Talk:Israel

Should the same language be used in the lead for Israel and for Palestine?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As both Israel and Palestine are partially recognized states, should the opening sentence in the lead of:

1. both Israel and Palestine (and State of Palestine) say partially recognized state?
2. neither Israel nor Palestine (and State of Palestine) say partially recognized state?
3. just Israel but not Palestine (nor State of Palestine) say partially recognized state?
4. just Palestine (and State of Palestine) but not Israel say partially recognized state?

I think those are all the possible options. Jeppiz (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 I first thought that neither article should say it, but then reflected on it and saw that the leads of other partially recognized states (such as Kosovo) also say partially recognized state in the opening of the lead. The current solution, saying partially recognized state for Palestine but not for Israel, seems to be a rather strong POV. So I think options 3 and 4 should be excluded as POV options, and between option 1 and 2, I support option 1 as it is in line with similar articles. Jeppiz (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Why are we limiting this to just these two? Looking at Partially recognized states, I see the same issue applies to China. Perhaps a wider discussion is needed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, Israel and Palestine are closely linked and part of WP:ARBPIA is to try to make sure we treat articles related to the ARBPIA field neutrally. China is not covered by ARBPIA, but Israel and Palestine both are (not that I mind you opening a discussion about China at talk:China, go ahead). Jeppiz (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what ARBPIA has to do with it. We're supposed to treat all articles neutrally. Since there's an issue here that's wider than just these two articles, I think it would make sense to have this RfC where more editors would participate. That would also make it more likely we'd get participation from more uninvolved editors, rather than just the usual suspects as we're most likely going to get here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 per Jeppiz's rationale but with the explicit caveat that my support for this usage is, until further reflection, limited to the specific article occurrences of both Israel and State of Palestine.

{Explanation: text on dab. pages such as Palestine is necessarily more concise and to state, in the very short definition/description sentence there "State of Palestine, a modern partially recognized state in the Middle East" may very well give undue weight to the dubiety of the State of Palestine's very existence by just mentioning at all its current diplomatic status. Certainly it does seem a rather unbalanced sentence when our dab. page regarding Israel (Israel (disambiguation)) just has the sentence: "Israel commonly refers to the State of Israel" and the page at the article named 'State of Israel' continues to be just a redirect to Israel. BushelCandle (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, now I have reflected more on the situation, I have concluded that the powerful Israel lobby here will ensure that there is never any wording in the first few hundred words of any Israel related article that ever hints that Israel is not completely recognised by all polities and organisations or that the plain single word "Israel" ever becomes a disambiguation page like "Palestine" currently is. Consequently, with and dependent on that understanding, I am changing my support and striking thru' my support for Option 1. I do agree that this discussion page is perhaps not the ideal page for asking for comments, since the issue is indeed wider than just 3 pages. Kudos to Jeppiz for raising the whole issue at all!

Consequently I now

Support Option 2 BushelCandle (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Option 2 per WP:POINT and WP:NPOV. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Malik. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 Per WP:NPOV. It is remarkable that anyone would think that because the USA does not recognise Palestine (but 70% of the world does including China, Russia, India, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia and many more) do that such a blatantly POV and biased approach towards Palestine should be taken. So many editors are determined to de-legitimise the State of Palestine. AusLondonder (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above, a blatant example of so is Palestine entry in List of state leaders in 2016, discussion underway on talk page to change. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2, as I explained above. Zero^talk 10:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Jeppiz.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Either Option 1 or Option 2 are ok to my mind, and in the spirit of WP:IPCOLL. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• There no inherent reason to use same language for both except WP:OSE. Looking at other articles such as China is a good idea. In case of Palestine, the important point is not the partial recognition but the fact that it's not a fully formed state, it's an entity has some but not all characteristics of a state (lacking defined borders and most of the control of its claimed territory, for starters). Both articles can mention or not mention the partial recognition, but describing State of Palestine without mentioning this crucial bit of information is extremely misleading. “WarKosign” 13:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Those reservations backfire because they apply also in good part to Israel, which has never defined its borders, exercises only partial control of areas it claims to be part of its own territory, and is denied recognition as having sovereignty by many of those who 'reside', by force of circumstance, in those areas (East Jerusalem, for example) over which it claims sovereignty. All these factors are equally anomalous for the concept of a modern state. What is sauce for the goose is sores for the gander.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Israel has three defined and internationally recognized borders, the Israeli-Egyptian border following the agreement in 1979, the Israeli-Jordanian border (Without most of the Jordan River part) following the agreement in 1994 and the border between Israel and Lebanon was recognized by the UN in June 2000.

