Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:33, 17 April 2022

Template:Vital article

view · edit Frequently asked questions Why is Jerusalem listed as Israel's capital in the infobox? Israel declares Jerusalem to be its capital, and has its seat of government there. However, the lack of international recognition is notable, hence the subtext was added "(limited recognition)" as the result of this RfC. For further information see Status of Jerusalem.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Israel. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Israel at the Reference desk.

	Israel is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2007 Good article nominee Listed September 4, 2007 Peer review Reviewed September 30, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted June 23, 2010 Featured article review Demoted April 20, 2012 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Western Asia: Israel Top‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Israel (assessed as Top-importance). Template:WP1.0 Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Shabi, Rachel; Kiss, Jemima (18 August 2010). "Misplaced Pages editing courses launched by Zionist groups". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 December 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013.

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 74 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 8 times. The weeks in which this happened: July 13 to 19, 2014 (14th) July 20 to 26, 2014 (9th) July 27 to August 2, 2014 (12th) August 3 to 9, 2014 (25th) July 2 to 8, 2017 (10th) December 3 to 9, 2017 (5th) May 9 to 15, 2021 (4th) May 16 to 22, 2021 (5th)

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109

Israel and the Occupied Territories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 See also Talk:Jerusalem/capital

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2022. >Add 6.5 Real Estate under 6 Economy<Add_6.5_Real_Esta-2022-01-26T14:06:00.000Z">

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

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Add_6.5_Real_Esta"> Add_6.5_Real_Esta">

@ScottishFinnishRadish: actually, we did apply the change (and then fixed it a bit). See discussion bellow. I did forget to mark the request as answered, though. “WarKosign” 20:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't clear what the end result was, and the last reply gave me the impression that the editor had the request open to use the link to their site. No worries though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Real EstateAdd_6.5_Real_Esta-2022-01-26T14:06:00.000Z">

Housing prices in Israel are listed in the top third, with an average of 150 salaries required to buy an apartment. As of 2022, there are about 2.7 million properties in Israel, with an annual increase of more than 50,000. However, the demand for housing exceeds supply, with a shortage of about 200,000 apartments as of 2021, and thus rising house prices. As a result, between 2020 and 2021 there was a significant increase of 10% on average in housing. High prices don’t stop Israelis from buying properties. In 2021, Israelis took a record of NIS 116.1 billion in mortgages, an increase of 50% from 2020. Graffz (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This section looks good to me, so if nobody objects I'll copy it tomorrow into the article. “WarKosign” 23:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Done“WarKosign” 20:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@WarKosignI have only one concern the ref to site bhii seems to me like spam of commerical site this account previously tried to promote it Shrike (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shrike: This seems a more reliable source, quoting CBS, but they only support 5.6% increase in the last year. Before I change, do you see any problem with it?“WarKosign” 09:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

No objections Shrike (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

1. "Housing prices". OECD.
2. "Average salary in Israel" (PDF). Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
3. "Dwellings and Buildings in Israel" (PDF). Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
4. Tsion, Hila (23 June 2021). "Housing crisis: about 200,000 apartments are missing". Ynet (in Hebrew).
5. "Post-Covid: Housing Prices in Israel". bhii.co.il. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
6. "Report on housing loans". Bank of Israel. Retrieved 26 January 2022.

@Shrike:@WarKosign: Yes, I am indeed guilty. First I did try to insert the link to the "Housing in Israel" article, however I felt it was a bad idea, so I spent a lot of time working on my article on bhii, using different resources, and finding out that the change was an average of 10% (8-12% depending on the city). You seem to think that I did this selfishly in order to promote my own website, and you probably will be right, although I did try to benefit the readers. Anyway, it's up to you whether keep the link, or remove itGraffz (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Note on annexation in lead

