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Precision123:I have established my case with reliable sources. The State of Palestine is a recognized State. I do not disagree that your reliable sources say that the state of Palestine is not a recognized state. What this proves is the Status of Palestine is disputed. You and others? Where? I just see you in this conversation saying the State of Palestine should be removed. The others I see are saying it shouldn't be removed.I have cooperated in this. I have been the one making sure you have been aware that a conversation is still taking place thru WP:ECHO. I am the one of us two that has offered a compromise. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 22:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
So now there is a state of Palestine but it doesn't border Israel. I suggest it remains the same and and source note is used to say there is disputed territory. Specifically the East Jerusalem portion of the West Bank is in dispute. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 02:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware that dispute resolution is not between editors that agree. I don't agree with you. You don't agree with me. We however aren't the only parties concerned. The last attempt as dispute resolution was full of idiocy. The mediator was unable to deal with it before I came there to sign up. And with that since I am in no why required to take part in informal dispute resolution I will not be taking part in it when it is ran like that. I have always been warmed to dispute resolution. I'm just not warm to an organized exercise in futility. You can either get everyone else on board for an informal mediation process or find a formal binding mediation process. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 06:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This way we also avoid the run-on sentence. Should be good. Best, -- Precision123 ( talk) 23:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) to the east and southwest, Egypt and the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea to the south. It contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area.
That's great and all except for the fact that you remove the state of Palestine. "Oh look it's not a run on sentence now." Don't insult my intelligence. This conversation is over. If you would like to go and attempt formal binding mediation go ahead. If you make this change it will likely be reverted. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 00:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
All BCE and CE references be changed to BC and AD. Lord of the Rinks ( talk) 21:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This seems slanted: "In 2012, Israel proper was ranked 92nd according to Reporters Without Borders' Press Freedom Index – the highest ranking in the region.[198]" I didn't see the source saying that. The definition of "region" is debatable--Kuwait is ranked higher than Israel by that source. It's rather odd to pick a single positive thing to say about a 92nd ranking, rather than pointing out any of 91 negatives (e.g. "worse than so-and-so", "worst among developed nations", etc.). It would be more neutral to cite the fact, and let readers follow up with their own comparisons if they wish. Minorview ( talk) 19:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
While Palestinians live in the area of the district Judea and Samaria, which is most of the West Bank, they should not be counted in the population figure of that district because they are not part of that district officially. This is clear but here is a link to Population, by District, Sub-District and Religion by the Israeli CBS that shows this. This is accurately reflected at Districts of Israel and Judea and Samaria Area. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 21:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change:
to
<ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).Aliyahwisdom ( talk) 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bwater-technology\.net\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a policy discussion going on at Talk:Russia#Request for Comment regarding the coloring of Crimea on the Russia location map that also may affect this article. My comment there:
If Crimea were colored light green as "disputed territory" then the that policy would dictate that Golan Heights are similarly colored light green. Please state your opinion in that discussion. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 20:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the decision by Crimea. They had a vote in Crimea itself, Russia is annexing and Ukraine removed there troops acknowledging defeat. Wikipedia is not the government. Wikipedia does not have the right to decide how things should be rather how they are in practice. Crimea for all practical purposes is no longer acting as part of Ukraine none of the parties directly involved will argue other wise. The Ukrainians may think this is unfortunate but they understand unless and until anything changes Crimea is not part of Ukraine. Golan Heights is the same thing in that regard for all practical purposes is part of Israel no matter how little Syria likes is. Since when did Wikipedia become the prosecuter in world diplomacy? YonahR ( talk) 01:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The Israeli census doesn't count or differentiate between the different Jewish ethnic groups, and it only lists country of origin (the countries of origins themselves don't determine which ethnic group the immigrants belonged - e.g. large numbers of Mountain Jews immigrated from Russia, and the majority of French Jews are Mizrahi), so what he has added to the lede is known to be an unsupported claim (it's regularly discussed that the information is deliberately made inaccessible by the government). Moreever, at least 35% of Israelis are also of mixed ethnicity (between those groups), so the differentiation between the Jewish ethnic groups in the lede doesn't make any sense, since it implies that these are separate groups, when they are substantially inter-married in Israel.
And even then, the edits are highly confusing and illiterate. The edits seem to imply that there are only three Jewish ethnic groups? And the edits claim there are more Bedouin and Druzim, than Ethiopian Jews or Yemenite Jews (neither of whom are listed, even though they are both larger groups). Avaya1 ( talk) 01:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
This article from The Guardian caught my eye: Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups-- Other Choices ( talk) 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
new president has ben elected today, Jun 10 2014: Reuven Rivlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.145.121 ( talk) 12:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This should be changed slightly; Eichmann was not executed by an Israeli court, he was sentenced to death by an Israeli court, and the execution was (I presume) carried out by the prison service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.239.197 ( talk) 23:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Although the editors on this talk page are unlikely to engage in anything less than polite discussion, this Yellow Smiley will nonetheless serve as a reminder for any future editors who may occasionally be tempted to lapse. Courtesy of the Random Smiley Project.
Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) ( talk) 19:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:AmirSurfLera, re your last edit comment, see Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries#Egypt. As it explans, the vast majority of Jews in 20th century Egypt were not "Egyptian Jews" by ancestry or nationality / citizenship. Of those who were known to have been expelled post the suez crisis, more than 90% were British or French (per the figures in Laskier). Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Israel is not a state. There are Jews in Palestine who call themselves Israelis. This self-proclaimed Israelis stealing the Palestinians their country. 109.91.154.207 ( talk) 01:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Israel actually has 4th, not 3rd, highest standard of living in Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaxovskiy ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Sirs,
It is well known in the occult world, that the Star of David stands for the Hindu Occult of Astral worship and crytal gazing as noted in the well known text of L.W. De Lawrence published in 1909 in multiple nations, of which I am sure Hitler himself accessed as he was an occultist wearing the swastica of Theosophists. Please present this accurately on this webpage, so that the lay non occult person can annotate this in their life an act accordingly. As Wikemedia, is after the name of Witchcraft, the least you could do is represnt what you stand for in truth being the basers of free encyclopedic information after the cyclopedes. I am not about to end my sitation with the mark of a stupid slithering serpent.
Sincerely,
Melissa
173.58.100.70 ( talk) 22:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This sounds like a
WP:fringe theory to me. —
Mr. Granger (
talk ·
contribs)
23:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)This
edit request to
Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm requesting an edit to the uncompleted definition of Israel,it is said,in its article,that "Israel is a country" which signifies to any visitor that is a state recognized by all countries of the world,unfortunately that's logically a false statement,the truth statement must declare clearly that Israel is only recognized by 160 country out of 192 around the world (reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel),so in order to keep the trust given by our readers and visitors,we should add/modify an/the information that shows the fact mentioned above,concerning the international recognition,in the definition,otherwise,it would be considered as a biased article in favour of Israel,therefore,the content of Wiki will be doubted,reviewed and critically analysed,moreover,the public opinion about our reliability will be negatively influencing visitors,as a result,the Wiki Traffic will decrease which will lead eventually the Wikimedia Foundation to collapse and to be considered as unreliable source of information. Larossi ( talk) 04:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the {{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
Arjayay (
talk)
07:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The claim that the population of the Palestinian mandate was 33% Jewish at the end of the war leads to a empty page. Please remove this claim or preferably replace with accurate claim citing a reliable source. Thanks. Pnuwb ( talk) 00:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm just trying to read this straight through, but it looks like a sentence was either removed or awkwardly re-arranged to form this non-sequitur:
What's supposed to be going on here? 216.164.56.98 ( talk) 00:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
"Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem (if East Jerusalem is included) is the country's most populous city and its designated capital."
If East Jerusalem is included? Why wouldn't it be included? If you want to allude to the controversy why don't you allude to the controversy? I would remove that (if East Jerusalem is included part).
