Talk:Israel

Notes

References

Restoring stable version of the lead regarding borders of Israel

An RfC closed without consensus, which according to the policy means that that the last stable version should be used. Before the discussion (and the accompanying edit warring) began, the stable version at least 500 edits back did not say that the borders were specified by the UN proposal, it said that the borders were not specified at all. This is the version that should be restored according to the wikipedia policy. If you see a policy reason to do otherwise, please say so. Please do not begin discussing the content again, this is exactly what the RfC was for and it is clear there is no consensus.“WarKosign” 19:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign The RfC was closed by Guy with the comment "In an area this contentious, you need a lot more input to constitute a consensus". In what way does this justify your objection to a continuation of discussion? Did not hear what? Please can you specify which topics or areas of discussion you now view as taboo. Can you cite the WP:PG reference related to the above.

You advocate reverting to a version of text "The borders of the new state were not specified" that was not even included in the options of the RfC. How is this justified? GregKaye 19:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Please read WP:NOCONSENSUS, specifically "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". The issue of the borders in the lead was stable until you added a {{cn}} tag and there began discussion + edit warring. Since a consensus was not be reached this way I began an RfC. JzG closed the RfC with the comment "In an area this contentious, you need a lot more input to constitute a consensus", which I understand as "there was no consensus reached". In such cases the policy requires us to restore the last stable version that existed before any contested changes, and this is what Plot Spoiler and Ykantor did. Please disregard my own attempt to do so, I should not have done it. What is your concern, that a different procedure should be followed or that this is not the stable version prior to any changes that should be restored ? “WarKosign” 20:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"The borders of the new state were not specified" was added on 17 September and was not disputed for over 4 months and therefore gained consensus via WP:SILENCE. Another part that was restored was "which was, however, neither a binding resolution nor subsequently implemented". It was originally added in the same edit but was soon removed. I was under the impression that it existed for a long time but I can't find it in the history now so apparently I was wrong, I'm fine with removing it. “WarKosign” 21:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You'd be much better off trying the question at a venue that will gain more input. I am astonished it got so little here, maybe we're making progress and this article is no longer a battleground. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign: When you presented your unsigned/undated RfC, as of 13:26, 14 February 2015, you presented options as:

Please select which (possibly more than one) of these options (possibly with wording changes) should appear in the lead, or suggest your own:

1. The UN partition plan specified the borders for the new Jewish state. The plan's borders were ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries.
2. The UN partition plan specified the borders for the new Jewish state. The plan was accepted by the Jewish public and by the Jewish Agency but rejected by the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee.
3. Israel's declaration of independence did not specify any borders.
4. The only reference in the text of the declaration of independence to the borders of the new state is the use of the term "Eretz-Israel".

You did not even mention the option of the text "The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration"

At the time of the opening of the RfC the text read: "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries" which also was not amongst the options that you presented.

This text had been in the article since 19:20, 29 January 2015 with the content having been widely discussed in threads Talk:Israel/Archive_47#UN and Israel views on borders which was initiated by Gouncbeatduke as of 18:40, 22 January 2015, Gouncbeatduke cannot now respond to this situation due to an iban that has been placed between the two of you. The text was again discussed at Talk:Israel/Archive 47#The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state. in a thread started 23:19, 13 February 2015 to discuss your edit to the thread title text. My response with the same, I think, justifiable indignation that I again feel was: "For fucks sake WarKosign, this has been extensively discussed at Talk:Israel#UN and Israel (now in archive as mentioned) views on borders with the title of that thread having been unilaterally changed by me from Talk:Israel#Edit Warring by User:WarKosign. I don't want to regret having been bothered with having made this change. The added text is clearly gratuitous POV in the context of existing text in the lead and with a lack of immediate reference in the lead to the image that I have again placed here to the right. Please stop edit warring or first bring your thoughts here for discussion." You then responded with unjustified accusation which following challenge you thankfully struck.

Now you have had, I think, the temerity to have gone back to a previously discussed and discarded text that you did not even deem to mention as a serious proposal in the RfC. No. GregKaye 22:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Temerity is to insist to keep your changes that you support, even though there is no consensus, no matter how long you dragged the discussion went on, and not even on an RfC.

Please tell me which of these points you do not understand or dispute:

1. The description of the (lack of) definition of borders in the article's lead was stable for 4 months prior to January 22.
2. On January 22 a series of edits and discussions began
3. After several rounds of discussions it was clear that it is not going anywhere and I opened an RfC
4. The RfC concluded with "no consensus"
5. It does not matter what were the options in the RfC since none of them was accepted
6. The policy in such cases is to go back to the last stable version before the dispute
7. The stable version is the one that existed before January 22, namely "The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration"

Please say on which of these procedural points we disagree so I can focus there and perhaps explain it better. I asked for assistance at Wikipedia:Editor assistance to help us resolve this issue. “WarKosign” 14:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign:

1. The changes were made by Gouncbeatduke and not me. Please strike your comment "your changes"

2. Where have I insisted on keeping any particular change? There is a clear problem with the previous text as is very well presented below and there may be various solutions to reconciling these issues. Please strike "insist to keep".

3. Where did I drag the discussion. Again please strike.

Despite your repeated behaviour in similar situations I will directly answer your questions.

1. I agree that an undiscussed edit occurred four months prior to it being challenged on January 22 with my addition of a {{cn}} tag. Please note that this does not constitute any start or "edit warring" as you have labelled it above.

2. I do not have a record of the edit history of that content. I only know of the widely discussed edit as mentioned.

3. After some time of editing in previous discussion you also had the option of opening a sub heading within the existing thread so as to keep the relevant information in context.

4. The RfC was closed, perhaps without reference being made to the large amount of content in the previous discussions and which were not cited in the opening post with which you started the RfC or anywhere at a later point in that relatively short discussion.

5. Of course it matters. If the text: "The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration" had been presented then very strong and clear objections would have been presented against this content.

6. As I have already quoted, the WP:PG at WP:NOCONSENSUS says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". Your RfC was not written to call into question any particular edit and, as mentioned, neither mentioned an earlier or a present form of the text. Given that the RfC had a focus on the future development of the wording then a clear solution would be in favour of "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal". However there is a discussion below within a non problematic or a non problematic removal of text can be addressed.

