Talk:Israel

Infobox parallelism with State of Palestine

I saw modifications to the infobox were made after a brief discussion above, and I must say that, when compared to the State of Palestine article, they don't make sense. The State of Palestine article has a Capital field [albeit with the tag "(proclaimed)"], but this article doesn't? The State of Palestine has "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" as its largest city (with no clarification about what that means), but here it mentions that this is if East Jerusalem is excluded?

Particularly on the capital point, it makes no sense to mention a capital for the State of Palestine and none here. I stand behind the suggestion I made above: include a Capital field here that says "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" and a Seat of government field that says "Jerusalem" [unqualified]. Or you can somehow combine that into one field, as is done at State of Palestine. The Jerusalem RfC does not provide grounds to expunge the wordcapital from the infobox. -- tariqabjotu 20:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I share your mind. The rationale for both infoboxes should be similar.

After an RfC to decide what was Jerusalem, we now have to focus on what are the capitals of the States of Israel and Palestine or better what to write in the infobox regarding this question... I hope this will not lead to complex and endless discussions. ;-)

The RfC stated that 2 sentences are not compliant with NPoV ("Jerusalem is the capital of Israel", "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such".) I suggest that we conclude their counterpart would not be more neutral regarding the State of Palestine.

My mind is that the more accurate and detailed the information, the better.

What about this solution for both articles :

Capital : see Status of Jerusalem.

If discussions prove to be difficult, I suggest we ask for a mediator as soon as possible in the process who will guide the community in how to work on this question. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that too much parallelism is indicated. While West-Jerusalem is a city with seat of a national government, parliament etc. (and was so long before East-Jerusalem became an issue), although not recognised as Israel's capital because it is not recognised as belonging under Israeli sovereignty, East-Jerusalem has nothing of the kind, not in East-Jerusalem anyway. And the legal question is not the same either. So why the parallelism? Ajnem (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Tariq, I would just remove largest city from the State of Palestine article. It doesnt belong there, and actually most things involving territory dont belong there either. I dont think we can have both a capital and a seat of government field, at least I dont see how from looking at the infobox documentation, so I think its either capital = Jerusalem (proclaimed) or seat of government = Jerusalem (unqualified), but not both. As far as a capital in that articles infobox, the proclamation is al-Quds, and though Ive seen various statement saying oh we mean EJ, I havent seen anything official. So the proclaimed capital there, as it is here, is Jerusalem. I have no problem having both say capital = Jerusalem (proclaimed), and if there is a technical ability to also include seat of government here I wouldnt oppose it (though I would favor having just seat of government unqualified). nableezy - 20:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My proposition is to have in both article identical wording Jerusalem (proclaimed) Hope this change is acceptable without opening new chapter of discussion on this old question.--Tritomex (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does it say "proclaimed" when talking about Jerusalem?

This is not meant to be offensive, but Jerusalem *IS* the capital of Israel. "Proclaimed" is nothing more than an attempt to delegitimize the absolute fact that Jerusalem is the capital. Its possible someone might say that "consensus is needed to make changes". Well, consensus is not needed to say the earth is round. Its a fact that the earth is round.

Someone needs to remove "proclaimed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.78.146 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's been rightly done. Yambaram (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Israel's Map

I think this map is a much more proper map to use in the article (as seen in the Hebrew version) instead of the current one. I'm not trying to be politically correct here but the West Bank, which was conquered in a defensive war and is considered a part of Israel by the U.S. and Israel itself, is clearly distinguished and is marked in pale green. It would make sense to use it because even though the international community doesn't consider the disputed area a part of Israel, it's under Israel's control. Any opinions? Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, your premise is wrong. The West Bank is not considered part of Israel by either the US or the Supreme Court of Israel (HCJ). Both the US and Israel treat it as territory held under belligerent occupation by Israel (as can be seen in numerous rulings by the HCJ) and it is administered on that basis by the military. Secondly, even if your premise were correct, and it isn't valid in any sense, color coding maps based on what Israel and the US believe doesn't make sense for a global encyclopedia unless the objective is to indicate the views of those countries. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What Sean said, plus of course that map's errors in regards to Syria and Gaza. Sepsis II (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright I didn't know that, however these territories actually are considered "disputed" by many as opposed to "occupied", but there's point in arguing this now. What matters is that it's currently under Israel's control whether we like it or not, and so it'd make sense to mark it in a similar color or pale green in this case. It's not about politics. By leaving it blank and empty, one can mistakenly think it's part or Jordan or some unclaimed territory. Does any other user agree? Yambaram (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Almost every change to Israel-Palestine articles heavily involves (and is about) politics, mostly in an attempt to balance the article. Changing the map to show the West Bank within the borders of Israel conveys a number of connotations that could unbalance the article, not the least of which is that the West Bank will seem like a part of Israel. As a contrasting example, when the United States occupied Afghanistan, the map of the US was not changed to include Afghani territory. The West Bank will likely not be mistaken for Jordan as the map of Jordan does not include it, and it will definitely not be mistaken for unclaimed territory as there is very little unclaimed territory at all anyway. AVAAGAA↪ 18:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