I have made a clarifying edit in the lead that replaced the words: "...extended its civil law" with "...effectively annexed" in relation to East Jerusalem in the Golan Heights. This is for two reasons: annexation was not previously mentioned, though this effective annexation is reflected in the article and obviously of a high-profile and important nature. Two, the precise way in which civil law has been extended to these areas is highly ambiguous, as well as not all discussed in the articles, making it a violation of MOS:LEAD. This edit has been contested, and one of the reasons was that the lead as is was likely arrived at as the result of consensus, but I searched the talk archives, and the only pertinent discussion that I could find was this one, where replacing "extended its civil law" with "annexed" was already discussed and the consensus was in fact indeed that "annexed" or "effectively annexed" was more appropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Did you not read this, or are you just WP:STONEWALLING by will of habit? My edit comments were clear with respect to Misplaced Pages guidelines, and I have further elaborated in this talk that my edit DID INDEED have pre-existing consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: At the moment I'm too tired to carefully consider the meaning of your change and your reasoning, so I don't know whether I support your cause or object to it. I am, however, certain that I object to edit warring and to violations of WP:1RR and WP:BRD. You started this discussion, now please give people a chance to respond. There is no rush to apply your change, if it is what is decided eventually. “WarKosign” 22:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

True, there is no rush, but the original edit comment provided for the revert of my guideline-based edit was so utterly nonsensical and in disregard of the guidelines that I felt compelled, in this instance, to immediately revert (just 1RR) in response. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: You are correct about MOS:LEAD, so something should be done about it. Some time ago, the body used to mention the "pipelining" of Israeli law. The sentence was:

The position of the majority of UN member states is reflected in numerous resolutions declaring that actions taken by Israel to settle its citizens in the West Bank, and impose its laws and administration on East Jerusalem, are illegal and have no validity.

The sentence was reworded and the mention removed from the body but not from the lede. If there's no further opposition, I think the rewording you proposed is fine. But I don't understand the rush. Gees. - Daveout(talk) 22:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any dispute over the fact that Israel applied its civil law to EJ. Just "annexation" won't do - Israel maintains that it did not annex EJ. We can say that many experts consider this application of the civil law to be effectively the same as annexation, but per WP:NPOV we should also present the opposing argument. I don't see any problem with the current sentense and prefer to keep it. If your concern is that application of law to EJ is not mentioned in the article - let's mention it, Israel#Further conflict and peace process already talks about Jerusalem Law, so it would be the proper place to add it. “WarKosign” 16:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Israeli Supreme Court has regarded EJ as annexed even since 1967. Example (I think it is not the only example), Justice Y. Kahan in 1970 ". . . As far as I am concerned, there is no need for any certificate from the Foreign Minister or from any administrative authority to determine that East Jerusalem. . . was annexed to the State of Israel and constitutes part of its territory. . . by means of these two enactments and consequently this area constitutes part of the territory of Israel." I don't think Israel's avoidance of the term changes the fact(domestically), a lot of RS describe either the 67 or the 80 events (or both) as annexation. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it is this potential discrepancy between the acknowledged reality of de facto annexation despite the possible lack of a formally 'certified' notice of annexation, etc. is what led Nableezy, in this earlier discussion to suggest the phrase "effectively annexed". As to the existing phrasing, I am not sure what it conveys ... what does the "extension of civil law" mean exactly? Is it just that? So civil law but not criminal or military law, etc.? And does that sentence sufficiently convey the full gamut of changes that have been brought about in this jurisdiction as part of the effective annexation of the area? "An extension of civil law" sounds overly reductive. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there is a lot of RS that many are of the opinion that Israel annexed EJ. This still doesn't make it a fact, and thus per NPOV we must attribute the opinions to their holders and perhaps balance it with the opposing opinion. Then we are running into the WP:UNDUE territory, with too much detail given to this subject in the lead. What is wrong with extending the law, again? “WarKosign” 19:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