7. A text that was, as far as I am aware, previously undiscussed read: "The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration" Four months is a short space of time and, I consider that there is weak claim for stability as based on an edit made as recently as 17 September, with no edit summary.

GregKaye 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

We got an answer: "This means that the change for which there currently is no consensus should be reverted in favor of the version for which there was a long-standing silent consensus, and a new RfC should be opened". GregKaye, if you wish please create a new RfC so anyone can respond, worded as you choose. Meanwhile I'll remove "which was, however, neither a binding resolution nor subsequently implemented" which was not in the long-standing stable version. “WarKosign” 05:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign I am pleased that your comment: "Please do not begin [[WP:IDHT|discussing the content again]], this is exactly what the RfC was for and it is clear there is no consensus." has not carried.

Perhaps we will need to develop options for an RfC. GregKaye 06:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I meant - please do not begin discussing the content again *before we have a stable version*. What are your concerns with the current version that you would like to address ? My main concern with the attempted changes was the mix-up between the UN partition plan and the declaration of independence. The way I see it - the partition plan proposed/specified borders, but since it was not fully approved nor implemented, these proposed borders were never a base of the declared state, and the actual State of Israel was declared without specific borders. In my opinion the lead says it adequately at the moment (once we add the clarification + citation as proposed two sections down).“WarKosign” 07:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign You stated policy demand that the text be returned to say "The borders of the new state were not specified" and said: "Please do not begin [[WP:IDHT|discussing the content again]], this is exactly what the RfC was for and it is clear there is no consensus.". I asked, "In what way does this justify your objection to a continuation of discussion? Did not hear what?" My main concern is a tendentious and partisan practice, consciously driven or not, amongst editors here. Again and again it just creates this huge waste of time trying to deal with editors who, for instance, say one thing and then say that they meant another. Please note the appreciated response of Ykantor below, "I am very sorry about my mistake". I recently did similar here. I said, "I really goofed there and am extremely sorry for any possible offence taken. You don't need me to say this but what you said was quite fair." Obviously there does not need to be any requirement of any level of response but at least some form of acknowledgement in future situations would be good. Honestly, please, this should be basic stuff. We all need to be accountable for our actions. We are all, IMO, better off if we deal with each other in direct ways with consideration for the situations of our fellow editors. GregKaye 15:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: My objection was to continue the discussion *before* establishing a stable baseline. This is a version that describes both points in question in the lead (UN parition plan and the lack of borders definition in the declaration) in a manner identical to the last stable version prior to January 22. If we can't agree on that, there is no point discussing - we need someone external to determine the baseline.

Now, let's follow WP:BRD. I assumed that it's better to clarify that the lack of definitions was in the declaration of independence and boldly added it. If you do not agree, you are fully within your right to revert it (or ask me to do it), and then we will discuss this change until we seem to agree on something, and then either of us can re-try applying the edit. It is important not to skip the discussion because otherwise it becomes edit warring that can't end well.

I am not very good at apologizing, sorry about that. When I make mistakes (and I certainly do), I try to admit them as soon as possible and correct them - hence my self-reverts and striking the contested bits in my texts.

WP:IDHT is 'Failure or refusal to "get the point"', that is repeating the same question over in over in different forms or making the same argument over and over. Once we had several iterations and it's clear that I can not change your mind any more than you can change mine, there is no point to continue discussing. If you want to gain consensus for any change that you propose, go ahead and start an RfC, hopefully one worded better than my last attempt and promoted at more forums.

You are talking about "tendentious and partisan practice", and I assume it implies promoting pro- or anti-Israeli views. I do not think it applies. According to the version that you promote Israel was established within the UN borders and yet it was invaded by the Arab states, and then in self defence it captured additional territories. Another version (which I believe to be factually correct) is that Israel leaders wanted to keep the option of having legal claim to more territory than the UN partition plan allowed, so they kept the borders intentionally vague in the declaration. One could even say that these intentions to expand could be the trigger to the 1948 war. I do not see how this version which I hold correct shows Israel in a better light, so I do not understand how supporting it can be considered pro-Israeli bias. “WarKosign” 20:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign your objection was against discussion as in "Please do not begin discussing the content again". GregKaye 20:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Indeed it was, and the title of the section was (and still is) "Restoring stable version of the lead regarding borders of Israel". We should not be discussing new content before we are done discussing the restoration of the stable version. Please answer - yes or no, as you like the answers to go - whether you consider this version to be a good approximation of the content we had on January 22. “WarKosign” 20:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes - and then we would need to add a citation needed tag. GregKaye 20:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be going in circles, but at least the circles are getting quicker. There is no need to add the CN tag if we have two citations at hand. Yes or no - do you agree that the statement "the borders were not specified" appearing immediately after mentioning the declaration of independence refers to the declaration ? If the answer is yes - do you agree that it's better to add "by the declaration" or something like it to make sure everybody understands that ? If the answer was no, what do you think this statement means ? “WarKosign” 20:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

yes yet this does nothing to resolve the problem of the text.

Let's stick to what it says. It doesn't make an iota of difference what I think it means or you think it means or what anyone else here, after checking the references etc., thinks it means. We are an encyclopedia that caters for readers and we have to deal with what things say.

As mentioned below, if the lead is to contain content relating to provisions within documentation, it should positively comment on the relevant content within the foundational UN partition plan and not a comparatively irrelevant late edit omission of a content from the declaration. You are the one who has been pulling things round in circles.

I started with the justified addition of the {{cn}} tag in regard to a very one sided and non neutral content of text. GregKaye 04:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's stick to what the statement says. It says that the declaration of independence did not reference specific borders, and you already agreed that it is factually correct. There are sources (including the declaration itself) that easily prove this point, so there is no need whatsoever for a CN tag, we can just cite the source. You may say that the statement is ambiguous in whether it refers to the declaration (in which case we agreed that it's correct) or to something else (in which case we agreed that it's incorrect), therefore we can quite easily append it to remove any possibility of misunderstanding.