I also do not see the importance of listing Tel Aviv. It's the financial center. Why don't you mention Nazreth as the second most populous city? If you want to mention Tel Aviv I would probably mention that it is the city that that hosts foreign embassies. I'm curios why that isn't mentioned actually. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 06:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It will need a source. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
"Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, [1] while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally the Jerusalem section of the city is not considered to be a part of Israel. [note 1] [2] [3]"- Proposed change in relation to all of the sources involved. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 01:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
lol Ya that's much better. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv,[20] while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel." is what it has been changed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialjoepsycho ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Kattan is just one scholar. The issue is far more nuanced and complex than this. See for example "Whither Jerusalem?: Proposals and Positions Concerning the Future of Jerusalem", by renown scholars of international law such as Prof. Ruth Lapitdot. In particualr, pages 15-17, quoting Lauterpucht, Gruhin and Cassese. Avusi nabusi ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Again (if East Jerusalem is included).... Why wouldn't it be included? If there is no point in having here why it wouldn't be included then there is no point in even mentioning it here in the first place. The more nuanced positions in the article will cover that ground as well. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi again - I don't see what conclusions could be drawn from the map, this is a nuanced diplomatic issue. The accompanying text certainly doesn't suggest that the map implies any kind of recognition, it rather says the opposite: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question". Concerning the UK doc, see my earlier comment. Your suggestion, however, is quite good. How about amending it to "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Palestine and Israel's designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." This would avoid saying the city is "Israel's". -- Dailycare ( talk) 19:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Sean and Dailycare: Lets keep up the good work. The current proposal is "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Palestine and Israel's designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." It think saying that Jerusalem is "in Palestine" does comprise POV, while saying that is "in Israel" papers over the EJ issue (though it says nothing about the capital issue). How about we turn to the pre-February text: "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Israel (if East Jerusalem is taken into account) and its designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." De facto control plus lack of contested claims amounts to a region being "part of" a country. The 1949 Armistice is now in effect 65 years with little int'l and scholarly hostility to Israel's claim there, just a forbearance on recognition of de jure contorl until resolution of EJ and 1967 war. Former US presidents speak there; the final status negotiations with PLO since 1988 have never proposed WJ to Palestine. Jonmayer18 ( talk) 19:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
(Sean: Respectfully, for me, for Benji to say that Jerusalem is clearly part of Israel is not "behaving this way" any more than one who identies with the Palestinian cause is "behaving that way" when s/he says that Jerusalem is in Palestine. Each person considers different sources to be authoritative. The 10 year debtate on wikipedia ended, but history moves on and facts may change. I'm responding to a Feb 2014 revision (one that drew an "lol" from a supporter of one side here). Lets achieve neutrality in this sentence. It's important. Jonmayer18 ( talk) 20:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I made a little change since I noticed that West Jerusalem is inside Israel's recognized borders.-- AmirSurfLera ( talk) 01:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
With regards to the "Jerusalem/Tel Aviv" discussion, could we please edit the Israel wiki page to show that the capital of the country is De Facto Jerusalem and De Jure Tel Aviv, as this is the case. Hence why 9/10 embassies are located in Tel Aviv. Thanks. 81.103.224.22 ( talk) 00:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#RfC: Should "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and "Arab-Israeli conflict" be merged?. Oncenawhile ( talk) 16:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
"Israel is a country in the Middle East". The term Middle East has been criticized as implicitly Eurocentric. [1] [2] (East of where? In the Middle of what? Of course East to Europe rather than West in Asia) It is usually used by by Western press almost synonymously with the term “Arab world”. Israel is not part of the Arab world but it is still often considered part of this region. The other term used to define this region (and the more politically correct one) is Western Asia (instead of saying the region is "east" to Europe as in "Middle East" there's a reference to its location within the continent of Asia. That's why it says on the page Lebanon that "Lebanon is a country in Western Asia". Same in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. None of the pages of Western Asian countries start this way. From some reason someone decided to include this term (Middle East) only in this page. I've changed it back to Western Asia but it was reverted by Calton.-- Abtalion ( talk) 12:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Israeli-Russian relations are arguably significant and worth discussing on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC01:2CC0:2511:4815:32F:C9FB ( talk) 05:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The article states: "The Jewish Legion, a group primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine in 1917." The impression I have is that the policy followed was to avoid using the Jewish Legion in Palestine in the First World War. The Wikipedia article on the Jewish Legion seems to indicate that it's involvement was restricted to fighting in the Jordan Valley, but that was in 1918, not 1917. Therefore I have added a citation needed tag. It's rather incredible that the section makes no mention of the real reasons why the UK, or, at least, a number of pivotal politicians including Lloyd George and Balfour, backed the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which centred around the efforts of British Zionists such as Weizmann and Herbert Samuel, but it mentions the Jewish Legion, which was really of no importance to any of the outcomes (the Legion was small, had difficulty recruiting non-British Jews residing in the UK and it was foisted on the army only after extensive lobbying by Jabotinsky) unless you count developments in Revisionist Zionism. That is, the way it is mentioned here exagerrates its WEIGHT. ← ZScarpia 13:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change: "Israel has the highest ratio of defense spending to GDP and as a percentage of the budget of all developed countries. [1] [2]"
To: Israel has one of the highest ratio of defense spendings to GDP of all developed countries, only topped by Oman. [3] [4]
Reason: GDP claim was wrong. Percentage of the budget is wrong and topped by many. Therefore removed. Haaretz source removed due to wrong claims. Aykitev ( talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
The first paragraph under "Science and technology" says "Israel's eight public universities are subsidized by the state. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel's oldest university, houses the Jewish National and University Library, the world's largest repository of books on Jewish subjects." However a quick check ( List of Israeli universities and colleges) shows that:
Am I missing something? -- CyberXRef talk 05:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
It's probably time someone updated these. 109.186.29.25 ( talk) 13:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Roy
Well 1912 and 1925. Thanks for the clarification. I will look for some references and update that section. -- CyberXRef talk 16:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
where it says state of israel add dawlat israeil under it 79.177.138.167 ( talk) 16:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
While it does not say dawlat israeil specifically as you have written it, it does say دولة إِسرائيل as Sean has pointed out. Also it says Dawlat Isrāʼīl and the Pronunciation [dawlat ʔisraːˈʔiːl]. In addition to it in Arabic it also has it in Hebrew. I don't see the purpose for your change exactly since it seems already included. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 19:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
You forgot to mention the Druze, Bedouin and Circassians in the ethnic groups. 213.57.32.206 ( talk) 21:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
If *my* country was dependent on another for the funding of its military, and I was a credible politician, I would be advocating ways for my country to become self-sufficient. Do Israelis simply not care how dependent on the US they are? Is that why Netanyahu doesn't have to advocate Israeli military independence? Why isn't this viewpoint discussed in the article? - 75.57.5.160 ( talk) 17:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The section Israel#Sports contains the following formulation:
In common parlance, teams or individual atheletes compete and play against each other. Playing "with" each other is far less common. Please adjust to:
Thank you! -- 89.0.205.5 ( talk) 23:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not really a correction. Play with has the same meaning. The usage is also common. You'll see it more in an informal setting, how ever. Pick up games for instance. Games like chess which is listed as a sport in the sports section can be played with. The change is fine however.
