Talk:Israel/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

"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)

Jerusalem as Israel Contested Capital City

May I suggest that the English version of this article is modified to reflect the French version of the same article, which seems to be much more informative and precise with respect to the contested nature of Jerusalem as the Capital City of Israel. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.180.100 (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please describe what exactly is more informative and precise in the French version, for those not fluent in the language ? “WarKosign” 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

le sens de la langue - dedudelaisrajelito? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:16, 31 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.213.151.40.2 (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. If you have sources saying that that area is currently a part of Israel, it can be stated in the article. Sources do say that this area is under Israeli military control or occupation, and this is what the article says. There is no doubt that some people (apparently including you) believe that it should be part of Israel, but here we describe what is and not what should be. “WarKosign” 11:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What is it that defines a certain area as part of the state? The implementation of state laws in these areas. No?Yair9a (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yair9a: What you are doing is original research, which can't be used on wikipedia. Even if it could be used, you are incorrect - Most of Israeli laws are not applied in the West bank, except inside Israeli settlements. For example, consider taxation, education, criminal law, etc. Logically, Israeli law cannot apply to people who are not citizens (and not even permanent residents), and don't have a right to vote and elect the people settings these laws. The military control does apply restrictions and rules on Palestinians, but these deal only with security considerations. “WarKosign” 16:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? ! All of Area C in Judea and Samaria apply Israeli law! Only in Areas A and B, there is a Palestinian government! In Judea and Samaria there are schools of the Israeli government, the police have the Israeli government has traffic laws by the Israeli government, there is the Israeli government's taxes, and more ... Yair9a (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No state think the West Bank is a part of Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What's the connection?Yair9a (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I see a clear connection. How can we change it to that the West Bank is in Israel when actually not a single state think that? --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have a child class that everyone beat him, and they all think it is necessary to beat him, it means we have to beat him ?! No! The question here is what reality is telling us, rather than what the world thinks! Yair9a (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This being Wikipedia, 'the question' is actually how to neutrally represent what sources say, not what 'reality' is.     ←   ZScarpia   09:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You hear what your mouth is saying? Is the copy, accurate than the original?!Yair9a (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yair9a: you may want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. If your opinion is correct, surely there are lots of reliable sources that agree with you, please point towards them. “WarKosign” 20:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

What is considered credible sources?Yair9a (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources“WarKosign” 07:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2015

104.162.28.233 (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC) religion:Jewish

The question of whether Israel has an official religion has been discussed on this page, and based on reliable sources, editors have concluded the answer is no. Please see footnotes 1, 2, and 3 in the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox: Independence.

One of the infoboxes states that Israel became independent from 'the British Mandate of Palestine' (meaning Mandatory Palestine). That is factually questionable. Strictly speaking, what Ben-Gurion declared on 14 May 1948 was the creation of the state of Israel, to take place at midnight when Mandatory Palestine officially ceased to exist. Popularly, the Declaration of the Creation of Israel is referred to as Israel's 'Declaration of Independence' and the war which started on 15 May 1948 as the 'War of Independence', which often causes people to ask what Israel became independent from. Whatever the answer is, it was not really Mandatory Palestine, which had ceased to exist just before Israel came into existence and the 'War of Independence' started. The infobox title can read 'Independence' rather than 'Creation' if editors like, but if it remains the former, it shouldn't state as a fact that Israel became independent from Mandatory Palestine.     ←   ZScarpia   09:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I see the word "independence" in the infobox, and agree that "establishment" (or "creation", although I like it less) would be more correct.