Now what does this mean about Mexico, Colombia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Lebanon, Turkey, Azerbijan, Armenia, India, China and Pakistan who all have areas in which they claim sovereignty but don't fully control? And what about areas with no civil authorities intervention worldwide?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Disputed borders is not the same as total lack of defined borders. Are you disputing that Israel controls (as much as any state can) all of the territories within its borders (as Israel sees them), and also partially controls some territories outside its borders ? “WarKosign” 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The question is moot because Israel refuses to define its borders, making phrases like 'outside its borders' meaningless. I think we should hew to MShabazz's advice and not let a humongous thread develop. Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment No one can deny the fact that Israel and Palestine are not sharing the same legal status. Israel shares the same legal status of China, Cyprus, North and South Korea etc. who are full members of the UN but no reocgnized by all of it's members. Palestine on the other hand is currently fighting for recognition. Palestine is a de-jure state since the Palestinian National Council, the governmental body of the State of Palestine, doesn't practice any administration over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, while the Palestinian Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority does. In order to become a legal member of the United Nations, you need to have the recognition of France, UK, USA, Russia and China. Palestine lacks the recognition of three of the UN security council permenent members and therefore it is not yet a legal member of the UN. Palestine has the same status of Kosovo. @AusLondonder: said that Palestine has the recognition of 70% of the world. This is nice, but Kosovo has the reocognition of 55% of the world so by this Wikipeida "de-legitimise Kosovo"? And what is exactly the legitimacy of Palestine as long as they don't have what they need to become members of the UN? It's not like Vatican or Switzerland (until 2002) who chose not to be members, the State of Palestine is simply not yet a legitimate state because although most of the world recognize it, the US, UK and France has a veto power on it. The fact that in 2012, the SoP (technically PA)'s status was upgraded from an "entity" to a "Non-member state" in the UN doesn't change the fact that there is a veto on it's membership.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Request I know it can be difficult, but please, everybody, try to stick to the subject of the RfC, which is whether Palestine and Israel should be described as partially recognized states. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's important *not* to stick to the subject if the RfC asked the wrong question. The real question is whether Palestine and Israel should use the same description, and the answer is definitely no, because their circumstances are very different. “WarKosign” 18:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2 preferred per NPOV but Option 1 is okay too since it is a fact in both cases. Both articles should of course include details about the extent of recognition and non-recognition. The scope of this RfC should be restricted to Israel and Palestine to prevent scope creep and distraction. Other RfCs can be created by editors who want to deal with other states and/or the broader issues. This RfC should focus on fixing something that is broken because of the nature of the ARBPIA topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 is probably okay, although this question is a bit misleadingly set. What the article on Israel says, is determined by sources that describe Israel. Likewise, what the article on Palestine says, is determined by sources that describe Palestine. We should resist thinking along the lines that this question suggests, namely, that we should use similar terminology if we consider the circumstances to be similar. Of course, exceptions exist. I don't recall the expression "partially recognized" to be widely in use to describe either country, so option 2 gets my nod. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Houston, we have a problem. When I read Palestine is a [partially recognised] state I naturally understand it is de facto as fully fledged state. The facts, however, are that Palestine controls only a small part of the area it claims and even that part is prone to IDF raids. The question of recognition is the small problem in describing th State of Palestine. DGtal (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you for stating the obvious. The elephant in the room is that there is no State of Palestine so all this discussion is pure nonsense. Benjil (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2. A partial recognition is an information that is wp:undue for the lead. This being said, Israel is a State. Palestine is a proto-State. Both are recognized. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Palestine is just a disambiguation page for a variety of subjects and should just use neutral language when pointing to its sub-pages per WP:DISAMBIG. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2. In terms of the "partial recognition" issue, Israel and Palestine should be treated the same way. Israel is not recognized by 32 countries, whereas Palestine is not recognized by 59 (195 minus 136) countries. So they are in a qualitatively similar position. Here, the focus is on the "partial recognition" issue and nothing else. Tradedia^talk 05:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 because options 3&4 aren't serious options and option 1 isn't necessary as they are both widely enough recognized. Sepsis II (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Result