ISR orthographic.svg is a map of the State of Israel. The State of Israel doesn't include the Israeli occupied territories, and the ISR orthographic.svg map reflects that by not including those areas. The map you propose is not the map of the State of Israel. It includes the Israeli occupied Golan Heights for example. It seems that what you are actually proposing in effect is that the map is replaced with a map showing the State of Israel and the Israeli occupied territories. If that is the case, there are much better maps available than the one you propose, maps that clearly distinguish between the State of Israel and the Israeli occupied territories. But I think the current map is fit for purpose, factually accurate, neutral (in the sense that Wikipedia uses that term i.e. WP:NPOV) and uncontentious. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses guys, I understand your point. And yes, Sean.hoyland, this is exactly what I was proposing - whether it be the map I linked or another one you think is better. As I said, the map of Israel which I suggested is currently used in the Hebrew wikipedia and I'm sure in other places as well, but the majority here seems to disagree on the matter and that's fine, nothing will change. Peace Yambaram (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the Hebrew wikipedia may contain many issues relating to the Mid-East conflict that would require attention. In general wikipedia articles can't be used as sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Tel Aviv as second capital in infobox

Although I do support the idea of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, would it not be appropriate to also mention Tel Aviv as the other capital in the infobox as it is disputed? 23haveblue (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Tel Aviv is not a second capital, or indeed any capital at all. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case, why bother having the word disputed in there? 23haveblue (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia content has to be presented in a neutral way. In Wikipedia's terms that means information must comply with WP:NPOV, a mandatory policy. After about a decade of dispute over the issue of how to present the status of Jerusalem, the community decided that using Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice to state as a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel does not comply with policy. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem for details. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Some countries and some authors claim that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. Their reasonning is certainly that given Jerusalem's choice was rejected by the international community the former capital had to be given. Anyway, this is a [unsignificant] fringe's point of view and that, as far as I know, no WP:RS has put forward for years.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As an Israeli citizen, I've never heard that claim before. Historically, religiously, and legally, Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel. However, as can be seen in the article, Tel Aviv is indeed the country's undisputed financial capital. Yambaram (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to suggest, we either remove the (disputed) from the infobox or we put both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as the capital. Comments?23haveblue (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not "getting at" anything. If Tel Aviv isn't the capital, it isn't the capital. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The capital is a city where the central government of a country, or part of a country, such as a state, province, or county, is. In the same aspect, Haifa is the capital of trade, Eilat is the capital of vacations, and so on. Hope that helps Yambaram (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This all affair reminds me the story that a Japanese newspaper, who "wanted to maintain NPOV" in Jerusalem as Israel's capital wrote that the Knesset is located in Tel Aviv. I don't know how many Japanese tourists visited Tel Aviv and searched in vain for the Knesset's building there. Jerusalem is the de-facto capital of Israel. MathKnight 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@ 23haveblue

We agree for Tel Aviv.

The problem of stating that Jerusalem would be the capital of Israel is that no country in the world does recognize this choice because of the political situation and because of East-Jerusalem. So it is disputed because nobody recognizes this. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're mistakenly calling the U.S., Israel, myself and millions of other individuals "nobody", so I just wanted to make this correction. The political situation regarding this topic is indeed complicated and if the Palestinians also want to call it their capital then so be it, but that won't change the reality. Yambaram (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The US does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's or anyone else's capital. Perhaps you should look into what/who it was that misinformed you and led you to believe something that isn't true so that you can avoid that source of information in future. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Yambaram might have been relying on the CIA sourcebook which states (rather baldly) that Jerusalem is the capital, though it qualifies that in a footnote(much as we do, by the way). But then, I rather agree with Sean that the CIA is not a source to be relied upon. Ravpapa (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