It is very important what we think the statements in the article say. We can never be certain what a readers will understand from the content we write, so the best approximation we have is what we understand ourselves; the goal is to write content that is as unlikely to be misinterpreted as possible.

You are calling the UN partition plan "foundational" and insist that the declaration of independence is irrelevant compared to that. In my opinion it contradicts the sources. You may be confusing the partition plan with Resolution 181(II). The partition plan specified borders that were never agreed upon nor implemented. The resolution resulted in termination of the British mandate and establishment of the State of Israel, which did happen.

I tried to settle it via an RfC, it was the question: which has to be mentioned in the lead - UN partition plan, the declaration, both or neither - and how. Wikipedia:Consensus says that RfC is supposed to be the last stop to build a consensus. Maybe I did not word it properly, and we certainly did not advertise it enough to attract a significant number of opinions. I would much rather somebody other than me would create a new RfC, so I could not be accused of manipulating the result by using some wording, nor of preventing anyone from participating. “WarKosign” 06:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You keep calling this statement "non neutral content", can you please explain what it means ? I understand how it may be considered wrong (if applied to more than the declaration) or undue (if one believes that the declaration of independence is not an important part of establishment of a state), but what can be non-neutral about a factual statement ? “WarKosign” 07:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Before you go running ahead, what did the, as its been called, stable version of the text say? What was that content? grief. really, I said that adding citations "does nothing to resolve the problem of the text." and "Let's stick to what it says." the text, following talk of the UN partition plan and passing reference to the declaration of independence said "The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration"

We have made genuine progress below and I have no idea why we are still discussing these things here.

I had expressed my view that the late edit omission of a content from the declaration of independence was comparatively irrelevant in relation to the UN plan.

To present information to state that borders were not specified without stating that they had previously been specified -- well I'll let you think through the, I think, obvious issues of neutrality in this regard yourself.

You have presented the case that we should go back to a January version of the text and then have purely debating the point of a development of text in association to the declaration. GregKaye 23:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You talk of a new RfC. What changes if any from the current text are on your mind? GregKaye 23:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

nothing like the previous version

@Gouncbeatduke: : what do you mean by " this is nothing like the previous version"? Ykantor (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"The borders of the new state were not specified.", not a NPOV

Changing from "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN" to "The borders of the new state were not specified." is a clear misrepresentation of the truth. The borders of the new state were specified by the UN. The borders specified by the UN were accepted by the Jewish Agency for Israel. To sum all this up in the lead with the statement "The borders of the new state were not specified." is completely dishonest. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

- @Gouncbeatduke, GregKaye, WarKosign, Oncenawhile, Jeppiz, Flinders Petrie, Paul Barlow, and Zero0000::As a compromise, I suggest to write this text which is so important for you, but in the article body and not in the lead. The lead should be short and summarize the important aspects only. BTW we have to discuss this text. we might add Ben Gurion response to the idea of specifying the borders in the declaration: "Since the Arab state are invading and declared the intention to destroy us, we will have to defend ourselves, and if we succeed to occupy areas like Jerusalem and the road to Jerusalem, it will remain ours. (BTW I have to verify his exact text)

- In the lead I suggest to return the sentence that you deleted but to slightly modify it, such as:" The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state." (declaration=> the independence declaration"), in order to clarify the meaning. (BTW it was already clear in my opinion). Ykantor (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ykantor: The article body already contains some detail on the partition plan and the declaration of independence (and it's lack of mentioning borders other than "Eretz Israel"). The dispute was about the lead. The lead in fact does already mention both the UN plan and the declaration of independence. I agree with your proposal to clarify that "the borders were not specified by the declaration" in case someone may not understand it from the context.

GregKaye originally was concerned that this statement did not have a source - here it is:

"The initial draft stated that the boundaries of the state would be those established by the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947. The inclusion of this was rejected by the larger committee charged with approving the draft by a vote of 5-4."

and

"the document ... implicitly denies to the UN the right to determine the borders of the Jewish state"

“WarKosign” 06:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

And of course the declaration itself can be used as a primary source - the text of the declaration is a proof that it does not contain any mention of the UN borders and it would be "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" “WarKosign” 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Images of "specification" as added to previous talk page discussions

Please WarKosign, genuinely please, the source that you present here is exactly the same citation that you added way back in your Revision as of 13:49, 22 January 2015. This content, which by no means justifies the text "The borders of the new state were not specified", relates, as indicated in the title of the source webpage, specifically to "The Israeli Declaration of Independence: ...".

This source, if anything, indicates that there had been, as presented in your above quoted text, "boundaries of the state" namely "those established by the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947."

Please again look at the map. The idea that we can present the negative "The borders of the new state were not specified" remains laughable. GregKaye 07:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: This is the map of the partition plan. Of course the plan specified borders, the borders that it proposed. Now please look at the text of the declaration of independence. Do you see any specification of borders there ? Do you see any reference to any other document that specifies the borders ? The borders were specified by a proposal that was not implemented, they were not specified by the declaration of independence. “WarKosign” 07:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign Again, directly responding to your request, of course I don't see any reference to this specifically in the declaration of independence. Thank you for your comments.

The text of the second paragraph (sans refs earlier in the text) begins: "On 29 November 1947, the [[United Nations General Assembly]] recommended the adoption and implementation of the [[United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine|Partition Plan]] for [[Mandatory Palestine]]. The end of the [[British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)|British Mandate for Palestine]] was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, [[David Ben-Gurion]], the Executive Head of the [[World Zionist Organization|Zionist Organization]] and president of the [[Jewish Agency for Israel|Jewish Agency for Palestine]], [[Israeli Declaration of Independence|declared]] "the establishment of a [[Jewish state]] in [[Eretz Israel]], to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate. The borders of the new state were not specified. ..."

