Misplaced Pages

Talk:Israel: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:41, 14 May 2011 editDailycare (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,429 edits →Might I make a suggestion?← Previous edit Revision as of 18:05, 19 May 2011 edit undoSupreme Deliciousness (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,576 edits →Removal of category: new sectionNext edit →
Line 295: Line 295:
:::: Academic writers in English call it Palestine with very few exceptions. This is true even for Israeli historians who call it ''Eretz Yisrael'' in the Hebrew editions of their books. To Ckruschke: the place was divided into three provinces, Palestina Prima, Palestina Secunda, and Palestina Tertia, in the late Roman and Byzantine periods. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC) :::: Academic writers in English call it Palestine with very few exceptions. This is true even for Israeli historians who call it ''Eretz Yisrael'' in the Hebrew editions of their books. To Ckruschke: the place was divided into three provinces, Palestina Prima, Palestina Secunda, and Palestina Tertia, in the late Roman and Byzantine periods. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
::::: Looking at some on ], emperor ] officially named the area Palestine in CE 70. Before that, the area was known as "Syria Palestina" and apparently the name ultimately stems from Philistines that lived in or around the area. --] (]) 09:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC) ::::: Looking at some on ], emperor ] officially named the area Palestine in CE 70. Before that, the area was known as "Syria Palestina" and apparently the name ultimately stems from Philistines that lived in or around the area. --] (]) 09:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

== Removal of category ==

There are about 20 country's who don't recognize Israel and countries who call the area "Palestine", Hezbollah and Hamas (Hamas being elected by the Palestinian people) do not recognize Israel either. Is there any reason why the "Category:Disputed territories in Asia" shouldn't be in this article? --] (]) 18:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:05, 19 May 2011

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
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, 109Auto-archiving period: 2 months 

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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!
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.
See discretionary sanctions for details
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.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Former featured articleIsrael 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 4, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 30, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
June 23, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis 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:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJewish history Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis 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.
WikiProject iconJudaism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis 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.
WikiProject iconWestern Asia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis 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.
WikiProject iconArab world High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world 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.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Template:WP1.0
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease 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.



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

Old archives

Israel and the Occupied Territories

Jerusalem as capital

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

International Criticism

Under WP:ROC the introduction is missing a key "notable" topic re Israel - the international criticism it has received. Whether or not we agree with the criticism, its existence is widely recognised and it is highly relevant to the country. It is clearly a sensitive topic however - I have put a suggestion below, and would ask if all editors could help me make sure it is balanced before putting it in. Thanks.

Israel has faced ongoing international criticism since its Independence in 1948, including with respect to its refusal to allow post-war Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, its invasion, occupation and annexation of neighbouring territories and the building of settlements therein, and accusations of economic strangulation of occupied territories and human rights abuses of Palestinian Arabs.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you read WP:NPOV? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Malik, the lead is already quite long and aspects of the proposed text (although not exact mathces) are already present in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both. Dailycare, the key aspect of the proposed text is not already in the lead, that is, there is no description of the international criticism which Israel has had to defend itself against. Malik, your comment was flippant given I have said that I am aware this is sensitive - I have tried to remove any POV. Please expand your critique or preferably suggest an appropriate balance - it is clearly a highly notable subject with respect to Israel.Oncenawhile (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Is international criticism an important feature relating to Israel as such? WP:NPOV states that those viewpoints that are given space in reliable sources should be given roughly proportionate space in articles. I'm not dead-set against mentioning criticism specifically, but you'd need to show that reliable sources (per WP:RS) give it significant space to warrant including it in the lead. Please also see WP:LEAD --Dailycare (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Run a WP:SET - put the words "international criticism" into google, and count out of the top 100 articles, how many refer to Israel. It is highly disproportionate. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, try putting the terms "israel criticism" (not in quotes) into google news archives. The most striking part is not the huge number of articles, but the fact that they almost exclusively refer to criticism OF Israel rather than BY Israel Oncenawhile (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The content of a lead is determined by WP:LEAD. Arguments for changes to the lead need to be based on WP:LEAD. The lead is dependent on the content in the article so providing reasons for changes to the lead based on ghits and related arguments without referring to content in the article body isn't the right approach. It's the content in the article body and the relative importance of that information that determines whether and how something should be included in the lead. I haven't checked whether something similar to the material you are proposing is already present in the article body but its presence is a prerequisite for inclusion in the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Below is a raft of WP:RS on the proposed topic. Sean, I take your point - i'll clarify and add as appropriate in the body of the article and then come back to the lead.

