Talk:Israel/Archive 38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 45


Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Israel/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

52 images, 415 citations. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 06:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 14:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

One anonymous editor's simple solution

This seems like a much simpler issue than everyone is making it out to be:

a) Capitals are cities where a country's government is located.

b) Israel is a country, and its government is located in Jerusalem.

c) Therefore, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

Whether or not it is recognized as such doesn't seem to be relevant to the argument. (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not always. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
IP, have a look at WP:OR. On the other hand, stating that Jerusalem is the "Seat of Government" is OK per many editors. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Seb, according to the dictionary, my above example is correct. I don't want to split hairs, but it is universally recognized that a capital is a seat of government. Dailycare, I am aware of the original research policy--but the argument seems to have devolved into one of semantics. There are plenty of verifiable sources that state that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. What people seem to be debating is what a capital *is*--the dictionary definition is clear. We may not be able to use OR in an article, but I see no problem in using it (to an extent) on a talk page to re-affirm a consensus. (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear, You are right that dictionaries define capital as "seat of government". Why, then, do almost all countries of the world think that Jerusalem is not the capital? Don't they read the dictionary?
Or maybe they think that "capital" means something more than just "seat of government". And, if that is the case, shouldn't we take their almost unanimous opinion in the matter into account? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Does East Jerusalem physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government, as defined in Capital City?

If not, then Jerusalem is de jure capital and West Jerusalem is de facto capital (sounds odd...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Alas, would it were so. But, no, Israel has built many government offices (Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior, etc.) in East Jerusalem.--Ravpapa (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A new source for Statistics about Israel

Hello all,

Today I've launched a website containing 25,000 data series about Israel (all taken, with permission, from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics):

All of the images and the data series on the site are licensed under CC, so to allow them to be included in Wikipedia. I hope people in this project will be interested in including more statistical graphs about the state of Israel.

With regards, Tal Galili (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 September 2012

1. Israels Capital Jerusalem should be in brackets () disputed. Not only Jerusalem. 2. Israel is not part of ASIA

Please fix this problems! Akaa100 (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done:
  1. There is a note next to Jerusalem that explains the controversy better than the word "disputed" would.
  2. Israel most certainly is in Asia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Israel page vandalized with swastika

Someone vandalized the Israel page with a giant swastika. It needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It was template vandalism by Special:Contributions/12lobbykeep. They've already been blocked. If the flag is still visible the IP will need to clear their browser's cache. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


The government should say "Parliamentary unitary state, br Ethnic democracy for a more concise description. IMO, it more correctly would have Ethnocracy last, being that it is more applicable in describing its relationship with the territory's indigenous population. However, as far as being official, the state of Israel is un-controversially described as an ethnic democracy. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the content issue but I think you used an outdated or incorrect URL in your citation. The paper appears to be here. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there any question about the fact that most RS do not call it an "ethnic democracy"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Describing Israel as an ethnic democracy or ethnocracy is a fringe viewpoint. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe Israel as a parliamentary democracy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the majority viewpoint, until established otherwise, is parliamentary democracy. The "ethnic democracy" viewpoint could be a feature in Criticism of the Israeli government. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


You may wish to add the following article to the bibliography: Kruger, Stephen, "The Two-State 'Solution': Self-Defeat 101" (2010), [1]. Tks. Vann2332 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Vann2332

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Cite_quick can avoid size/speed problems

The article "Israel" is one of several which are nearing the template include-size error, plus some exceeding the 60-second timeout to cause "wp:Wikimedia Foundation error" because {cite_news} or {cite_web} is too slow/large to be used over 350-400 times per page. Another over-size article is "Arab Spring" or "2011–2012 Egyptian revolution". Currently, new Template:Cite_quick can be used to reduce the size/speed problem, to be coded in the article as {{cite quick |news|...}}. Now, other editors have come to support progress, and we can again continue to streamline those huge articles. Next year, when the Lua script cites are installed, then the {cite quick|news} usage can be edited to remove "quick|" and use the new, faster Lua-based {cite_news} which seems to run about as fast and small as {cite_quick}.

If there are no other concerns, then in a few days, I can change the citations in the article to use {cite_quick} and reduce the edit-preview, or reformat, time of the entire page from 45 seconds to within 14 seconds. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Have things changed about the templates usage? And if so (point to conversation) why is the new coding not being implemented into the main cite template?Moxy (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Cite_quick for some pages while updating {cite_web} too risky: There have been 3 sets of TfDs for fast-cite templates. The final TfD, for Template:Cite_quick, was closed as "Keep" in use, with no restrictions because it works, where other templates fail for wp:CS1. Meanwhile, the plan to update {cite_web} from {cite_web/smart} was derailed by another TfD which renamed {cite_web/smart} as {cite_web/sandbox4}, and hence non-usable separately until "tested" for all 1.2 million articles using {cite_web}, as a formal upgrade systemwide. Meanwhile meanwhile, tests of {cite_quick} discovered alarming problems with invalid parameters in existing articles, where "author=" null would override "last=xx" to blank the author's name. It would be nice to update {cite_web} soon, but some/many articles depend on bugs in {cite_web}, and simulating those bugs in a new version is complex. Consequently, other users have considered {cite_quick} to be a "choice" as another citation style, where it does not need to mimic {cite_web} exactly, and can be used with slight differences. Whereas {cite_quick} has only 43 parameters with only billion trillions of combinations (43!=~6.0415e52), the complexity of {cite_web} has over 230 parameters, with umpteen zillion zillion combinations (230!=~7.76e444), which could not be tested fully if tests were run 1,000 per second since the dawn of time with the age of the universe. Only by using a new template within a few more articles, each time, can the results be safely tested, little by little. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with it. What is really needed is the ability to create subpages where you can store the full reference info for each reference, and then simply refer to it in the article as <ref name="Blah"/>, and it would simply grab all of the reference information from the subpage. --Jethro B 00:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Lua-based cites will be lightning-fast per second: I have spent weeks testing the Lua script cites planned for Spring 2013, running on, with Lua test2:Module:Citation, and can confirm rapid formatting, such as for article "Barack Obama" (see: test2:Barack_Obama). The Lua-based cites format at about 125-per-second, but perhaps could be improved to 200-per-second. At such rapid speeds, then the footnotes would be less of a problem. However, I like the idea of clicking on a small footnote which can link to a fuller note in a separate references page, as could be done with 200 basic footnotes which rarely change. For example, external footnotes could be numbered as "x1" or "x2" within the text: "Israel has a mixed climate[x1] [x2] with ocean, desert,[x3] and mountain regions" whereas the internal footnotes would avoid the "x" prefix. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The first part of your passage is complete gibberish to someone like me, with the fullest respect! While I have a background in computer programming and know HTML, XHMTL, CSS, and some JavaScript, I am not that advanced and am totally unfamiliar with this lua and stuff. Sounds very technical. Sorry!
    • As for the laat part, that's a good idea too, I wasn't even referring to that. I was thinking more of having a subpage for each article, where the full coding for each reference would be found. Then on the actual article, we'd just have a special short ref tag that we use, whose full code would be on the subpage. The reference itself would still be in the reference section, just the amount of coding on the page itself would be eliminated. Perhaps we should move this to a different venue? --Jethro B 04:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

How Israel was established

So, won't you write something about how Israel was established?!, As far as i know, Wikipedia does accept all true things that you write, so go on and write about Israel and how Bloodthirsty it really is, of course i have read some other articles that talk about countries and how they were established, so we need you to show us how Israel was established and how many Palestinians has Israel killed, or you are afraid of something?, am i going to be blocked?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The confrontational tone could be done without. (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Israel was established by the declaration of its establishment. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. The US immediately recognized this as true. talknic (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
IP, I believe a brief summary of the establishment of the modern nation of Israel can already be found within this article at It would be much appreciated if you took the time to look if such information already exists before you request it be added. If you are looking for casualty count of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see , which contains data on both Israeli and Palestinian deaths. You may also be interested in, which is an account of the beginnings of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, your statements regarding Israel show that your tone is decidedly biased against Israel, and per Wikipedia policy, is something you should seek to correct before making more edit requests or attempting to contribute content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such, must provide information from a balanced point of view. Jonathanfu (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that part of the article could do with a slight rebalancing in that Palestinan motives are always implicit rather than explicit in the account. That leaves a lot of room for misunderstanding by readers from all sides. (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

i agree that we need to show the ethnic cleanising that the zionist paramilitaries commited against the palestinian people in the 1948 war — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Imam in Istanbul clearly reflects Turkish foreign policy against Israel.