You say there is an opposing opinion, I would be interested to see that, can you give me a reference? The comment you just made could be applied equally to extending the law ie there are those who say that's what it is and those who do not etc etc. You might also wish to give your opinion at the move discussion at Reunification of Jerusalem where, if it is moved, it will solve this problem in that we can then just wikilink it. Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's one. “WarKosign” 19:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a 404, this is it (the archive link). Yes, there Lustick makes an argument that it has not been annexed (properly) but only after acknowledging, "Nonetheless, the widely held view, both in Israel and outside it, is that the State of Israel actually annexed East Jerusalem either in 1967 or in 1980, when the Knesset promulgated the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel and has fully asserted its sovereignty there." He makes no mention of the court decision and we have multiple sources dated later than this one asserting it is/was an annex. Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Two things are wrong with the existing phrase of "extending the civil war": first, the violation of MOS:LEAD by mentioning material not mentioned in the body text, and secondly, its lack of precision. As @Daveout noted, even the sentence in the body that this used to be based on referenced the imposition of laws (in general) AND administration in East Jerusalem, which would not adequately summarized (even if it was still in the body) by just "extending civil laws". Cutting it altogether is an alternative. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@WarKosign If the Supreme Court has issued an interpretation that says it is in effect an annexation and EJ is a part of Israel, we have the highest legal authority in the country stating that, legally, annexation is the correct description of events. How much more factual can it actually get? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems you need two things, official proclamation or not, taking of territory and application of seizor's law in the seized territory. I am OK with the expression "effective annexation" ie for all practical purposes it is an annexation even if all the i's have not been dotted and all the t's not crossed.Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think "applying the law" version is better, for the reason I stated above. Effective annexaction is acceptable, so if there isn't any strong objection from anyone else let's have it your way. “WarKosign” 21:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that everyone now seems at least ok with a wording along the lines of "effectively annexed", and that this is know the second time this wording has achieved a consensus in a talk page discussion, I will make the change if further objections are not forthcoming. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Ofra Friesel (May 2016). "Law and History Review". 34 (2): 363–391. doi:10.1017/S0738248016000031. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
2. Lustick, Ian (1997). "Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?". Middle East Policy. 5 (1): 34–45. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4967.1997.tb00247.x. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 November 2009. Retrieved 14 June 2013.

limited recognition

I know the visitors of this page are pretty much a bloc so this is unlikely to get anywhere but the "limited recognition" in the infobox is the apex of euphemisms. A couple dozen countries would be "limited recognition" not THREE COUNTRIES. That's less than even Abkhazia and South Ossetia. An immediate UN resolution backed by 128 countries promptly proclaimed the move to be retarded. I think it used to say "internationally unrecognized" but then some good samaritan changed it when Trump did a Trump thing. I highly value what the regulars on this page would have to say about this. Surely they will carefully consider all sides of the issue instead of calling his opinion by a certain popular buzzword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:6E:B4EA:164:1793:5F4:AF12 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:6F:60F7:D909:1CFC:A9B9:7C0E (talk)

If anything, the recognition comment in the infobox should be removed. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel because Israel says so. It doesn't matter who recognizes this fact: Capital city "is the municipality holding primary status in a country ... usually as its seat of the government". International recognition is not a part of definition of a capital city. “WarKosign” 19:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Palestine says EJ is their capital, better put that in as well, then :) Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

SoP artice actually does say that Jerusalem is their proclaimed captial. They are fully within their rights to proclaim whatever they want. “WarKosign” 20:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Just joshing, capital is one thing, sovereignty is another, they are frequently confused. The infobox should deal with both issues don't u think? Selfstudier (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If that's true then why is it such big news when a country recognizes Jerusalem as their capital? Clearly it does matter what other countries think. And that's not how it works anyway. Saying a city is your capital means you claim it and place it within your borders. There's this thing in international law called territorial integrity that is violated by this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:6F:60F7:D909:1CFC:A9B9:7C0E (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, for example, the US has recognized Jerusalem as capital but at the same time has made clear that it does not mean recognition of sovereignty which remains a final status issue. It must be like that because internationally, East Jerusalem is classed as occupied. Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit

@Nableezy: can you point me to the consensus you are referring to? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Israel/Archive_80#new_paragraph_on_conflict_for_lead nableezy - 16:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Thanks. I didn’t notice that; looks like the discussion lasted 48 hours and had two supporters. A few things seem to have slipped through: (1) we now have instability amongst editors around how the Gaza Strip occupation is worded, whereas this had previously been stable for a long time – the footnotes were helpful to make this point clear and avoid endless circles; (2) the point about part of the West Bank being under Israeli law (i.e. more than just occupied) was lost; (3) the notablity of the occupation as the world’s longest was also lost. None of these points were discussed and I don’t think their removal has consensus.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A single supporter. Don't count me as one, I supported the first version before the bloat. “WarKosign” 17:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Just with regards to point 2, that is now covered I think by the linked Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I meant the settlements in the rest of the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, agree that perhaps does need a short note at an appropriate place. And perhaps another one to deal with the Gaza occupation.Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The pipelining bit is not lead for the country article worthy, and it was not just two users, and this has been stable for months now. nableezy - 19:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The 'longest military occupation' part is already in article's body (section on Israeli-occupied territories). It's not lost, although it isn't in lede nor should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:600:2D0E:0:0:C402:8DF9 (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Everything in the lead should be in the body, making that a non-argument. Id be ok returning that bit, though I dont know if it is vital. nableezy - 21:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

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

I want to change Incorrect and refined information 109.64.95.191 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022

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

I would like to edit this page as I believe I can give information from a different perspective. Jamiel1shot (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Revert

A recent revert with edit summary "WP:NPOV; many countries recognize East Jerusalem as part of Israel,"

A patently untrue statement. "Thus, the UN as a whole, as well as its individual member states, has expressly withheld recognition of the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem." (https://www.nrc.no/globalassets/pdf/reports/the-legal-status-of-east-jerusalem.pdf).

It is true that the Palestine and Israel are in dispute but internationally, the Palestine claim to East Jerusalem is supported while the Israel claim to the same place is not. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Even when the US recognized Jerusalem as the capital they specified it did not make any determination on the status of EJ. That is a plainly untrue statement. Reverted. nableezy - 18:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The article's Israeli-occupied territories section, which transcludes Template:Administration in the Palestine region, indicates without citations that China and Russia recognize Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem. The whole table is in need of citations, and it might be better to remove it until is substantively verified. If not, we should either source the China/Russia claims and keep the "disputed" description or remove the China/Russia claims and restore the "unrecognized" description. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The template shows that Russia and China accept SoP claim over East Jerusalem, not that of Israel.Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was very confused. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

According to https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cezw//eng/xwdt/t854964.htm, the Chinese Government supports an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, however please take caution as they never explicitly state their official stance in that document. Both the template and the article seem incorrect.

Russia recognizes West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It says that it supports East Jerusalem as the future Palestinian capital, but this could be interpreted as implying that they do not recognize it as such at the moment.

Overall I would interpret all this as a rather ambiguous approach for both countries. As SelfStudier pointed out, the template says that it is actually recognized as the capital of the State of Palestine. Which means the template is also wrong, as the reality is somewhat more complex. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The reality is that they do not recognize the Israeli claim over East Jerusalem and neither does anyone else, your OR interpretations notwithstanding. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

but the claim that internationally, the Palestine claim to East Jerusalem is supported is not correct as it seems from the template only two states support it Shrike (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to FirefangledFeathers.

I have no idea what you are trying to achieve with WP:OR, I'm just explaining the scenario and how the template used is incorrect. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"this could be interpreted" <-- OR

"I would interpret all this as a rather ambiguous approach" I don't care about your interpretations, you have clearly demonstrated that you don't understand what it is you are editing.

Get sources and make edits, all you need to do.Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

1. "In curious first, Russia recognizes West Jerusalem as Israel's capital". Times of Israel. April 6, 2017. Retrieved March 18, 2022. "We reaffirm our commitment to the UN-approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, which include the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. At the same time, we must state that in this context we view West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel," the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said in a statement.
2. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/comment-by-the-russian-federation-on-us-recognition-of-jerusalem-as-the-capital-of-israel/
3. Vladimirov, Nikita. "Russia recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital". The Hill. In the statement, Moscow reaffirmed its "support for the two-state solution" while acknowledging that East Jerusalem should be the capital of the future Palestinian state.

