Jump to content

Talk:Israel: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 209: Line 209:
== Land ==
== Land ==


This article should mention how the Torah prescribes that nobody/God own the land of Israel.
This article should mention how the Torah prescribes that nobody/God own the land of Israel. [[Special:Contributions/67.175.103.146|67.175.103.146]] ([[User talk:67.175.103.146|talk]]) 18:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:30, 21 April 2013

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleIsrael is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 4, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 30, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
June 23, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
April 20, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article

Hebrew/Arabic languages

The languages should appear like this:

{{Main|Arabic language|Hebrew language}}



Indented line

Actually, no, it shouldn't as there is 49% of the population that speaks Hebrew, and 18% who speaks Arabic. Changing the order would be silly thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achiron (talkcontribs) 07:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Hebrew should be listed before Arabic. Achiron, I have a question however, 49% of the population speaks Hebrew and 18% speaks Arabic, what do the 51% that do not speak Hebrew speak? Silvertrail (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defined as "Jewish" in its "Basic Laws"?

The article says "In its Basic Laws Israel defines itself as a Jewish and Democratic State". The full text of the Basic Laws are at http://main.knesset.gov.il/Activity/Legislation/Pages/BasicLaws.aspx and I don't see any "Israel is a Jewish state" there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.78.54 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the Human Dignity and Liberty law
the Hebrew site = "להגן על כבוד האדם וחירותו, כדי לעגן בחוק-יסוד את ערכיה של מדינת ישראל כמדינה יהודית ודמוקרטית"
the English site = to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
but having values as "Jewish and democratic state" is diffrent from In its Basic Laws Israel defines itself as a Jewish and Democratic State". the qouted basic law does not say that Israel deinfe itself As a Jewish and Democratic State (POV issue)19:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't Israel a country?

Lebanon and Turkey are "parliamentary democracies" too. Why is only Israel described as such in the article's opening sentence? This has a strong smell of propaganda...

Tomás Rosa Bueno (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's human dignity and liberty law does show that it is a Jewish and democratic state, anon. Tomas Rosa Bueno, why does it smell of propaganda if that is included in the Israel lead? If it is a fact about Israel than it may very well be included, Lebanon and Turkey are indeed democracies too, the fact that they are not stated as such is subject to the talk pages on their respective articles and sources material. Silvertrail (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish and democratic state could you find the quote ? because the law only states that laws should have the values of the state as such109.226.49.93 (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid is not mentioned once on this page

that should be changed because currently this page is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.231.141 (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific suggestion for improving the article? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Is it really Kosher to just move all criticism of Israel to a separate page? I think there should be some attempt made to mention the stuff from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Israel on this page, and also to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Education section information

Shall we include more information regarding the specific education in Israel, such as the anti-Palestinian sentiment being taught to young Israeli minds? According to the Israeli language and education professor Nurit Peled-Elhanan, young Israeli students are receiving a biased viewpoint on the subject of the Palestinians, it may be important to note this in this article's Education section, as it deals with Education in Israel.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/book-review-how-israeli-school-textbooks-teach-kids-hate/11571 Silvertrail (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

electronicintifada is not an WP:RS on Israeli Palestinian conflict109.226.49.93 (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book cited in the article and the author of the book cited are reliable sources. Silvertrail (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim rule section

It is strange how this article devotes a single paragraph to 1100 years of the history of the region. — goethean 17:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is about, not the region, but the modern state, the article really should start with the rise of modern Zionism in the late 19th century. Trahelliven (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Trahelliven's assessment above, the Muslim rule section was not 1100 years of rule of Israel, the region was then Palestine, this article's history should begin in the late 19th century when Israel was created in Palestine. Silvertrail (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of the name Israel

Keep hearing and reading that the name Israel is simply a combination of three godnames: Isis, Ra, El. Same as "amen" in prayer is taken from the Egyptian god Amun or Amen. Would be nice if this could be added to the article because right now the word "Isral" isn't properly explained in the Etymology section at all. Some guy was "given" the name from god - yeah sure. Wikipedia should do better in an "etymology" section. 178.191.32.99 (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

source? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to come from a 1901 book by astrologer John Hazelrigg, which itself doesn't state any supporting evidence. So it's interesting, but not WP:RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems to have no scholarly support so we shouldn't report it. However anon is correct that the etymology section is weak. We only have the popular "struggle with God" version, cited to a dictionary, that has little scholarly support either. The fact is that nobody really knows what it means but many possibilities have been proposed. I started collecting. Zerotalk 09:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent elections government negotiation is over, new members of parliament.