  • The Case For Israel, Alan Dershowitz, 2004, p1 "The Jewish nation of Israel stands accused in the dock of international justice. The charges include being a criminal state, the prime violator of human rights, the mirror image of Nazism, and the most intransigent barrier to peace in the Middle East. Throughout the world, from the chambers of the United Nations to the campuses of universities, Israel is singled out for condemnation, divestment, boycott and demonization."
  • The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace, Alan Dershowitz, 2009, p1-2 "For a tiny nation of little more than six and a half million citizens living in an area roughly the size of New Jersey, Israel has proportionally more enemies than any nation on earth. No nation has been threatened more often with divestment, boycotts, and other sanctions. No nation has generated more protests against it on college and university campuses. No nation has been targeted for as much editorial abuse from the worldwide media. No nation has been subjected to more frequent threats of annihilation. No nation has had more genocidal incitements directed against its citizens. It is remarkable indeed that a democratic nation born in response to a decision of the United Nations should still not be accepted by so many countries, groups, and individuals. No other UN member is threated with physical destruction by other member states so openly and with so little rebuke from the General Assembly or the Security Council. Indeed, no nation, regardless of its size or the number of deaths it has caused, has been condemned as often by the UN and its constituent bodies. Simply put, no nation is hated as much as the Jewish nation."
  • In Defense of Israel, John Hagee, 2007, p1 "You look toward the United Nations, which Ambassador Dore Gold calls 'the Tower of Babble'. You look at Europe, where the ghost of Hitler is again walking across the stage of history. You open your newspapers and read about American universities, where Israel is being vilified by students taught by professors whose Middle Eastern chairs are sponsored by Saudi Arabia. You look to America's mainline churches and see their initiatives to divest from Israel. You go to the bookstore and see slanderous titles by the former president of the United States - and you feel very much alone"
  • Will Israel Survive, Mitchell Bard, 2008, p1 "Israel might be the only country in the world whose right to exist is debated and whose future is questioned. Can you imagine anyone asking whether the United States will survive or whether it should exist? Or anyone saying "no" is asked?"
  • Israeli views of International Criticism: According to survey by Tel Aviv University, more than half of Israelis believe "the whole world is against us", and three quarters of Israelis believe "that no matter what Israel does or how far it goes towards resolving the conflict with the Palestinians, the world will continue to criticize Israel".
  • UN Criticism: In recent years, the Middle East was the subject of 76% of country-specific General Assembly resolutions, 100% of the Human Rights Council resolutions, 100% of the Commission on the Status of Women resolutions, 50% of reports from the World Food Program, 6% of Security Council resolutions and 6 of the 10 Emergency sessions. These decisions, passed with the support of the OIC countries, invariably criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. For further details, see Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations and the List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose to add appropriate text under either 2.4 History / Conflicts and peace treaties or 4.5 Government, politics and legal system / International Criticism. Let me know if any preferences. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Added as promised.Oncenawhile (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Remove the POV "international criticism" section from the article, it's not to be found in articles about other countries-nor do similar sections.--Gilisa (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Even North Korea doesn't have such a section. Criticism of Israel can, by all means, be worked into the article, but I would suggest that: 10K in one go is far too much; material should not be drawn exclusively from sources representing one POV; given the sanctions, wording should be presented for comment on the talkpage first. --FormerIP (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact that other country articles do not have a similar section is not a valid argument. There are no standards. The volume and variety of sources on this topic is indisputable, and are drawn from all sides of the spectrum.Oncenawhile (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that how other wiki pages are written aren't strong arguments for how to write this one, but all the sources mentioned above represent the POV that criticism of Israel is wrong. --Dailycare (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
While it should be mentioned somewhere, i dont think the article on the country itself warrants such a section regardless of comments that other countries dont have it. (for the reasons mentioned below) Maybe a see also link.Lihaas (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please could editors kindly keep comments to WP policies and guidelines relating to the text and sources in the article? Dailycare's comment that four of the quotes in the talk page represent a pro-Israel POV makes no comment on the text and variety of sources in the article. The question of article size requires a considered analysis of the article as a whole, rather than singling out the latest additions.Oncenawhile (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This section should be suspended, until user Oncenawhile can find a consensus for including this section. Firstly, the section is a major and unprecendented edit, which goes against every other country on wikipedia; secondly, Oncenawhile has a strong NPOV agenda, as has been shown by his past record of edits on this page.Avaya1 (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree i have a neutral-point-of-view agenda. But assuming you meant the opposite, I have no idea what you are referring to so please can you expand with specific examples - I am keen to learn and improve. I would be delighted to critique your POV as well if you like. Spurious accusations of POV should not be thrown around so loosely.Oncenawhile (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The last few paragraphs of the proposed section are particularly problematic. I don't like the idea of citing Wikileaks cables without a secondary source explaining them, since they are unfiltered private comments. However, even if quoting this cable were encyclopedic, the commentary on the cable is not ("suprisingly...", "In the WikiLeaks cable Dermer didn't offer evidence...") First, this is POV and original research (Misplaced Pages is responding to Dermer instead of quoting someone else responding to Dermer), but just as importantly, when we cherrypick one private conversation and then criticize it we risk creating straw men - that is to say we run the risk of choosing one particular form of an idea, say the one that we think is weakest, rather than the most mainstream or well-thought-out version of that idea so that we implicitly make the other side's position look stronger. GabrielF (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