In this text the "the United Nations General Assembly ... Partition Plan" gets full and direct mention while reference to the "Israeli Declaration of Independence" is only "declared" within the context of a piped link. In such context an unqualified presentation of "The borders of the new state were not specified" demonstrates a flagrant misrepresentation of the content. I had personally completely missed that the declaration was even mentioned. GregKaye 07:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: What if it's changed to "... by the declaration" or even "The Declaration of Independence did not specify the borders of the state", would it address this concern of yours ?“WarKosign” 08:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

One way to do things might involve adding a statement regarding the UN specifying borders and the declaration not specifying borders. Otherwise all that is being presented is a statement about a negative. GregKaye 08:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be too detailed for the lead. We could add it in the article's body, it does not say explicitly that the partition plan specified borders and what kind of borders it was. It seems to me quite obvious that a partition plan would specify partition, i.e border. It seems non-obvious that a state is declared without specifying where it is to exist (except a non-specific "Eretz-Israel"), so in my opinion it warrants inclusion in the lead. “WarKosign” 08:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A content on the Partition plan would positively comment on a content that was there. I believe that it has already been discussed that declarations of independence do not regularly or notably specify borders and the information on an absence of information in the declaration agreement gives no significant contribution to the article. GregKaye 17:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Indeed, sigh, here we go again. I replaced the with references we discussed here and tried to clarify that the statement refers to the declaration. If you disagree with the version, let's go back to the stable version until we can agree on something on the talk page to avoid any edit warring.

Can you point to historical precedents where the declaration did not mention borders *while it was not otherwise obvious what the borders are*? One such example is State of Palestine and the article contains the phrase "The borders of the declared State of Palestine were not specified.". “WarKosign” 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign Can I please once again ask you a straight yes or no question. In the time that you had your RfC running, were you aware that, if the RfC did not come to consensus, that this would mean a return to the text "The borders of the new state were not specified", a text that you did not mention as an option in the RfC? GregKaye 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Yes, I was aware of the WP:NOCONSENSUS policy and assumed how it would be applied in such case. Option #3 in the RfC was in fact a variation of the same statement, except in my opinion it's better because it makes it 100% clear what did not specify the borders. I believed that the RfC would end with mention of both the UN partition plan and the declaration's lack of borders, that is 1+3 or 2+3.

WarKosign it is a significant departure from the earlier statement in that is takes a general comment and then gives all of its attention to one document. It lessens balance in the text by giving more attention to just one document and what it doesn't say. GregKaye 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I always try to understand the rules of a system that I operate within and I recommend you do the same. Here is a useful page for that. “WarKosign” 19:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I should explain that I reverted Gouncbeatduke in respect of Wikipedia's policies, not out of any personal preference. We should always avoid edit warring and we should respect consensuses. My reversion was not about taking sides. As a matter of fact, I agree with Gouncbeatduke (and some others) that the sentence makes little sense and should be removed, but it should be removed in accordance with policies to avoid any edit warring.Jeppiz (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate it, and you are very welcome to express your opinion.“WarKosign” 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

- I would like to propose the additional text, as said previously.

- In the lead, I propose to adapt GregKaye text: "the borders were not specified by the declaration", or similar.

- In the article: The Yishuv accepted the U.N partition resolution, with the mentioned borders. (and paraphrase Morris's text:)"The Zionist leadership initially was chary about violating the UN partition borders, lest this bolster the Arabs’ more general desire to overturn the resolution or give offense to the international community. The Zionist shift from unreserved adherence to the UN borders to expansionism was slow and hesitant. The pan-Arab invasion of mid-May ended the hesitancy: if the Arabs were defying the United Nations and were bent on destroying the Jewish state, the Jews would take what was needed for survival, and perhaps a little more. ". Ykantor (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. In fact, I just implemented the first part (except I wrote "in the declaration").“WarKosign” 18:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I object to this. Ykantor can you specify what you mean "GregKaye text" The previous text solely mentioned a lack of specification of borders. It wasn't there to devote additional attention on one document. GregKaye 19:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This phrase could be read in two ways: either as referring only to the declaration (which is mentioned in the previous sentence) or as referring to the whole history of the Jewish state. In the first case it's factually correct and easily supported by sources, but arguably undue. In the second case it's gross misrepresentation of facts. I personally have no doubt that the first case was the intended one, but apparently not everybody thinks so. With the clarification we can be certain that nobody will assume it's the second option. “WarKosign” 20:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This article has turned into a anti-Arab tirade that in no way represents the truth. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

As a potential balance to the content I have added this edit to follow information on the partition plan and to present, "This UN plan specified borders for new Arab and Jewish states and also specified an area of [[Corpus separatum (Jerusalem)|Jerusalem and its environs]] which was to be administered by the UN under an international regime." GregKaye 19:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

What you just added is factually correct and neutral albeit too detailed for the lead in my opinion. Per WP:LEAD "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.", which is currently not the case with the description of the UN partition plan. “WarKosign” 19:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

- @GregKaye:: I am very sorry about my mistake, and I have just sriked it through. What is the meaning of yours:" It wasn't there to devote additional attention on one document".? Apologies.

- @Gouncbeatduke:: Yours: "no way represents the truth". Why do you think so?

Concerning the tirade, I am Israeli, but it is not my duty to push for anti-something. I would rather achieve hopefully a consensus. Ykantor (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign Similar thoughts have been on my mind I think for much of the time since I first added the {{cn}} tag to the text. Since I did this has anyone got around to just deleting the text? I think that two valid routes forward my be to keep all or delete all. GregKaye 21:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Question I'm not very involved by a genuinely do not understand the need to add the sentence about "no defined borders" to the lead, not in any form. We don't have similar sentences for other states (none that I've seen - if there is any, it's the exception) so I'd say the onus is on those who want to add it to explain why we should bring it up at all. I can see no compelling reason, but of course willing to listen to any argument for or against.Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I think the point is how obvious the borders are. If the borders are already obvious, there is little point in defining them in the declaration.

Initial drafts of Israel's declaration of independence contained reference to the UN partition plan's borders, but it was intentionally decided to omit this reference. Not mentioning the lack of borders especially after the UN partition plan is mentioned creates the false picture that the state was declared within the plan's borders (or on all of Mandatory Palestine). The first actual borders were set by the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, a.k.a "1967 borders".

The article on State of Palestine says "The borders of the declared State of Palestine were not specified.", and the statement there is needed for exactly the same reasons as here, because the article mentions West bank and Gaza as well as the UN partition plan, and the reader might assume some specific borders while in fact no specific borders were claimed, only the general territory.