"Once Turkey grows strong enough politically and economically it will stop recognising Israel with the first chance, and once we do this Israel will be wiped off the map", Imam in Istanbul during the summer.

Thousands of reporters and commentators have made it clear that Turkey tries to find the chance -irrespective of goverment in power- to harm Israel and become the leader of the Muslim world. Of course someone must be very ignorant to beilive Turkey is a real democracy. The suppression of minority rights and the imprisonment of Islamist goverment's opponenets are two of the various indications that Turkey is controlled by an elit, and that elit plans the harm or even more advocates the destruction of Israel. There are many years that a religious fundamentalist sentiment is fuelling in Turkey, is not something recent. And of course this is reflected by the current goverment in power also. Turkey through its established membership in NATO steadily undermines Israel's stance in Europe and the US. Its links with European and US military is a clear indication that Turkey is more harmful than any other Israeli enemy.

Anyways when I find the artcile that writes about this event I will post it in Foreign Policy section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsrArmen (talkcontribs) 17:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Imam's are not government officials in Turkey. They do not set policy. If all you can find are Imam's speeches, then your content will not make it into the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly - our article will indicate that foreign-policy relations between Turkey and Israel are those reflected by the balance of reliable sources, and unless these state that the opinions of a particular Imam are of any significance, we won't. And in future, please give new sections neutral headings, rather than using them as a platform for your obsession. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A Jewish minority state, according to the Israeli Ministry of Finance

This new fact of "unparalleled importance" (according to Haaretz) deserves mention in the lead. Any suggestions where it might fit? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on what little I can see, since there is a pay wall, your link does not support the claim that Israel is a "Jewish minority state." The article claims that in the entirety of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, there are more non-Jews than Jews... but that area contains more than just the State of Israel. It includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Forgive me for not wanting to go around into circles on who controls what and all of that, but the current legal situation is that Israel has not annexed these areas. Within the State of Israel, the population is 70-75% Jewish, hardly a minority. What I am guessing the article is getting at is that if all of the areas that Israel "controls" are included, thus including the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, you have to include some 4+ million non-Jewish Palestinians, and then Jews are not a majority. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention the 4% of Israelis (300,000), ethnically defined as "others", who are Russian-descendants of Jewish origin or family who are not Jewish according to rabbinical law, but were eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. So the Jewish population could be considered an 79% instead of 75%. By the way, Druze and Bedouins don't consider themselves Arabs nor Palestinians.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
That's an opinion piece, so "unparalleled importance" is not according to Haaretz, but according to Akiva Eldar. I agree with OC above. You seem to have not read the article (or just the bit you can read) very carefully. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks OC. I will ignore NMMNG's false assertion. Here is the key quote:
"According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (which is subordinate to the Prime Minister's Office ), of the 12 million residents living under Israeli rule, the number of Jews is just under 5.9 million (as of April 25 ). Twelve million minus 5.9 million Jews equals 6.1 million non-Jews. In other words, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, there is a pretty Jewish state as far as its laws and customs, but the reality is not so democratic. Foreign sources report that Jews had already become a minority in the area of the greater Land of Israel several years ago. From now on, it is an official statistic. There will certainly be those who argue that the 12 million includes the resident of the Gaza Strip, which Israel evacuated, and that I should have deducted 1.5 million people from the number of non-Jewish residents. But the 12 million, which does happen to include the residents of the Gaza Strip, is an official figure appearing on Ministry of Finance stationery. If this population "is not considered" for purposes of the demographic balance, the Finance Ministry should be so kind as to deduct it from the limit for receiving the tax breaks and from the balance of its income."
Hope that clears up your questions. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Unless this is based on some new census that has not been released to the public, this does not answer my questions at all. There simply are not 12 million people living "between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea" unless you include the Palestinian Territories, and not just the State of Israel. The continued use of "Israeli rule" also makes me suspect this. There are an estimated 8 million people living in Israel, the state. There are 2 million non-Israelis living in the West Bank. There are 1.7 million living in the Gaza Strip. The only way you approach 12 million is to add all three numbers together. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
To quote the article: "But the 12 million, which does happen to include the residents of the Gaza Strip, is an official figure appearing on Ministry of Finance stationery." So we could add a sentence such as "According to Israeli Ministry of Finance figures, Jews comprise a minority of the total population living under Israeli rule". OK? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
No, not OK. The article's numbers do not add up. In addition, by your own claim of their wording, they are still including the West Bank... meaning not just the State of Israel. Maybe if you can find some confirmation, especially something not behind a pay wall so that we can all see it? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Unless the argument is that the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel (the subject of this article), the detail about what the demographic composition of the total area is doesn't belong here. And I'll note again that this is an opinion piece, you can't use it to state facts. Perhaps if someone supplied the actual document he's talking about, we could see what it says. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way, this (opinion, in Hebrew, probably not RS but read on) contains a link to the original MoF document Eldad is ostensibly using as a source. It does not include a figure of 12 million. The rest of his opinion piece is based on using a number that doesn't exist, then subtracting actual CBS figures from that to reach a conclusion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The Haaretz article is not an op-ed, it's a news article. And the link you referred to is not just "probably not RS". It's a transparant piece of propaganda (used Google Translate). With that said, I agree that the jewish minority fact does not belong in the lead and probably not in the rest of the article either. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
You are mistaken about the Haaretz article, it's obviously an opinion piece, but as long as we agree that this stuff doesn't belong in the article, that really isn't important. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, your suggestion is based on a misinterpretation of the article. What the article says is "A Ministry of Finance memorandum on the amendment to the law notes that in 2011 the population of Israel and the Palestinian Authority exceeded the 12 million mark, which enables manufacturers who market to these consumers to enjoy a tax break." That is to say, the figure includes the Palestinian Authority (as well as Gaza), which, as the memo makes explicit, is not part of the state of Israel.

