Talk:Israel/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141028102511/http://www.utexas.edu:80/courses/classicalarch/readings/sennprism.html to http://www.utexas.edu/courses/classicalarch/readings/sennprism.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Israel#Legal system

That paragraph says that "A committee of Knesset members, Supreme Court justices, and Israeli Bar members carries out the election of judges". The source cited there states that "Judges are appointed by the president, upon recommendation of a nominations committee comprised of Supreme Court judges, members of the bar, and public figures". Those public figures are two Knesst members (by tradition, one of them is from the the opposition), and two ministers (the justice minister and another minister). The justice minister is also the chairman.

I suggest the text "The election of judges is carried out by a committee of two Knesset members, three Supreme Court justices, two Israeli Bar members and two ministers (one of which, Israel's justice minister, is the committee's chairman). The committee's members of the Knesset are secretly elected by the Knesset, and one of them is traditionally a member of the opposition, the committee's Supreme Court justices are chosen by tradition from all Supreme Court justices by seniority, the Israeli Bar members are elected by the bar, and the second minister is appointed by the Israeli cabinet. The current justice minister and committee's chairwoman is Ayelet Shaked."

The source for this is Basic Law: The Judicary:
מינוי שופטים (א) שופט יתמנה בידי נשיא המדינה לפי בחירה של ועדה לבחירת שופטים. (ב) הועדה תהיה של תשעה חברים, שהם נשיא בית המשפט העליון, שני שופטים אחרים של בית המשפט העליון שיבחר חבר שופטיו, שר המשפטים ושר אחר שתקבע הממשלה, שני חברי הכנסת שתבחר הכנסת ושני נציגים של לשכת עורכי הדין שתבחר המועצה הארצית של הלשכה; שר המשפטים יהיה יושב ראש הועדה.
Whatever I attributed to "tradition" could also be referenced if needed. Amitayzl (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amitayzl: We need a source for the tradition. You wrote that the committee members are secretly elected - the source does not say it. If both facts can be properly supported your proposal sounds like a very welcome change. “WarKosign” 16:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@WarKosign: see here. Pay attention to the secondary title:

"חברי הכנסת יצביעו באופן אנונימי עבור שני נציגים שיכהנו בוועדה"

and to "ראשי סיעות האופוזיציה גיבשו עסקה לקראת ההצבעה החשאית בכנסת."

That source may have an English version (many articles on Haaretz do), I but failed to find it. Amitayzl (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is a better soure: the law of courts:

"6. הוראות אלה יחולו לענין הועדה לבחירת שופטים שלפי סעיף 4 לחוק-יסוד: השפיטה (להלן - הועדה):

(1) הכנסת תבחר בבחירה חשאית את שני חברי הכנסת שיכהנו כחברי הועדה; הם יכהנו כל עוד הם חברי הכנסת, ואם תמה כהונת הכנסת - עד שהכנסת החדשה תבחר חברים אחרים במקומם והכל בכפוף להוראות חוק הכנסת, התשנ"ד-1994;

(2) המועצה הארצית של לשכת עורכי הדין תבחר את נציגיה בבחירה חשאית; הם יכהנו תקופה של שלוש שנים;
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitayzl (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

And a source for the traditions from the Israel Democracy Institute (link) :

"בוועדה תשעה חברים: שר המשפטים, העומד בראשה, נשיא בית המשפט העליון, שני שופטי בית המשפט העליון שאותם בוחרים שאר השופטים (באופן מסורתי על פי ותק), שר נוסף, שני חברי כנסת (באופן מסורתי אחד מהאופוזיציה ואחד מהקואליציה) ושני נציגים של לשכת עורכי הדין." Amitayzl (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

WarKosign? Amitayzl (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, I'm waiting to see if anyone objects. “WarKosign” 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

WarKosign, no one has yet objected, and I truly think no one has any rearson to object. I think you can do this now. Amitayzl (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amitayzl: Done, please go over it and check that I didn't mess something up. “WarKosign” 11:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

WarKosign, I think it's fine now. However, please pay attention that the article is not up-to-date. For example, the number of Jerusalem residents is as of 2009 (and almost 100,000 people are missing, see Jerusalem). This is most likely because of the very extreme protection. Amitayzl (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Consider Suzi Navot, Constitutional Law of Israel, Kluwer Law International 2007 p.146.Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Undiscussed change

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

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

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

Involved editors @Makeandtoss, Mortadella42, Sean.hoyland, Andreas11213, Sepsis II, WarKosign, and Ethanlu121:.

Survey & discussion

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

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

As I understand it, those who say there is an international dispute are similar to those politicians saying that scientists are still disputing climate change and evolution. Sepsis II (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Editor permanently topic banned more than two months after making these comments per WP:AE.

