Talk:Israel/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

History in lede section

@Triggerhippie4: I agree there is too much history in the lede.

Personally I think we should remove the superfluous description of Assyrians, Bablyonians, Persians and Greeks, which combined represent three sentences. These could easily be reduced to just one.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. But that doesn't make Balfour Declaration lead-worthy. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@WarKosign: please explain your revert.

@Onceinawhile: You made an edit which was reverted. You should not be re-instating it while the discussion is ongoing. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. “WarKosign” 09:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Triggerhippie, what part of the history do you consider more important then?

The Wall Street Journal this week called the Balfour Declaration "Israel’s Foundation Stone".

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This week is Balfour's 100th anniversary, so the media is focused on it. The rest of the paragraph is more important because it shows the big picture, listing basic events that span decades. It already mentions British rule, the Balfour is an aspect of it. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Relatively to the time span it represents the history part is very concise and relevant. The role of Balfour Deceleration is being exaggerated and isn't worth mentioning in the lead. Infantom (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph we are discussing (starting “The Kingdoms...”) is a summary of History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. It is wholly inappropriate for that topic to comprise 20% of the lede of this article: its function is not to summarize the history of the State of Israel – the subject of this article – but rather to explain the historical justification for a Jewish State in the Land of Israel – a separate article with a different scope.

Our responsibility here is to provide a summary of the State of Israel and how it came about, from all perspectives. This situation – a debate between editors focused on contextualizing Israel in terms of romantic nationalist history and those focused on contextualizing Israel in terms of the evolution of modern Zionism – is a good example of the problem identified at WP:IPCOLL: completely different narratives for the same thing.

We should not be sticking narrowly to just one perspective on the history of the state.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It's wholly appropriate for ancient history of a country to comprise 20% of the lead. Modern history is given in the next para. "Our responsibility here is to provide a summary of the State of Israel and how it came about, from all perspectives." – exactly. You calling simple facts about ancient history of Israel "justification" and "romantic" gives away your bias. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This is an article about the State of Israel, which excludes Judea and Samaria, as shown in the infobox map. Not about the Land of Israel. So why is the history here focused on territory out of scope? And why is non-Jewish history of the land excluded from the lede? It’s likely because of what is known as romantic nationalism in which “the state derives its political legitimacy as an organic consequence of the unity of those it governs.”

There are many different ways of summarizing the history of Israel. But the one in which the story is told solely by threading a line from a semi-mythical Biblical kingdom all the way through to today’s present incarnation of the same is on the extreme-nationalist end of the spectrum.

I am not proposing that the lede should go all the way to the other extreme and only focus on the creation of modern Israel, but rather that we should have some balance and not leave the “state curriculum” nationalist history version to overwhelm the lede on its own.

Finally, your “gives away your bias” remark suggests you are hoping to draw battle lines here. But this is not a “one side against another” debate; it is about finding balance between different perspectives, irrespective of our own.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You give your bias away again by calling it "semi-mythical" and "extreme-nationalist" when all information here are historical facts. What does that have to do with the Land of Israel? Borders change through time. It's all same small area. Even if we describe only what happened within the 67 borders, the polities and events listed in the para are encompass that land, anyway. And regarding why there's no non-Jewish history in the lead, it's because the article is about Israel, and no editor was WP:BOLD enough yet to add a sentence or two about that. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

My statements are consistent with the body of the article. It says: “...it is unclear if there was ever a United Monarchy...” That is “semi-mythical”; referring to it as historical fact is nationalist nonsense.

And your point on borders is simply not true. Remember that “historical Jerusalem” is the Old City, which is not part of pre-1967 Israel. Majoring on Jerusalem’s ancient history in the lede here is technically the same as covering Crimea’s ancient history in the lede of Russia. I’m not saying it’s not appropriate – in fact I think it is – but simply that we should be conscious of it and not fall too far into nationalist history versus a balanced perspective of the modern country and its complexities.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There is/was no mention of the United Monarchy in the lead. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph begins with the words “the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah”. See Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). Onceinawhile (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and Kingdom of Judah. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice it's kingdoms, plural. There is dispute about historicity of the unified kingdom, no dispute about the two kingdoms. “WarKosign” 07:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to have my two cents worth in this conversation. Although the paragraph about history seems perfectly fine in its current form, perhaps we could add something brief about the Crusader states, the Mamluk period and Arab caliphates as well, not only the Jewish presence. I'm not concerned about length. If you check the Italy or Iran articles for example, you will see the historic part is even more extense. The Balfour declaration, however, is too detailed for lead.--Mariolis MG (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The question is what relevance do the Crusades or Mamluks have to modern Israel? In contrast to Jewish history being closely related. Infantom (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The Balfour declaration is lede worthy for Mandatory Palestine. It has little bearing, beyond a line in Zionist history, to the Israel article.Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Its function is to summarize relevant parts of the article's history section, which would be completely absent from the lead without it. Seems to me much more inappropriate than over length. There is no contradiction; the modern state is a result of Zionism and yet trace its origins to ancient Israel as well. In addition, the paragraph mentions the Zionist movement explicitly, so i am not sure where is the one sided narrative. Infantom (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The reference to Zionism is oblique and de-emphasized. It is half a sentence. That compares to a large paragraph on ancient Jewish history in the Land of Israel. That is unbalanced.