What alarms Eldar is the expansionist factions of the Israeli government, that want all the territory of the West Bank incorporated into Israel. For the time being, those forces have not taken the steps to make that expansion, so it would be wrong to include the populations of Gaza and the Occupied Territories as part of Israel. The government is now considering implementation of a report that would indeed obfuscate the legal distinction between Israel and the West Bank (the Edmond Levy report), thus de jure annexing the West Bank. However, for the time being, such a change in the article would be premature. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I know that it has no legal effect whatsoever, but the official website of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies (Australia) [2] on the page dealing with the Geography of Israel includes Gaza, the West Bank (Samaria and Judea) as part of Israel. Victoria [3], South Australia [4] and Western Australia [5] incorporate the page in their respective websites.Trahelliven (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


Its not KISHINEV POGROM but CHISINAU POGROM. KISHINEV is not the official name of Chisinau (Republic of Moldova) anymore. --Octavix (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You should be taking up this issue on the page for Kishinev pogrom, but to answer your question, the most commonly used term in cited sources use "Kishinev" after the Russian spelling and pronunciation (as the Russian name was the official usage during the pogrom, when Chişinău was part of the Russian Empire). Unless a consensus of reliable sources begins to use "Chişinău pogrom" as a name, it will not pass into the wiki's usage. If you can find a source using "Chişinău pogrom", that can be provided as an alternative name in-article. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Apartheid mention?

One of South Africa's recent investigations declared Israel to be an apartheid regime. I feel that should be at least noted in the article. [6] -- (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


Why is "Arabic" in the "Official languages" box of this article on Israel? -- (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it is an official language in Israel. D'uh. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You may be interested in Languages of Israel and Demographics of Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to the Energy Triangle in the article of Israel - the joint naturalgas extraction between Cyprus, Israel and Greece

Energy Triangle between Israel, Greece and Cyprus

Energy Triangle refers to the joint natural gas extraction between Cyprus, Israel and Greece that is estimated to begin in 2015. Officials from all three countries have agreed to the establishment of a gas pipeline from Aphrodite gas field and Leviathan gas field to a liquefied natural gas plant in Vasilikos Power Station by 2019. According to Noble Energy, a total gross unrisked deep oil potential is enough to cover the supply of natural gas to Europe for 20 years, the supply for Israel for 150 years and for Cyprus 200 years.

This collaboration is part of the strong alliance between the three countries.Kotsia2 (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

'Conflicts and peace treaties' section

Malik Shabazz, I deleted link to the List of wars involving Israel from hatnotes because all these wars were with Arab countries, and there's already a link to Arab–Israeli conflict which covers this more comprehensively. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 11:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

a problem with the article

there are 2 photos of israeli air planes, i think they aren't such fit to this article, but to another who deals with israeli made weapons, thanks.

There is one plane in the Military section and another in a section dealing with the Economy in Israel, both pictures seem to be in suitable categories and areas in the page, there is no reason to move them. Silvertrail (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A criticism section is needed

Very, very badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. Encyclopaedic articles don't have separate 'criticism' sections, but incorporate such material into the remainder of the text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Anon, to give you the benefit of the good faith, please give us a list of existing country articles with criticism sections so we can judge how to create one per WP format. With some lite surfing, I couldn't find any. --Shuki (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the list of independent states article, Israel seems unique in that it is the only one with 33 countries that don't recognise it. The other countries on that list either have no other countries that don't recognise them, or just one. There is no other country like Israel on earth, its unique, so your argument about other country articles not having criticism sections does not apply (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. If focusing on recognition of a country, that would only argue for discussion of recognition, not an open listing of everything a country has done right/wrong. Should we also list the pros/cons of every nation? -- (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no other country like Israel on earth, its unique, so your argument does not apply. (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Taco

Can we start the USA criticism section yet? Apparently our democracy fails the Russian test... Russian Election Report Concludes U.S. Vote Will Be Neither Free Nor Fair

Duh, of course a billion dollar election isn't "Free". Hcobb (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop trying to change the subject, if you have a problem with the US take it up on that page (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What's the issue here, exactly? If 98 is suggesting that there should be a section in this article entitled "Criticm of Israel", then we should be discussing what we'd write in this section, based on which sources. There are several articles that deal with aspects of Israeli policy that have drawn criticism, such as Criticism of the Israeli government. Why not use those? --Dailycare (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, these articles complain about the actions of the government, not the land. What exactly would be the criticism of the country? "Dry and full of fanatics"? Wouldn't that just mark it as a typical Middle Eastern country? Hcobb (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
No need for POV in the article and as for the Anon claim that there is no other country like Israel so only in her case criticism section is required -I think he would have to explain why we don't have one on Iran, Syria, Pakistan (which want to execute mentally retard 12 years old child for tearing the Koran and even that according to only one eye witness) Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, N.Korea and the list can go much longer if the one who roll his eyes up and want us to push his anti-Israeli agenda into the article insist. --Gilisa (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC) According to this wiki law, then Encyclopaedic articles do indeed need it. Especially the sort where people are trying to Game the system of wiki as it did here "August 18, 2010). "Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups". The Guardian. Retrieved February 16, 2012." So agreed, there definatly should be a criticism section displaying the sourced facts about the racism in israel and the anti-non jewish policies that is being kept. Not just as a seperate article itself ONLY. Especially the anti-non jew part should be added, the human rights record on controlling the press by violence is just another example (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism (essay) - "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies".Moxy (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Israel is already the target if criticism and anger, we do not need to add to that. For the sake of the country's honor, we should focus on saying positive words about it. (Written by a person in the U.S.) (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This article should be focused on retaining a neutral viewpoint towards Israel, not a positive or a negative view, see WP:Neutrality. Silvertrail (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2012

Please could you change Tel Aviv to the capital city of Israel. Jerusalem is not officially recognized as the capital, neither by any International country or the United Nations. Dan.s.Jones (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Tel Aviv is not the capital city of Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dan.s.Jones is partially correct, Tel Aviv is the unofficial capital of Israel whereas Jerusalem is stated by Israel as it's official Capital, perhaps Tel Aviv can be included as the unofficial capital on this page if it is not already somewhere on here. Silvertrail (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

just an edit

I can't edit, although it may be interesting to note under the literature section that Israelis publish more material per capita than any other country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglefingers (talkcontribs) 03:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A factlet like that needs a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is one: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglefingers (talkcontribs) 21:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That isn't a reliable source. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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 and I don't see any "Israel is a Jewish state" there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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)
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)

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)
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)

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. Silvertrail (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
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)

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. (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

source? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)

Hebrew/Arabic languages

The languages should appear like this:

{{Main|Arabic language|Hebrew language}}

Main articles: Arabic language and 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)

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)

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)

Apartheid is not mentioned once on this page

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

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

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 on this page, and also to link to Yaakov Birthright Franklin (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
I've reported the problem and asked for assistance at the Commons help desk.[7] 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)

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

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. (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The information comes from the United Nations source[8] 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)

Edit request on 5 May 2013

Hi, after this paragraph:

"Palestinians prevented from using water from the Jordan River system or drilling new irrigation wells, Israel provided fresh water and allowed wells for irrigation at the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." i would like to add the following reference: [1]

Barah1964 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement is already supported by the United Nations source so I'm not sure it's necessary. The source may not qualify as a reliable source for that kind of information either. Also please see Wikipedia:Coi#Citing_yourself, which may be relevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, the ISBN you gave doesn't appear to be valid - it doesn't appear in any of the online searches I tried. X mark.svg Not done. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it's ISBN 9781908099006. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 May 2013

I wish to add more to the "Independence and first years" section. The inclusion of this extra information provides background information to the formation of the Askenazi and Mizrahi ethnic identities. It also nuances the issue of immigration and stops are immigrants coming to Israel during the late 1940's and early 1950's from looking the same. Below are the potential added sections. They are placed between two examples of already existing place to provide context.

Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations by majority vote on 11 May 1949.[85] In the early years of the state, the Labor Zionist movement led by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion dominated Israeli politics.[86][87] These years were marked by an influx of Holocaust survivors and Jews from Arab lands, many of whom faced persecution and expulsion from their original countries.[88] Consequently, the population of Israel rose from 800,000 to two million between 1948 and 1958

Immigration to Israel during the late 1940's and early 1950's was aided by the Israeli Immigration Department and the non-government sponsored Organization for Illegal Immigration, called Mossad le-aliyah bet. Both groups facilitated regular immigration logistics like arranging transportation, but the latter also engaged in clandestine operations in countries, particularly in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, where the lives of Jews were believed to be in danger and exit from those places was difficult. The Organization for Illegal Immigration continued to take part in immigration efforts until its disbanding in 1953. [2]

During this period, food, clothes and furniture had to be rationed in what became known as the Austerity Period. Between 1948–1970, approximately 1,151,029 Jewish refugees relocated to Israel.[90] Some arrived as refugees with no possessions and were housed in temporary camps known as ma'abarot; by 1952, over 200,000 immigrants were living in these tent cities.

The immigrants came to Israel for differing reasons. Some believed in the Zionist ideology, while others moved to escape persecution. There were others that did it for the promise of a better life in Israel and a sizable number that were expelled from their homelands, like Iraq. [3] The refugees were often treated differently according to where they were from. Jews of European descent were considered to critical to the strengthening and peopling of Israel, so they were generally allowed to enter Israel first and thus were given abandoned Arab houses to live in. On the other hand, Jews from Middle Eastern and North African countries were viewed by many Ashkenazi Jews as lazy, poor, culturally and religiously backward, and a threat to established communal life in Israel and remained in transit camps for longer periods of time.[4] During the 1950's, the standard of living gap between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews widened so much that tensions developed between the two groups. This tension first moved to hostility during the Wadi Salib Uprising in 1959; other instances of domestic turmoil would occur over the following decades.[5]

  1. ^ Barahona, Ana (2013). Bearing Witness - Eight weeks in Palestine. London: Metete. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-908099-02-0. 
  2. ^ Segev, Tom. 1949: The First Israelis. "The First Million". Trans. Arlen N. Weinstein. New York: The Free Press, 1986. Print. p 105-107
  3. ^ Segev p 161-166
  4. ^ Segev p 155-157
  5. ^ Massad, Joseph. "Zionism's Internal Others: Israel and the Oriental Jews." Journal of Palestine Studies 25.4 (1996): 53-68. PDF. p 59-64

Dmb504 (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Done -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

"Ethnic groups (2013[2]) 75.3% Jewish "

pffft. Jewish is a religion, not an ethnic group. i can become Jewish if i put in some effort, but i can't change my ethnicity. please stop buying into wishful nonsense, wikipedia, you're better than that.· Lygophile has spoken 03:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What happens when a Jew says that he has become an atheist? Is he still a Jew?Trahelliven (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Not only when he becomes an atheist, but also when he, or she, for that matter, adopts another religion. In the latter case, s/he becomes a sinner, but Judaism is soft on sinners, all they have to do is repent. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Israel also identifies most of the rest of the Population as the blanket term Arab instead of as Palestinian because they do not believe Palestinians are an ethnic group, they rather call them something else, yet they want everyone to believe that every Jew in Israel belongs to the ethnic group Jewish. If we are led to believe that ethnic groups can be religions then Palestinian Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Druze are all different ethnic groups even though they all predominately descend from the same core population. Silvertrail (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
no. if you stop being Jewish, you stop being a Jew. what's the mystery here?· Lygophile has spoken 14:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity is a flexible concept, and Jews fit the definition as do sub-groups such as Sephardi Jews or Ethiopian Jews. The assumption that religion and ethnicity are separate is specific to Christian culture where that is generally the case but it is perfectly possible for religion and ethnicity to be aligned as in Coptic Christians or Celts. The Jew/ Arab distinction in statistics dates back to the British mandate when everyone was regarded as Palestinian. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A Sephardi Jew and a Ethiopian Jew have as much in common as an Irish Catholic and a Georgian Catholic, shall we call all Catholics an ethnicity and grant them a Christian state in the holy land, they already have the Vatican you say? What about Orthodox Christians, do they deserve a homeland in the holy land? Christians throughout the Levant are remarkably similar, bonded by culture, language, and beliefs, and could also be considered a separate ethnicity in the context that Jews are. Muslims throughout the Near East and World are also bonded by language and culture, are they any different than the Jews? Silvertrail (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
a Celt that adopts another religion is still a Celt by ethnicity (although, i actually don't think there is a Celtic ethnicity...Gaulic maybe, but Celts came in many forms). a Vandal that adopts Celtic beliefs is still a Vandal by ethnicity.· Lygophile has spoken 14:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, so maybe Israel runs a lousy census. But what's the suggestion with regard to the article? Formerip (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

well, that references to "Jewish" as an ethnicity be removed, either entirely or replaced by a more appropriate demographic categorisation as used in other articles. i don't see an "ethnic groups" chapter in the right hand side template in other articles, so it should probably just go.· Lygophile has spoken 14:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Some Moslems believe there should be an Islamic state, it is not for you or me to decide on that issue. There is an Armenian Church, a Bulgarian church, an Ethiopian church and a Greek Orthodox church. Most Arab states define themselves as Islamic in their constitutions although some, such as Egypt, have a sizeable Christian minority. Its normal in the Middle East for religion and nationalism to coincide and Israel fits the regional pattern. I would shift all the ethnicity data out of the lede and into the relevant section and simply say that ethnic groups are as defined by the Israeli statistics office. I forgot the Anglican church! Heirs to the throne only marry Anglicans, so its out of bounds for Jews and Moslems. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would personally be in favor of getting rid of the "Jewish" a religious/cultural label "Arab" a cultural/linguistic labels in the section and replacing them with actual ethnicities rather, such as Mizrahi Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Palestinian Christians, Palestinian Jews, Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Druze. This would improve the article by showing readers what is actually meant. Silvertrail (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
IMO that would be fine if someone was able to provide that data. Formerip (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The statistics office differentiates people by their country of origin and their parents country of origin. In general one can provide thgose figures, however growing inter-marriage means that a large percentage of Israelis are both/neither Ashkenazi and Sephardi. Acutally I think it would be a good idea to do this, though it requires a bit more research. They have figures in Demographics of Israel but I think they're suspect: too neat a distinction between ashkenazi and spehardis. for the general list. Telaviv1 (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