for what it's worth, i agree with the above editors that the criticism section is grossly disproportionate and inconsistent with wp:npov.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
To be blunt, criticism sections in general suck. They are a lazy way of writing an article. Criticism should be dealt with in the context of the specific things being criticized. To pull out one section just to discuss criticism is to invite issues of POV and undue weight. Criticism of Israel's foreign policy, etc. are better dealt with in those sections. The only reason why there should ever be a specific criticism section would be to discuss criticism of Israel as a phenomena and I don't think that issue is significant enough to merit its own section here. GabrielF (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikibias blog has brought this up: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"while Sean.hoyland and Dailycare seem to be enabling his contributions with subtle approval or indifference". Finally, somewhere to go to check what I'm been doing and why. I thought I was busy being indifferent to something else. Silly me. I was thinking of rejoining this discussion but having read that now I'll just let vipāka take its course. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Supreme, thanks for bringing this up - this proves the notability of the topic "Criticism of Israel" perfectly. Despite its broad-sounding name, the wikibias blog is essentially a single-issue pressure group dedicated to challenging any criticism of Israel. Can anyone provide examples of similar websites re criticism of other countries? Oncenawhile (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

So I gather international criticism of Israel and the attitude of Israelis to it are irrelevant as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned? Because its "an entirely unprecedented section"?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please could editors kindly keep comments to WP policies and guidelines relating to the text and sources in the article? The main arguments given against the section refer to there being no precedents for it in other country articles. Not only is that argument not valid, ghit analysis and the WP:RS provided show that the topic is highly notable. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The topic is notable, and has several articles dedicated to it. You have yet to explain why it should be included in this article. The fact no other country article has such a section and that this encyclopedia is supposed to be consistent (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes") is indeed a valid argument. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Good to see we have common ground. To answer your question, we could debate whether the criticism is disproportionate versus other countries - the stats show that in the UN no other country comes close, and although harder to calculate it is clear that in academic writings Israel also stands out from the crowd. Or we could debate about the relative importance in wikipedia country articles of Israel's "music and dance" section, or perhaps the "Humanitarian situation" section in the WP:FA Chad or the "Personality cult" section in North Korea. But the clearest answer to your question is how important supporters of Israel see International Criticism to be:
  • The Israeli government think it is critical - see e.g. headline communication from the Ministry of Public Diplomacy here, a government-sponsored branding study here or even more impactfully the "Background and Purpose" from a paper at this year's Herzliya Conference here.
  • The people of Israel see it as a huge issue - see the poll data provided above, or another one here .
  • Supportive academics think it is fundamentally important to Israel's ongoing existance (see e.g. the quotes provided by Dershowitz, Hagee and Bard).
In other words, Israel, Israelis and their supporters all believe that International Criticism of the country is a critically important topic. And finally, and I admit this is not scientific, but you could ask yourself this open question - do you think criticism of israel is important? Oncenawhile (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That you think "Israelis and their and their supporters" all think it's "critically important" isn't a relevant argument to include material.
That you keep trying to edit war the material back into the article despite the ongoing discussion is something that may get you blocked from editing articles in this topic area.
By the way, do you or have you ever edited en.wiki with another account? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
You asked a question and I answered it in good faith. Then you respond with (1) an illogical response to a single sub-point whilst ignoring all the other points; (2) a threat; and (3) an attempt to undermine (the answer is no btw). I suggest you review WP:GAME. Happy new year. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