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

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

The question at hand has nothing to do with the location of Jerusalem in relation to geopolitics, the question at hand is about the recognition of capital hood, please don't try to confuse the two. Also random websites are not a source for such contentious matters. Sepsis II (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Editor permanently topic banned more than two months after making these comments per WP:AE.

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

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

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

• Internationally unrecognized – per WP:NPOV, no country at the time of writing recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, United States included. Disputed in this context may imply otherwise. It should be noted that ownership of the land is disputed (use of disputed in a different context, footnote suggested to elucidate for that case). Baking Soda (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Internationally unrecognized This RFC was mandated by ARBCOM to settle some Jerusalem-related issues and it was a rather comprehensive and formal affair. The consensus that emerged described the situation as unrecognised, not disputed. --Dailycare (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Disputed - One side of the argument claims the Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, while the other claims that it is not, so, yes, it is disputed. The term Internationally unrecognized seems to be rather biased, as it implies that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, and that the other side of the argument fails to recognise it. However, who is to say which side is right or wrong? The answer is: no one. Whether or not Israel's capital is Jerusalem is being disputed, but one cannot prove which side has validity. Therefore, the term Internationally unrecognised, is biased, as it implies that one argument has more validity than another. Ethanlu121 (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Disputed is the version which was in use here and on all other articles. It is also a more correct description of the facts, since "Jerusalem" includes both East and West and the status of West Jerusalem is hardly disputed internationally. Debresser (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Internationally unrecognized, per User:Cliftonian. Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Internationally unrecognized per the above, and I dont honestly see why this is even challenged. Does anybody think internationally unrecognized is inaccurate? Or is obfuscation the goal here? nableezy - 17:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Internationally unrecognized - Which is the correct term and NPOV.--TMCk (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Internationally unrecognized - both are accurate, but this provides a further level of precision with just one extra word. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Israel

The pronunciation מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל in Modern Hebrew is [mediˈnat isʁaˈʔel], not [mediˈnat jisʁaˈʔel]. So no "j" at the beginning of Israel. The pronunciation sample is also pretty bad, with the same mistake. This sample on forvo is a good example of a native speakers pronunciation: http://forvo.com/word/מדינת_ישראל/ You could also check any speech of Benjamin Netanyahu in Hebrew for example. Can someone fix this? I have less than 500 edits so I can't edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelMaglor (talk • contribs) 09:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@SamuelMaglor: Do you have sources that support it ? I do not see sources that support current pronunciation either, though. “WarKosign” 09:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Don't really know what counts as a proper source for a pronunciation of a word/sentence, the woman in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2nWwQW30Aw from an Israeli news report says Medinat Israel in the beginning, and the sample I linked before (http://forvo.com/word/מדינת_ישראל/) was made by a native Hebrew speaker (http://forvo.com/user/achmo/) who has contributed with a nearly 2000 pronunciations of Modern Hebrew words on Forvo.

Youtube is a perfectly good source for the fact that this woman pronounced the words this way during that interview. Even if you had lots of videos demonstrating same pronunciation, it would be original research determining that it is indeed the correct pronunciation. Forvo is crowd sourced, and per WP:UGC it's unacceptable as a source.

Ideally some linguistic article should describe evolution of hebrew pronunciation and use "Israel" as an example. If there are no sources either way I would support the change, but it's far from ideal. “WarKosign” 10:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In general, Israelis have various problems with pronouncing their language. One is the general omission of the "hey" at the beginning of words, as though it read "ey". Another, similar, problem is the occasional omission of the "ji" as though it read "i", like in the example of Yisrael. I am not sure it counts as a correct pronunciation, though. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: I'm aware that there are differences between colloquial and formal Hebrew such as omitting the h of ה and the glottal stop of א and ע, but even in formal settings such as in the Knesset, in Independence Day ceremonies, I've yet to hear any Israeli pronounce ישראל as "Jisrael", only "Isra'el". I would love to see an example of that.

You're confusing several unrelated things. There is no "j" in any form of the Hebrew language, so even if there are problems with language pronunciation (and as far as I'm aware of, there is none related to "i"), "ji" cannot be the correct way for pronunciation for any Hebrew words which aren't borrowed from other languages (which "Israel" obviously isn't). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.84.214 (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a "j" in Hebrew, namely when the "yud" is the beginning of a word or syllable. That why it is called a "yud" and not an "ud"! :) Debresser (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2016

83.220.238.56 (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

add |recognised_languages =

• English

. 83.220.238.56 (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

English has no special official status in Israel. If you think otherwise, please provide a source that proves it. “WarKosign” 12:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2016

In the IPA pronunciation of 'medinat yisrael' the first vowel should be [ə] and not [e].