On your first sentence, your reference to “relevant parts of the article’s history” is the entire debate here. The history section in the article is fine. But it has been cherrypicked in the lede to show only the Israeli nationalist perspective. At no point does the lead discuss the almost two millenia in which non-Jews were a minority; in fact it neglects to mention that the Jews were a minority ever.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A little correction – Jews were a minority for 1.5 millennia: Demographic history of Palestine (region). --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

More like 1.7. It was Constantine (and his mother) who Christianized the region. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It was "cherrypicked" in order to summarize the most relevant content to the modern state. How exactly is the Kingdom of Jerusalem (for instance) related to modern Israel? Can you really compare its relevance to the other mentioned events? You're free to suggest actual improvements, rather than complain and delegitimize other editors. Infantom (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Infantom:, in my opinion the current paragraph in lead summarizes Israel's ancient history very good. However, you can't ignore medieval history such as the Arab conquest and Crusades. It's selective and misleading. You can't leave a black hole between the Roman period and modern Zionism. Could you please add two or three sentences about it and see if other editors approve it? Apparently nobody else is capable or interested to do so. I honestly don't see any valid reason to reduce the paragraph. I don't think Wikipedia is running out of storage space and if you take a look at every country in the world with a rich history you will see bigger texts in lead. Thanks.--Mariolis MG (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion to be discussed

I was wondering why this discussion hasn’t come up before.

It’s because there is no consensus for the inclusion of this paragraph, which was only added a few weeks ago, by an editor with limited experience (only ~900 edits), without discussion.

Before we continue this discussion, the paragraph must be removed. We should then try to establish whether there is consensus for it, or possibly for a revised and more balanced version of it.

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't come up before because there was no objections. The consensus so far, as seen on this talk page, is that the lead is mostly fine. The user who added it have 500+ edits thus having full rights to edit this page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"It hasn't come up before because there was no objections." I'm not involved here but that is bad reasoning. It's being objected to now. Furthermore, not every edit gets noticed right away. Volatile articles like this are especially susceptible to that. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor noticed the edit more than a month ago. Infantom (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This is being ridiculous. The paragraph has been there for nearly 2 months, was modified several times by other editors, and was referred to by other editors as well. The above discussion proves a sufficient consensus. No need to remove it just because you object it. The comment about the number of edits isn't even worth attention. Infantom (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The only editor who amended your proposed paragraph in any material way was Triggerhippie4. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I looked back at the history of this article each year over the last decade. At no point, even ten years ago (at which point this was a WP:FA, so had wide approval) did a paragraph like this exist in the lede. Such a momentus change to the lede of such an important article needs proper thought. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposals

In the second paragraph of the lead, let's merge 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences, shortening it by half lengthwise, and add about medieval history. Anyone? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem is the paragraph is already very concise. The information about the kingdoms of Israel and Judah is summed up by emergence and destruction only. What else can be removed from it? I think that an additional sentence(s) about Zionism would be better, or if you insist on irrelevant historical events, then maybe about demographics and the Islamic conquest. Infantom (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

To include this or a similar paragraph we need consensus on a number of questions:

• How much weight should history have in the lead. It has been about 25% for a long time; with this extra paragraph it becomes 40%
• Should the lead focus more on ancient history or Zionism as a precursor to the state, and if both, with what relative weight? For a long time we didn’t have much on precursors except the 1947 UN partition plan; this proposed additional paragraph opens this question.
• Should the lead cover the history of non-Jewish populations, and if so with what relative weight to the history of Jewish populations? Again, this hasn’t been an issue until now.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No one suggest new paragraph. I'm talking about a sentence or two. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the proposed new paragraph for which the above questions need discussion prior to its inclusion. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It ain't a proposal, but part of the article now, with sufficient support. If you wish to suggest modifications that's of course your right. Anyway, i support adding additional content about Zionism, maybe settling process, conflicts with non Jewish residents and their national aspirations. any thoughts? Infantom (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This whole paragraph is not lead-worthy and is an excellent candidate for removal from the overly long lead. Or if it is lead-worthy, then surely there should also be a lead paragraph about the geological history of the area. Israel, that is the modern state this article is about, was founded in 1948. The historical process that led to its establishment begins from the 19th century, when Zionism began to gain ground, and culminates in the Second World War and it's horrors, which led to the establishment of the Israeli state. The modern state is not a "re-establishment" of an ancient state. --Dailycare (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Without wishing to enter into a discussion about the length and overall content of the introductory (lead) paragraphs, I notice that the second paragraph says "Judah was later conquered by the Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic empires and had existed as Jewish autonomous provinces.[16][17]." ... a sentence I find confusing:-