@Jeppiz: was this set up as a formal RFC? We need someone to close this now and bring this to a conclusion. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

The wording of the Balfour Declaration states that the government "view with favour" which is quite different from the existing text as copied below. It also goes on to add the condition that "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

existing text from Wikiedia page on the Balfour Declaration

The Second Aliyah (1904–14), began after the Kishinev pogrom; some 40,000 Jews settled in Palestine, although nearly half of them left eventually.[110] Both the first and second waves of migrants were mainly Orthodox Jews,[114] although the Second Aliyah included socialist groups who established the kibbutz movement.[115] During World War I, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, that stated that Britain intended for the creation of a Jewish "national home" within the Palestinian Mandate.[116][117]

would you please edit to show "view with favour" instead of "intended" and add the condition stated. Roger Watson-Starship (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

^re@Roger Watson-Starship: 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. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 10:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

I want to refer to the statement written in the last paragraph of the "Etymology" section: "From 1920, the whole region was known as Palestine (under British Mandate) until the Israeli Declaration of Independence of 1948"

This statement is not entirely correct. The area, under the British Mandate was called "Palestine EI" where the EI stands in Hebrew to "Eretz Israel" i.e. Land of Israel. It appears clearly also on British Mandate stamps, where it is written "Palestine" in English and Arabic, alongside with א"י in Hebrew, means as I wrote "EI" which stands for "Eretz Israel"/ Land of Israel/ "ארץ ישראל". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.181.12 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you quote a reliable source that supports this ? “WarKosign” 12:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ditto WarKosign. As the IP himself points out א"י was only included in the Hebrew rendition in any case. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's one document, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine_passport#/media/File:1924_Palestine_travel_document.jpg, taken from: Mandatory_Palestine_passport that shows that in Hebrew it said Palestine EY, and doing an image search clearly shows passports with Palestine EY in Hebrew. Here is a link to a coin from the same time period also showing that Palestine EY was used in Hebrew, http://pinterest.com/pin/309481805616320282/ Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, IN HEBREW, but not in English or Arabic. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Correct, but I think that was the OP's point. In Hebrew the area wasn't just called Palestine, it was called Palestine EY, and therefore the Etymology section should reflect that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In a footnote, maybe. It is splitting hairs rather if you ask me. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Could be, but I added as a note. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec)We don't make deductions from wiki. 98% of historical works on the period refer to Palestine. That stamps etc., for internal circulation catered for the linguistic abilities of the three major political and ethnic constituents doesn't affect the broad term used by the British and the world. In any case, think analogically: would an Indian make this kind of argument for East Africa based on the Gujarati script on the old East African shilling banknote issued by Great Britain?Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The government documents don't say פלשתינה, they say (פלשתינה (א״י

The EY was part of the official name of the Mandate, as you can see amply sourced at the Mandate article. Of course this should be noted if you're describing the name of the area during Mandate times. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not quite. WarKoSign and Cliftonian rightly are following wiki procedure to the letter in requesting sourcing for this equation. It has a complex history and one should not, even if understandably, let oneself be influenced by the fact that Israeli historical works generally tend to refer to Mandatory Palestine as eretz yisrael, esp. since this is rare in English historical usage (Ulrike Schultz, Gisela Shaw (eds.) Gender and Judging, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013 p.87).