I think that the change you made (removal of reference to independence from the British Mandate of Palestine) is correct. I would like to keep some mention of the fact that the modern State of Israel replaced the mandate as the sovereign over the territory. I see that typically the Formation section of state infoboxes listed the major powers that used to control the territory (using the sovereignty_type ,established_event, established_date fields of template:Infobox country template). “WarKosign” 15:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That, or anything suggesting the idea of (partial) succession, sounds good.     ←   ZScarpia   21:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I will argue with is that what you call the "Declaration of the Creation of Israel" is actually the "Declaration of Independence." In Hebrew, it is called מגילת העצמאות or הכרזת העצמאות‎, which translates directly to Charter/Declaration of Independence (where עצמאות translates directly to independence). There was no "Declaration of the Creation of Israel," but a Declaration of Independence. They aren't referring to independence from a specific nation, but establishing a nation of independence of government from all others - having their own, independent Jewish State. Goalie1998 (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Goalie, you are mistaken. The official name of the document is the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (ההכרזה על הקמת מדינת ישראל).[12] The term מגילת העצמאות (Scroll of Independence) refers to the physical scroll bearing the words, not to the text of the declaration.RolandR (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, however the point of my statement still stands. It is viewed as a declaration of independence. Everything relating to the establishment of Israel is referred to as Independence (here in Israel, at least) - from the document itself, to Independence Hall, and to the holiday - not to establishment. Again, they weren't referring to independence from a specific previous power, but to independence and sovereignty. Jews at the time felt they needed an independent Jewish State, much as Muslims and Christians had their own independent states. That is the independence they were referring to. Goalie1998 (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

One theory is that Aliya Bet was initiated by the revisionists who were generally excluded from the legal certificates. They had a whole parallel Zionist body including the Zionist movement Bet and then Aliya Bet. It got absorbed into the mainstream when the certificates dried up.Telaviv1 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

First line

I want to remove the Hebrew and Arabic script from the first line of the lead, because we have those in the infobox which is just to the right. It's redundant and it just clutters up the first line. Most of our readers probably can't even read Hebrew or Arabic.Kurzon (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

In the few articles about states with native language not based on latin script I checked, the native name appears both in the lead paragraph and in the infobox.“WarKosign” 11:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That's stupid and I'll happily fix those articles as well if my fellow editors will allow it.Kurzon (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You can try changing China, Russia, Japan, Iran, UAE or about any other country's page and see if the editors watching these pages won't mind you removing their country's name. I suggest you raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography first. “WarKosign” 11:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read MOS:FORLANG, which suggests you're both wrong. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS:FORLANG#Clutter Kurzon (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think WarKosign's suggestion is spot on. Try changing one of those prominent articles (Russia, China) first, and see how that goes. Switzerland might also be a good example, as a country with more than one official language. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with OP. To objectors, please read WP:LEADCLUTTER. An argument may be made for including the Hebrew script, but two languages is too much. JDiala (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Two languages plus multiple IPAs is way too much. Most readers can't even read these things.Kurzon (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Israel has two official languages, so no, two languages in not too much. There's a reason I brought Switzerland up as an example. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Clutter" is defined by how much space all this information takes, not on how many languages the country has.Kurzon (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

My opponent's arguments boil down to "most other articles do it this way". Yes, I like consistency too, do you have a better argument? Kurzon (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

if most articles are written that way, than the MOS is either out of date, or doesn't properly document Wikipedia practice. I don't really need a better one than that, but if you want additional arguments: Israel has two official, non-English script languages. It is useful for readers to know the official name and writing of the country's name in those languages. The Switzerland example is illustrative of this concept: Switzerland has 4 official languages, and the country's name is given in ALL FOUR, plus IPA for ALL FOUR, in the first line. Mind you, that article is rated as a "Good Article", which indicates that at a minimum, it complies with the MOS. I've read WP:LEADCLUTTER, and it is instructive to look at the example it uses for how leads should be written: it gives two IPA pronunciations for the name of a single individual , then a third one in a different language, and then an audio rendition of the name , and then two alternate spellings of the name. Compared to that, having two languages for a country of 8 million people seems quite uncluttered. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