Q1. The use of the word 'had'! Surely this word is unnecessary; the sentence makes perfect sense if we just say "Judah was later conquered by the Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic empires and existed as Jewish autonomous provinces." But this raises...

Q2, Did Judah really have autonomy during that period?

Q3 Are we talking about 'Judah' as a geographical territory, or about 'Jewish' as a ethnic/religious entity?

Q4. Does a province ever have autonomy?

Q5. If this sentence is about Judah as a territory, it seems unclear to me to read that "Judah ... existed as ... autonomous provinces." If Judah existed as an autonomous province in that period, the sentence should say ""Judah was later conquered by the Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic empires but existed as an autonomous province." Or maybe "Judah was later conquered by the Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic empires, but sometimes functioned as a semi-autonomous region."

Also the two references [16][17] do not seem to provide adequate supporting information to that sentence.--Observer6 (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The sources are there to support the existence of Yehud and Yehud Medinata (the mentioned provinces). The previous phrasing was more clear, but due to shortening that's the current version. Infantom (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation. Upon review I realise that my concluding comments were not entirely accurate or valid, so I have removed those parts. Thanks again for your helpful reply. --Observer6 (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2017

In order to adress concerns that the current paragraph dealing with history in lead doesn't mention the (mainly medieval) non-Jewish history of the land, I propose adding the following text (next to the Roman period, just before where it says "Jewish presence in the Land of Israel has persisted over the centuries..." - perhaps we could split this in two paragraphs, modifications are welcome):

In the 7th century Palestine was taken from the Byzantine Empire by the Arabs and remained in Muslim control until the First Crusade of 1099, which established the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In 1187, the Ayyubids defeated the Crusaders, taking most of the former Catholic kingdom. The Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt extended its control over the Levant in the 13th century until the Ottoman conquest of 1516.

--Mariolis MG (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support addition. I also made small modifications to your proposal – removed unnecessary details and fixed links. I think a split is not needed, because these sentences could be shortened:

The Jewish–Babylonian war resulted in the Babylonian conquest of Judah in 586 BCE and the formation of the province of Yehud. During the Persian rule, the Jewish autonomous province, Yehud Medinata, had existed for two centuries until the conquest of Alexander the Great.

to something like this:

Judah was later conquered by the Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic empires.

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose and support deleting the whole paragraph. Is this ancient history really among the most important points a reader should know about the modern state of Israel, the subject of this article, which was established in 1948? Wikipedia already has articles about the History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel and the History of Israel. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ancient history is important to reader, otherwise history starts with 1947 partition plan between Jews and Arabs without explaining how they came about. If you take independence as the starting point, than Jordan was established in 1946, India in 1947, Cyprus in 1960, yet these articles explain prior history in the lead. Even United States' lead history begins with the first human settlement. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

We can ask the same question but this time with regard to Italy, France, Iran, Armenia, Turkey or Egypt. I can't see any reason that this article would be treated differently. Histories of nations don't start only at the moment they achieve independence. Infantom (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for creating a straw man. If you can point out where I wrote that this article shouldn't include information about the history of the Land of Israel, I'd appreciate it. What I wrote, and you both seem to have missed, is that ancient history is not among the most important points a reader needs to know about the State of Israel and therefore doesn't warrant a paragraph in the lead. Would you care to respond to that argument, or would you prefer your straw man? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure Infantom meant article including lead section. The point is every country's lead section contain history prior to independence. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I did respond to your argument. I said we can ask the same question with regard to the examples i listed. All of those articles have ancient history in the lead and all of them have main history articles as well. The same concerns you have with this article. I don't think Israel should be an exception. But if you wish for a clearer answer, then yes, i think that history, including the ancient history, is among the most important points a reader needs to know about the State of Israel. Infantom (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I continue to believe that ancient history isn't one of the most important facts about a modern state, whether that state is France, Italy, the United States or Israel. I don't understand why, but I see that it's a standard feature of such articles—I'm not sure the Gauls or the Paleo-Indians, for example, have any relevance to the French Fifth Republic or the United States—but I withdraw my objection. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I partly agree. The Gauls and the Paleo-Indians have no relevance. But in this case, the Kingdom of Israel is relevant to the modern state as much as the Kingdom of France is relevant to the French Fifth Republic or the Kingdom of Italy to the Italian Republic. Infantom (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support It looks perfect and concise! That's how the paragraph would look like:

The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged during the Iron Age. The Neo-Assyrian Empire destroyed Israel around 720 BCE. Judah was later conquered by the Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic empires. The successful Maccabean Revolt led to an independent Jewish kingdom in 110 BCE, which came to an end in 63 BCE when Judea became a client state of the Roman Republic. Judea lasted as a Roman province until the failed Jewish revolts resulted in expulsion of Jewish population and the renaming of the region from Iudaea to Syria Palaestina. Jewish presence in the Land of Israel has persisted over the centuries. In the 7th century Palestine was taken from the Byzantine Empire by the Arabs and remained in Muslim control until the First Crusade of 1099, followed by the Ayyubid conquest of 1187. The Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt extended its control over the Levant in the 13th century until its defeat by the Ottoman Empire in 1517. During the 19th century, national awakening among Jews led to the establishment of the Zionist movement followed by waves of immigration to Ottoman and later British Palestine.

References

If anybody here doesn't like this version, let them speak now or forever hold their peace. So far only one or two editors have a problem with this, despite every other country with ancient history has a similar paragraph in lead.--Mariolis MG (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've shortened it further. If we replace the paragraph with the text above it will remain the same size. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think shortening is necessary. It's more reasonable to shorten the proposed addition than removing the more related Jewish autonomy and Herodian kingdom. Infantom (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Jewish presence didn't last more than others, and we have to be concise. After all, it's just the lead! If you compare this text with the paragraph of Egypt dealing with pre-modern history, both of them are aproximately the same size (a little bit less than Japan and Turkey). There's the "History" section of the article and History of Israel to explain the details of Jewish autonomy and kingdom, Arab dynasties, Crusades, caliphates, etc. Better leave it that way instead of giving place to further controversy and accusations of "preferential treatment" from the usual critics. The text right now is very professional and encyclopedic. Let's all agree with this version and add it to article. Every country has the same format. Wikipedia has no place for double standards. Seriously, why Israel has to be always an exception? (for good or for bad)--Mariolis MG (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Jewish presence have lasted more than 3200 years, more than any other people in the world. I think the shortening is a mistake, relevant information in favor of irrelevant. Whatever, if we can finally close this issue. Infantom (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of the history in the lead deals with Israel/Jews. See the new lead now. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I read it, still unnecessary. I added the Jewish provinces, since Jewish political life in the region is the most relevant and shouldn't be ignored. Infantom (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I support the paragraph suggested above by Mariolis MG, which begins...
  

The History of ancient Israel and Judah|Kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged during the Iron Age. The Neo-Assyrian Empire destroyed (the) Kingdom of Israel Israel around 720 BCE. (The) Kingdom of Judah was later conquered by the Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic empires. The successful Maccabean Revolt led to an independent Jewish kingdom in 110 BCE, which came to an end in 63 BCE when Judea became a client state of the Roman Republic. Judea lasted as a Roman province until the failed Jewish revolts resulted in expulsion of Jewish population and the renaming of the region from Iudaea to Syria Palaestina. etc

This wording is comprehensive yet succinct, and it also addresses my concerns (Q1-Q5) detailed above. Observer6 (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Overview and recommendation regarding the lead paragraphs
"This article is about the modern country." ... is the introductory header at the beginning of this article. There then follows four paragraphs of information. Paragraph's 1 & 4 provide an overview of the modern country. Paragraphs 2 & 3 focus on the history of the area. However, history is covered in later sections. There is also a main article History_of_Israel. Therefore I suggest that paragraphs 2 & 3 be removed from the lead section, and that that information be incorporated in the History section and/or in the main article, History of Israel. This would make the lead paragraphs more focused on modern Israel, with information on 'History' being available in other appropriate sections and articles.--Observer6 (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Impossible. Your proposal is not reasonable and goes against previous consensus. Removing paragraphs is not an option. It was already discussed. Every other article in Wikipedia has a brief text in lead dealing with history. Also Egypt, Iran, Japan and many other articles talk about ancient and medieval history in lead, despite being modern countries. There is a 'History' section in this article for a much more detailed description, but there must be a summary as introduction. Those two paragraphs are concised, necessary and clear. It's the standard for all countries.--181.1.250.97 (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Finland has NOT recognized Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel

The panel implies that Finland has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. THIS IS NOT TRUE. The Foreign Ministry only today reiterated its position in a tweet

QUOTE

FM (Foreign Minister) #Soini (Timo Soimi): Status of #Jerusalem as capital of #Israel and #Palestine can only be agreed as part of future solution. Two-state solution the only viable one.