81.201.196.77 (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed recently on this page. Please see #Pronunciation of Israel above. If you have sources for pronunciation, please provide them. “WarKosign” 20:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hotel King David bombing mentioned twice

I propose to delete this redundant paragraph: "On July 22, 1946, Irgun attacked the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing[128] of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.[129][130][131] 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.[132] The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, principally the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in Palestine and Transjordan.[132][133] The attack initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine). It was conceived as a response to Operation Agatha (a series of widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, conducted by the British authorities) and was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920–1948).[132][133]" since the attack is mentioned in the following section without so much detail. Besides, there's a chronological problem because this happened after World War II.--Jahsnik (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct regarding anachronism, however simply deleting the first menton won't do. I suggest moving all the informative bits (exact date, Irgun, British HQ) into the second mention. “WarKosign” 07:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Agree. Could you merge the two paragraphs? Because currently it looks horrible with such an obvious chronological mistake.--Jahsnik (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jahsnik: Done, please review.“WarKosign” 09:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital

I understand that there have been many discussions on the topic of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, including a 56,250+ word RfC discussion that I believe expired on 9 July 2016. I'm sure there are also several discussions of which I am unaware among the 56 Talk archives, so please forgive me for rehashing an ongoing discussion. If there is a recent or ongoing discussion that addresses the exact issues that I raise here, kindly directly me to that discussion.

The lede presently reads that "Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital, although Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally unrecognized." There are two problems with this statement, but for the sake of framing and limiting the discussion, I will deal with only one. Virtually everyone and every country agree that Israel considers/claims/professes/knows/proclaims/believes/understands/views that Jerusalem is legally/religiously/historically/geographically/politically/territoriality/morally/ethically/internationally the capital of Israel. That is virtually undisputed. What is disputed is whether Israel has the legal/religious/historical/geographical/political/territorial/moral/ethical/international right to claim Jerusalem as its capital.

Because this article is about Israel, the fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital should be written without any ambiguity. The fact that Jerusalem as Israel's capital is challenged internationally should also be written without any ambiguity. However, as presently written, the WP:UNDUE and POV is weighted toward the dispute. The reason is the totality of the words "proclaimed" and "Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally unrecognized." By writing "proclaimed", it implies that Israel says it is, but that isn't necessarily so. What other cities that are not disputed capitals does Wikipedia write "proclaimed"? A balanced NPOV sentence would be: "Jerusalem is the capital, although Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally unrecognized." KamelTebaast 06:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Israel's and Israel supporter's believe/know/think that Jerusalem is the capital. Some believe that Jerusalem is Palestinian capital that the illegal zionist entity has occupied. Most of the countries say that Israel and the Palestinians have to negotiate the issue of Jerusalem and assume that eventually they will somehow share it. Wikipedia cannot decide that one of the POVs is the correct one, it has to describe this complex situation as neutrally as possible. “WarKosign” 08:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The long RFC you referred to explicitly dealt with the claim that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital", and determined it is not neutral to state that in Wikipedia's voice. It would also be wrong to adopt the majority viewpoint and say outright that "Jerusalem is not Israel's capital", even though this is better in-line with world opinion. But you're on the right track, in that we can definitely say Israel claims it's the capital, and that other nations reject this claim. --Dailycare (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Then shouldn't it be written as follows?

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, although Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally unrecognized. KamelTebaast 00:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No. That presents a POV as fact, namely that Jerusalem is Israeli (in Israel). nableezy - 01:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Capital wording in infobox

We recently had a discussion on this very page on whether to refer to Jerusalem as the "disputed" or the "internationally unrecognised" capital of Israel, and so far as I know the consensus was very much for "internationally unrecognised" as accurate, NPOV and less ambiguous. I was surprised, therefore to find the wording changed unilaterally by the user Ha-Zephyr (ה-זפר) back to "disputed"–with this even obfuscated within a footnote, leaving no immediate challenge to it in the infobox for the lay reader. I put it back, but was reverted. Am I wrong? Was that not the consensus we reached? If so I am more than a little confused with the present wording and formatting. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cliftonian Do Excuse me for the trouble. It was an error not noticed by me. I just noticed, and it has been corrected back to as "internationally unrecognized". Thank you ה-זפר^t@lk 20:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. That was not an error. You simply imposed your personal preference on this article. You didn't have the honesty to describe what you did in your edit summary and you marked your reversion as a minor edit. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Putting the issue of the wording to one side, where has having this in a footnote come from? This was never discussed at all. I've put it back to the consensus version and I think it should stay that way until we thrash this out properly here on talk. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Have self-reverted per WP:1RR. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the issue of the recent slow-going edit war is, but I want to call upon all editors to discuss and not revert. I would be willing to mediate, if anybody thinks I would be fit to do so. Debresser (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The point of contention now is essentially between the two versions visible on this diff: that is, whether to have "internationally unrecognized" next to the word "Jerusalem" in the infobox as we had done for a while or to instead have it in a footnote, as it is at present following HaZephyr's change here. Note this wasn't mentioned in the edit summary when the change was made. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If that is all, then we can simply exchange opinions here on the talkpage, and decide by consensus. No reason to edit war about this.