The thing striking to me is that the article used as a source does not include anything about the 1978 Asian games. This article along with other sources seem to point to Israel's exclusion being related to security concerns: http://www.jta.org/1976/07/26/archive/israel-barred-from-asian-games It seems to me a reliable source would be more necessary than this change. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 12:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Security and how to pay for it is a part of the political front. While I'm not opposed to including the questions of the real reason for the exclsuion it should be pointed out that the reason for expulsion was the security concerns. I'll make that change when I can get to it as I'm involved in something else out the moment. However anyone feel free to make that change with the above sources from the IP if they can get to it. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 20:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Some users have cited the General Assembly resolution that recognizes a state of Palestine in order to make edits that Israel shares borders with Palestine. Resolutions of the General Assembly are not binding, even at the United Nations. The United Nations Charter makes clear that only the Security Council can recognize states. (An editor made a baseless and unexplained accusation of "Palestine denialism" in his/her edit summary, which is completely unprofessional and non-collegial). Greater explanation of Israel's borders, the West Bank's borders, the status of Israeli–Palestinian negotiations, and Palestinian statehood is already included in the article, and in many cases already in the lead. We need not POV push when discussing which entities it currently shares a border with.
In addition, these territories are controlled by separate entities, with Hamas in effective control of the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority (along with the Israeli military) controlling the West Bank. The World Factbook has no entry on the Palestinian territories; it has entries each for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. See its map of Israel and its neighbors here. Most maps likewise name those territories as such. For the sake of neutrality and readability, the article states that Israel shares its border with the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Symbolic UN recognition, though significant, is a side issue here. No mainstream news source systematically refers to the territory as the state of Palestine. For more information, see this article, explaining how "the gap between the symbolic U.N. nod and the reality on the ground remains wide." Indeed, mainstream news reports and comments by government officials all indicate that a Palestinian state has not yet been established. See examples below, all published after the symbolic UN nod:
-- Precision123 ( talk) 09:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you perhaps point the section of of The UN charter that allows only the UNSC to recognize statehood? Do you perhaps mean that the UNSC is responsible for admitting new states as active members of the UN? Maps are made by map makers. The Indian Government has map makers put disputed territories of the Kashmir conflict into India while Pakistan does the same. Further States cover 80% of the worlds population recognize the state of Palestine diplomatically. That is their state departments by what ever name their state departments have. I can't think of any reason to remove it as it is. The only justifiable reason would be that none of the sources used are reliable to assert this claim. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 22:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually you don't need to mention East Jerusalem apart from the West Bank. Only thru illegal means did Israel gain East Jerusalem. I'd call it annexation but have yet to actual attempt de jure annexation. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Also other than being UN members these individuals recognize Palestine separately from the UN. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/sep/20/palestinain-state-israel-un-interactive That was before a request for UN membership and as In recall the change in sttus vote. That's representatives of 80% of the Worlds population. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 22:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Last, assuming arguendo that all this were the opposite, we would need several WP:reliable sources to substantiate the claim explicitly that Israel is bordered by Palestine. Per WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Thus, it is not enough to state, which you have done so, that reliable sources refer to the territory as Palestine. (Indeed, they all continue to refer to it as the Palestinian territories.) We would need reliable sources that stay explicitly that Israel shares a border with Palestine. From reliable sources:
We should follow the examples of other reliable and encyclopedic sources. I encourage a move back to West Bank and Gaza Strip. -- Precision123 ( talk) 17:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Your sources here forgo even the mention of a border with the Palestinian territories. These are internationally recognized borders. I'm not aware of any wikipedia policy that says that we should copy other encyclopedias. To follow the example of these sources we would have to forgo the mention of Gaza or a West Bank border all together. Let's not call them Encyclopedic sources. Let's use the term Tertiary source. All of the sources you use above are tertiary other than the Washington post. I see no reason to remove mention of the state of Palestine based on your arguments. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 20:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Tertiary sources can be used to provide broad summaries. It's a rather narrow summary however that the State of Palestine doesn't exist. Further those tertiary sources fail to offer that broad summary. With your usage these sources can in no way be considered reliable. One thing that is unclean though is if you are still also trying to remove mention of the Palestinian Territories as the Palestinian territories or have you decided that only the State of Palestine should be removed? Interesting Ramallah, West Bank? I guess Nashville, Tennessee isn't a part of the United States. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-v-whitbeck/the-state-of-palestine-ex_b_2431690.html John V Whitbeck views which he has posted in numerous publications. Need I also point out the Constitutive theory of Statehood? Governments 80% of the worlds population recognize the state of Palestine. The Majority of Governments of the World recognize the state of Palestine. 134 UN members have independently of the UN recognized the State of Palestine is what that means. 2 great powers are among those, Russia and China. For a state not to exist it seems to strangely exist. Again I see no reason to change this. The entity Known as the "State of Palestine" claims sovereignty over the Palestinian territories. With the exception of East Jerusalem (which is disputed) Israel has no claims over the Palestinian territories. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 18:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
1) Your are arguing for a negative. Your sources are reliable because of what they don't say as opposed to what they do say is your argument. Sorry I don't see why I should give such an argument any weight. I can't help but consider this original research. So if you don't mind I'll jut go ahead and ignore it. 2)So there's a book of rules that tell them how to write specific things? ......... 3)Those would actually be a secondary source. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/sep/20/palestinain-state-israel-un-interactive The Guardian isn't a Primary source. It's a secondary source. Governments that represent 80% of the worlds population and it's from a reliable publication.
The question was whether or not you now feel mention of Palestinian territories should be removed and not whether you think Gaza and the West Bank should be included. I see no reason to remove either. The State of Palestine exists. This is the official position of the majority of the world. We should avoid it because it makes a minority of people feel politically uncomfortable? I think I'll go ahead and pass on that. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 23:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Precision123:Reuters recognizes the State of Palestine as a De Facto state on the basis of that UN vote as many other sources do. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121130 The Guardian has provide a map of States that offer de jure recognition of the state of Palestine and these are the majority of States. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/sep/20/palestinain-state-israel-un-interactive I know all about style manuals. Do not misrepresent what I said. I did not say "the name of the place after the comma was not usually the name of the country." I in fact insinuated that was not always the case. Since WP:BALL Wikipedia is not a crystalball I have no way to know how the New York Times Style guide will change when Palestine meets the NYT definition of statehood. So if I'd just prefer to ignore that irrelevant information. In real terms a sovereign Palestinian state remains as elusive? As elusive as the landless Sovereign State Known as the Holy See. Allow to refer you back to Sean.hoyland's final statement above. I've provided reliable secondary sources. You just don't like them. Palestine is a recognized State. If you would like to make a note to point out that only the majority of States, 134 of 193 states, recognize the State of Palestine go ahead. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Precision123:There won't be any dispute resolution. It has ended due to unwilling participation. You don't understand Reuters recognizing De facto statehood? I'm unsure of how I can help you with that. The words in the article seem pretty clear to me. Do you need more sources of a de facto recognition? I'm not familiar with the international law that requires the recognition of news papers before one becomes a state. Could you give me a source for that? Russia recognizes The State of Palestine. As do the Majority of other states. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 19:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Importantly, it says "Palestinian territories," not Palestine, as even a possible option for a name. Reliable secondary sources are in agreement. -- Precision123 ( talk) 23:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)When we are dealing with material from disputed territories, we often name the place regionally, rather than by country, to avoid appearing to ‘take sides’ in our country names. For example – GAZA, JERUSALEM, or WEST BANK rather than ISRAEL or PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES. For a mix of any of the above we say: MIDEAST.