USA for example did not define the borders, but it was declared by the Thirteen Colonies which had well-defined borders at that point in time.

During the Dissolution of the Soviet Union many states declared independence and as far as I can tell none of them defined borders, but Republics of the Soviet Union had well-defined borders that the independent states inherited.

I can't think of other recent examples of declaration of independence with non-obvious borders. It would be interesting to see what their articles say about the borders. “WarKosign” 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Images of "specification" as added to previous talk page discussions

WarKosign You say "If the borders are already obvious, there is little point in defining them in the declaration." and this is fair enough. The borders were obvious and, if there is any relevant content that should go in the lead, surely this should be it. Surely there would be no balance if we just stated the negative without presenting the positive. My suggestion towards the end of the RfC, which I really should have followed up on, was "The UN partition plan prescribed borders for the new Jewish state but neither Israel or neighboring countries chose to accept its prescription". From this point on there was wrong on all sides. GregKaye 15:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In order to achieve a consensus, I am prepared to withdraw my proposal (of 18:26, 26 April 2015) and accept user:Jeppiz proposal not to mention the " not defined borders" in the lead. Moreover, in my opinion the sentence "The only reference in the text of the Declaration to the borders of the new state is the use of the term, Eretz-Israel" might be deleted as well. Ykantor (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We already have a consensus, the silent consensus that existed until January 22. If we agree on a new version it has to be at least as good and in some regards better, otherwise there is no point in making any change. “WarKosign” 19:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The borders of the newly declared state of Israel are not at all obvious. The declaration mentions Eretz Yisrael, which could be understood as anything from the UN plan, to the Mandatory Palestine to Greater Israel. We know for certain that it did not mean the UN plan because the authors intentionally did not mention it, but if we don't write this explicitly the reader won't know that. We have a source saying that the authors of the declaration denied the UN the right to determine the borders. The positive describes a plan that remained on the paper and was never implemented. The negative is far more important because it describes something that actually happened, that is the establishment of the state of Israel. “WarKosign” 20:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank-you Ykantor and Jeppiz. Gouncbeatduke is right to indicate that a presentation of "The borders of the new state were not specified" is "not a NPOV" content.

The UN partion plan is by far the most significant document as it has content that actually had substance to contribute. Reference to what another document does not say is relatively inconsequential. I still recommend my text, "The UN partition plan prescribed borders for the new Jewish state but neither Israel or neighboring countries chose to accept its prescription". Either that or keep both references. GregKaye 20:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with Greg's suggestion.Jeppiz (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not object (too strongly) to including this statement as long as the statement that the declaration of independence did not specify the borders is kept.“WarKosign” 14:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I already agreed to include a similar statement 4 months ago. “WarKosign” 14:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what there is to object about. Placing both contents shows both sides of a story. This is fine. The content of borders not being specified only really gains its significance in the context of knowing that borders were specified. GregKaye 14:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

- It is difficult (may be impossible) to summarize the borders issue in one sentence. e.g. This proposed text:"The UN partition plan prescribed borders for the new Jewish state but neither Israel or neighboring countries chose to accept its prescription". While this sentence is correct and balanced, it does not expose the sides main issue. For both sides the borders were a part of a package deal and they referred to the whole deal and not to the sub issue of the borders. The Arabs wanted one Arab state in all of Palestine so they had no issue with borders. The Yishuv main desire was a Jewish state, which meant a partition. They stuck with the whole package, including the borders as the only practical path for a Jewish state. Later both sides priorities were changed.

- I am still for adding few sentences to clarify the issue, or alternatively avoid mentioning the borders at all. Having said that, achieving a consensus is more important, so if everyone accept this sentence (or another one) , I'll accept it too. Ykantor (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ykantor: We could have this (or similar) sentence in the lead and an expanded explanation in the body. Even in the body we should be brief since it's not the main subject of the article. “WarKosign” 06:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Israel was ranked the 11th-happiest country in the world (2015 report)

Hi guys.

I found the level of "happines" in Israel, and it's strong contrast to neighboring countries interesting. Should one consider to mention this in the main article?

• 11: Israel

• 82: Jordan
• 103: Lebanon
• 108: Palestinian Territories
• 135: Egypt
• 156: Syria

• 158: (Togo came on last place)

The summary in The Algemeiner seems to match the numbers in the World Happines Report 2015, but I have no idea if the publisher is credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleckwise (talk • contribs) 07:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is another source. “WarKosign” 07:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If used , in English Wikipedia perhaps the most relevant comparisons might be to English speaking nations. GregKaye 20:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Beware of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. “WarKosign” 07:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I always do. GregKaye 10:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Notes

References

Mossad le-Aliya Bet

Although the literal translation of "Aliya Bet" is the meaningless "immigration B" (or "immigration 2") the actual meaning was "illegal immigration". This is well known and easily cited. The purpose of the "Bet" was to distinguish it from legal immigration. Zero^talk 07:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Mossad LeAliyah Bet "was facilitating illegal immigration in violation of governmental British restrictions". However, writing ("Institution for Illegal Immigration") near its name implies that this is the translation of its name, which is incorrect. "lit." near the arguably meaningless literal translation makes sure we do not mislead the readers. We could write (which facilitated illegal immigration), but the nature of the institution is explained in the following sentence. I suggest to either restore the literal translation or remove the clarification entirely, it is already available in the wikilinked article.“WarKosign” 07:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that what was there will only confuse readers. Literally "Bet" is the second letter of the alphabet, but its meaning in this context is something like "alternative". I don't mind omitting it, given that there is a wikilink to where a longer explanation is (hopefully) available. The following sentences are a bit of a whitewash but I'm not on that case at the moment. Zero^talk 09:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"appallingly biased casualty summary"

Monochrome Monitor wrote "Approximately 1,000 Israelis were murdered in the suicide bombings that had characterized the Second Intifada." it made several claims:

• ~1000 Israelis were killed by suicide bombings in the Second Intifada
• Suicide bombings were acts of murder
• Suicide bombings characterized the Second Intifada

@Zero0000: Do you dispute correctness of any of these claims ? Which of these claims do you find appallingly biased, and what would you write instead ?“WarKosign” 08:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Including military casualties under "murdered" and omitting more than 3 times as many Palestinian deaths is a fine example of appalling bias. Zero^talk 09:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