there's another issue: Most French Jews are sephardi and many US Jews are, but the figures will imply they are Ashkenazi. Jews form Bulgaria,Turkey and Kazakhstan are hard to place and Indian and Ethiopians don't fit in the Ashkenazi -Sepahrdi model. Telaviv1 (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So from what I see on there we can state 20.6% (non-jewish) Palestinian Israeli in Israel.
Made up of 82.6% Palestinian Sunni Muslim (with a very small minority of Shia), 9% Palestinian Druze, and 9% Palestinian Christian (mostly Eastern Orthodox and Catholic denominations).
Regarding Jewish Divisions we can state 75.4% (jewish) Israeli in Israel (Including Jewish Israeli settlements in Palestinian Territories),
Made up of 50.2% Mizrahi & Sephardi, 47.5% Ashkenazi, and 3.5% Ethiopian & Indian Jews.
And "Others" comprising remaining 4%. Silvertrail (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is also that Israel counts the settler population in the occupied territories as "Israel", so the numbers are inaccurate as the numbers are not only for Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we note that they include the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian Territories then so readers know that inaccuracy? *I just added that in* Silvertrail (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't say a solution taking account of that is not possible, but the difference would be more than trivial (something like, maybe, 8% of the total population?), so it isn't really properly accounted for just by noting it.
On the other hand, the figures that are there now presumably suffer from the same issue anyway. Formerip (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This problematic issue must be corrected. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have the resources to fix that, but in the mean time I think the demographics should be changed from "Jewish/Arab" to the ethnicities I listed above. Silvertrail (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why make things so complicated? Israel Central Bureau of Statistics divides ethnically its population in three groups: Jewish, Arab and others. What sub-ethnic Ashkenazi/Mizrahi groups have to do with this? And yes, Jews are an ethnic group rather than a religious one (even the Bible talks about a "people"). There are many atheistic Jews (orthodox Jews don't deny that). And the settler population is already clarified in "Demographics" section and the infobox. Quote: Includes all permanent residents in Israel, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Also includes Israeli citizens living in the West Bank. Excludes non-Israeli population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

why? the reason is simple: because you're dead wrong about it being ethnic group. ethnicity by definition is that part of your social identity that is innate and not subject to change, but only to genetic inheritence. most modern Jews are the offspring of religious converts, not the original Semetic people. just like any other religion· Lygophile has spoken 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
How would you describe the offspring an Arab man and a Jewish woman after they all become Jehovah's Witnesses? Trahelliven (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
a Jahova's Witness, duh! but that's a religion. their ethnicity i can not guess from the information you provided.· Lygophile has spoken 22:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity is genetic? Since when? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

it means nothing if not that. first thing mentioned in the article is Ancestry, after all. if "ethnicity" should be defined some other way, it kinda stops having any meaning. i mean, none of the other entries ("appearance, cuisine, dressing style, heritage, history, language or dialect, religion, symbols, traditions"), are anything i ever associated with ethnicity (other than some being partially perhaps a result of it). that's either culture, or "subculture" (and mostly just the individual); not ethnicity. but i see now this involves quite a semantic can of worms· Lygophile has spoken 22:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, then you need to convince people to make changes to the meaning of the word according to your worldview. As long as the rest of us define it as a social category, you don't have a point here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not really that helpful to the discussion to worry about it, anyway. We can only report figures that are available, whatever we believe in our own minds they refer to. Formerip (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
so then why don't you just use "culture" if that's what you mean? and aar, if you mean to define it by the extremely large set of attributes i listed above, but excluding "ancestry", it should just be removed from the article at all, because such an arbitrary grouping is ridiculous, and not appropriate for statistical, demographic data. what's funny is, i don't see the same thing in any other nation's article. so for what reason is it added here, other than some stupid propoganda?· Lygophile has spoken 20:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
You don't see it, means there's something wrong with your eyes. You are getting into forum-rants. Future post like this will be reverted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The Israel Central Bureau of Statistics doesn't even use the term "ethnicity", only "nationality" instead (different term from "citizenship" in Israel), and "religion". The latest census, from April 14th, says this on their website, translation from Hebrew: "The Jewish population is 75.3%, the Arab population is 20.7%, and the "others" - non-Arab Christians, people of other religions and people not classified by religion, are 4.0%." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuvn86 (talkcontribs) 23:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I still think we should be more specific rather than vague in this article, using descriptors like this would be better than what is currently used,
20.6% (non-jewish) Palestinian Israelis in Israel (Including Palestinian, Druze, and Bedouin).
Made up of 82.6% Palestinian Sunni Muslim (with a very small minority of Shia), 9% Palestinian Druze, and 9% Palestinian Christian (mostly Eastern Orthodox and Catholic denominations).
75.4% (Jewish) Israeli in Israel (Including Jewish Israeli settlements in Palestinian Territories),
Made up of 50.2% Mizrahi & Sephardi, 47.5% Ashkenazi, and 3.5% Ethiopian & Indian Jews.
And "Others" comprising remaining 4%. Silvertrail (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
"The population of Israel is 75% Jewish, 19% Muslim, 3% no religon......"
"The population of Israel is 77% Jewish, 20% Arab......"

These two sets of statistics are not inconsistent. 3% of the population may have abandonned religon altogether. Being Jewish dependa on the context in which the term is used. Trahelliven (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just above they went over on how "Jewish" and "Arab" are nationality labels in the Israeli census, not ethnic, if we are talking about ethnic groups in Israel they are Palestinian (Muslim, Christian, Druze, Bedouin) and various European/Near Eastern/Asian/African Jews, including Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Sephardic, and Ethiopian/Indian Jews. Silvertrail (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Since when are ethnicity and religion mutually exclusive? See ethnic religion and ethnoreligious group. I wonder if Sikhs experience denial as an ethnicity like we do, or is this exclusive to Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Most Jews are genetically related because they are Israelites. Those are ethnic Jews. Ethnic Jews are Jews such as Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi. Jews that are not ethnic are groups that converted to Judaism such as [[Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews), Indian Jews, and Black Hebrew Israelites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 May 2013

May i suggest adding Foreign relations of Israel to the "See Also" section? It's not particularly good article but it seems more balanced than my original thought of separate 'Israel-[insert country]' articles. Maybe it would make more sense to skip the blurbs and just Index country specific articles. I prefer this idea. The reason I say this is because the blurbs on the 'Foreign relations of Israel' cherry pick parts of the the main pages in a biased way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Can U add these few line ?

I wished to add a few lines to the Article, but I found it protected... Can some friend Editor add these lines to the Section Etymology ... last para:

Many believe that the making of Israel is in accord with the prophecies contained in old Scriptures. To quote two only: “Thus saith thy Lord: Behold I will take the whole house of Israel from among the nations, whither they went ; and I will gather them from all those around them, and bring them to the land of Israel, and make them a nation in my land even on the mountains of Israel.”(Ezekiel 37:21-24) [1] In very similar words the prophecy occurs in the Quran 17:105 “…and when the time of the Promise of the Later Days comes, We shall bring you together out of the various peoples.” (Quran 17:105) [2] --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No thanks. Zerotalk 09:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK brother, I can think of bigger reason. Be well. --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Introductory sentence unclear