That was not a threat, it was a warning. People get blocked for this sort of behavior. Also, my response was quite logical. What we as editors think is irrelevant. What the sources say is what counts. You have yet to provide a source saying this is as important as you think it is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
A number of the sources provided suggest that defending against international criticism is fundamental to the continued existence of Israel - a topic cannot be more important than that, and therefore the text simply must remain in the article. As per below, it's now time to explain any valid facts and arguments behind your side of the discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst numerous facts and arguments supporting the inclusion of the text have been set out in the discussion above, none of the posts against inclusion have been substantiated with valid or adequately explained arguments or facts. This makes it very difficult to move towards real consensus. Perhaps each of the dissenting editors could explain clearly exactly how important and notable a topic would need to be to justify inclusion in this article, in their judgement? My view is clear - it is one of the most notable topics of all in relation to Israel, almost a defining topic, as illustrated by all of the broad facts and WP:RS shown above - and shown best in our world by the sheer number of POV WP editors which exist in relation to this overall topic. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest that this section be added to the Foreign Relations part of the article as a summary paragraph, with the link to the main article to be developed. This is simply because the nature of criticism encompasses so many different aspects, but it is International, and that seems to fit its placement better. Also the size of the article is probably not going to handle more than a summary paragraph which won't do the subject justice it deservesKoakhtzvigad (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think that would be underweight, given how fundamental this is to the overall topic of Israel. The foreign relations section is already very long, and to add the International Criticism text as another paragraph within it would imply that the overall criticism faced by the country is only of equivalent importance and notability to e.g. Israel's relationship with Ethiopia... Oncenawhile (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. Israel's relationship with Ethiopia pails into insignificance with that of EC, the USA, or China for obvious economic reasons, and this is why the mention of international criticism has to be in that section.
International criticism has been the 'background noise' that provides a benchmark which has existed to some degree since 1948, and on which Israel's foreign policy is evaluated....to avoid criticism as far as possible due to its initial dependence on these relationships.
This externally imposed national avoidance behaviour has also been a dominant factor in the success of Israeli democracy. Much of this democracy is not really democracy, but the attempt by near-socialist sectors of the Israeli population to be seen as 'holier-than-thou', afflicting themselves with every kind of 'humanitarian' stringency most countries never implemented in a sort of state-wide Stockholm syndrome behaviour where in a situation of traumatic entrapment (leading to PTSD), being not fully accepted in the 'West', and facing threat from the 'East', appeasement may seem to be be the only defensive option for some to achieve hoped-for end to abuse.
If it were a reported abuse case, it would perhaps be diagnosed as classic bullying, although even professionals tend to get some things wrong, saying "Attitudes towards violence and aggression are largely shared across the world, with a general consensus that such behaviour is socially destructive." (Dennis Lines, THE BULLIES: UNDERSTANDING BULLIES AND BULLYING, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2008, p.80), and assuming that if it is socially destructive, they won't engage in violence and aggression where as of course this is where the entire issue started in 1920s (in Europe and Israel, at least this century), and has been proven to be a culturally acceptable behaviour in almost every state surrounding Israel from which majority of the criticism comes to the international forum.
And yet, Israel still gets criticism, mostly for ensuring self-security and social stability of an integrated rather than dysfunctional society, and even manages to prosper and contribute significantly to the global good.
However, despite the impact on domestic socio-political behaviour, and mental health of its citizens, the influencing factor for this behaviour is external, and therefore has to go in the foreign relations Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Relative notability of Criticism within the Government, politics and legal system section