The Zionists certainly pressed for this equation, while the Palestinians opposed it. Caught between hammer and anvil the Poms allowed alpha yod on currency, stamps and official documents as a concession to the former constituency, but denied Zionists permission to pronounce the full word in broadcasting. It was effectively forbidden to read out the term in any Hebrew transmission.(Andrea L. Stanton, "This Is Jerusalem Calling": State Radio in Mandate Palestine, University of Texas Press, 2013 pp.174f.)(Nur Masalha, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion, Pluto Press, 2000 p.6).

One can therefore rightly note the fact that Alpha Yod was on those items, but not infer that the Mandatory Authority accepted the use of the word that combination of letters allusively ciphered. It's a fine point, I know, but this is an encyclopedia, based on precise sourcing, and not on inferences made from stamps, currency etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not a "fine point", it's well poisoning. EY was part of the official name of the Mandate in one of its official languages. That should be noted. The fact "Israeli historical works generally tend to refer to Mandatory Palestine as eretz yisrael(sic)" should also be noted. That should also go in the etymology section, obviously. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

NMMNG you are absolutely wrong to suggest that the "EY was part of the official name of the Mandate". The mandate was official only in the languages of the League of Nations, which were England and French. The א״י was added as part of the "national title" in one of the three languages to be used on stamps, passports and currency. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The Mandatory government, not the Mandate instrument. They used these official languages for everything, not just stamps and passports. All announcement, forms, etc, were all in the 3 official languages. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Which sources would you cite?     ←   ZScarpia   22:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Query word

"The great majority of Israeli Arabs are settled Sunni Muslims, with smaller but significant numbers of semi-settled Negev Bedouins".

What does "settled" mean in this context? I don't think it will be clear to most readers. Tony (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Not nomadic. Living in villages/towns/cities, as opposed to nomadic. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The fact that I had to ask, and only now understand, suggests it could be more clearly expressed, don't you think? Can you come up with a better wording? (And I was wondering whether it meant that they'd (finally) settled on Sunni rather than Shia ... settled in the other sense.) Tony (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews live in homes, like nearly everyone else. The word 'settled' has been introduced to make, uniquely, the Arab component 'settled' just as Jews 'settle' in the West Bank. Very devious POV pushing. It should be removed. A single line focused on nomadic Bedouin (a different origin from the Israeli Arabs by the way) is all that needs to be retained.Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that is reading waaaay more intention than the writer did when actually drafting the paragraph. Not everything is about conflict. Settled vs nomadic are common use anthropological terms. The Israeli Arabs were not being called "settlers." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The edit was made here by User:Averysoda, one of countless sockpuppets of AndresHerutJaim, a racist ultra-nationalist extremist. So Nishidani's assessment is likely to be correct. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Made a minor change to address concerns.--TMCk (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Saw that: thanks. Tony (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

UN Partition Plan

In the material about the UN Partition Plan, it would probably be worth mentioning that it was never implemented, the British government refusing to implement a scheme that was not acceptable to both sides, necessitating the use of force. The associated resolution was non-binding.     ←   ZScarpia   22:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Herbert Samuel

Hello, Could someone add this sentence about H.Samuel;

>> Herbert Louis Samuel was the first Jewish zionist to govern the historic land of Israel, as High Commissioner of Palestine.

• Jewish Virtual Library Herbert Louis Samuel (1870 - 1963) [1]

Thanks --Youyou gag (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I sorry Youyou gag but it don't see where will this sentence be put in this spesific article. I will however, add it to the article "List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel has a dedicated article. “WarKosign” 08:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, nobobdy cares, thanks anyway,

cheers --Youyou gag (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Undiscussed change

@Baking Soda: please note that until this edit the long-standing stable version said "disputed". There was no discussion that lead to the change, only a bold edit that has been reverted since. Per WP:BRD now is the time to discuss and try to gain a consensus for this change, rather than edit war over it. “WarKosign” 18:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of "disputed" vs "internationally unrecognized" for Jerusalem

Should "disputed" or "internationally unrecognized" be used for Jerusalem in the infobox/throughout article? Baking Soda (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Involved editors @Makeandtoss, Mortadella42, Sean.hoyland, Andreas11213, Sepsis II, and WarKosign:.