UNQUOTE

https://twitter.com/Ulkoministerio

Someone with editing rights should please remove the false reference to Finnish recognition.82.128.239.250 (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2017

 Done - The above RfC will deal with the issue that is detailed in this edit request. –GH (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Remove Jerusalem as Israel's capital. This is not based on facts. If one country suddenly decides to make Jerusalem another countries capital doesn't mean it is acceptable. The US are not in charge of the world. They can't make a capital out a a country that doesn't belong to them or Israel. It's occupied territory. This is not based on facts. This statement has to be removed. The US doesn't have the right to call Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Remove this statement now. This is biased. 176.204.236.238 (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Nihlus 10:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus:Why would he need a consensus when this is common sense that the supposed extended confirmed editors clearly don't have, if this isn't sorted, I will request with an administrator for the page to be locked so only they can edit it, its clearly those who are 'extended confirmed' cannot be trusted to convey facts. How can Wikipedia be a reliable source of information if you are relying on a consensus between users (who the majority will be American and therefore in this case, biased) rather than on well known information. Please read this source if you have any doubts on the fact that it is still internationally unrecognised. –GH (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: I have made a request for comments above, although it should be wholly unnecessary. –GH (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Consensus needs to be reached before making the proposed changes. Wikipedia runs on consensus and it should be established to not only prevent future disruption but also to reach a verdict that most users agree on. Thanks. Nihlus 11:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Wikipedia also is meant to be a reliable source of information which conveys facts. If you are refusing to remove the false information from the article then in my mind, it equates to spreading false information. Consensus only applies if the information on a subject is unclear, however this is very clear cut, I'd advise you make the change. Also to achieve the consensus in this situation, then it needs to be done via editing. None the less, the discussion should be discussed above as that section was created before this section. –GH (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Jerusalem

@Makeandtoss: Only Czech Republic and Taiwan (not really a country, as it's a rogue rebellious province of China) informally recognized West Jerusalem, not all of Jersusalem, as Israeli capital, and they also at the same time recognized Jerusalem as the future capital of Palestine. However, according to internaltional law, per UN, Jerusalem remains international city. Moreover, Abbas even very recently claimed Jerusalem al-Quds is Palestine’s eternal capital,[1] and nearly 60 countries (over 50 Muslim counties + Venezuela, North Korea) recognize all of Jerusalem as belonging to Palestine.--Pailsdell (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do you say "informally?" Actually, it's a formal declaration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Czech Republic. Nodbaluzuk (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Related matter: shouldn't the recognition be listed as "Republic of China" in the infobox, not "Taiwan"? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It's quite funny that you've mentioned all of the least democratic countries...89.134.92.49 (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2017

The Capital of Israel, Israels claim of their Capital is not recognised by the majority of the international community, Jerusalem is only recognised as the capital by 4 countries and by Israel law, UN Resolution 181 declared Jerusalem corpus separatum, it is misleading to say that the Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel when that not factually correct, considering that majority of nations do not accept Jerusalem as the Capital. It would be better to be replaced with something as Jerusalem being recognised by Israel and the 4 other countries as the Capital followed by a statement that internationally this is not official ContinentOfEurope (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

In what way is international recognition necessary to make a country's capital "official", rather than what the country itself decides? Deli nk (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

What does "internationally this is not official" mean? There is no organization on the planet that can decide what is or isn't "internationally official". Just say factual things like "this is not recognized by the United Nations General Assembly" or similar. - Hoplon (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Most countries do opinie on the legitimacy of the capitals of other countries. What actually usually matters is actual control, on the ground, of said capital.Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

False & misleading "facts" re: Czech

The Czech Republic only recognized Jerusalem within the **67 lines** as the capital of Israel. But none of it mentioned in the note. It seems it was edited by pro-Israeli ppl who "forgot" to mention it (& I am Israeli; doing this bc facts matter & not out of bias against my country). Pls fix it. & Also, it should be mentioned that the rest of the world doesn't recognize it. 176.12.142.154 (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2017

In the sentence "The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, and rejected by Arab leaders.", the link "Jewish Agency for Palestine" leads to the page Jewish Agency for Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Agency_for_Israel).