That's al, it need to be updated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achiron (talkcontribs) 07:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem stated as capital

I know this has been the subject of some dispute in the past (where did that discussion go?), but wouldn't it be more NPOV to state Jerusalem as proclaimed capital on both this page and the page for the State of Palestine? No country in the world (apart from the US) officially recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Isreal and the reference is the CIA world fact book, which is reputable, but arguably biased in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.181.207 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently lists Jerusalem because that is what Israel considers the capital, and the infobox has a note linking to a description of the controversy surrounding Jerusalem's status. I think that's about as NPOV as you can get. Knight of Truth (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be beneficial to include that Tel Aviv is the "unofficial" capital of Israel, while Jerusalem is the "official, but disputed" capital. Silvertrail (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unofficial according to whom? More specifically, who considers it Israel's unofficial capital, or capital at all? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people, including Israel agencies, Tel Avivians, other countries, etc. There's no reason to list an "official" capital that is highly disputed without listing the nation's unofficial capital for reference as well. Silvertrail (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.prima-hotels-israel.com/prima-hotels/tel-aviv-hotels
http://goisrael.about.com/od/JerusalemandTelAviv/Jerusalem-And-Tel-Aviv.htm
http://israel21c.org/news/tel-aviv-among-top-party-cities/
http://www.chiff.com/travel/guides/israel.htm
http://www.go-telaviv.com/tel-aviv-israel.html

This question is raised with some regularity, and the consensus is that the footnote disclaimer in the infobox is sufficient. Please read the Talk page archives instead of re-litigating this matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What footnote do you speak of? I see no mention of Tel Aviv as the unofficial capital of Israel anywhere on the page. Silvertrail (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the footnote next to the word Jerusalem in the infobox. Tel Aviv is not the unofficial capital of Israel, whatever that means, so why would this article say that? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I click that superscript I am redirected to the References section, not a specific source that mentions Tel Aviv, many people, organizations, and countries believe Tel Aviv is the unofficial capital of the State of Israel, that is why this article should state that, or at least mention it. Especially since the official capital is a disputed one. Just my two cents. Silvertrail (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is a state's "unofficial capital"? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is a capital that is not federally recognized but is socially and culturally recognized as a capital more or less. Silvertrail (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should we add New York City to the US's infobox? Rio to Brazil? Unofficial capitals do not belong in the infobox. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They should be included in countries that have disputed official capitals, such as the unique case of Israel which claims Jerusalem as its capital but countries and people throughout the world do not recognize it as such. Last time I heard, countries and people all around the world all agreed on Washington D.C. as the official capital of the United States and Brasilia in regards to Brazil. Way to bring in completely unrelated countries and compare them to Israel's unique situation as an argument. Silvertrail (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote is to placate those in the world - including the anti-Israel and Jew haters on Wikipedia - who believe that only the Jews do not have the right to designate the capital city of their own country. They're wrong, of course, though try and correct them the entry and they will start in with the Wikipedia version of an anti-Israel stone throwing or riot. Z554 (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one said anything about Israeli's not having the right to designate a capital city, just because a country has a right to designate a capital does not mean it cannot be disputed, because the people who were there before the establishment of Israel also claim Jerusalem as their capital as well. My concern is not with the footnote, it is with including Tel Aviv listed as the Unofficial capital because of Israel's unique situation in regards to their stated official capital. Silvertrail (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that warrant something in the infobox? Tel Aviv does not function as Israel's capital. The infobox shouldn't contain unofficial things. It's one thing to have a footnote about the controversy, it is something completely different to then add completely unofficial stuff. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the harm in adding it in? It would only improve the article by also linking to an unofficial capital city that serves as a cultural hub for the Israeli people. Silvertrail (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The harm in adding it is that it is misleading. It is not official and does not act as Israel's capital. The footnote we have is one thing, as it educates regarding real legal controversy. Tel Aviv is not such a case. New York serves as a cultural hub in the United States. We would not add it to the infobox in the US article. Cultural hub does not a capital make. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest a compromise? It seems that user:Knight of Truth, user:Malik Sabbazz and user:OuroborosCobra, are beaurocrats who require sticking to hard criteria - well-defined in advance - before adding anything to an infobox whose universal form is used for that many countries, whereas User:Silvertrail is an adhocrat - who is more flexible in filling Wikipedia with unique unofficial information when the case seems to be unique in User:Silvertrail's opinion. So, my suggested compromise, is that we do indicate the unofficial capital of Israel (with sources); provided that we find any other precedent, even one would be sufficient, in which an article in Wikipedia - about a country currently recognized by the world - indicates an "unofficial" capital of that country about which the article is. Without such a precedent, User:Silvertrail's position may seem to be an ad-hoc suggestion - that can't be backed by good criteria well-defined in advance, whereas - once one does find such a precedent in Wikipedia's articles about countries currently recognized by the world, then the opposite position (held by the other editors here) may seem to be unjustified. Is that a fair compromise? HOOTmag (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in Anthem Song

Around the 28th second of the Israeli anthem, there are some offensive words that appear over the black screen. This should be changed asap. Wormpy (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for pointing that out. Evidently it's been like that since 2008, or that's what File:Hatikvah instrumental.ogg says.
I've removed the audio file until a new recording can be uploaded. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reported the problem and asked for assistance at the Commons help desk.[1] If anybody is familiar with ogg files and is able to help, please reply there. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 13 April 2013