Most editors will have seen the following discussion over the past two weeks, which has now closed. Many good points were raised on all sides of the debate. Perhaps we can now try to agree on this page as to whether the relative notability of Criticism of the Israeli Government versus the other topics in the Government, politics and legal system section justifies the inclusion of a summary. I'll start:

okay....your example of anti-americanism doesn't do anything for you, anyways you never responded to my question, do you have anything to declare? Passionless -Talk 04:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. To summarise:

  • 3x Include votes based on WP:N
  • 2x votes based on the "no-other-country" argument, which has no basis in wikipedia policy
  • 1x vote from NMMNG who's argument doesn't make sense - there is a "main article" for every single section in the Israel article

As such, unless any opposing editors can produce policy-based arguments, a section will be added to the article in due course. I'll wait a bit longer though before adding as keen to ensure all opportunities are given for any possible policy-based counter-arguments. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Include - Denying that Israel's policy in the last decades has drawn significant reaction is to say nothing. On a sidenote, I think everybody should be welcomed to write in that section and accustom it according to NPOV policy. Userpd (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not include as separate section - that does not match the style for country pages, including those with their own separate 'Criticism' articles. As one of the "include" comments above suggests, there is a place for mentioning criticism in existing sections, which seems to be house style. The current "politics and legal system" section and the modern "conflict" subsection of history would work. Notsuohs (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Unless I am misreading this post, I think this is actually a vote to include, albeit spread over two sections. On the other hand, it also appears to be another invalid "no-other-country" argument. I don't understand why the latter argument keeps being repeated - it has absolutely no basis in wikipedia policy. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"International Criticism" (whatever that means) is mostly related to Israel's occupation of the west bank which is covered by a large section. Another cause is the large body of Arab states in conflict with Israel and their ability to dominate international bodies, such as the UN human rights committee whose chair was Libya until recently. That would come under foreign policy. I think the non-specific title is POV. If there is something you want to criticize you should say what it is and try to express it in terms which are acceptable to different perspectives. Its not easy. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Include - True and properly sourced information should always be made available and different aspects should be expressed. To supress certain information is by default a POV. As for neutrality, suporters of each stance can provide and incorporate material into the section and let the reader decide the value of each for his/her self, as long as they can support the information with reliable sources. Biraqleet (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

History section

I reverted an edit by a confirmed sock puppet from a few weeks ago. OuroborosCobra reverted my revert. The edit in question was a duplication of information already summarised in another section (Jewish History of the Southern Levant). The new information is overweight and selective, showing only the Jewish history of the region without explicitly saying so - unlike "Jewish History of the Southern Levant" which I believe is balanced and appropriate. The duplication makes the article look absurd. I have no intention of debating this further - this article is too contentious. OuroborosCobra, I am not going to try again - if you think the sockpuppet was right, you should explain here. Otherwise I suggest you self revert or spend the time to improve it as you see fit. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