1,137 Israelis were killed in suicide bombings, 887 out of them civilians. Most of soldiers killed were off-duty, so they were not killed in their military facility. We could add the number of Palestinians killed in these suicide bombings, I expect it to be equal to the number of the bombings themselves. Do you see numbers of Israeli casualties in any article on Palestinians ? This is an article on Israel, not on Palestine or Second Intifada, so there is no reason to include the numbers of Palestinian causalities here, but we could wikilink to Second Intifada.“WarKosign” 09:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a part of the Second Intifada and we can't only mention what happened to one side of the conflict. He also removed "allegedly" from the claim that the Palestinians "planned" the Second Intifada. Many other things was also changed without consulting with the sources. I have seen Monochrome Monitor do it on other articles too and it must be stressed that this can't be done. If the info is wrong, you get new, reliable sources and don't otherwise remove parts that have been said by the sources that are already there. Other changes were to remove that it is disputed that Jerusalem is Israel's capital and that parts of the Palestinian territories are occupied. I will revert them so this can be discussed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The claim "most of soldiers were off-duty" is a false claim (actually most were in the territories on duty). So is "1,137 Israelis were killed in suicide bombings". Israel never recognised an off-duty status for Palestinians at all. But that is not relevant. The rules require the full story to be told in a neutral manner, not a fraction of the story according to some editor's opinion. Zero^talk 12:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll change murdered to killed, it was a bit POV. As for Palestinian deaths, the context is about the West Bank Barrier, which had been constructed to stop suicide bombings.--Monochrome_Monitor 12:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you deleted it. It's pretty important in understanding context. Also, I stand by my edits. Which in particular do you object to? --Monochrome_Monitor 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It is appaling but it is the usual pattern. All sorts of things are written about Israeli casualties and damage, many of the gets dedicated memorial pages, but when it comes to Palestinian casualties, they are minimized or even ridiculed, facts gets removed, they are drive-by tagged, WP:AFD are created etc. Israel gets portrayed as only defending itself while Palestinians are the "terrorists". Statements they can find of any Palestinian saying something awful about Jews must be mentioned (like from Memri TV), not so much when it comes to Israelis. Very respectful NGO's like Amnesty and B'Tselem are portrayed as suspicious while CAMERA etc. are being used.

Just look at Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. The International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) gets quoted about "887 (78 percent) of the 1,137 Israelis killed in Arab terrorist attacks from September 2000 – 2005 were civilians". Just look at the next section, the one about Palestinian casualties. After starting explaning what the section is about (that it is a list Palestinian civilian casualties), it is followed with again quoting ICT who claim 3,179 Palestinians were killed (stated as a fact), while saying it is disputed how many were civilians and how many were not. Then B'Tselem is presented as "claiming" 46% of the Palestinian casualties from 2000 to 2008 were civilians. It is followed by "However, B'tselem has been accused of inflating Palestinian civilian casualties and repeatedly classifying armed terrorists as civilians" and references to a column by Caroline Glick, statements by CAMERA, NGO Monitor and JCPA. ---IRISZOOM (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned some of the issues but can expand on it.

• [1] That the capital city is "disputed" is changed to "de facto". You should read WP:RFC/J. You also remove that Gaza is occupied as you say it "is no longer occupied". Many still considers it to be occupied and if you look at the note, you will see the discussion about that dispute. You also removed "East Jerusalem" because as you say, it is not mentioned in the sources. However, it is part of the West Bank and certainly the Palestinian territories, just like the Gaza Strip is. So the statement could easily be changed to be about the Palestinian territories instead.
• [2] At least the tags about that casualties are valid.
• [3] If the statement is wrong, delete it and get a new source.
• [4] The parts about laws is important because Israel have issued several that have been viewed as annexation. The last part seems questionable as for example UNSC have issued resolutions that say "null and void" etc.
• [5] The First Intifada was, especially in the first years, to a great extent nonviolent and it was against the Israel occupation. It is not POV to say that Israeli is the occupying power.
• [6] Again, if the source is wrong, argue for that backed up with a new source.
• [7] This can't be stated as a fact.
• [8] The first addition is not wrong, however. you should still get a source for that (the description of the peace talks is lacking context though). First part of the next addition is okay, though it should be changed to that it "accelerated" the ending according to that source. The second part have been discussed here, namely the casualties of the Second Intifada. Lastly, you removed that it was the Israeli view that they "responded". It actually started when Israel killed Ahmed Jabari.
• [9] This is not true. Some 2,000-3,000 live in the Jewish Quarter.

So that is why I reverted your changes. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The source you added about Barak's offer is about Olmert's. I will later add about the other, very known view of Barak's offer.

Why did you again make it look like a fact that Israel only "responded" to rocket attacks? It has nothing to do with WP:WEASEL. It is this I described here above about a usual pattern that is bad. For example, you ignore Israel's killing of Ahmed Jabari. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right about the Jewish quarter, I was wrong. As for responding to rocket attacks, we also accept it at face value the "economic and cultural measures aimed at disrupting the Israeli occupation", which is pretty POV in itself. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And more problems:

• "The proposed state included the entirety of the Gaza Strip and over 90% of the West Bank with Jerusalem as a shared capital". In addition to what Iris noted, the source says nothing about Jerusalem as a shared capital.
• "Eichmann remains the only person executed in Israel". This is simply false, see Meir Tobianski. The previous wording was designed to exclude military courts.
• US courts might imagine they can determine historical facts in foreign countries, but that has no weight here.
• MM has a poor understanding of WP:NPOV. Being able to find sources that support a viewpoint does not entitle one to include that viewpoint and ignore others. Since there is serious dissent on the subject of whether the second intifada was planned, it is a policy violation to present only one viewpoint.

MM, many of your first round of changes can be argued as reverts. Some of your second round are definitely reverts. I remind you of the 1RR restriction this article.