More than two thirds of the first line is unintelligible to most readers, who do not speak Arabic or Hebrew or can read IPA.Kurzon (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There are English transliterations for both the Hebrew and Arabic. IPAs are a feature of nearly every Wikipedia article. Again, look at the Switzerland article. If that one is a "good article", I don't see how you arguments here have merit. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A native name is an important part of a state's identity. Users not interested in the native name(s) can easily skip them. I agree that it could be placed less prominently within the article, but since you are trying to change a long-standing consensus affecting tens of popular articles, you should discuss it at a much larger forum than just one of these articles. “WarKosign” 17:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Other articles do it; therefore, so should we" is not an argument. Notice how cluttered the lead for Switzerland is. That is unacceptable and not proper (per policy). The Republic of India has a myriad of official and nationally recognized languages all of which are important to its identity, yet there is no more than a single transliteration. Another example would be Zimbabwe; sixteen official languages, none of which are included. Now, personally, I don't think it's problematic to include the Hebrew so long as it's not very cluttered. Regarding the argument that name is an "important part of a state's identity", well, one should keep in mind that the (self-proclaimed) identity of Israel is the sole Jewish state and homeland, with Hebrew, the historical language of the Jewish people, being the de facto official language. Arabic is therefore not necessary, since Arabs are a minority. Generally speaking, the minority languages is not included. Furthermore Brad, your interpretation of WP:LEADCLUTTER is erroneous. The point is not that there is some ideal amount of "acceptable" clutter, but that generally speaking, when possible, clutter should be minimized by removing extraneous information. JDiala (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JDiala. It's one thing to include Yisrael (Israel) once, in Hebrew; it's something else entirely to include Medinat Yisrael (State of Israel) in both Hebrew and Arabic. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Hebrew is more important for Israel than Arabic, and if only one of the two official languages is to be presented - it should be Hebrew. I remember some people succeeding to add Arabic spelling of Benjamin Netanyahu's name to the lead despite my objections, but its gone now.“WarKosign” 14:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Hebrew, Arabic, and IPAs are relevant and should be included, but since there is so much of it, and since most readers won't understand them, they should be shifted to some other part of the article, such as the infobox or a "Names" section.Kurzon (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Do we have consensus? JDiala (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The only part of the opening sentence that I would question would be the inclusion after the first word of: "(/ˈɪzreɪəl/ or /ˈɪzriːəl/)". Israel for goodness sake. How hard is that? I think that the inclusion of the languages gives a nice flavour of cultural identity. Hebrew is also unique as a reformatted reinvented or at least resomethinged language and if there ever was a partially English speaking country that deserved reference in another script, this, I think, would be it. Israel is also openly multilingual. See the road signs. See: he:ישראל. The Hebrew version of the page presents the name in English. This is the culture and it would not be encyclopedic if we failed to present this. Arabic is an official language and also the most widely spoken language in the area for long periods of history and should also be included. It takes up little space. GregKaye 17:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Arabic and Hebrew names should be included too - IN THE INFOBOX.Kurzon (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As do I, but either national languages are to be taken out of the lead or they should remain. What is it about the national languages that makes this culturally relevant content a problem while the arguably pointless "(/ˈɪzreɪəl/ or /ˈɪzriːəl/)" text remains? An example of a famously neutral country is Switzerland. Please do not make "Israel" to be different. GregKaye 06:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

These IPA spellings are not as pointless as you think. I've heard Israel being pronounced both as is-rah-el and and is-real by native English speakers, which is exactly what these IPA spellings say. Whether they should be in the lead or somewhere else is a different matter. “WarKosign” 07:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How about as a footnote?Kurzon (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this seems to be a wikipedia wide issue, and not near resolution to Kurzon's standards, how about a RfC? Goalie1998 (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

An RfC sounds like a good idea, but it should be done at a larger scope than a single article, perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. “WarKosign” 14:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I really do not see how the p&g of WP:LEADCLUTTER as per the example of Ghengis Khan (with its two and a half lines of text inclusive of three citations and a section of vertically aligned text) applies.

The sequence in the text of the Israel article is that we read "Israel (/ˈɪzreɪəl/ or /ˈɪzriːəl/), officially the State of Israel"; then there is a bracket; then there is the text at issue which contains a very significant changes of formating styles and which, if anything, is consistent in its variation; then there is a close bracket; then, after less than one line of text (at least on display on my screen) we get back to a more expected presentation of text in Latin script. Once finding the beginning of the bracketed section, it is relatively easy to find the end.

Another option would be to remove sections of text such as:

• "Medīnat Yisrā'el" and "Dawlat Isrāʼīl"

or

• "IPA: [mediˈnat jisʁaˈʔel] ^ⓘ;" and " IPA: [dawlat ʔisraːˈʔiːl]".

In total the Arabic related content has about 80% of the length of the Hebrew related content

GregKaye 05:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)