The question is then whether the fact that the status of Jerusalem is contended is important enough to have in the text proper, or a footnote is enough for this information. Opinions, please. Debresser (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to ask for opinions. We shouldn't re-open the discussion—above at Use of "disputed" vs "internationally unrecognized" for Jerusalem—which ended less than two months ago, because two editors won't abide by consensus. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The question is not whether it should be "disputed" or "internationally unrecognized". The question is whether it should be in the text or in a footnote. Debresser (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I misread your question. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• It should be a footnote. It already gives something which is political in nature (recognition vs. non-recognition) more importance than it deserves, and putting on par with a fact (that it is the capital) would be undue weight. Epson Salts (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• LOL. It's a "fact" that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but "political in nature" that the whole world doesn't recognize that? Nope. They're both facts, and they're both political in nature. One fact shouldn't be shunted off to a footnote because it makes supporters of Israel uncomfortable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Couldn't have put it better myself. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I asked Triggerhippie4 to comment. We need some outside input here, or this discussion can end up a stalemate. I posted it at WT:JUDAISM . Debresser (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Notes should be in footnotes. That's why this feature is exist in infobox. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. A country declares their own capital and doesn't need international recognition for it. If the US decides to move the capital to Philadelphia, that is an internal US matter. The fact that countries may not recognize a certain aspect of that, is for a footnote, not the actual text. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Countries may not like it, and that is for a footnote, but it's an internal question for Israel, not other countries. 🔯 [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph}} ^🍸(talk) 15:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Why do you not weight in with that opinion above, or is this WP:CANVAS? KamelTebaast 15:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This needs to be changed back to "internationally unrecognized", there are certain editors who have hijacked this article and are pushing a strong non neutral pov through edit warring. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Literature pictures

User:Avaya1, stop adding picture of Amos Oz. There is no reason to have more than one portrait especially in such a small section. Images does not fit in it and overlap into next sections in Desktop mode. And Agnon is the most influential Israeli writer. Number of languages a writer's works has been translated to is not the best criteria of importance. Agnon's works has been translated into tens of languages too, but unlike Oz, he featured on Israeli currency and won Nobel Prize. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the problem with 2 pictures. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser, there's no reason we couldn't include Oz as well. Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't fit and mess up images in other sections. Check his revision in Desktop mode. But more importantly, it's not useful. Both authors are mentioned in text. Why put two portraits? Why not 3? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the consensus seems to be to have pictures of both Agnon and Oz so I suggest we implement that consensus. Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, Avaya1. For the third time, it's a small section. See screenshot: link. Images should be located next to the text they illustrate. Besides that, this is article about Israel, not about Israeli literature. Don't overload articles with images. And even if we include another, it should be a poet, not two portraits of novelists. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of pictures in this article. One more does not make a difference as far as overloading is concerned, but it is the best way out of this issue, and there seems to be consensus for it, so I propose to leave it be and move on to other subjects. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Open screenshot link above. Images should be inside the section they belong to. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser and Jeppiz. KamelTebaast 05:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll agree too. I don't have a strong opinion either way, just want to stop this silly edit warring. “WarKosign” 06:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

And Israel is a young country. There are very few other Israeli cultural figures (arguable none) with the same international impact as Amos Oz. It's kind of crazy not to have him there. Avaya1 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2016

Please change "In 2016, Israel's population was an estimated 8,541,000 million people, of whom 6,388,800 (74.8%) were recorded by the civil government as Jews." to "In 2016, Israel's population was an estimated 8,541,000 people, of whom 6,388,800 (74.8%) were recorded by the civil government as Jews.". Dcqec111 (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The lede is waaaay tooo loooongggg

Title says it all really. Can somebody cut it down to size? The Black Hebrews really don't belong in the lede. Telaviv1 (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The lead is not too long. See WP:LEADLENGTH for the guideline on lead length. Also, what is Black Hebrew? I didn't find such a term in the lead. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Then look again. I agree that it's too long and includes items of low importance. --Wiking (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Black Hebrews are back. I looked at the lead after your deletion. :) Debresser (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan is green

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foreign_relations_of_Israel_Map_July_2011.PNG 123.203.117.93 (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)