@ Precision123: De facto Here's an article on what de facto means. And take a moment and look at your argument. I really can't help but laugh. What Reuters article does equal is that Reuters does recognize is a De Facto statehood from this matter. You move then to an article on De Jure recognition. While doing this you ignore the ignore the De jure recogniztion by 130+ states (the majority to states). Then you mention Reuters style guide. You ignore "When we are dealing with material from disputed territories, we often name the place regionally, rather than by country, to avoid appearing to ‘take sides’ in our country names." Then mention hey guys they said Palestinian Territories. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Precision123: Facts? You mean reliable sources? The facts are that the existence of the state of Palestine is disputed. Dispute resolution? You can mention that the existence of Palestine is disputed. I recommend one of those reference notes. Beyond that all I'm going to do to resolve this dispute is tell you to make your case. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 01:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Precision123:I have established my case with reliable sources. The State of Palestine is a recognized State. I do not disagree that your reliable sources say that the state of Palestine is not a recognized state. What this proves is the Status of Palestine is disputed. You and others? Where? I just see you in this conversation saying the State of Palestine should be removed. The others I see are saying it shouldn't be removed.I have cooperated in this. I have been the one making sure you have been aware that a conversation is still taking place thru WP:ECHO. I am the one of us two that has offered a compromise. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 22:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
So now there is a state of Palestine but it doesn't border Israel. I suggest it remains the same and and source note is used to say there is disputed territory. Specifically the East Jerusalem portion of the West Bank is in dispute. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 02:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware that dispute resolution is not between editors that agree. I don't agree with you. You don't agree with me. We however aren't the only parties concerned. The last attempt as dispute resolution was full of idiocy. The mediator was unable to deal with it before I came there to sign up. And with that since I am in no why required to take part in informal dispute resolution I will not be taking part in it when it is ran like that. I have always been warmed to dispute resolution. I'm just not warm to an organized exercise in futility. You can either get everyone else on board for an informal mediation process or find a formal binding mediation process. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 06:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This way we also avoid the run-on sentence. Should be good. Best, -- Precision123 ( talk) 23:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)It shares land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) to the east and southwest, Egypt and the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea to the south. It contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area.
That's great and all except for the fact that you remove the state of Palestine. "Oh look it's not a run on sentence now." Don't insult my intelligence. This conversation is over. If you would like to go and attempt formal binding mediation go ahead. If you make this change it will likely be reverted. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 00:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
All BCE and CE references be changed to BC and AD. Lord of the Rinks ( talk) 21:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This seems slanted: "In 2012, Israel proper was ranked 92nd according to Reporters Without Borders' Press Freedom Index – the highest ranking in the region.[198]" I didn't see the source saying that. The definition of "region" is debatable--Kuwait is ranked higher than Israel by that source. It's rather odd to pick a single positive thing to say about a 92nd ranking, rather than pointing out any of 91 negatives (e.g. "worse than so-and-so", "worst among developed nations", etc.). It would be more neutral to cite the fact, and let readers follow up with their own comparisons if they wish. Minorview ( talk) 19:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
While Palestinians live in the area of the district Judea and Samaria, which is most of the West Bank, they should not be counted in the population figure of that district because they are not part of that district officially. This is clear but here is a link to Population, by District, Sub-District and Religion by the Israeli CBS that shows this. This is accurately reflected at Districts of Israel and Judea and Samaria Area. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 21:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change:
to
<ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).Aliyahwisdom ( talk) 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bwater-technology\.net\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a policy discussion going on at Talk:Russia#Request for Comment regarding the coloring of Crimea on the Russia location map that also may affect this article. My comment there:
If Crimea were colored light green as "disputed territory" then the that policy would dictate that Golan Heights are similarly colored light green. Please state your opinion in that discussion. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 20:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the decision by Crimea. They had a vote in Crimea itself, Russia is annexing and Ukraine removed there troops acknowledging defeat. Wikipedia is not the government. Wikipedia does not have the right to decide how things should be rather how they are in practice. Crimea for all practical purposes is no longer acting as part of Ukraine none of the parties directly involved will argue other wise. The Ukrainians may think this is unfortunate but they understand unless and until anything changes Crimea is not part of Ukraine. Golan Heights is the same thing in that regard for all practical purposes is part of Israel no matter how little Syria likes is. Since when did Wikipedia become the prosecuter in world diplomacy? YonahR ( talk) 01:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The Israeli census doesn't count or differentiate between the different Jewish ethnic groups, and it only lists country of origin (the countries of origins themselves don't determine which ethnic group the immigrants belonged - e.g. large numbers of Mountain Jews immigrated from Russia, and the majority of French Jews are Mizrahi), so what he has added to the lede is known to be an unsupported claim (it's regularly discussed that the information is deliberately made inaccessible by the government). Moreever, at least 35% of Israelis are also of mixed ethnicity (between those groups), so the differentiation between the Jewish ethnic groups in the lede doesn't make any sense, since it implies that these are separate groups, when they are substantially inter-married in Israel.