What does it mean, Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day in support of the Palestinian Arabs? Any academic reference for such statement? (If not, I propose to change it to ..invaded the new country on the next day.) Franp9am (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Did the Arabs invade Israel, or did they send troops to the area of the designated Arab state? --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
My question was, if there exists a serious academic reference to the "in support of the Palestinian Arabs" claim. Franp9am (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Answering your question, Arab states invaded both the area of the designated Arab state and the area of the designated Jewish State (Galilee, several kibbutz in the Negev, etc). Also the answer to Franp9am is very clear: No source says it was "in support of Palestinian Arabs".--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Quigley states (p. 77-8) that the Arab forces didn't mount any serious ground attack into the areas envisioned by the General Assembly for the "Jewish state". He also states the Arab forces were invited into Palestine by the Arab Higher Committee to maintain law and order. We could re-word the sentence to e.g. "At the invitation of the Arab Higher Committee, neighbouring Arab states sent forces into Palestine". --Dailycare (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
No euphemism. They didn't "sent peace corps" at "invitation" of someone. Arab states attacked, bombed and invaded by force Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Kfar Darom, Nirim, Yad Mordechai, Degania, Nitzanim, Negba, Ramat Rachel and many other places. It was a war to exterminate the Jewish state.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
This is exactly what I know and what the books I have read state (can give references, but I don't think that there is much controversy about this). If nobody objects, I will reformulate it somehow in a few days and see what happens. However, if you find some good and simple formulation, IranitGreenberg, would be happy (I'm not an expert in this field). Franp9am (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's what Quigley writes - they were invited and didn't seriously assault the areas the UN had suggested for the Jewish state. --Dailycare (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
If you mean prof. John Quigley, he is not a historian. Moreover, this statement clearly contradicts the rest of this article, see also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. Introduction is definitely not a place for controversial information that has no support in the rest of the article. Franp9am (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Dailycare, why don't you look a map? Kfar Darom, Nirim, Yad Mordechai, Degania, Nitzanim, Negba and Ramat Rachel were inside the territory assigned by the UN to the Jewish state. And if Arab armies hadn't been stopped by Israel, they would've destroyed Tel Aviv, Haifa (their main objectives) and the entire Jewish state and population.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually Ramat Rachel was in the Corpus_separatum_(Jerusalem). Zerotalk 09:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Game over.
On May 1948, Arab expeditionnary forces (around 20,000 in total) invaded Palestine. Their aims have not been clearly defined by historians, certainly due to the fact that their archives are not open.
At the beginning they didn't want to intervene and had no ressources for this. They thought the ALA would win alone but the vents of April and beginning of May proved the contrary. After Deir Yassin and the Palestinian Arab debacle, they were called by Palestian local leaders to intervene, particularly around Jerusalem. In the official announcement of the reasons of their intervention, they said they intervened to protect the indegenous population of Palestine and it is true that the situation was extremelly chaotic (already 300,000 Refugees, collapse of the economy, terrorism, battles, massacres ; ...)
Regarding the intentions of the Israelis... Before 15 May, they had taken Jaffa and Acre and the whole Western coast of Galilee. All were located in the territories allocated to the Arab States. They had also launched Operation Nachshon in Arab territories to open the road to Jerusalem (corpus separatum). It should be taken care to talk about "invasion" in all these circumstances of give a picture with one agressor and one defender. (We are not here to judge but to report.)
What is clear is that :
  • Transjordan, didn't aim to attack Israel (he was forbidden to do so by the British) and he expect to annex as much as the Arab State as possible.
  • Irak was allied to Transjordan (as an Hachemite Kingdom)
  • Syria wanted both to prevent this annexation of the Arab State by Transjordan and to attack Jewish State
  • Lebanon betrayed his allies a few days before the invasion
  • Egypt wanted to prevent the ambition of Jordan, to attack Israel and maybe to annex the strategic Negev.
  • All hated the Mufti and wanted to get rid of him.
From this, it is easy to find a short sentences to explain what happened on 15 May 1948 : "The next day of the termination of the Mandate, Arab armies invaded Palestine and fought the Israeli forces." Pluto2012 (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The fact that Arabs invaded (maybe except Transjordan) also territories designated for the Jewish state is beyond any doubt of the majority of the historians; however, I'm ok with the sentence you propose, for the introduction it should be ok. Franp9am (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
You are right but to be accurate we should say that Iraq tried to invade territories allocated to the Jewish State but failed and that the success of Egypt and Syria were mitigated. Lebanon attacked a kibbutz but never tried to invade ; same for Transjordan. We are far from the traditionnal account that 5 Arab Sate invaded Israel in order to destroy the newly born State. Anywyay, I think that few historians deny that from the point of view of Yishuv, it was a survival war. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say, and neither did Quigley, that the Arab forces wouldn't have attacked targets in the area envisioned for the Jewish state at all. I said, and so did Quigley, that they didn't mount any major attack on such targets. Of course, as far as the Arab forces were concerned, there was no Jewish state to begin with since they didn't agree to the partition. In fact, most Arab states are still of the opinion there is no Jewish state, but that's another matter. --Dailycare (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this Dailycare's edit. In my opinion, this is far from a neutral desctiption. First, almost all invasions have some "formal invitation", for example, when the Russions invaded Czechoslovakia (my country) in 1968, there was also an "invitation" from some local communists, but nobody relativizes the word invasion on the corresponding wiki article. The invitation of the Arab armies should be mentioned somewhere in the article about the 1948 war, but this doesn't mean that the introduction to "israel" should contain this weasel words "entered", unless you provide a clear reference that this is how most historians view it. (Definitely, it should not be based on authors such as Quigley!) Franp9am (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that there is a source for "invaded", I'm ok with it. I have to point out, however, that in the Czech case the Zionists would be in the role of the Soviets, not the Czechs ;) --Dailycare (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)