So now you are going to claim this is about a sockpuppet, something you also didn't say in the edit summary? On you to prove that, not me. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to be personal but you are being lazy. It is here - User:FesCityRaver. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Why am I being lazy? You never made the claim of sockpuppetry in the first place, and the onus is on the person MAKING a claim to back it up, not on everyone else to prove it for you. Your removal of vast amount of content for reasons that don't even match what you stated them to be was frankly vandalistic. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You are avoiding the question. You should explain to everyone your view on the text. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
My view on the text is that it establishes more clearly the history of Hebrew/Jewish history in the region, which carries some continuity to the modern state. There certainly should be balance with the history of other cultures, but you don't establish that by unilateral blanking, lying about or changing the reason for your blanking, claiming you won't get further involved when that's precisely what you keep doing, and then calling other people lazy to boot. You said on my talk page that I was being "over sensitive about a contentious article." If it is so contentious, why after almost a month had none of the many people who watch this article taken such extreme issue with the content to warrant its outright blanking with no discussion, something normally done only to vandalistic content? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Like OuroborosCobra, I think we should keep adding shit to this article, which is already too long and takes way too long to load, until it bursts at the seams. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 00:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Has the sock been circumcised? Telaviv1 (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Dear friends,

An introduction should present general facts in an easy-to-read format.

I have edited the introduction to represent the general facts first, followed by the more specific facts, as any well written article would do.

Many of the more particular secondary facts, such a the 'Seam Zone' shouldn't be in the introduction, because an introduction should only present the general facts in an easy-to-read format.

This edit happens to also allow information to follow a more chronological order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagi Nahor (talk • contribs) 12:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sagi Nahor (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Historical claims

I have serious problems with this article, that I am incapable of remedying... Please fix, they are: that though the world which can be proven to at times be at least mildly anti-semitic spins it as "false massaia's" or "failed rabbi's" there has never been a time in history where any Jews gave up their claim to Israel until the modern Hassidic Satmar movement being the exception. Everyone from the Vilna Gaon to Maimanodes to Saadia Gaon to the Talmud and all in between have said they would like to see the people they lead to settle in Israel and form a country. Some had even left with their whole villages and students to do so , these were not comparable to the Muslim/Christian crusades, because these were not religious, (the Jewish religion is ingenious with or without Israel) but an attempt to right a wrong, where they were banned from most Middle Eastern countries by the Arabians and Romans before. Maimonodes for example even kisses up to the Arabian religion in his books, in order for them not to continually destroy the Jews, and ban them from every country, as they did in all of Arabia, tried to do in Syria and Lebanon. And fanatically did in the "Al Asqa" region of "Al Kuts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turmerick (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

There is a factual error in the Etymology section. The article states, "According to the Bible, Jacob and his sons had lived in Canaan and were forced by famine to go into Egypt for four generations...". Instead of "four generations", it should read "four hundred and thirty years". Reference Exodus 12:40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.127.167 (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

First to recognize

I'm not going to change it without a citation, but I swear I learned in one of my undergrad history courses that the Soviets actually beat the US to recognizing Israel after the UN vote. If I remember correctly, the difference was a matter of hours, if less.. Do we have a citation for the claim "The United States was the first country to recognize the State of Israel, followed by the Soviet Union."? 75.86.135.63 (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the source linked to at the end of the following sentence, "On May 14, 1948, the United States became the first country to extend de facto recognition to the State of Israel." (page 24) — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 05:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I did some googling, and actually found the answer on wikipedia itself. While the US was the first state to recognize Israel de facto (11 minutes after the declaration), the USSR was the first de jure. http://en.wikipedia.org/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#Aftermath Should this be mentioned on this page as well? 75.86.135.63 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you check Simon Montefiore's biography of Stalin he says the USSR was first, but given the conflicting reports and that it was a matter of a few hours I don't think its worth making an issue out of it. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I only ask in the interests of accuracy. This is one page where I wouldn't want to edit anything without consensus. Perhaps we should phrase it similar to the Israeli Declaration of Indepedence page? 64.134.33.57 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The US was the first to recognise. Ahron Bregman: "Thus, just 11 minutes after Ben-Gurion declared independence Washington recognized Israel . Shortly afterwards Russia and the government of Guatemala followed the US example in recognizing Israel."--Frederico1234 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Just grammar