Location of Israel?

Is Israel located in the middle east (The Levant) or western Asia? Please clarify. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3FC0:F740:9B3:5082:A0E:EF0C (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages currently favors Western Asia in its terminology, per UN definitions I believe, regardless of how confusing that may be to most people. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The Middle East is not its own continent, rather, it is a region located within the western Asia portion of the Asian continent. The Levant is not the entirety of the Middle East, nor is it synonymous with the Middle East. Rather, it is a smaller region within the Middle East, primarily the western portion of it bordering the Mediterranean sea. Israel is located within the Levant, which is located in the Middle East, which (depending on your terminology) is either located in or synonymous with western Asia, which is a part of the continent of Asia, which is located on the planet Earth, which is located within... --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I always thought it was ME but that's "Eurocentric" and "discriminatory" apparently, so West Asia it is :) Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I find Ngram quite incisive in revealing quite how ridiculous this whole 'West Asia' malarkey is, and that's before we even get onto the whole 'Eurocentric' debate, despite the fact that the Arab terminology is also "the Middle east" (As-sharq al-awsat). But clearly the region needs some non-Eurocentric Europeans to lead them back towards better terminology. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Israel is a country on Earth, centered around 31°57′7″N 34°53′17″E ...". Is it neutral, or perhaps it's too Earth-centric? “WarKosign” 19:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Centered around...". Google says that is near Old City so no. Selfstudier (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually this is a random point in Lod, nowhere near an old city (of whatever city). “WarKosign” 22:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Both. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the articles on the Middle East and Western Asia, there's one on the Levant, the other region mentioned. In addition, there are articles on Eurasia and Asia. Each of those articles contain a map. Editors can draw their own conclusions.     ←   ZScarpia   16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

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

Can I correct the Gini index ? It’s worng thanks Tamar274 (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please write what exactly you want to change, from X to Y, and provide a link to a source. “WarKosign” 08:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2022 (2)

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

Hi regarding Israel's GINI rating. The rating 48 is incorrect and irrelevant. I searched and did not find an up-to-date list of country rankings according to the GINI Index. But the 48 rating is incorrect and irrelevant to the country. The right thing to do would be to change the rating from 48 to Medium without rating because there is currently no up to date list thank you very much !. Tamar274 (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no appropriate rating for 2021. But the Israeli GINI index is 39.1 which is a mediocre place. (Rating 48 is irrelevant). And there is no really accurate rating but it is in a mediocre place so for it to be accurate you have to delete the 48 and write medium next to thanks! Score: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=IL Tamar274 (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think Tamar274 is right. Currently infobox entry on GINI links to List of countries by income equality with the caption "48th", but in the linked article there is no indication that Israel is in 48th place in anything related to income equality. Articles on several other countries that I checked give GINI as a number and not as a place in some list, so unless someone knows what's the origin of "48th" (and can give us a source that supports it) - I'll remove it. “WarKosign” 13:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes you should remove it. There is no source that the number is 48. According to the World Bank GINI of Israel is 39.1 which is a mediocre place. I checked and there is no source that the number is 48. Thank you! Tamar274 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you changing it? Tamar274 (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll wait a day, and then remove it if nobody objects. “WarKosign” 17:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I searched again and didn’t find any score of information that confirms that Israel's ranking is 48. Tamar274 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. “WarKosign” 06:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The given chart (ref 24) shows Israel Gini at 0.348 for 2018. Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Gini coefficient#Definition says "If all people have non-negative income (or wealth, as the case may be), the Gini coefficient can theoretically range from 0 (complete equality) to 1 (complete inequality); it is sometimes expressed as a percentage ranging between 0 and 100". All the countries I looked at used value far above 1, so it seems to me it's obvious that 34.8 fits the source with trivial WP:CALC. “WarKosign” 12:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tamar274 (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Apartheid