Zero^talk 14:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add back the bit about Israeli casualties in the second intifada, though I still think it's important for context. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Palestinians did rise up against the Israeli occupation. Many have today forgotten that it was to a great extent nonviolent, as I have seen Norman Finkelstein say, but it does not change the historical facts. It is simply: if it is a fact, state it. If it is not, attribute it. We can't say Israel "responded" to rocket attacks. However, even the attribution does not make the sentence good, as the killing of Ahmed Jabari is highly relevant but is ignored. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

While killing Jabari was not directly due to the rocket attacks, it was certainly indirectly due to them. Anyway, what do you suggest instead?--Monochrome_Monitor 15:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Also you're right that the first intifada had a large non-violent component, though the second intifada was largely violent. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

BBC writes for example "Israel's offensive on Gaza began with an air strike that killed the commander of Hamas's military wing, Ahmed Jabari, whom it accused of responsibility for "all terrorist activities against Israel from Gaza" over the past decade". --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion would be for an article to be written as something like Casualties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, List of casualties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Chronology of casualties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On this basis I would suggest that an agreement by RfC or similar means might be worked out that every reference to casualties of killings in any Israeli, Palestinian or other related article be linked to this article. GregKaye 11:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome making this article Monochrome

Monochrome Monitor, please do not remove these subtle terms of balance from the article without proper discussion. This is an insidious form of editing and is wholly unacceptable. Examples:

• [10]: removed "allegedly", as if New York courts can decide an issue of Middle Eastern history of which they know nothing, in a neutral fashion
• [11]: removed "what it said was a", as if pretexts for war are beyond question.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not alleged. Do you really the decision of a US court was baseless? It was based on thousands of documents which established that the Second Intifada, rather than being "spontaneous", was extensively planned and financed by the PA. Have you seen these documents? "What it said was a", is fairly conspiratorial. Whether you think the war was justified is a different issue. Why else would they go to war? Because they enjoy killing? --Monochrome_Monitor 16:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

New York courts do not have jurisdiction over Middle Eastern history, just like they do not have the ability to recognise racism and bigotry with respect to the same. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree those ads were inflammatory, and wrongly conflated islam with jew hatred, but that's besides the point. It's more than a US court, it's the overwhelming majority of evidence. Fatah officials have even stated that the second Intifada was pre-planned. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

We follow scholarly sources at wikipedia, not policitized court hearings or the views of cherrypicked "officials". Anyway, the court hearings did not confirm what you say they did. If you want to use the case, link to its wiki article and be specific about its findings. We also need to recognise its shortcomings, such as those described by Michael Ratner here.

On the "what it said was a", we can change the language as you prefer, but it we cannot just delete the caveat. Neither Israeli or Palestinian military or political points of view should be described in wikipedia's neutral voice. Caveats or attributions are necessary in all such cases. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

How about "After the collapse of the talks and a controversial visit by Likud leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, the Second Intifada began which, according to the views of a federal jury, was pre-planned by Yasser Arafat." ? GregKaye 11:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Greg, thanks for your proposal - it's helpful progress. My concern is that I don't think that the court / jury did actually decide that they "pre-planned it". They did find "responsibility" for certain acts of violence, but that is very different from pre-planning the entire Intifada. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Why include what a court has said in this case? It is not like they settled the thing. That rather belongs to the Wikipedia article about the court case. The view that the Palestinians planned it is heavily disputed and to base it on what that court said when we have for example scholars that have discussed it at length is weird. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the court case saw the most in-debth examination of the evidence linking Yasser Arafat to the planning of the Intifada. It proved that terrorism was an official PA policy rather than spontaneous. It was a landmark ruling and its verdict is very pertinent. However you are right that it's disputed. Any suggesting on a rewording? "which many accuse Yasser Arafat of deliberately planning due to the collapse of peace talks"? It's vague but still. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome the reality is that, in life, many people, even members of jury's, can be biased. I had a tenant once who was a part of a particular Christian denomination who said something like, "the Palestinians should go away". I didn't know what to say. People can have predispositions. GregKaye 06:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

From reading this, are we now agreed that the court did NOT conclude that the PLO / Arafat pre-planned the intifada? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It didn't conclude that the intifada was pre-planned, or it made no statement on that, but it found previously undisclosed financial transactions that are highly suggestive of Fatah planning the actual Intifada (not just attacks prior to its beginning). The prosecutors argued that it was pre-planned by this evidence but the court didn't rule on it specifically, they only focused on whether specific attacks were pre-planned. I read a PDF of some of the evidence presented but I can't remember where. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. So please undo your edit. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It is not immediately clear to me why a court in the US is relevant to this article and the conflict. Suppose that a court in Iran ruled on this conflict, or a court in Bolivia, or a court in India, or a court in Turkey? Would we insert that? The rulings of an international court would be relevant, and I'm not saying the ruling of a national court could not be, but a case to explain why it would be relevant is missing.Jeppiz (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian lives matter (separated from thread above to avoid confusion)

In the edits mentioned above, Monochrome Monitor also added the sentence "By this time, more than 1,100 Israelis had been killed, mostly in suicide bombings." There were also significant numbers of Palestinians killed during this period (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Fatalities_1948.E2.80.932011 ). Solely listing Israeli casualties in not a NPOV. Palestinian lives matter as well. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Of coarse they matter. However in context the article is about Israel, and why the barrier was contructed. They barrier was constructed to prevent suicide bombings. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Gouncbeatduke, a formulation like the one cited is not really appropriate. It kind of brings to mind that newspaper from the 19th century that described in detail the tragic death of two persons in a fire on a boat, talking about both victims, who they were, and mourning their tragic loss, before finishing with a short sentence saying '30 blacks also died in the fire'. That is most definitely not what we what, I don't think it's anyone's intention, but the way this sentence is formed brings that example to mind.Jeppiz (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Each of the articles Israeli casualties of war, Palestinian casualties of war refer to the casualties of one side only. So it seems reasonable that the Israel article may include casualties of one side only as well. Ykantor (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't see how that is reasonable at all. Could you explain what the advantage of specifying just Israeli casualties would be, compared to specifying both Israeli and Palestinian casualties.Jeppiz (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Because we aren't summarizing the second intifada. We are explaining why the West Bank Wall was built. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Still not an argument. Giving the actual number of Palestinian casualties would take up less space than saying There were also significant numbers of Palestinians killed during this period .Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