Survey & discussion

• Internationally unrecognized is the more honest descriptor. Disputed makes it sound like there isn't a strong international consensus. This same problem also arose for "occupied" vs "disputed" territory, while Israel uses disputed, the international community uses occupied, so wikipedia, in the interest of NPOV, uses occupied. Sepsis II (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Disputed per WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME. As Positions on Jerusalem states, "There is significant disagreement in the international community on the legal and diplomatic status of Jerusalem", so presenting only one of the positions as the international consensus is very POV and misleading. Disputed is the term often used in media, (example) or scholar works (example). A google search for "Jerusalem unrecognized" fails to yield relevant results in the first page, while searching for "Jerusalem disputed" yields a page full of relevant results. “WarKosign” 20:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering the international consensus in regards to the non-recognition of Jerusalem as a capital of Israel, that opening line at "Positions on Jerusalem" is problematic. But you claim there are other positions, can you list these countries and organizations which recognize the capital of Israel as being Jerusalem? If there is a dispute we should be able to know who the disputing parties are.

As I understand it, those who say there is an international dispute are similar to those politicians saying that scientists are still disputing climate change and evolution. Sepsis II (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on sources, and by far more sources call Jerusalem disputed. You are questioning the sources and asking me to engage in original research. This is unusable, but I can speculate on why the sources prefer the term disputed. "internationally unrecognized" means "not recognized by (almost) everybody in the world", which is simply incorrect. Even if most or all of the governments do not recognize it officially (at least two contries do recognize it), most of them recognize it de-facto (see CIA fact book for example) and in any unofficial context such as travel or weather Jerusalem is undoubtedly in Israel. Many international organizations such as this also clearly accept that Jerusalem is in Israel. While undoubtedly there is *dispute* whether Jerusalem (especially its east half) should be considered to be in Israel, it is *not* recognized internationally that it is not in Israel, quite the opposite. “WarKosign” 08:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Endtime Ministries is not a reliable source for something as serious as diplomatic recognition, I suggest you present better sources there. Unofficial contexts aren't relevant here, we're talking about formal recognition by governments. So far as I know there is general consensus that Jerusalem is controlled by Israel, but that isn't the same as saying it is recognised internationally as being in Israel. Putting "disputed" there is a fudge that obscures the issue. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The question at hand has nothing to do with the location of Jerusalem in relation to geopolitics, the question at hand is about the recognition of capital hood, please don't try to confuse the two. Also random websites are not a source for such contentious matters. Sepsis II (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Internationally unrecognized, per WP:NPOV - no country officially recognises Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem or the designation of Jerusalem as capital except Israel itself. Not one. I see no reason to use "disputed" here when the more specific "internationally unrecognized" is true. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• El Salvador?? As for the topic, I think Disputed is factual and NPOV. IU is a bit pointy and we should use the term most likely to avoid headaches. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

El Salvador? They were an exception...a decade ago before they moved their embassy to Herzliya. Even if it was two vs the rest of the world, it still wouldn't be any more of a dispute than say the illegality of the Israeli settlements. Sepsis II (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Internationally unrecognized – per WP:NPOV, no country at the time of writing recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, United States included. Disputed in this context may imply otherwise. It should be noted that ownership of the land is disputed (use of disputed in a different context, footnote suggested to elucidate for that case). Baking Soda (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Internationally unrecognized This RFC was mandated by ARBCOM to settle some Jerusalem-related issues and it was a rather comprehensive and formal affair. The consensus that emerged described the situation as unrecognized, not disputed. --Dailycare (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Israel is not 20.7% Arabs

The box on the right hand side says "20.7% Arabs" but actually you mean "Muslims".