The apartheid Israel is practicing is mentioned briefly, with zero elaboration on the systemic discrimination put in place for the two peoples living between the river and the sea. Instead a non-sensical sentence is given half of the mention: "Amnesty's report was rejected by Israel and several other countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany, while it was welcomed by Palestinians and other states and organizations such as the Arab League." What does it even mean to reject a human rights report? And what does it even mean to accept it? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It's obviously a political position where you register your displeasure with information you don't like in a way that, as you say, is ultimately quite meaningless. Quite so, nobody ever actively "accepts" a report; "rejecting" one is just political spin and a means of avoiding actually discussing any of the substance of such reports. The only thing to "do" with such a report is to read it and either take on board its criticisms, or not read it and/or read it and fail to take onboard its criticisms. To reject it is I suppose in effect the declaration that, for better or worse, you have absolutely no intention of taking on board any criticism. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it is correct to say that they rejected the report. They reject use of the word apartheid, which is frankly just a game of semantics. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

That's mainly correct, virtually no-one (on the Israel defender side) engaged with the actual substance of the Amnesty report.Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Secondly, the topic is in the wrong part of the article. It is currently under the "Israeli occupied territories", but the reports by the four human rights groups relate to the treatment of Palestinians in Israel as well. Perhaps it fits best somewhere in the "demographics" section? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't recall, maybe only B'tselem and Amnesty covered Israel as well.Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Golan Heights?

Hi, I know this would make some people angry, but could the Golan heights be shaded in light green? It is de facto under Israeli control, and America recognizes it as part of Israel, but it is not shaded light green for disputed territory. Crimea is de facto under Russian control and the vast majority of countries do not recognize it as being part of Russia, but it is added green. I know the West Bank and Gaza Strip are different, but the Golan Heights are under full Israeli control and Misplaced Pages must give some weight to de facto, as they have done in other articles. So please, for the map, shade the Golan Heights in light green.

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears that everyone here, accept @Nableezy supports the map change. So can someone with the power to change the map change it? 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

That isnt true (the first person to reply to you for example), and this isnt a vote. nableezy - 15:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do not troll this discussion. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

