Jump to content

Talk:Israel: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 175: Line 175:
:It is unsourced, the Bible is a primary (religious) text. It is ok to use it as a source for what the bible says, but it would be better to add secondary sources for this, and the "antiquity" section should not be using it as [[WP:RS]] for the history of a country without any actual evidence or scholarship supporting its assertions. It certainly would not meet our basic standards to use it to draw broad inferences about what people felt about Israel, or even whether Israel was a term that was in use, for the entire period of "antiquity". It was removed for being not only unsourced, but because it contradicts the vast majority of scholarship on this subject. The oldest archaeological evidence for the term Israel is for a people, not for a country. This is a country page. If anything, a brief mention of this belongs in the etymology section. Look at the page for [[Rome]] and note that it doesn't say anything like "By the time Aeneas had arrived in Italy, Hercules had already built a temple to himself"<ref>Livy</ref> This is Wikipedia and we have to uphold basic standards. [[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#cc00cc; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk</span>]])</sup> 03:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
:It is unsourced, the Bible is a primary (religious) text. It is ok to use it as a source for what the bible says, but it would be better to add secondary sources for this, and the "antiquity" section should not be using it as [[WP:RS]] for the history of a country without any actual evidence or scholarship supporting its assertions. It certainly would not meet our basic standards to use it to draw broad inferences about what people felt about Israel, or even whether Israel was a term that was in use, for the entire period of "antiquity". It was removed for being not only unsourced, but because it contradicts the vast majority of scholarship on this subject. The oldest archaeological evidence for the term Israel is for a people, not for a country. This is a country page. If anything, a brief mention of this belongs in the etymology section. Look at the page for [[Rome]] and note that it doesn't say anything like "By the time Aeneas had arrived in Italy, Hercules had already built a temple to himself"<ref>Livy</ref> This is Wikipedia and we have to uphold basic standards. [[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#cc00cc; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk</span>]])</sup> 03:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Jd02022092|jd22292]] <span style="background-color:#368ec9; color:#6babd6">(Jalen D. Folf)</span> ([[User talk:Jd02022092|talk]]) 03:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Jd02022092|jd22292]] <span style="background-color:#368ec9; color:#6babd6">(Jalen D. Folf)</span> ([[User talk:Jd02022092|talk]]) 03:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
::Ok, here's the source for the known fact that the Land of Israel has been sacred to Jews since biblical times: <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11867-palestine-holiness-of | title=PALESTINE, HOLINESS OF | publisher=JewishEncyclopedia.com | accessdate=December 7, 2011 | author=Joseph Jacobs, Judah David Eisenstein}}</ref>
:Could you please restore the sentence using that source?--[[Special:Contributions/181.90.21.59|181.90.21.59]] ([[User talk:181.90.21.59|talk]]) 04:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:01, 16 July 2017

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

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Toolbox

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2017

Good idea to add the controversies surrounding Israel 24.228.178.35 (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish naqba

No mention of the jews expelled from Arab lands i.e., Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and the loss of their possessions makes this expulsion a Jewish naqba. These unfortunates sought asylum with israel, France and North American countries. Jews from all countries facing persecution are able to find a homeland in israel. During the entebee hijacking it was the Israelis who rescued jews who were forcibly separated from non Jewish passengers on an Air France. The captain and crew members did not desert these passengers an event noted as during world war 2 the French collaborated with german occupiers and handed over women and children of Jewish descent despite the fact that the germans only asked for all Jewish males. Shosh18 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned though perhaps needs expanding. Note that Israeli state hagiagraphy, as well as the views of many if not most of said immigrants, sees arriving in Israelnas an act of salvation, a 2000 year dream come true. So this is not quite viewed as a naqba, or disaster. So while a similar amount of Jews (to arabs leaving Israel) were expelled from the muslim world, without them being a military or subversive threat... The view of Israel and the expelled place this in a different conrext.Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries “WarKosign” 13:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Requests by under-privileged editors

Near the end of the fourth paragraph is "among the most educated countries in the world with one of the highest percentage of its citizens holding a tertiary education degree". That should be "percentages" (plural). Login54321 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2017 - Original name in lead