I'm quite sure there is a mistake there, the link should be renamed to "Jewish Agency for Israel" 2607:FAD8:4:6:71A5:6A5F:6F66:3E6E (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

"Jewish Agency for Palestine" was the name at the time of the events and it's a redirect to a specific section of the more general Jewish Agency for Israel. Maybe we should avoid the link to the full article and use the redirect. Any comments? Favonian (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Link to to the specific section. This should've been done since when Jewish Agency for Palestine was emptied and turned to redirect. Also partly due to the page is bit lenghty with many sections. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Pipe removed in favor of using redirect to the relevant section. Favonian (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

WarKosigns revert

WarKosign, can you please show me the "consensus" for this revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&type=revision&diff=814686366&oldid=814668690 Your edit is factually inaccurate as only the US and Vanuatu supports the israeli position, Czech Republic and Taiwan only recognize Western Jerusalem as capital of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This shouldn't be added to the infobox without an RfC. There are several RfCs open right now about adding it to the lede of various articles, which haven't been closed yet. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

Jerusalem is not the Capital of Israel, it was announced by someone who doesn't own Jerusalem so it's illegal and not approved by the UN or any other legal power. it's only Trump trying to mess up with the world Douaaqel88 (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: - This is already being discussed above, establish consensus prior to making am edit request.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

this country is teroourist 37.99.134.174 (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: - un-sourced WP:FORUMish assertion, with no specific change detailed.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It is spelled "terrorist". Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Why do you write that the Jerusalem is the Capital of israel and Most of countries and UN did not recognize this ?!! this is not fair, You must be neutral. --Elbasyouny (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly what is written in infobox - Jerusalem is the capital, and there is a note that only a few countries recognize this. There are at least two discussions dedicated to this above, please read them before posting more comments. “WarKosign” 12:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@WarKosign: i did read the other discussions above and your point of view is not true at all, but i want to say something, why not you write in the Capital Infobox that 1- Tel-Aviv is the Capital according to UN and Most of Countries and 2- Jerusalem is the Capital according to Israel and the other 3 Countries. i think this a very fair choice for all parties and you should know that Taiwan isn't Independent state to take it's Position, okay? you should write the information only on facts not on your viewpoint. --Elbasyouny (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Elbasyouny: First get your supposed facts straight. Please provide a source showing that a single state considers Tel Aviv to be capital of Israel.

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel according to Israel, same as Paris is the capital of France according to France. Each country decides what its capital is. It is unusual that in case of Israel many other countries do not recognize this, so there is a note in the infobox. “WarKosign” 13:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@WarKosign: there is no clearer source that Tel Aviv is the capital that all the embassies in this city not in Jerusalem, and Israel isn't like France to take this decision because there is a struggle on this land and in the other hand the Palestinies people considers that Jerusalem is their Capital so why you take Israel position and left the other position in the face of the historical facts that Israel took the city by the war not be legal way. --Elbasyouny (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The presence of embassies is not a criteria in determining whether a city is a capital. Countries can put their embassies wherever they wish(sometimes even in a third country). Typically a capital is where a nation's legislature, president, and (often) highest court are located. That is determined by the country itself(in this case, Israel). That doesn't change that the status of Jerusalem is disputed or that the Palestinians also claim it or part of it as their capital. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The U.S. always puts its Embassy in the capital. Tel Aviv may have just been because Jerusalem is disputed. I don't know of any exceptions, but it doesn't mean Tel Aviv could strictly be called the former capital, just that it was an unusual situation where the US had diplomatic relations with a country but didn't recognize the capital. It might be confusing for Americans though, as they are used to embassies being located in the capital. I don't know what other countries do, or how that is relevant here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: first, israel has no right to make the Jerusalem It's capital because israel does not own the city from the beginning, israel took the city by the war not by a legal way to say that okay?? --Elbasyouny (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

it's like when the U.S took a city in other country then the U.S make this city it's capital so at this time we will say that the united states has no right to do this and now the same problem happened with Jerusalem, so why you take the Israel position ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbasyouny (talk • contribs) 14:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You and I are not going to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict on this message board as to who has the right to do what; whether they legally "own" the city or not is irrelevant to what they consider their capital. They can consider the moon their capital if they wish. The article Capital city states "A capital is typically a city that physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of its respective government". Israel has located their legislature and other government institutions in Jerusalem. A legal "right" to do so is immaterial. I'm not taking any position, simply reflecting the facts on the ground as described in independent sources. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would be careful of always. With the US it is almost always - I'm sure there have been exceptions with the US (e.g. due to war and loss of the capital, or the Kazakhstan Almaty->Astana move - [2] - which had the embassy relocate in 2006 (after the official designation in 1997 by the Kazakhs). Regarding Israel in particular, there are several embassies (smaller ones) in Herzliya google maps which is a suburb of Tel-Aviv (that no one claims is the capital, though there was a short-lived proposal in 1948 for it to be a capital) and a few in Mevaseret Zion. There probably are cases in which embassies in other countries are located in suburbs, and in some cases in locations away from the capital all together. In any case - the location of an embassy does not designate an area as belonging to the capital of the hosting nation, though it would typically be a recognition of the sovereignty of the hosting state. Tel-Aviv was never declared a capital of Israel (Though it was a de-facto partial seat of government (including Knesset meetings) in 1948-9). Jerusalem was declared capital on December 1949. While external states may (in rare circumstances, such as this) dispute a capital, external states do not decided which city IS a capital.Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: yes, you are right about that we are not going to solve this, but i just wanna to see the facts on the article, and as that israel decided that Jerusalem it's their capital, the palestinian decided the same thing, so we have to consider all of the situations not one on the expense of another --Elbasyouny (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