False analogy which, like all analogies should not cancel the differences. Crimea has been Russian for 239 years, save for a very brief interim of several years, Russian in language and culture, thoroughly assimilated to that old geopolitical reality. The Golan Heights has been partially under Israeli control for 55 years, but historically there is nothing other than military might that underscores its annexation. In any case, sources (see the archives) determine what we do here, not personal impressions of 'similiarity'-ergo-sameness.'Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The crimea thing was just an example. What I mean was that pretty much every country with disputed territories has those territories shaded in light green, except israel. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I share Mr. Reading Turtle opinion on this. As I understand it, today light green marks on maps in Misplaced Pages mark an annexed territory which is not internationally recognized as such. The Golan Heights fit this description, so it should be colored in light green, the same as with other countries. I would also like to add that both the German and the Spanish articles for Israel follow the same logic. Tombah (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you clarify exactly which map or maps you would like altered or replaced? It looks to me that there are three maps which you could be referring to. The first is in the info box at the top of the article and shows the state of affairs in 1949. Perhaps it would be better to have a map which displays the current situation there. I'm guessing, though, that the current map is there as the result of heavy debate. Lower down are a map showing districts of Israel, in which the Occupied Territories are coloured grey, and this one, in which the Occupied Territories, including the Israeli-controlled Golan, are actually coloured light green. Whatever you would like done, it will probably be affected in some way by UN Security Resoltion 497 of 1981, which states that Israel's annexation was illegitimate and has the effect of confirming that the Golan is properly Syrian. In general, Security Council resolutions are binding on UN members, which includes the US and Israel, and, since it is based on the international treaties which have been made, heavily affect the position in international law.     ←   ZScarpia   12:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean the first map. On the Spanish wikipedia, German wikipedia, French wikipedia, and Hebrew wikipedia, the Golan Heights are shaded in light green or dark green. On some the West Bank is light green, but I think this may be to big of a step. In any case, the majority of non-English wikipedias have the Golan heights in shaded, and I think we should match this somehow. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in any way in the selection of the current map, so know nothing about how that came about. Using the archive search box at the top of this talkpage would help to locate previous discussions. The Commons information accompanying the map says that its source was the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which may be significant (but I personally know nothing about that body other than what is stated in its Misplaced Pages article and what I managed to glean from a brief look at its Web homepage). Something to beware of are the ARBPIA sanctions placed on articles such as the current one which impose editing restrictions, including what editors with newish accounts can do (see the ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES warning at the top of this talkpage).     ←   ZScarpia   15:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There isnt any requirement that we use a similar map as any other Misplaced Pages, but the Golan is nearly universally recognized as Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation. It should not be presented as anything other than that here. Beyond that, it isnt as though the only WP projects are German, Spanish or whatever language. Why not note that for example the Arabic, Farsi, Czech, Danish, Albanian, Esperanto, Dutch, Portugese wikis all do not show the Golan shaded? nableezy - 15:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Shade it in light Green. Likewise the article on Syria should be updated in the same fashion. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The way disputed territories are shown in this article should be consistent with the way it's presented in other articles. “WarKosign÷” 22:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Such as Morocco, Ukraine, China, India, Pakistan, Japan, Russia, Venezuela, Chile, Georgia (country), Somalia, Somaliland, France, Azerbaijan, Republic of Artsakh, etc. The only somewhat notable cases I can think of where this doesn't happen is with Belize/Guatemala and Guyana/Venezuela/Suriname. But neither of these two cases are in the majority practice. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. At this point it is a double standard against Israel. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with WarKosign, Dunutubble, and User:Mr Reading Turtle that we need consistency. I don't have a strong opinion on whether disputed and de facto controlled territories should be coloured one way or another, but it should be consistent across articles. The Golan Heights, Western Sahara, and Crimea should all be coloured similarly (whatever colour that is). Jeppiz (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with your claimed double standard is none of those other instances have UNSC resolutions that say point blank that the territory remains occupied territory belonging to another state. We have an international consensus that the Golan Heights are not in Israel. Our article follows that consensus. nableezy - 01:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

UNSC is just a political body, its position doesn't make anything more (or less) correct. Are you saying that Crimea should not be considered occupied just because Russia has veto power? UNSC position is notable enough to be mentioned, of course, but it does not determine whether something is or isn't true. “WarKosign” 05:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

No, the UNSC is the body responsible for maintaining international peace and security and per treaty has the authority to make binding resolutions on all member states. No, sources should determine what is occupied, but the comparison you continue to make is flawed in that there is a finding by the UNSC that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. The examples offered in response have no such finding, and as such the bs claim of a double standard is just that, bs. Our article includes a map showing the occupied territories, the lead says that these territories are occupied and effectively annexed, and Israel has itself repeatedly claimed that the Golan is not actually annexed as the Golan Law made no claim of sovereignty and purposely did not claim to annex the territory. So, again, your examples simply are not analogous and the attempt to claim they are is a bit of subterfuge in that it makes a vague wave to some supposedly equivalent cases that any good faith examination will find to not be equivalent. nableezy - 05:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Each disputed territory in the world is unique. Your argument is "Golan should not be treated the same way as the rest of the disputed territories because <list of differences>" could be as easily applied to any other disputed territory in the world, and it wouldn't make it any more valid. On most WP articles disputed territory is clearly indicated on the map of the country claiming this territory, with detailed description of the special state of the territory - who is claiming what, for what reasons, and who supports/objects these claims. No reason for Golan to be treated differently. The fact that it's unique is of no consequence, every territory is unique. “WarKosign” 05:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Each disputed territory in the world is unique, why yes. Which is why the rest of your comment does not follow. Because each situation is unique, claiming there us some uniform standard is what is not valid. In this case we have Israel repeatedly claiming in the international arena that the Golan in fact is not annexed, we have the UNSC saying as a matter of international law it is not annexed and it remains Syrian territory. And so our map reflects that. The idea that because two situations are different somehow there is no reason for them to be treated differently is a basic failure of logic and common sense. nableezy - 05:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Russia does. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

