All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Reports of editors violating any of these restrictions should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Violations of 1RR should be made to the edit warring noticeboards.
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This subject is featured in the Outline of Israel, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
is it the history of the people or the land?
It doesn't mention Abraham leaving the city of Ur of the Chaldean people with a few family members to wander in the desert.
It doesn't mention that Abraham got into Egypt and that the king of Egypt asked him to go away after he got an infection from Abraham's wife.
It doesn't mention that king David was elected king after killing Goliath of the Philistines.
It doesn't mention how king David took Jerusalem through the sanitary sewer.
It doesn't mention how king Solomon built his temple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is already a religionist pamphlet as it is. The Bible is no history book. Everything the Bible assigns to the time prior to circa 850 BCE is complete fiction. ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how else to say it, but this article includes a bit of a hoodwink. It only lists Judaism and Christianity as Abrahamic religions in the first paragraph, whereas the Abrahamic Religions wiki page clearly lists Islam as the 3rd Abrahamic religion (in chronological order). Not that I am totally sure it's true(nor can I verify this), but it is listed already, elsewhere. It is not fair to leave such a major player out of such a thrilling first paragraph.Jsolebello (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It was probably because Israel wasn't the birthplace of Islam, but I agree the sentence was a bit misleading, and it was completely ungrammatical. I've rephrased it to read, "It is the birthplace of the Hebrew language spoken in Israel, and of Judaism and Christianity." We don't need a distorted sentence just to sneak in an extra wikilink. --Stfg (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under section "Birth of Zionism," the "main articles" currently listed are "History of Zionism" and "Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem." The latter ("Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem") does not pertain to the birth of Zionism, and should be removed from this line.
Partly done: yes, it's clearly not a main article for the birth of Zionism, but it's relevant to the governance of the area during the time discussed in the section. I've made it a See also instead. --Stfg (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
This page is way long; it is about 2 to 4 times as long as it should be. See Wikipedia:SIZERULE and so forth.
While more should be done afterward... I propose we start by WP:SIZESPLITing the article into two. I am thinking the split point could or should be the occupation by the Ottomans (1517). That would be:
With no objections I am carrying out the split. tahcchat 21:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
This is not proper to wait "just 5 days" before deciding yourself to split. This is an important topic and you need to give at least one week for discussion and draw attention to hear more opinions.
There is not set time frame for such issues. I hope we can get Greyshark09's (your?) participation per below. tahcchat 21:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - The article is about the modern state's history with glimplses to the past. Per se - there was no "mideval Israel" to split from here.GreyShark (dibra) 17:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
There should be a split. One article about the history of Israel, and one about the biblical Israel. As the article is right now, the sections on ancient history are almost entirely religionist, alternative, imaginary history with no sources except biblical texts the origins of which are dubious at best. This aticle is nowhere near being encyclopedic. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear Greyshark09-- the article is too long. Way too long. Please address this fact in your comments if you want to be taken as a real participant in the discussion.
As it is, you claim is that the topic of the article only the modern state's history, with "with glimplses to the past." I don't want to put words in your mouth, but since the artcle size is the whole reason for the discussion in the first place, your comments suggest we just drop the "glimplses to the past" as both off-topic AND as necessary for lenght. Please concure or state some alternatives.-tahcchat 21:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - The article is no different from Germany, Russia, China, Iran, France, India and other countries whose stories start from prehistoric times (and they are almost as long as this one... or bigger, see History of Germany and History of France). It's arbitrary to split the article from the Ottoman rule. This article needs a continuity. Those periods are very important to explain the history of Israel and they are not even explained properly (except for the British Mandate and the State of Israel). For example, many things involving different Hasmonean kings occurred in that region and there isn't a summary about them in this article. Furthermore, despite there may be a discrepancy between biblical and non-biblical records, those historical events – including the Babylonian exile, the Cyrus edict, the Seleucid period, the Maccabean revolt, the Romans, the Arabs, the Crusades, and so on – are documented by several sources and there's a general consensus among historians that those events happened. Splitting them confuses the reader.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - "As browsers have improved, there is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage." For the record the article cannot be split into "biblical israel" and "modern Israel" because much of ancient Israel was post-bible and because a significant section is neither biblical nor modern. Unfortunately making a split is a political decision and I assume it is no coincidence that this issue arises during a conflict. So for a start I would suggest that now is not a good time for such a decision. I think that too much space is devoted to the 1948 war of independence and the British Mandate and I would suggest cutting material out of those sections which are covered in other articles. I am happy to cut them down to readable chunks. Part of the size issue is the result of the fact that this page is controversial and everything has to be sourced, sometimes using multiple sources because of its controversial nature. The actual number of words is probably smaller then on many less sizeable pages. The article is designed so that readers can easily jump to the period that interests them while gaining an (usually lacking) overview of the very rich history of Israel. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I will remove the split and size tags in the next few days, since we clearly are not about to split the article and because none of those wanting to split it are editors of this page.Telaviv1 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)