The law of compulsory education has been amended recently to the age of 16, but I'm afraid I'm neither able to edit this article nor find any internet sources... I'm not precisely internet-savvy, I'm afraid! However I was told by social services that if I desire I have the right to drop out of High School at the age of 16. I was surprised initially when one of my parents told me this, but apparently it's a very recent thing, similar to how it's now a citizen is allowed to gain a driver's license when they're 16 and three quarters, down from 17, and when I asked a social service person (personnel? employee?), they indeed confirmed it. If you know where to look, can you find a source? I was unable to find anything in English. I could scan a Hebrew newspaper though? (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It would not be beneficial to state Tel-Aviv as Israel's capital as Israel exercises de facto control over all of Jerusalem. The final status of Jerusalem is subject to final negotiation between Israel and the Palestinian authority. To state that Tel-Aviv is Israel's fallcy would therefore be a fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkangelus333 (talkcontribs) 20:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Israeli government regards Jerusalem as the undivided eternal capital of Israel and not subject to negotiation. If its status is to be altered, unfortunately it will be in some other way. Trahelliven (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)
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)
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)
What is a state's "unofficial capital"? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I believe a country recognizes another state's city as its capital when it places its embassy in that city. Many (most, I think) of the countries that do have diplomatic relations with Israel have placed their embassies in Tel Aviv, so I would say Silvertrail's comment makes sense. Here is a quote from the wiki page for Tel Aviv: "As the United Nations and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Tel Aviv is home to most foreign embassies." -- Jadhachem (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Without seeing the other country article in question, I can't just agree to the compromise. I understand your reasoning here and it may be a sound compromise, but I don't want to run into a case where we are talking about a small country and therefore possibly a rarely visited article that is not being properly maintained. I also don't want to get caught into special cases, like South Africa, with its three official capitals, or Nauru, which doesn't have any official capital but can be described as having a de facto one as it has a city with the functions of a capital, like the seat of legislature. Tel Aviv does not serve as a de facto capital and does not execute the legal functions of a capital. Jerusalem does. Nauru also has this in absence of anything else, Israel is not that case. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think SA or Nauru have anything to do with my compromise, because their articles indicate no "unofficial" capital. Nauru's article does not indicate an "unofficial" capital but rather a "de facto" capital. Nobody here claims that Tel Aviv is a "de facto" capital, and it's really not, because it's not the seat of legislature, nor anything close to that. I'm specifically talking about what user:Silvertrail has suggested: "unofficial capital" - whatever this expression means. Even one precedent - in Wikipedia's articles about countries currently recognized by the world - may be sufficient for using this expression for Tel Aviv as well, because user:Silvertrail has already presented the sources for such a nickname for Tel Aviv - outside Wikipedia. HOOTmag (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Israel and it's "official" capital are a unique case, please stop comparing it to other countries that are in no way related, that does not help your case. Adding a note stating the unofficial capital below the official capital will only benefit this article by giving readers more insight into Israel and it's culture/people, it would not be misleading, because many people, groups, organizations that I listed above understand and promote Tel Aviv as the unofficial capital and cultural hub of Israel. Silvertrail (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Your admitting that Israel is a "unique case", just proves what I have claimed:
  • "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".
As compared to the other editors here, about whom I have claimed:
  • "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".
That dispute, between the adhocrats and the beaurocrats, has made me suggest the compromise above. HOOTmag (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you be a little more specific about your compromise HOOTmag, I'm not sure I understand it? Silvertrail (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me quote it, and tell me what exactly you don't understand:
  • "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".
What's not clear? Do you know what the word "precedent" means? HOOTmag (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand that, why must there be a precedent? Can you specify another country that has the same unique situation as Israel? Prior Palestine, argued Palestinian capital of Palestine, Israel created in Palestine, disputed Capital. I can only think of countries back during the age of imperialism personally, England in Ireland/Scotland, England in India, French Algeria, etc. Silvertrail (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
There must be a precedent, because - without it - we will never be able to form a compromise, between you - as an adhocrat who thinks Israel is a unique case, and the other editors - as beaurocrats who don't think any country should be regarded as unique or be treated separately from the other countries; You know, beaurocrats tend to require sticking to hard criteria - well-defined in advance.
As for your claim that Israel is in a "unique situation", eg "Israel was created in prior Palestine" (and likewise): If the other editors here agree that "Israel was created in prior Palestine" (and likewise), and also agree that this fact makes Israel a "unique case" - more than the uniqueness of "Jordan that was created in prior Palestine" (and likewise) - or more than the uniqueness of "Prior Palestine that was created in Prior Judea" (and likewise), and also agree that all of these political arguments are relevant to whether any "unofficial capital" should be indicated in an infobox whose official form is universally used for many other countries, then the dispute between all of you could be solved immediately. However, I suspect beaurocrats (like the other editors) don't agree with the unique way you (and others) see the whole matter, and that's why I suggested a compromise. HOOTmag (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Jordan does not claim the Palestinian Capital of Jerusalem as the capital of their state like Israel does with Palestine, Jordan was created separate from Palestine, not within it, it was within the mandate of the land that the British seized during the world war, that does not mean it was a part of Palestine. And sure, Palestine was created in prior Judea in history, but Judea was created in prior Canaan, and Canaan was in the prior New Kingdom of Egypt. Silvertrail (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
That looks like you don't get my point (unless I don't get yours). I mentioned Jordan and cetera, not in order to open a historical discussion about what the exact limits of the prior and current countries are, or who was here before, or who took another people's land, which is a matter of political and historical dispute between Palestinians and Jews. I just wanted to point out, that if the other editors here agreed about the political and historical way you see the whole matter, and with its relevance to whether any "unofficial capital" should be indicated in an infobox whose official form is universally used for many other countries, then the dispute between all of you could be solved immediately. However, since I don't think it's going to be solved soon, I suggested a compromise. HOOTmag (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The "unique case" of Israel justifies our footnote in the infobox. It in no way justifies jumping the extra step of listing something that is not functionally the Israeli capital in any sense of the word at all. A cultural center does not a capital make. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

However, if user:Silvertrail - who has apparently good (yet a little bit commercially-promotional) external sources for Tel Aviv being an unofficial capital, finds a precedent inside Wikipedia - for indicating any "unofficial" capital in an infobox whose official form is universally used for many other countries, then I don't find any reason why we should avoid adopting user:Silvertrail's position in favor of indicating Tel Aviv as well. HOOTmag (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I can source that New York City is the unofficial capital of the US. It does not matter. It's inclusion in the infobox has not been justified. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand your position, so you don't have to repeat it. I agree with you that if user:Silvertrial has external sources only, then that won't be sufficient. However, what if user:Silvertrial has more than just external sources? e.g. a precedent inside Wikipedia, which indicates an "unofficial" capital - in that infobox - for another country currently recognized by the world? Please note that your reasoning here - does not explain why we should not add Tel Aviv (and New York) as well - if Wikipedia has already any other precedent. Please note also that my compromise tries to take into account both positions: yours and user:Silvertrail's. You don't have to accept user:Silvertrail's position: you are just requested to recognize my suggestion as a fair compromise between two opposite positions - one of which you reject due to the reasons you have already presented here. HOOTmag (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a precedent for a footnote: Myanmar's official capital is given in the infobox as Naypyidaw, with a footnote stating "Some governments recognise Yangon (Rangoon) as the national capital." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touringtest (talkcontribs) 13:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

We already have such a footnote in this article. The request for precedent is not for a footnote, but for a declaration of an "unofficial capital" in the infobox. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section

Where is it? Regardless of your political affiliation, you must admit that Israel is very controversial for many many reasons, there should be a controversy section.

Steve348 (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia now tends to avoid "Controversy" sections: Because the word "controversy" is a loaded term which focuses on trouble or outrage instead of welcome approval, the preferred wp:NPOV treatment in Wikipedia articles is to use a more-neutral term (such as "Reception in world affairs") which also allows writing about low-key reactions, rather than slant a page section to sensational or highly critical responses about Israel in world events. The "Israel" page has contained a section named "Israel#Conflicts and peace treaties" which summarizes some battles and accords; however, to elaborate more about controversies, then perhaps an entire subarticle could be expanded as "Israel in world affairs" with balanced coverage of the upsets as well as the welcome approval of Israel's policies, or suffering over international events. There are many articles of the form "Israel-Lebanon relations" or "Israel-Norway relations" or "Israel-Syria relations" or "Israel-U.S. relations". Using an wp:NPOV-neutral structure, then the controversies can be mixed evenly into the text, along with the major events of contentment and accords in world affairs; however, such an article could contain mainly controversies, as long as it reflects the opinions in the preponderance of wp:RS reliable sources. NPOV does not mean 50-50% treatment, so if 90% of coverage loves all that Israel does, then the subarticle could be 90% as I-heart-Israel topics, to match whatever proportion of many sources have noted as significant. -Wikid77 15:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This is news to me. Where did you get this idea that Wikipedia now tends to avoid "Controversy" sections. Does it appear in a guideline or style manual somewhere? Or perhaps in a discussion at Wikistrategy? Sounds pretty fishy to me - I mean, if there is a controversy about something, dressing it up as "Reception" and writing only about low-key reactions seems the opposite of NPOV to me. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I think Wikid77 is referring to the essay WP:CSECTION which recommends "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Marokwitz (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Capital in infobox revisited in light of RFC