And even then, the edits are highly confusing and illiterate. The edits seem to imply that there are only three Jewish ethnic groups? And the edits claim there are more Bedouin and Druzim, than Ethiopian Jews or Yemenite Jews (neither of whom are listed, even though they are both larger groups). Avaya1 ( talk) 01:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
This article from The Guardian caught my eye: Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups-- Other Choices ( talk) 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
new president has ben elected today, Jun 10 2014: Reuven Rivlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.145.121 ( talk) 12:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This should be changed slightly; Eichmann was not executed by an Israeli court, he was sentenced to death by an Israeli court, and the execution was (I presume) carried out by the prison service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.239.197 ( talk) 23:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Although the editors on this talk page are unlikely to engage in anything less than polite discussion, this Yellow Smiley will nonetheless serve as a reminder for any future editors who may occasionally be tempted to lapse. Courtesy of the Random Smiley Project.
Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) ( talk) 19:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:AmirSurfLera, re your last edit comment, see Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries#Egypt. As it explans, the vast majority of Jews in 20th century Egypt were not "Egyptian Jews" by ancestry or nationality / citizenship. Of those who were known to have been expelled post the suez crisis, more than 90% were British or French (per the figures in Laskier). Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Israel is not a state. There are Jews in Palestine who call themselves Israelis. This self-proclaimed Israelis stealing the Palestinians their country. 109.91.154.207 ( talk) 01:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Israel actually has 4th, not 3rd, highest standard of living in Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaxovskiy ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Sirs,
It is well known in the occult world, that the Star of David stands for the Hindu Occult of Astral worship and crytal gazing as noted in the well known text of L.W. De Lawrence published in 1909 in multiple nations, of which I am sure Hitler himself accessed as he was an occultist wearing the swastica of Theosophists. Please present this accurately on this webpage, so that the lay non occult person can annotate this in their life an act accordingly. As Wikemedia, is after the name of Witchcraft, the least you could do is represnt what you stand for in truth being the basers of free encyclopedic information after the cyclopedes. I am not about to end my sitation with the mark of a stupid slithering serpent.
Sincerely,
Melissa
173.58.100.70 ( talk) 22:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This sounds like a
WP:fringe theory to me. —
Mr. Granger (
talk ·
contribs)
23:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)This
edit request to
Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm requesting an edit to the uncompleted definition of Israel,it is said,in its article,that "Israel is a country" which signifies to any visitor that is a state recognized by all countries of the world,unfortunately that's logically a false statement,the truth statement must declare clearly that Israel is only recognized by 160 country out of 192 around the world (reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel),so in order to keep the trust given by our readers and visitors,we should add/modify an/the information that shows the fact mentioned above,concerning the international recognition,in the definition,otherwise,it would be considered as a biased article in favour of Israel,therefore,the content of Wiki will be doubted,reviewed and critically analysed,moreover,the public opinion about our reliability will be negatively influencing visitors,as a result,the Wiki Traffic will decrease which will lead eventually the Wikimedia Foundation to collapse and to be considered as unreliable source of information. Larossi ( talk) 04:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the {{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
Arjayay (
talk)
07:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The claim that the population of the Palestinian mandate was 33% Jewish at the end of the war leads to a empty page. Please remove this claim or preferably replace with accurate claim citing a reliable source. Thanks. Pnuwb ( talk) 00:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm just trying to read this straight through, but it looks like a sentence was either removed or awkwardly re-arranged to form this non-sequitur:
What's supposed to be going on here? 216.164.56.98 ( talk) 00:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
"Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem (if East Jerusalem is included) is the country's most populous city and its designated capital."
If East Jerusalem is included? Why wouldn't it be included? If you want to allude to the controversy why don't you allude to the controversy? I would remove that (if East Jerusalem is included part).