Well you have a major mistake, you are writing that about 20% of the population in israel arab arab.(70% jews). you are comparing apples to oranges. jew is a religion. arab is a decent. most of the jews in israel are of arab decent. you should be writing 20% moslims, instead of arab. 76.91.245.107 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is as is it in the source and I think it is commonly understood that Jewish is an ethnic as well as a religious designation, so that it can include, for example, Jewish people who are atheists. Plus, many Arab Israelis are Christian, so we can't convert "Arab" to "Muslim". Sorry, I don't think your suggested change can be made. Formerip (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another major mistake: at another section it says and I quote "Since 1964 Arab countries, concerned over Israeli plans to divert waters of the Jordan River over into the coastal plain,[99] had been trying to divert the headwaters to deprive Israel of water resources, provoking tensions between Israel on the one hand, and Syria and Lebanon on the other." so far - correct. Now it goes on: " On the other hand, water resources were confiscated for the benefit of the Israeli settlements in the Ghor." --- That't a major mistake since there were no Israeli settlements in the Ghor in 1964, as the Jordan Valley (the Ghor in Arabic), together with the rest of the west bank, was captured only in 1967. This seems to be an attempt to justify pre-67 aggression against Israel by its Arab neighbors, by a mix of chronology.

Now it goes on: "Palestinian irrigation pumps on the Jordan River were destroyed or confiscated after the 1967 war and Palestinians are not allowed to use water from the Jordan River system. Furthermore, the authorities did not allow any new irrigation wells to be drilled by Palestinian farmers, while it provided fresh water and allowed drilling wells for irrigation purposes at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[100] Arab nationalists led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to recognize Israel, and called for its destruction.[12][101][102] By 1966, Israeli-Arab relations had deteriorated to the point of actual battles taking place between Israeli and Arab forces.[103]"

As evident in this bit, this mix of chronology goes on. it should have been something like: "Arab nationalists led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to recognize Israel, and called for its destruction.[12][101][102] By 1966, Israeli-Arab relations had deteriorated to the point of actual battles taking place between Israeli and Arab forces.[103]" And ONLY THEN "after the 1967 war, Palestinian irrigation pumps on the Jordan River were destroyed or confiscated and Palestinians are not allowed to use water from the Jordan River system. Furthermore, the authorities did not allow any new irrigation wells to be drilled by Palestinian farmers, while it provided fresh water and allowed drilling wells for irrigation purposes at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[100]" Since this is the later part, chronologically speaking.. But it is still way one sided. To explain what happened right after 67' is quite easy - all residents were required to connect to the national water grid and pay for their water. Water in Israel are considered property of Mekorot, or the national grid. So this bit is correct, only presented in a one-sided fashion, since Palestinians could use as much water as they liked, provided they payed for the water. The settlers pay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.139.161 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's not clear from your comments on what changes you are actually asking to be made here. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone obviously edited the article with a malicious intent. Maybe these frustrated "OpIsrael" guys?

Read the following bit: "Since 1964 Arab countries, concerned over Israeli plans to divert waters of the Jordan River over into the coastal plain,[99] had been trying to divert the headwaters to deprive Israel of water resources, provoking tensions between Israel on the one hand, and Syria and Lebanon on the other. On the other hand, water resources were confiscated for the benefit of the Israeli settlements in the Ghor. Palestinian irrigation pumps on the Jordan River were destroyed or confiscated after the 1967 war and Palestinians are not allowed to use water from the Jordan River system. Furthermore, the authorities did not allow any new irrigation wells to be drilled by Palestinian farmers, while it provided fresh water and allowed drilling wells for irrigation purposes at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[100] Arab nationalists led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to recognize Israel, and called for its destruction.[12][101][102] By 1966, Israeli-Arab relations had deteriorated to the point of actual battles taking place between Israeli and Arab forces.[103]"

So, what's wrong with this part?.. obviously, the phrase "On the other hand, water resources were confiscated for the benefit of the Israeli settlements in the Ghor" is a recent addition which is not chronologically in its proper place, as the Ghor (Jordan Valley) was only taken in 67'. There were no "Israeli settlements in the Ghor" in 1964.

The next phrase is one sided and misleading as well. But you could say it is marginally correct, since water in Israel are scarce and considered property of the national water company, they must be purchased. So yes, the Jordan is channeled into a pipe and large amounts of water are desalinated. This is why the residents were not allowed to take water from the Jordan or drill wells for private use. Water which are drilled dry out the equifer. They were requested to pay for the water just like anyone else in Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.139.161 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information comes from the United Nations source[2] that is cited. I think you are misreading it because the "On the other hand" makes it ambiguous and making an invalid assumption to conclude that it is wrong. It doesn't say that there were Israeli settlements in the Ghor in 1964. It is talking about what has happened since the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as you can see from the source. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Land

This article should mention how the Torah prescribes that nobody/God own the land of Israel. 67.175.103.146 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]