We aren't summarizing the Second Intifada. We are explaining the context behind the building of the wall. Again, this is an article about Israel. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite aware the article is about Israel. And those casualties came from conflict with which country's army? If they are casualties from clashes with the Australian, Bolivian or Canadian army, I agree they are not relevant here. If they are casualties from clashes with the Israeli army, they are relevant. Again, this is an article about Israel.Jeppiz (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Israeli casualties aren't mentioned for any other reason than they explain the context of the barrier. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC) It's just inappropriate in this context. 23:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It's like adding to the article on the Bombing of Pearl Harbor that "100,000 Japanese were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo". --Monochrome_Monitor 23:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The actual number isn't necessary to prove that. If we have a number for one side then we should have a number for both. By the way, if we're talking about rationale for the barrier, the article should mention that the barrier's crossing of the green line is not considered to be driven by the same rationale. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine adding something about the controversial nature of the barrier crossing the green line, since it's relevant to the barrier. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It is also disputable whether or not the reason the barrier exists is because of Palestinian terrorism. See for instance this B'tselem report. In this regard, it is clearly biased towards the Israeli narrative. However, I would have to agree with Monochrome that it is not necessary to include the Palestinian casualties. Within this context, that would be superfluous, since we are discussing Israel's supposed motives in building the wall, not the actual second intifada. JDiala (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia should be a platform for the conspiracy that the wall was built to divide Arabs and Jews. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not a conspiracy. That is, to a large extent, fact. If the only reason the wall was built was to prevent terrorism, why wasn't it built on the green line? JDiala (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

- The conspiracy claim is amazing. In fact, the main stream Israelis demanded to establish a barrier because naturally they wanted more personal security, while the powerful rightist Israelis opposed and still opposing the barrier.

- In Israel, the ruling coalition is frequently acting against the main stream Israelis wishes, in similarity to a lot of other democracies, but the situation in Israel is a bit worst. e.g. the latest Nethanyahu coalition agreements. We suffered more terrorist attacks with lot of killed civilians because the rightist lobby was so powerful, delayed the establishing the barrier, and stopped the barrier project before it was finished.

- I guess that the barrier was built behind the "green line" because when those rightist realized that the popular demand for the barrier couldn't be opposed any more, they took advantage on this operation and shifted the barrier inside the west bank, in order to annex more land. This is a short sighted step, since moving the barrier back to the "green line" is just a matter of money. Ykantor (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the section is not about explaining why Israel built the barrier. That's not the case. Look at this:

After the collapse of the talks and a controversial visit by Likud leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, the Second Intifada began. Some commentators contend that the uprising was pre-planned by Yasser Arafat due to the collapse of peace talks.[212][213][214][215][216][217] Sharon became prime minister in a 2001 special election. During his tenure, Sharon carried out his plan to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip and also spearheaded the construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier,[218] ending the Intifada. [219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229][230] By this time, more than 1,100 Israelis had been killed, mostly in suicide bombings.

So the paragraph is about the conflict during those years. Of course Palestinian casualties should be mentioned. Otherwise readers just see that "some think the Palestinians planned the Intifada, which led to death of over 1,100 Israelis".

There is a reason critics call it an "apartheid wall" or "annexation wall". That is another POV problem if this is not included.

Furthermore, we can't just add that "some commentators" have said that the Palestinians planned the Second Intifada. The opposite view should be mentioned too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The comparison with Attack on Pearl Harbor is not good. If an article talks about that attack generally, yes, the Japanese casualties in that attack is relevant too. The situation here is not that what is suggested is to add how many Palestinians were killed in for example Gaza 2008-09 but describing the same conflict, namely the Second Intifada. So when it talks generally about that conflict, as shown above, Palestinian casualties is relevant too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Reason for removing one sentence

I removed "The Jews almost single-handedly defended Haifa against the crusaders, holding out in the besieged town for a whole month (June–July 1099) in fierce battles." The immediate reason is that the sentence is lifted almost verbatim from a totally unreliable source (Katz, Battleground) who isn't even able to get the year correct (it was 1100). The reason I removed rather than resourced the sentence is that more serious historians do not accept this story. For example Prawer, History of the Jews in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem says "There is nothing, however, to support the suggestion...that the Jews formed the garrison of the city" (p.37). See also Elena Bolomo, The First Crusade and the Latin east as seen from Venice: the account of the Translatio sancti Nicolai, Early Medieval Europe, Volume 17, Issue 4, pages 420–443, November 2009. The issue is too minor and technical for this page. Zero^talk 02:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Folks, once you know that there is a serious scholar who disputes something, WP:NPOV requires you to include that information. Also, this is the main article on Israel and I seriously don't believe a minor incident which gets zero or one sentences in the great majority of books on the history of this region deserves several extensive quotations. If all of the history was treated like that this article would grow to a gigabyte. We have plenty of specialist articles where such quotations would be welcome. I'd like to hear an argument to the contrary. Zero^talk 14:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I just tagged the sentences for undue weight. This is a single battle in the history of the Land of Israel, and it belongs in an article about Palestine and the Crusades, not here. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree too. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead

The lead mentions the disputed status of Jerusalem which I don't think should be in the first paragraph. It should be about Israel and not its capital's status, saying Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital while internationally Tel Aviv is seen as it or some variation of this should be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Jewnited how do you propose to have an article about a Jewish State (that has been called Israel) without addressing the question regarding the extent of that state? Have you read the previous indepth discussions on this issue? GregKaye 05:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria Area

Hi!

I do not speak English...

It can not be removed Judea and Samaria Area From the territory of the State of Israel! Judea and Samaria Area They are an integral part Of the State of Israel! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yair9a (talk • contribs) 05:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yair9a: Israel government never officially claimed that the Judea and Samaria area (a.k.a the West Bank) is a part of Israel. The only part of the area which was (arguably) officially annexed is East Jerusalem, and it is reflected in the article. “WarKosign” 06:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not an excuse ...

Currently the State of Israel controls there, so this area belongs to Israel right now. Not Palestine, not Jordan, not America, nor any other country. Only Israel. Therefore, to change the maps and texts on the Judea and Samaria will be inside Israel.