We explicitly mentioned that as part of the set of source summary statements for the Jerusalem RFC via "Many sources list Jerusalem as the capital of Israel when there is little room for nuance, but in prose, sources often use qualifiers which show that the status as capital was achieved unilaterally", citing the CIA Factbook. I think the CIA are quite neutral on these issues in terms of their products, much more neutral than many editors e.g. their interpretation/annotation of File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map 3500px.jpg and File:West_Bank_July_2008_CIA_remote-sensing_map_3000px.jpg. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the CIA might be neutral in this case, but I would never call them reliable. I expect a reliable source to tell the truth most of the time, not just once in a while, when it suits. (anyway, this is neither here nor there). Ravpapa (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding more information to the column about the founding of Israel

What do you guys think about adding more information to the column about Israel's past (Kingdom of Israel united monarchy, Kingdom of Judah and Kingdom of Israel, Yehud province of Babylonia, Yehud Medinata province of the Persian Achaemenid Empire, part of the Macedonian Empire, Part of the Seleucid Empire, Hasmonean Kingdom, Herodian Kingdom of Israel, Roman Tetrarchy of Judea, Roman province of Judea, Kingdom of Israel under Simon bar Kokhba, Roman province of Syria Palaestina, Byzantine province of Palaestina Prima, Jewish Sassanid Commonwealth, Byzantine province of Palaestina Prima, Jund Filastin district of the Ummayad and Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphate province of Bilad al-Sham, part of the Great Seljuq Empire, Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, part of the Ayyubid dynasty, part of the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt, the Damascus Eyalet of Ottoman Syria, the Syria Vilayet of the Ottoman Empire, the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem in the Ottoman Empire, Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, British Mandate of Palestine and finally Israel), much like the article about Somalia has but maybe scaled back a bit because that's a lot of names. Csi.southpark (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The headnote to the article says "This article is about the modern country". While some may say that the ancient Kingdom of Israel is a sort of forerunner to the modern state, others won't agree. --Dailycare (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I see your point(people think everything about Israel is controversial), I was just thinking it would be a good idea because a number of countries have it that way( France, Iran, Ethiopia, Germany ... to name a few). Csi.southpark (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Link to full conversation: talk

Sean.hoyland you win, congrats! I am beginning to understand that facts are no longer the most important aspects of Wikipedia, politics are. I realize that even if change it back tomorrow you or one of your friends will just revert it. I just thought that the article would look nicer this way and that since I included no new facts it wouldn't be controversial. I'll take solace in the fact that you still can't back up your point of view(yes the article is is about modern Israel, but the French article is about modern France and is still styled this way).

Here is link to the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&oldid=577978178

Unused refs in bibliography

I removed the following refs from the biblio since they had harv errors for not being used in the article:

• Ausubel, Natan (1964). The Book of Jewish Knowledge. New York, New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 0-517-09746-X.
• Hamilton, Victor P. (1995). The Book of Genesis (2nd revised ed.). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-2309-2.
• Liebreich, Fritz (2005). Britain's Naval and Political Reaction to the Illegal Immigration of Jews to Palestine, 1945–1948. Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-5637-2.

Add back as necessary.  czar ♔ 02:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

More unused:

• Barzilai, Gad (1996). Wars, Internal Conflicts, and Political Order: A Jewish Democracy in the Middle East. State University of New York Press. ISBN 0-7914-2943-1.
• Barzilai, Gad (2010). "The Attorney General and the State Prosecutor-Is Institutional Separation Warrented?". The Israel Democracy Institute. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Best, Anthony (2003). International History of the Twentieth Century. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-20739-8.
• Crowdy, Terry (2006). The Enemy Within: A History of Espionage. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-84176-933-9.
• Dekmejian, R. Hrair (1975). Patterns of Political Leadership: Egypt, Israel, Lebanon. State University of New York Press. ISBN 0-87395-291-X.
• Howe, Kathleen Stewart (1997). Revealing the Holy Land: the photographic exploration of Palestine. University of California Press. p. 144. ISBN 978-0-89951-095-8. Retrieved 4 June 2012.
• Reveron, Derek S.; Murer, Jeffrey Stevenson (2006). Flashpoints in the War on Terrorism. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-95490-8.
• Sampter, Jessie (2007) [1933]. "Jewish Colonization Before 1917". In Sampter, Jessie (ed.). Modern Palestine – A Symposium. READ BOOKS. p. 444. ISBN 978-1-4067-3834-6.
• Wenham, Gordon J. (1994). Word Biblical Commentary. 2. Vol. (Genesis 16–50). Dallas, Texas: Word Books. ISBN 0-8499-0201-0.

czar ♔ 03:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)