At this is exactly why article on State of Palestine says that SoP designated East Jerusalem as their capital. It does not say that it is actually the capital since they do not control the city. What exactly do you want to change in this article ?“WarKosign” 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@WarKosign: ok thanks for you question, and all i want to see the truth in the article not a Misinformation or anything else and thanks --Elbasyouny (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The trouble is that Israelis undoubtedly consider it "misinformation" for the Palestinians to say East Jerusalem is their capital, while the Palestinians consider it "misinformation" for Israel to claim the entire city as their capital. This is why Wikipedia does not deal in truth, but in what can be verified, see WP:TRUTH and WP:V. It can be verified that Israel has physical control of the city, has located its government there, and considers it their capital. It can also be verified that the status of the city is in dispute, and that the Palestinians claim at least part of the city as their capital, and do not have physical control of the city. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

Injustice (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done @Injustice: please read the instructions. You need to propose a specific change to the article. (See the instructions in the box at right once you’ve formulated an actionable request.)—Odysseus1479 04:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

US's Recognizance of Israel's Capital

Should Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel be added to the top? It currently implies that no-one internationally believes that it's the capital even thought the US does. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacedude2169 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump's announcement recognizes that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not that Israel actually has sovereignty over the city. Read the transcript, it was worded very carefully. "We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem" “WarKosign” 09:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Problems with the countries that ostensibly recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital

Regarding User:WarKosign's claims and the current infobox content that the Czech Republic and Taiwan recognize Jerusalem as its capital: this is somewhat off target and, in part, incorrect.

• Straight from focustaiwan.com, which is operated by Central News Agency (Taiwan), Taiwan's official state-owned news agency: "Taiwan has no plan to follow the United States' lead and recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and does not intend to move its representative office in Israel from Tel Aviv, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs official said Wednesday. (...) When asked by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Tsai Shih-ying (蔡適應) at a legislative hearing whether Taiwan recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, Chen said "No," adding that the representative office in Israel remains in Tel Aviv. (...) Other than the U.S., no other country in the world recognizes Jerusalem as belonging exclusively to Israel and Taiwan will adhere to the majority opinion of the international community, Chen said." src

That's a hard no.

• "The Czech Republic currently, before the peace between Israel and Palestine is signed, recognizes Jerusalem to be in fact the capital of Israel in the borders of the demarcation line from 1967 [emphasis mine]. (...) the Czech Republic together with other EU member states, following the EU Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions, considers Jerusalem to be the future capital of both states, meaning the State of Israel and the future State of Palestine. The Ministry can start considering moving of the Czech embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem only based on results of negotiations with key partners in the region and in the world."src

In other words, it recognized only West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. That is not exactly the same as recognizing all of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, like Trump and seemingly Vanuatu did, though it is close enough to warrant a comment. It should be noted that Russia did a similar thing when it said it would recognize only West Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

As such, only Vanuatu and the US appear to recognize it in its entirety. Czechia and Russia recognize West Jerusalem as its capital, while Taiwan doesn't recognize it as the capital at all. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: I removed Taiwan from the countries mentioned in the article since the above-mentioned source is fairly unambiguous. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect to Central News Agency, Taiwan MOFA's words carry more weight.

Who said that any country recognized Jerusalem beloning exclusively to Israel ? The statement is that Jerusalem is capital of Israel, and now more and more countries recognize it. We could specify which countries recognize only West Jerusalem and which do not make this distinction. “WarKosign” 18:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The source mentions that it was said by an official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (and includes a name), so it's also from the MOFA as well as reported by their state media (which has an interest in representing it accurately). The source is also 5 days newer and may have been a clarification, but in any case is no less valid. I wasn't talking about whether a country recognized it exclusively belonging to Israel, that was just part of the quote. "More and more" is not really true. Only Czechia came after, and they exclusively referred to pre-1969 West Jerusalem. Vanuatu, Taiwan and Russia did this before the US had made any decision. "We could specify which countries recognize only West Jerusalem and which do not make this distinction." That's a good idea. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Taipeitimes (the same newspaper) released another story today in which it indeed clarified that Taiwan does not recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and that it furthermore has no diplomatic relations with Israel and Palestine. I guess they realized their website's mention Jerusalem being the capital had been ambiguous and this is some clarification. Anyhow, they say their policy reflects that of the international community.