Hi guys, in light of the result of the ArbCom mandated RFC, there seems to be a need to revise the infobox since it now indicates Jerusalem as the capital, with a link to the footnote. Since stating even that Jerusalem is the capital, although unrecognized, has been rejected in the RFC the wording of the infobox seems out of date. Obvious solutions would be to leave "Capital" blank, or amend to "Seat of Government" (after the BBC), which apparently would require amending the Infobox template, too. Comments? --Dailycare (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Where was this RFC? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Give an inch, take a mile. -- tariqabjotu 19:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
A more appropriate "solution", if one is actually needed here (which I don't believe is the case, as the infobox has not been a subject of debate in ages), is to say "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" as capital and also add a Seat of Government field with "Jerusalem" unqualified. -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Snarky!     ←   ZScarpia   22:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
If the template can be changed, I think that changing the text to Seat of Government would be acceptable. Otherwise, I'd suggest putting the text disputed in brackets after Jerusalem or leaving the entry blank.     ←   ZScarpia   22:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, where was this RFC? I never saw anything on this page discussing an RFC in progress. I did not know about it when it was happening to participate, and do not have it now to read the results myself. Where is this RFC? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The RfC they're referencing is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 01:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the RFC conclusively settled whether it is NPOV to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, with or without qualification on the international community's view. So unlike tariq, I do see a need to change it here. I think changing the field to Seat of government is fine. nableezy - 02:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly care how this is resolved, but just want to point out that no template change would be required to change the wording from Capital to SoG. All that needs to be done is add "| capital_type=[[Seat of Government]]" to the existing parameters. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC) ETA: Note the current template is an either/or. In order to have both a Capital and a SoG listed – as might be desirable for the Netherlands – a small template change would be needed. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   08:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I agree with some kind of clarification in the infobox for Israel and the Netherlands regarding the city where governmental institutions are located. Although we could also add in the lead that Jerusalem is the proclaimed/designated capital, like in the State of Palestine.--Jurrikarsen (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
My point of view may be strange but I think that :
  • Claiming Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is pov
  • Claming Israel's capital is Jerusalem is npov(*).
My reasonning is that Jerusalem was chosen as capital by both Israel and the State of Palestine but the only capital chosen by Israel is Jerusalem.
(*) at the condition to refer in a note to th global political status of the city.
Pluto2012 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected concerning the infobox. I'm, equally OK with "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" and "Seat of government". --Dailycare (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The other problem with the infobox is it identifies Jerusalem as the largest city in Israel. Thats only true if you include portions of the city that arent in Israel. Otherwise Tel Aviv is larger than Jerusalem. I propose removing the listing of Jerusalem as the largest city, as it certainly is not NPOV to claim for Israel territory and population that the overwhelming majority of scholars and other states say is not part of Israel. nableezy - 16:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that the population of East Jerusalem cannot be counted in the population of the Israeli Jerusalem. If it is the case and if Tel Aviv has a larger population than West Jerusalem then Tel Aviv must be considered as the largest city of Israel. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We should have this entire sentence in the infobox: "Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital, this is not internationally recognized."--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Im going to go ahead and set capital_type to seat of government. nableezy - 18:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Im also modifying largest city to specify that its only true if EJ is included. nableezy - 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the capital of Israel ?

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel whether you like it or not, in reality, it isn't even open for debate, and it shouldn't be open for debate on a site which brings information to many people around the world! It would simply mislead them with lies. אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted אשכנזישעיידן given the current consensus on the topic. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Israel - topic that sparks the most Wikipedia 'edit wars'


My name is Harriet and I'm writing from the BBC World Service. The University of Oxford has released the findings of its research into topics on Wikipedia that spark the biggest 'edit wars', and top of the list is Israel.

I was wondering whether we might be able to speak to one of the main editors of the Israel page about how this is managed, do you frequently enter edit wars, how do you resolve them?

I'd be very grateful if you would get in touch here!


Harriet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harriet114 (talkcontribs) 14:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look in my personal talk page for comments. Ykantor (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You might also look at two essays I wrote on the topic, and
I would be glad to talk to you, but I have been much less active on this page in the last year or two, so you might want a fresher perspective. Ravpapa (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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 (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)

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. I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar  02:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

More unused:

czar  03:02, 14 October 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:

Ugh, the modern state of Israel is not a continuation of an earlier state, it was founded by settlers who built the nation from scratch. Muscovy also started from scratch, but since then it has grown continuously passing on its institutions to succeeding states. Whether Dʿmt directly became Aksum or not is unknown but Aksum did become Ethiopia. Mexico began with it's independence from Spain, India began with it's independence from the UK. Sepsis II (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not a direct continuation because of the long period of time in between but as my edit said it was a part of the Formation(an integral part) of the modern state. Just like D'mt probably was for Aksum, Ethiopia and the Frankish Kingdom was for France. Many articles on countries do have it written this way for the same reason and many don't but certainly could. One example of a country who's situation is the same as Israel's(being ruled by different empires and over time becoming independent again) and who's article is written this way is Egypt. It's nothing political, it changes nothing I just liked the way it looks and though it would be cool. Csi.southpark (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Israel was a country ruled by different empires? I guess the same will be said for the Olmec when they found a nation in 2870. Sepsis II (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Well you realize that Israel was a country that was taken over and made part of many empires and not just the ancient states you mentioned but the more recent ones under the Hasmonean dynasty and King Herod(Roman client state). It was a country just like ancient Egypt, ancient Persia, the Roman empire...ect until it was taken over and made part of various empires(Roman empire, Ayyubid dynasty, the many Caliphates, the Mamluks, the ottoman empire and many more). Csi.southpark (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This is an article about the modern state of Israel who's history does not reach outside the 20th century. Sepsis II (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Sepsis II okay that has been pointed out to me many times but then I don't understand why the article on the modern state of Egypt, the modern state of France, the modern state of Somalia... have it written this way. Csi.southpark (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Nations' historys go back as far as they were continuous. Somalian governments have led into one another for millenium. France only goes back to 486 because that's when they started from scratch. Egypt goes way back because they never ceased to exist in some form as can be read at History of Egypt. Sepsis II (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that if you take a closer look at the History of Egypt article then you'll see that Egypt did indeed cease to exist when it became part of many different empires before it became independent again. You know I wouldn't mind a similar edit to the State of Palestine article perhaps starting with Jund Filastin or the conquest by the Ayyubid dynasty. Csi.southpark (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Britain defeated the Ottoman forces in the Levant with the help of Arab fighters which it promptly betrayed. Unjust creations such as this propaganda article and it's subject require protection from open discussion.

British forces invading from Egypt defeated the Ottoman forces in the Levant with the help of Arab allies they betrayed.

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014

On the right part of the page near the top, there is an incorrect name for Israel. (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2014 (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)
As I pointed out in this discussion months ago, April 2013 this article is quite worthy of noting the unofficial capital of Israel as Tel Aviv, for the reasons already argued, I see no harm in including it in the article as it would only improve the article by showing readers the unofficial capital which also serves as a major cultural hub for the Israeli populus. There's no intellectual reason to list an "official" capital that is highly disputed without listing the nation's unofficial capital for reference as well. Again, it's widely known as such,1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Silvertrail (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yambarah the USA only recognizes a De Facto annexation of East Jerusalem. As I understand The Supreme Court of Israel only recognizes a De Facto annexation of East Jerusalem. A renamed West Jerusalem now known as Jerusalem may be the De Jure capital of Israel. Israel may have extended some De Facto control that it had over East Jerusalem to the Renamed West Jerusalem. However it's not clear if anybody recognizes the De jure annexation of East Jerusalem including Israel. (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Thus saith thy Lord: Behold I will take the whole house of Israel from among the nations, whither they went ; and I will gather them from all those around them, and bring them to the land of Israel, and make them a nation in my land even on the mountains of Israel.And there shall be one chief over them. And they shall no more be two nations ; nor shall they any more be split into two kingdoms, that they may no more be poluted with their idols. And I will deliver them from all their iniquities and purify them from all their sins which they have committed. And they shall be my people, and I the Lord will be their God.” Ezekiel, 37:21-24 (Quoted from a Bible Printed in 1808) [9]
  2. ^ “…and when the time of the Promise of the Later Days comes, We shall bring you together out of the various peoples.” (Quran (Bani Israel) 17:105, Short Commentary of the Quran., see. footnote 1658, Page 569) [10]