In the opening, "efforts by elements within both parties to diplomatically solve the problem have so far only met with limited success" might look a little nicer as "but efforts by elements within both parties to solve the problem diplomatically have so far met with only limited success". I might even go so far as to suggest "on both sides" instead of "within both parties", as the term "party" can refer to a party in the dispute or contract, or to a political party. I understand that we're dealing with the former case, the "parties" being Israel on the one hand, and the Arab states on the other. 200.121.6.219 (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This request has been up for 20 days now, highlighting a potential ambiguity and making a suggestion for a noncontroversial change; nobody has responded in opposition and yet no changes have been made to the article. If the editors with access to the article can't be bothered to edit it, perhaps it should not be protected. 200.121.200.43 (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved – By following edit. --AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Too long, too long

I think that most of the different sections in the article, especially the lede, but also the history, military, foreign relations and occupied territories need to be drastically cut.

In the lede I would drastically cut the two sections related to history. Just provide the minimum of essential historical information. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors interpreting things

Some discussion is needed about this edit. My view is that adding the text "but Israel as a Holy Land of the Jews was recognised in the Qur'an by the Sura 5:21." is an editor's rather than a secondary source's intepretation. The source used is Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad Sayyārī, Revelation and falsification: the Kitāb al-qirāʼāt of Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Sayyārī, BRILL, 2009, p.118" (link here) which says "For God rescinding His decree granting the Holy Land to the Children of Israel" see etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Was not aware of it previously and in general I'm not an expert on Islam. It might appear that Sura 5:21 is "Zionist":
From other hand the source quoted says For God rescinding His decree granting ..., i.e. cancelling, and Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Sayyārī gives references, so I guess there could be number of interpretations. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think attribution should be used here along the lines of "some Islamic scholars say ...". --Dailycare (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The world's largest solar parabolic dish

Please change the description of the picture in the Chapter "Science and Technology". The picture does not show the "The world's largest solar parabolic dish" and also the article cited does not describe it as such.

You can change it to "One of the world's largest solar parabolic dishes at the Ben-Gurion National Solar Energy Center in Israel." that is the description of the same picture under http://en.wikipedia.org/Parabolic_reflector. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.101.201 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

the lergest city in south israel is Ashdod, not Ashqelon please fix that.

] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.107.201 (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion in Israel

The source that tries to estimate religiousness of Jews is false. I made that statement about a year ago and it's stil here, unanswered. Here, is an oficial estimate, 2010: http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton_e.html?num_tab=st07_04x&CYear=2010. Please, someone, fix it. 89.138.224.50 (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

History

I find statements like "In 1516, the Land of Israel was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the region until the 20th century..." to be word play with facts of history to make a false political and/or religious point. No one can honestly make an assertion that anyone had connquered the "Land of Israel" when no "Land of Israel" ever existed before 1948. The allusion that it has always been known as such, which is sprinkled throughout the article, is wrong, and the bible is not an historical evidence to be cited in what presents itself as academically factual. I am not going to edit these statements out because I do not know the editing history and what agreements had been reached, but I hope that sober minds who already have invested effort in this article do some needed editing to make it more acceptable to the non-biased mind. Biraqleet (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "No "Land of Israel" ever existed before 1948."? No extra-Biblical proof (which I presume is what you meant when you say "the bible is not a historical document")? Are you serious??FlaviaR (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I suppose on the one hand the term Eretz Yisrael, Land of Israel or whatever have been in common usage since long before 1948 and on the other, it might be better to say something generic like the area, the region or whatever. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This little exchange is a good example of all the small moments that collectively make up Misplaced Pages's Israel/Palestine problem. There's a legitimate concern here: we should use contemporary terms when discussing historical concerns. But the first editor decided to add some unhelpful commentary; despite being unfamiliar with the history, they note the text is the product of dishonest wordplay from biased editors. That just invites a hostile response from another editor who will usually overreact, sidestep the real content question and engage in conflict over the commentary. I realize that Biraqleet is a new user so I don't want to criticize them although I would suggest reading WP:AGF. But I wanted to bring this up because I think the editors in this warped little corner of WP ought to recognize how interractions that would be mundane elsewhere are so problematic here. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, normally the way it works is: statement a -> statement b -> hundreds of oscillations between those and various other chaotic orbits around the basin of attraction -> some active or inevitable damping through energy loss -> some meta-statements and analysis -> a meta-meta-etc analysis -> everyone distracted by something shiny elsewhere -> the end -> sockpuppet makes an edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Might I make a suggestion?