I also do not see the importance of listing Tel Aviv. It's the financial center. Why don't you mention Nazreth as the second most populous city? If you want to mention Tel Aviv I would probably mention that it is the city that that hosts foreign embassies. I'm curios why that isn't mentioned actually. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 06:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It will need a source. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
"Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, [1] while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally the Jerusalem section of the city is not considered to be a part of Israel. [note 1] [2] [3]"- Proposed change in relation to all of the sources involved. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 01:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
lol Ya that's much better. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv,[20] while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel." is what it has been changed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialjoepsycho ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Kattan is just one scholar. The issue is far more nuanced and complex than this. See for example "Whither Jerusalem?: Proposals and Positions Concerning the Future of Jerusalem", by renown scholars of international law such as Prof. Ruth Lapitdot. In particualr, pages 15-17, quoting Lauterpucht, Gruhin and Cassese. Avusi nabusi ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Again (if East Jerusalem is included).... Why wouldn't it be included? If there is no point in having here why it wouldn't be included then there is no point in even mentioning it here in the first place. The more nuanced positions in the article will cover that ground as well. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi again - I don't see what conclusions could be drawn from the map, this is a nuanced diplomatic issue. The accompanying text certainly doesn't suggest that the map implies any kind of recognition, it rather says the opposite: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question". Concerning the UK doc, see my earlier comment. Your suggestion, however, is quite good. How about amending it to "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Palestine and Israel's designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." This would avoid saying the city is "Israel's". -- Dailycare ( talk) 19:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Sean and Dailycare: Lets keep up the good work. The current proposal is "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Palestine and Israel's designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." It think saying that Jerusalem is "in Palestine" does comprise POV, while saying that is "in Israel" papers over the EJ issue (though it says nothing about the capital issue). How about we turn to the pre-February text: "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Israel (if East Jerusalem is taken into account) and its designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." De facto control plus lack of contested claims amounts to a region being "part of" a country. The 1949 Armistice is now in effect 65 years with little int'l and scholarly hostility to Israel's claim there, just a forbearance on recognition of de jure contorl until resolution of EJ and 1967 war. Former US presidents speak there; the final status negotiations with PLO since 1988 have never proposed WJ to Palestine. Jonmayer18 ( talk) 19:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
(Sean: Respectfully, for me, for Benji to say that Jerusalem is clearly part of Israel is not "behaving this way" any more than one who identies with the Palestinian cause is "behaving that way" when s/he says that Jerusalem is in Palestine. Each person considers different sources to be authoritative. The 10 year debtate on wikipedia ended, but history moves on and facts may change. I'm responding to a Feb 2014 revision (one that drew an "lol" from a supporter of one side here). Lets achieve neutrality in this sentence. It's important. Jonmayer18 ( talk) 20:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I made a little change since I noticed that West Jerusalem is inside Israel's recognized borders.-- AmirSurfLera ( talk) 01:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
With regards to the "Jerusalem/Tel Aviv" discussion, could we please edit the Israel wiki page to show that the capital of the country is De Facto Jerusalem and De Jure Tel Aviv, as this is the case. Hence why 9/10 embassies are located in Tel Aviv. Thanks. 81.103.224.22 ( talk) 00:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#RfC: Should "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and "Arab-Israeli conflict" be merged?. Oncenawhile ( talk) 16:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
"Israel is a country in the Middle East". The term Middle East has been criticized as implicitly Eurocentric. [1] [2] (East of where? In the Middle of what? Of course East to Europe rather than West in Asia) It is usually used by by Western press almost synonymously with the term “Arab world”. Israel is not part of the Arab world but it is still often considered part of this region. The other term used to define this region (and the more politically correct one) is Western Asia (instead of saying the region is "east" to Europe as in "Middle East" there's a reference to its location within the continent of Asia. That's why it says on the page Lebanon that "Lebanon is a country in Western Asia". Same in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. None of the pages of Western Asian countries start this way. From some reason someone decided to include this term (Middle East) only in this page. I've changed it back to Western Asia but it was reverted by Calton.-- Abtalion ( talk) 12:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Israeli-Russian relations are arguably significant and worth discussing on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC01:2CC0:2511:4815:32F:C9FB ( talk) 05:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The article states: "The Jewish Legion, a group primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine in 1917." The impression I have is that the policy followed was to avoid using the Jewish Legion in Palestine in the First World War. The Wikipedia article on the Jewish Legion seems to indicate that it's involvement was restricted to fighting in the Jordan Valley, but that was in 1918, not 1917. Therefore I have added a citation needed tag. It's rather incredible that the section makes no mention of the real reasons why the UK, or, at least, a number of pivotal politicians including Lloyd George and Balfour, backed the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which centred around the efforts of British Zionists such as Weizmann and Herbert Samuel, but it mentions the Jewish Legion, which was really of no importance to any of the outcomes (the Legion was small, had difficulty recruiting non-British Jews residing in the UK and it was foisted on the army only after extensive lobbying by Jabotinsky) unless you count developments in Revisionist Zionism. That is, the way it is mentioned here exagerrates its WEIGHT. ← ZScarpia 13:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change: "Israel has the highest ratio of defense spending to GDP and as a percentage of the budget of all developed countries. [1] [2]"
To: Israel has one of the highest ratio of defense spendings to GDP of all developed countries, only topped by Oman. [3] [4]
Reason: GDP claim was wrong. Percentage of the budget is wrong and topped by many. Therefore removed. Haaretz source removed due to wrong claims. Aykitev ( talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).