Arab is a nationality or source of origin (from the Arab gulf). Most of Israel's Muslims are not Arabs, but wither were born in Israel (so they are Israelis) or their parents moved from Lebanon (that is not an Arab country), Persia or even the Lavant. Some Arabs are actually Christians. There are also lots of JEWISH Arabs living in Israel as the recent UN Jewish refugees claimed. So to summarize, the table needs to refer to either religion (Jewish, Muslims, Others) or to country of source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.218.106 (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This data is based on Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. See Arab citizens of Israel for more details. Out of these Arabs, 82% are Muslims - and there is probably a negligible number of non-Arab Muslims. “WarKosign” 14:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

An aside: Israeli nationality law does not automatically give citizenship to those born in Israel, it uses the principle of jus sanguinis under which citizenship is passed down based on the citizenship of the parents. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

REMOVED POST

• Removed until citations and references linked. contribs) 11:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a nice piece of original research. Thank you for sharing it with us, but unfortunately it can't be used on wikipedia. “WarKosign” 12:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So to get it added I also have to add its cited references? What is the proper method for this addition?“icarusfactor” 11:50 AM Tuesday, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, references is the first thing. Second, those references need to say exactly that, meaning we don't add texts consisting of a user drawing conclusions from references. Third, the references need to be reliable (so no blogs, personal websites etc.). Jeppiz (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response this is my first text addition that was not mediawiki script, which do not need citation for stuff like that, just has to work.I will remove the links until I get the rest of the citations and references then re-post. “icarusfactor 4:08:28 PM Tuesday, June 7, 2016 UTC

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2016

You have here a fatal falsification of the truth. In this page, you have entered a map of israel, where you cut 8% of the countrie's territory. In yours maps, the Golan Heights belongs to syria, whitch is a falsification. This territory belongs to Israel since 1967. Please correct it.

79.181.154.216 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Golan belongs to Israel only according to Israel—according to the rest of the world it is a part of Syria under Israeli occupation. Our articles and maps reflect that. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Since Syria does not exist anymore this is really ridiculous, as almost all the stances about what belongs to whom in wikipedia. Benjil (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Annexed or occupied

I changed "annexed" to "occupied" regarding Jordan and the West Bank.[2] I explained in the edit summary "The word "occupied" was used before in connection to Israel, why should the word "annexed" be used for Jordan?" I was reverted rather quickly by Sepsis II. His explanation was: "Are you claiming they didn't officially annex it and that the next sentence is false? Did Israel annex the West Bank?". My point is the following.

This article states that the Golan Heights were "captured and occupied". The article also states that "Israel has applied civilian law to the Golan Heights". That is, if I am correct, about the definition of annexation. For more information regarding this, see Golan Heights#Israeli annexation and civil rule. Why then will the article not use the same word for both cases, either "annexed" or "occupied", but the same?

My point regards only the Golan Heights. If for this we need to split the sentence and differentiate between the Golan Heights and the West Bank, then so be it, but that is not a reason to use an incorrect term in a POV manner.

Oh, and just to forewarn an incorrect argument, neither were/are internationally recognized (with the sole and negligible exception of the UK recognizing Jordan's unilateral annexation of the West Bank). Debresser (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll revert any half-assed edit which ruins the integrity of a paragraph. Take your time before you delete or add "occupied" to fit your POV. Sepsis II (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Excuse you? "half-assed edit", "ruins the integrity", "fit your POV". As you can see above, my edit was based on that very same paragraph. It therefore could not have ruined the paragraph's integrity. Even if you disagree with me, I think it would need a bit more than my edit to ruin the integrity of a whole paragraph. And why do you accuse me of POV editing, in blatant violation of WP:AGF? Not to mention the viciousness of this last post? Where did that come from? Debresser (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)