Taiwan does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as the Israeli claim is contentious in the international community, Department of West Asian and African Affairs Director-General Chen Chun-shen (陳俊賢) said.

Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Here and here Taiwan does acknowlege that Jerusalem is the capital. Since there is contradiction between news reports, MOFA web site is the source we must trust, and it clearly says that the capital is Jerusalem. They also note that this status is disputed by many countries. BTW, several other countries acknowlege that Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital, such as Denmark and Finland.

There are two different issues that editors here confuse. It is not a big deal to recognize that Jerusalem is in fact Israel's capital - it's just common sense. See Capital city - Jerusalem fits the description to the letter: it's designated as capital by the country, controlled by the country, contains country's main government offices. It's quite silly to pretend that it isn't so, regardless of the issues of legality of Israel's control over the city or what may happen to it in any future agreement. Trump's declaration refers only to the first point and carefully avoids the second. As far as I know no country except Israel considers annexation of East Jerusalem to be legal. Many countries officially express the opinion that the city should be split between the two sides in an agreement, but it is up to them to decide. “WarKosign” 21:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

..what? I thought we were getting somewhere and now you're suddenly turning this around and reinserting Taiwan. Your first article says nothing about recognition and your second article precisely uses the word "recognize" for the US but "acknowledge" (ergo, acknowledge that Israel notes it as their capital) for Taiwan. According to newer reports referring to the MOFA (both this and this), they can't make it any clearer that they do not recognize it. You keep citing the link to that page, which is the only reason one could think they recognize it (a bit odd that you think we should use precisely that one), but even the articles mention that along with them insisting that Taiwan does not actually recognize it. They simply show Israel claims it as its capital. In exact words. I repeat, from the article today: "The government does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials said yesterday, in response to a lawmaker’s questions prompted by US President Donald Trump’s announcement last week." That's intentionally unambiguous wording. We use secondary sources over primary ones.

Whether it's "common sense" or not (people on either side believe their view is common sense) is besides the point, Taiwan does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and it would be misrepresentative to claim they do. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

In some sources Taiwan recognized/acknowledged/noted Jerusalem as the capital, and in some sources they did not. See See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Did you decide on the different meaning between recognizing and acknowledging yourself ? This non-reliable source actually says the exact opposite. Even if you could find a reliable source that supports your interpretation, applying it to Taiwan's statements would be WP:OR. “WarKosign” 22:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You reinserted Taiwan but now you're saying there are both sources for and against it. I'm not going to argue semantics, but you previously spoke of common sense and I think it's common sense that if a country's ministry explicitly states repeatedly that they don't recognize something but did previously say they acknowledged it, and the subject is as notable as this, they assign different meanings to those words. The alternative is that Taiwan's ministry contradicted itself majorly and was either lying, forgetful or very much disconnected from one another, all of which I doubt. You say some sources say they recognize Jerusalem, but I didn't see them. If you have any better sources than the ones you gave, please give them. The info page on Israel and the short "acknowledge" comment from the article that specifically states they won't move their embassy are not enough to disregard two good sources featuring direct statements from the Foreign Ministry that they do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital. Regarding the country info page, saying "primary can be good" doesn't matter here because I never said the source is bad. I said we use secondary sources over primary sources; when both are otherwise equal, it would be pointless to prefer one interpretation of an ambiguous primary source over facts presented by two good secondary sources. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

User:WarKosign, anything to add? I'll likely start an RfC on the inclusion of Taiwan because I'm not going to revert you, but I do think it's clearly inaccurate. The longer this stays, the more likely it will be spread from here to other sites through the cycle of misinformation. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead. “WarKosign” 12:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday, 57 Muslim countries + Venezuela, North Korea etc all recognized all of Jerusalem as belonging to Palestine + East Jerusalem as Palestine capital [3]. Moreover, Abbas even very recently claimed all of Jerusalem al-Quds is Palestine’s eternal capital.[4] Per Wikipedia Due and undue weight policy,[5] Palestine clearly wins. With one or two recognitions, there's hardly any weight on Israel's side.--Pailsdell (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Said countries (who despite their number carry little actual weight), for the most part, do not recognize Israel to begin with (which is noted in the article) - making their position on Jerusalem subsidiary to the recognition issue (which is noted in the article).Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Those countries form a significant block in the world and cannot be discounted. If they are, we should also disregard Trump's Jerusalem rant as a predictable position that the US would take to support its ally (and for the desperate president to deflect attention from his problems), rather than a genuine recognition. In addition to the OIC, also Russia and China recognize East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital, so it is beyond doubt that Palestine has far more recognition for its claim to Jerusalem (in its eastern part) than Israel does.--Dailycare (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)