For God's sake, every single country in Misplaced Pages with disputed or annexed territories has a map with the contested territory in light green. Check the articles of Japan, Russia, Argentina, Morocco, etc. Even the articles of Israel in other Wikipedias have the Golan in light green. No country besides Argentina considers the Falklands as Argentinean territory, as far as I'm aware. There must be other examples of territories whose annexation or control is widely unrecognized by other countries. This is the appropriate and accurate map for this article:

Israel (orthographic projection) with disputed territories.svg

(it doesn't show the West Bank because even Israel doesn't claim it as its own, but simply a "territory in dispute", although controls it de facto) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:73c0:601:883a::d27:d62d (talk)

• I see two dilemmas as being entailed with any changes to the map.

First, the point about the UNSC recognition making the situation in the Golan Heights materially different from most other 'disputed territory' situations - added to it Israel's own lack of formal annexation or declaration of sovereignty, which makes it slightly ambiguous if it even IS disputed territory. If the UN recognizes it as Israel, and Israel has not formally claimed it, then surely it IS still a part of Syria, just de facto occupied by Israel for the various stated strategic imperatives - occupying the high ground, maintaining control of the Sea of Galilee, etc. Technically, I believe the two countries are still at war, only in a state of ceasefire, right? So the Golan Heights are essentially the temporary territorial gains mid-conflict prior to the signing of a peace treaty formalizing any such territorial arrangements.

Secondly, the situation in the Golan Heights holds some close parallels with the situation in the West Bank, where large swathes of territory are recognized internationally as not being part of Israel and have similarly not been formally annexed by Israel, so altering the map to shade in the Golan Heights would need to be part of a wider drawing of the maps to treat the similarly occupied territories in the West Bank in a comparable manner.

Finally, it might be worth considering, even if some colouring is the best option, that a different color, maybe yellow or some other option, might be best to differentiate the UN ruling peculiarities of the Israel's border drawing compared to other more commonplace disputed territory issues, which usually involve at least some sort of formal claim of sovereignty on the part of the occupier. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Golan was annexed by Israel in 1981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.138.41 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Read the bit in the article where it notes they intentionally avoided using the term 'annexation', so it was a unilateral extension of Israeli law to the country without even a formal declaration of sovereignty by the Knesset, no international consensus, and not even amid an armistice with Syria, only a ceasefire. Without a peace deal with Syria, it will remain forever occupied and no more. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Splitting hairs much? You yourself pushed for the word annexation in lede, back then when it was convenient for you for some reason: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1072462074 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.138.41 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Note 'effectively annexed' - quite different really. Words are actually quite important when it comes to matters of international or any other form of law. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"Occu-annexed". They annexed it (domestic law), everybody said nah (international law), so still occupied. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing

There is little need for such a long discussion of something that is really quite simply: no double standards. Of course we are not going to apply one standard for every other country de facto controlling and occupied territory and another standards for Israel. Sorry to be blunt, but users who fail to understand that run foul of WP:COMPETENCE. I both understand and support anyone who thinks the Israeli occupation of Golan is wrong, because so do I. That is not the topic under discussion here, though. It's merely about using consistent colour codes across articles on countries de facto controlling an occupied territory. If WP decides not to colour any such territory (which would be my personal preference), then great! But as long as the prevailing preference is to colour such territories in light green, obviously we won't apply a different standard here compared to all other country articles. Again, this comes down to basic WP:COMPETENCE and really should not require a long debate spanning several days. Jeppiz (talk)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Top-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Top-importance Judaism articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• B-Class Western Asia articles
• Top-importance Western Asia articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Top-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject Western Asia articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report