Articles of every other country have original names in both infobox and the first sentence of lead (check Egypt, Syria, Netherlands, Japan, Ethiopia and many others). Could somebody restore it in this case as well? (just "Israel" in Hebrew and Arabic, which are the official languages) Why Israel should be an exception? Thanks--Michelle Bnox (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Of course. Debresser (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the other articles. We need to declutter the first sentences. Let's declutter this one too. Jytdog (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most states have their names in its official languages in the lead. The only exception I found so far is Switzerland, they have 4 official languages so it would indeed be clutter. “WarKosign” 12:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog What other articles have you deprived of this information? Debresser (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This will just have to wait until the several wider discussions about de-cluttering the leads of articles are completed. So be it. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog And where are such discussions ongoing? Debresser (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably be here, and as you can see there, there is huge disagreement, and that proposal is probably not going to make it. Please do not be disruptive, Jytdog, by editing knowingly against existing guidelines. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog and GliderMaven, I wrote in support of the original Signpost op-ed but opposed any change to the WP:LEAD guideline. I have moved all non-essential material from the opening sentences of practically all the FAs and GAs on which I have worked. Unless WP:LEAD is changed, and it doesn't look like there is consensus to change it at this time, I believe the decision whether to include foreign names and other such material in an article's opening sentence remains a matter of consensus among the editors who edit the article and discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Since between the two of you, you have been reverted several times, it seems clear (to me) that consensus is against removing the simple Hebrew and Arabic names from the opening sentence. If either of you wish to seek explicit consensus to remove the non-English names, I suggest you ask for comments, perhaps opening a formal RfC. In the meantime, please don't remove material that others clearly want and that is not prohibited by policy or guideline. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malik - I changed this once, Debresser reverted. I changed the others, and Debresser in their lovely way, followed me there and reverted those. That is where it stands, and as I noted above, I don't intend to try to further until there is consensus on the larger issue. Do not misrepresent what I have done nor what I said I am going to do. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to misrepresent anything, Jytdog, and I apologize if I did. In the past two weeks the material was removed three times. Your (single) removal was the latest of the three instances. That's why my message was addressed to both you and the other editor involved. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's more clear, thanks. Sorry to bark. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is the world's longest military occupation in modern times

I think this is a false statistic. "Modern times" is not a definable period.

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Garcia's population was deported prior to making it a military base, so there is no military occupation (or there is the empty sense) - and it is British Indian Ocean Territory a British Overseas Territories - so annexed to UK. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was transferred by treaty (though one can argue about gunpoint treaties) and has no non-US civilian inhabitants - so there is no military occupation versus enemy aliens. The other examples are examples of sovereignty disputes (a non-controlling state also claims these territories or an independence movement exists) - but they have been annexed by the controlling nation - but they are administered by a civilian administration as part of their entire nation. There might be an example of a longer military occupation per-se (and this depends on the ill-defined modern period - if we take from 1500 (one definition of early modern) - it might be possible to find various examples (e.g. in South America or various south-east Asian locations)) - but it depends on definitions. Military occupation is usually transitory - as the conquering nation will usually annex, setup a puppet govrnment, create a protectorate, etc. - and not keep this usually temporary state of affairs. In limiting the sentence to military occupation (and not to disputes) - it may be correct.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think "modern times" is defined in this article as either in this last century or from the birth of Israel. 76.103.37.34 (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely unclear. Given, this: Modern history I would say the information as currently phrased, is simply wrong. Telaviv1 (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2017

Could somebody revert this edit? It was gramatically better before and more concise. Besides, it could be considered WP:Synth since sources don't mention ranking of countries by size, which is not relevant, let alone for the occupied territories which are not considered part of Israel proper.--201.177.17.237 (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To claim it is WP:Synth is absurd. It provided a source for calling it small, while the text that replaces it provides no explanation or source for describing Israel as a "relatively small area". I think it is valuable, given the amount of attention this topic recieves to give reader's a sense of Israel's size.Telaviv1 (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2017

Could someone revert this non-policy based removal of known information? It doesn't matter if "Biblical times" is a broad term or not, since the section is talking about antiquity (Bible is ancient, right?), and the text removed by user is an introduction to the very next sentence explaining that, according to biblical account, God promised the land to the three patriarchs.--181.93.81.33 (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unsourced, the Bible is a primary (religious) text. It is ok to use it as a source for what the bible says, but it would be better to add secondary sources for this, and the "antiquity" section should not be using it as WP:RS for the history of a country without any actual evidence or scholarship supporting its assertions. It certainly would not meet our basic standards to use it to draw broad inferences about what people felt about Israel, or even whether Israel was a term that was in use, for the entire period of "antiquity". It was removed for being not only unsourced, but because it contradicts the vast majority of scholarship on this subject. The oldest archaeological evidence for the term Israel is for a people, not for a country. This is a country page. If anything, a brief mention of this belongs in the etymology section. Look at the page for Rome and note that it doesn't say anything like "By the time Aeneas had arrived in Italy, Hercules had already built a temple to himself"[1] This is Wikipedia and we have to uphold basic standards. Seraphim System (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's the source for the known fact that the Land of Israel has been sacred to Jews since biblical times: [2]
Could you please restore the sentence using that source?--181.90.21.59 (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Livy
  2. ^ Joseph Jacobs, Judah David Eisenstein. "PALESTINE, HOLINESS OF". JewishEncyclopedia.com. Retrieved December 7, 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&oldid=790797794"