I have noticed that the article text occasionaly uses terms that are not contemporary or specific to the subjects they describe. For example, the section "Jewish History in Israel and the Palestinian Territories" uses the term "Land of Israel" to describe the area as late as the 16th Century even though it is anachronistic there. It is also a nebulous description and one that may or may not correspond to modern Israel, the subject of this article. In fact, I would suggest that the term is more of a theological concept than a geographic one and it would be best if we reserved its usage for that purpose. I'm not picky about alternate terms but I'd be happy to hear any suggestions. Thanks --JGGardiner (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I recommend Cisjordan. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Cisjordan doesn't occur in dictionary.com. In French, "Cisjordanie" means the West Bank. If "Palestine" isn't usable what about going boldly with "the area"? ;) --Dailycare (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I recommend using whatever term was the prevalent at that time in history. "Israel" ceased to exist after the territory was conquered by the Assyrian army, so using that term prior to 1948 is just foolish. Similarly, the area was referred to as "Palestine" from sometime at least as early as 18th/19th century up until 1948 and from the time of the Roman occupation, the area was divided up into several smaller provinces such as Samaria, Judea, Peraea and Phoenicia. Although I'm a strong proponent of Israel and their historical claim to the area, I think we need to use the proper terminology for whatever historical period we are discussing throughout the article. My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
According to Palestine, that term has been used since 450 BCE. --Dailycare (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I have not gone to that page, but all I can say is I personally disagree. It is also not supported by historical documents that can be found in about a 15 sec Google search. For instance, I found a page that had numerous Roman maps, for instance, and Palestine was not a roman province - unless it was an "unofficial" reference. As we all probably know, the regional naming convention is a political football that is tossed back and forth depending on your POV and what axe you have to grind. Again, my 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

When I wrote the request, I wondered if anybody would respond and if nobody did, I was thinking of using the "area" term. It seems Cisjordan most commonly refers to the West Bank. In WP it is a redirect to that article. I think that it also refers to the are more generally but it seems that usage is mostly among academics. As for the contemporary terms, it seems that the Mamluks divided the area into sanjaks (districts) of the Damascus Wilayah (province). I'm thinking of using a term like "Mamluk Levant" since that also gives some of the bigger picture as well. But I'm fine with any of the terms I've heard. Thanks for all the input. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Academic writers in English call it Palestine with very few exceptions. This is true even for Israeli historians who call it Eretz Yisrael in the Hebrew editions of their books. To Ckruschke: the place was divided into three provinces, Palestina Prima, Palestina Secunda, and Palestina Tertia, in the late Roman and Byzantine periods. Zero 01:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Looking at some sources on Palestine, emperor Vespasian officially named the area Palestine in CE 70. Before that, the area was known as "Syria Palestina" and apparently the name ultimately stems from Philistines that lived in or around the area. --Dailycare (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of category

There are about 20 country's who don't recognize Israel and countries who call the area "Palestine", Hezbollah and Hamas (Hamas being elected by the Palestinian people) do not recognize Israel either. Is there any reason why the "Category:Disputed territories in Asia" shouldn't be in this article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  1. "Tel Aviv University, Israel Democracy Institute, Peace Index August 2010". Retrieved 2010-12-07.
  2. database search from eyeontheun.org
  3. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+12&version=NASB
Categories: