Talk:Israel/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Edit request concerning additions regarding human rights violations

The below is a discussion I started when the page was still protected (which it should never have been btw). --Fixuture (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to have this added to the 2nd paragraph of section #Israeli-occupied territories (probably as a separate paragraph below it):

Systematic violations of human rights in the occupied territories were claimed by observers such as "widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights perpetrated by the Israeli occupying power, in particular mass killings and collective punishments, such as demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories, measures which constitute war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity" during the Second Intifada by the UN Commission on Human Rights and "excessive use of force by Israeli Security Forces in a number of their interactions with Palestinian civilians, and arbitrary arrest and associated torture and abuse, often with impunity by multiple actors in the region" with local residents having "limited ability to hold governing authorities accountable for such abuses" by the U.S. State Department and a denial of the right to Palestinian self-determination.

Please discuss. --Fixuture (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Sorry no changes can be made without discussion and agreement with other editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Alright then, sorry for using the edit-template before discussing this. I just converted this talk page entry into a general discussion of this and hope that other editors weigh in. --Fixuture (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me Fixuture, why did you inserted this controversial paragraph without consensus? In any case, it belongs to this article or this one. Adding those accusations here without counterbalance seems a little bit POV and undue. Don't you think?--Yschilov (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yschilov: I only made this talk page entry in an attempt to gain consensus for a protected-edit-request. I don't think that page-protection was needed in the first place. Anyways, it got removed by now so my edit-request wasn't necessary anymore. Yes this content also belongs to these articles. Maybe I'll add it there later in the case that it's missing there. I think it would be very undue to not have at least some info on this featured in the article. It's pretty much biased and not WP:NPOV to omit such. If you think that it's not counterbalanced enough you could add some sourced content on responses to such accusations next to it. --Fixuture (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why, it has been reverted. Indeed proper procedure would be to reach consensus here before adding such controversial and POV-prone content. “WarKosign” 08:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I do not agree. And this isn't "POV-prone" but simply gives an account of widespread and notable criticism by high-level societal and international bodies. And this naturally being controversial just means that the page (section) needs to include information about this controversy. (You could have argued that it was POV-prone if I added content on all the many notable bodies that criticized Israel for human rights violations - that would be undue coverage/length; instead I just covered very few.) As stated above if you find one side of the controversy neglected you may add some sourced content on their responses to such accusations. --Fixuture (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue is WP:UNDUE. And you must abide by WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ARBPIA, which says that any reverted edit must first be discussed and lead to consensus and may not be restored otherwise. Please be aware that WP:ARBPIA violations lead to immediate sanctions. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, wasn't aware of ARBPIA until now. So let's discuss now. As said, the content additions are very much due and do not in conflict with WP:UNDUE − see the points I made above. --Fixuture (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

WarKosign, the problem is that content was restored again by MShabazz because the user who removed it wasn't allowed to edit in ARBPIA. Would you mind removing the POV paragraph until further consensus is reached?--Yschilov (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed the content magically sneaked into the article despite clearly not having consensus. I removed it for now, it's up to those who want to have this content in to prove that it's NPOV and DUE here. “WarKosign” 15:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the removal. The content did not "magically sneak into the article" and it's up to you to gain consensus on specific reasons for why this content should be removed despite its notability, relevance and its WP:RS. --Fixuture (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I see Not done, so where was the consensus for this to be added? Also, with wars in, say, Syria and South Sudan as counterexamples, can the term mass killings be justified here without any qualifications? El_C 19:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@El C: This was a response to my protected edit request which as said wasn't needed anymore. Where's the consensus on what reason to have this legitimate (notable, reliably sourced, relevant, due) material removed? --Fixuture (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fixuture: You violated WP:BRD. Please do not edit-war, this content should not be added unless there is clear consensus to add it. “WarKosign” 21:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I'm not edit-warring and I'm not sure if I went beyond the optional method of WP:BRD. This content should not be ommitted unless there is clear consensus on particular well-founded reasons to exclude it. --Fixuture (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Quite the contrary please read notice in in the top of the page.Don't reinstate the material till you reach a consensus for it--Shrike (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Onus is on you to build consensus, because it's your addition, seems to be the general sentiment. El_C 23:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, then why should this (notable, reliably sourced, relevant, due) content be excluded from the article? A few people objecting because they'd like to have the article biased towards their POV is not a valid rationale for omission. --Fixuture (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Because the onus is on you to prove that this is so, first. El_C 23:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is undue, for two reasons: that section of the article is about the status of the area, not about the whole sociology of it, but also and notably because the source and the statement address only a limited timeperiod of the Intifada, which in addition was a very specific time period. Debresser (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser:

that section of the article is about the status of the area, not about the whole sociology of it

Who says that? It's not called "Status of the Israeli-occupied territories". Furthermore such high-class allegations of major human rights violations are not just "sociology" but also matter of international law, morality, politics (superordinate header) etc.

the source and the statement address only a limited timeperiod of the Intifada, which in addition was a very specific time period

That's false. Only one of those is referring to a specific time-period. That it's just referring to that particular time-period / event is made clear in the text and also doesn't make it less notable. We could argue whether or not it should be replaced with an allegation that's not specific to a time period. (As noted earlier, there are too many such notable allegations to list all of them here and remain due weight but one of them could easily replace this one.) I don't think that this would be useful though and can't see why that one statement should be replaced. --Fixuture (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I came to my conclusion about the content of the section, after reading it, not on basis of the section header.

This discussion is not about notable, but about undue and out of place. Debresser (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT. “WarKosign” 08:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: This didn't address any of my points.

I came to my conclusion about the content of the section, after reading it, not on basis of the section header.

But well then probably other content is missing as well. This is the bias or missing content that I'm speaking of. (Note that I'm not sure about that but if you came to that conclusion by the section's content that would mean that.)

This discussion is not about notable, but about undue and out of place.

I wasn't saying that I'm assuming this to be about whether or not it's notable. It is very due and essential to this article. These might be an out-of-place comparisons but an article about Nazi Germany shouldn't miss content about the holocaust and an article about China shouldn't miss allegations of its restrictions and violations of citizen rights. Israel won't be an exception. This is highly essential to be included for many reasons including the public perception of this country.

@WarKosign:

I know about it and already read it. It is very due here. I won't go through the whole thing but I'll put the start of it in context here:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

This is a point for why this content needs to be included. This is a significant viewpoint of this country and has reliable sources. As stated earlier if you find a viewpoint missing you may add notable responses to these allegations with due weight.

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

This is not a minority view or aspect or a view of a tiny minority - it's also not very detailed.

So per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:DUE this content should be readded asap. --Fixuture (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand your position. No need to repeat it. However, consensus seems to be otherwise. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please WP:LISTEN to other editors.--Shrike (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well it's just natural that people here would attempt to prevent such content to be added to have the article fit their POV / bias even though it fits all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and should be added. I listened to other editors and addressed each and every point made by while mine were ignored. If you still prevent the inclusion of this due and essential content I'll move this to WP:DR or an alike place. --Fixuture (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to the inclusion of such paragraph, but I think this one is really bad and does constitues as WP:DUE and WP:POV. The quote about the Second Intifada, refers to the Second Intifada, it has no place in the article on Israel. The paragraph should be rebuilt with concrete sources, such as the UN, US State Department or EU etc. and include a general claim and not a spesific one, and should also include Israel's response for such claims. For example, Israel maintains that the collective punishment is meant to deter terrorists, especially when most of them are willing to die, and the claim of rejection of Palestinian self-determination seems broken in my eyes but there are enough sources to include it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

My main objection even if the paragraph will be more balanced that it doesn't exist in other countries articles.I looked Russia,Jordan and Palestine.Why Israel should be different?--Shrike (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't support the inclusion of such material, I just don't oppose it, as long as it is neutral and not WP:DUE and therefore WP:POV.

The Fatah–Hamas conflict has further limited the freedom of the press in the PA territories and the distribution of opposing voices in Hamas-controlled Gaza and the West Bank where Fatah still has more influence. According to the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms, in 2011, there were more assaults on Palestinian press freedom from the PA than from Israel. In July 2010, with the easing of the blockade of the Gaza Strip, Israel allowed the distribution of the pro-Fatah newspapers al-Quds, al-Ayyam and al-Hayat al-Jadida to Gaza, but Hamas prevented Gazan distributors from retrieving the shipment. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) condemned the Hamas restrictions of distribution of the West Bank newspapers in Gaza, and also condemned the Fatah-led government in the West Bank for restricting publication and distribution of the Gazan newspapers al-Resala and Falastin.

Selling land or housing to Jews is punishable by death, some high-profile cases got high media coverage.

In June 2011, the Independent Commission for Human Rights published a report whose findings included that the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were subjected in 2010 to an "almost systematic campaign" of human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, as well as by Israeli authorities, with the security forces belonging to the PA and Hamas being responsible for torture, arrests and arbitrary detentions.

— Palestinian Authority's Human rights section

Violence against Christians was recorded. The owner of a Christian bookshop was abducted and murdered and, on 15 February 2008, the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) library in Gaza City was bombed.

— Gaza Strip's article

Falun Gong was first taught publicly in 1992. In 1999, when there were 70 million practitioners, the persecution of Falun Gong began, resulting in mass arrests, extralegal detention, and reports of torture and deaths in custody. The Chinese state is regularly accused of large-scale repression and human rights abuses in Tibet and Xinjiang, including violent police crackdowns and religious suppression.

— China's article

A letter dated 14 August 2006, from the executive director of Human Rights Watch found that the Sudanese government is both incapable of protecting its own citizens in Darfur and unwilling to do so, and that its militias are guilty of crimes against humanity. The letter added that these human-rights abuses have existed since 2004. Some reports attribute part of the violations to the rebels as well as the government and the Janjaweed. The U.S. State Department's human-rights report issued in March 2007 claims that "[a]ll parties to the conflagration committed serious abuses, including widespread killing of civilians, rape as a tool of war, systematic torture, robbery and recruitment of child soldiers."

Over 2.8 million civilians have been displaced and the death toll is estimated at 300,000 killed. Both government forces and militias allied with the government are known to attack not only civilians in Darfur, but also humanitarian workers. Sympathizers of rebel groups are arbitrarily detained, as are foreign journalists, human-rights defenders, student activists and displaced people in and around Khartoum, some of whom face torture. The rebel groups have also been accused in a report issued by the U.S. government of attacking humanitarian workers and of killing innocent civilians. According to UNICEF, in 2008, there were as many as 6,000 child soldiers in Darfur.

— Sudan's Human rights section

The Rohingya people have consistently faced human rights abuses by the Burmese regime that has refused to acknowledge them as Burmese citizens (despite some of them having lived in Burma for over three generations)—the Rohingya have been denied Burmese citizenship since the enactment of a 1982 citizenship law...The Burmese regime has attempted to forcibly expel Rohingya and bring in non-Rohingyas to replace them—this policy has resulted in the expulsion of approximately half of the 800,000 Rohingya from Burma, while the Rohingya people have been described as "among the world's least wanted" and "one of the world's most persecuted minorities."

— Myanmar's very long Human rights and internal conflicts section

Human rights in Turkey have been the subject of some controversy and international condemnation. Between 1998 and 2008 the European Court of Human Rights made more than 1,600 judgements against Turkey for human rights violations, particularly regarding the right to life, and freedom from torture. Other issues, such as Kurdish rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, and press freedom, have also attracted controversy. Turkey's human rights record continues to be a significant obstacle to future membership of the EU.

— Turkey's Human rights section

Either you or your check wasn't honest. Human rights are covered in many states' articles. Sadly Russia's article is being quite empty from actual criticism, but it is a common thing in articles concerning Russia. Either way, your argument of "why should Israel be different" is invalid. I will accept an inclusion of human rights material, as long as it is well sourced and neutral.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Like I said I checked those 3 countries by searching "human rights".--Shrike (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There are 193 countries in the world, and we also have to include the two regimes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and there are more unrecognized micro-states such as Abkhazia or Nagorno Karabach. Jordan is not known for human rights' abuse, other than being a not free state. Your argument is still invalid.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

So I'd like to reinsert the content asap. Note that, as stated earlier, one could append notable responses to the allegations to the paragraph. --Fixuture (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

What's the hurry? It took 6 months to get a consensus for two words in the lead of State of Palestine. Do not reinsert the paragraph until you get a consensus here. Remove the claim about the Second Intifada. I don't see a problem with the second part of the paragraph, but it seems the Salon source should be removed, it refers to the US report anyway, which speaks for it self.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

How is this then?:

Systematic and widespread violations of human rights in the occupied territories were claimed by observers such as occupation, war crimes on civilians and continuing human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law by the United Nations, "excessive use of force by Israeli Security Forces in a number of their interactions with Palestinian civilians, and arbitrary arrest and associated torture and abuse, often with impunity by multiple actors in the region" with local residents having "limited ability to hold governing authorities accountable for such abuses" by the U.S. State Department and a denial of the right to Palestinian self-determination.

--Fixuture (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"[O]bservers such as occupation," is a bit confusing, grammatically, especially since you mention "occupied" in the prior sentence. How about "violations such as military occupation, [etc.]" El_C 12:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV you didn't include opposing opinions on those allegations.--Shrike (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, is there a reason to use passive voice ? "Observers claimed ..." “WarKosign” 13:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, is it better now?:

Observers claimed Israel was engaging in systematic and widespread violations of human rights in the occupied territories such as the occupation itself, war crimes on civilians and continuing human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law by the United Nations, "excessive use of force by Israeli Security Forces in a number of their interactions with Palestinian civilians, and arbitrary arrest and associated torture and abuse, often with impunity by multiple actors in the region" with local residents having "limited ability to hold governing authorities accountable for such abuses" by the U.S. State Department and a denial of the right to Palestinian self-determination. In response to such accusations Prime Minister Netanyahu defended the country's security forces for protecting the innocent from terrorists, claimed that the UN's Human Rights Council has a "singular obsession with Israel" and expressed discontempt with a lack of concern for the human rights violations by "criminal killers".

--Fixuture (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Netanyahu's statements are not equal to UN reports. This was presented before, to prove that Israel wants or doesn't want the Two State Solution, because Netanyahu said he did, or did not. The paragraph is better without the PM's rhetoric. These statements do not address the very general claims presented in the paragraph. I remembered that last year Ban Ki Moon made a statement about excessive force which had a response from Israel but I couldn't find it now, I'll search for it tomorrow or later, cause I can't at the moment.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you meant this [1]?This scholarly paper could be interesting too [2] as a source of bias against Israel by UN.--Shrike (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Also I oppose the use " and arbitrary arrest and associated torture and abuse, often with impunity by multiple actors in the region" as it not clear that it related to Israel to claim otherwise would be WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bolter21:

Netanyahu's statements are not equal to UN reports. This was presented before, to prove that Israel wants or doesn't want the Two State Solution, because Netanyahu said he did, or did not. The paragraph is better without the PM's rhetoric.

Well, agree but as he's the President of Israel they're still important and I don't think they should be fully removed but probably rather shortened and balanced with additional voices.

I remembered that last year Ban Ki Moon made a statement about excessive force which had a response from Israel but I couldn't find it now

Did you find it by now? Is it in the article linked by Shrike?

For statements that claim bias of the UN the prior suggestion already included a "singular obsession with Israel"-part - wouldn't that be enough? Or should it be replaced by another statement by another authority? Also note that this would not just put into the question the credibility of those voicing it but also be attempts to undermine the UN which is uniquely beneficial / essential to citizens transnationally - I don't think such statements should be added besides if they are shared by many Israelis.

I oppose the use " and arbitrary arrest and associated torture and abuse, often with impunity by multiple actors in the region" as it not clear that it related to Israel to claim otherwise would be WP:OR

That's a valid point - I guess they made it that unclear intentionally. It hints that at least this "impunity" would be Israel's responsbility.

Improved version:

Observers claimed Israel was engaging in systematic and widespread violations of human rights in the occupied territories such as the occupation itself, war crimes on civilians, and continuing human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law by the United Nations, "excessive use of force by Israeli Security Forces in a number of their interactions with Palestinian civilians" with local residents having "limited ability to hold governing authorities accountable for such abuses" by the U.S. State Department, mass arbitrary arrests, torture, unlawful killings, systemic abuses and impunity by Amnesty International and others and a denial of the right to Palestinian self-determination. In response to such accusations Prime Minister Netanyahu defended the country's security forces for protecting the innocent from terrorists and expressed discontempt with a lack of concern for the human rights violations by "criminal killers". Some also claim that the UN is disproportionately concerned with Israeli misconduct.

--Fixuture (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence is WP:WEASEL and WP:OR not based on on the quoted source - the source mentions "systematic" only in relation to closing universities, and "widespread" is never used. The source itself is a report from 1981, quite out of date. List of specific accusations with those making them is perfectly fine on Criticism of the Israeli government or Israeli-occupied_territories#International_law_violations, both already linked from here. It would be extremely difficult to create a version short enough so it won't be WP:UNDUE here and still balanced enough to be WP:NPOV. “WarKosign” 08:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll note that this whole section is giving undue weight to biased organizations with an agenda - in a country page. I wonder what would happen if we were to add in United States "Observers claimed United states was engaging in systematic and widespread violations of human rights in relation to blacks and other minorities, war crimes on civilians, and continuing human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law, "excessive use of force by US Security Forces in a number of their interactions with black civilians" with local residents having "limited ability to hold governing authorities accountable for such abuses" by mass arbitrary arrests, torture, unlawful killings, systemic abuses and impunity. In response to such accusations police union chief X has claimed that the system is fair, and some, including local police unions, decried the undue attention placed on cops by the general public", using material such as - [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]... It wouldn't fly, would it?Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"Observers claimed Israel or According to observers..." this paragraph should not be in the article Israel We should not be pushing Political views on the article. you can have a link to the "criticism of Israeli Peace Process" where you can have this text, but not as text in the main body of the article. thanks Igor Berger (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it best to remove the whole paragraph until we reach a consensus on exact wording and if it should be included at all.--Shrike (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me for the words, but fellow Wikipedians, start moving your asses. If you now remove this paragraph, the discussion will fade away and the paragraph will not be in the article. We have modified the paragraph and made it more balanced and there is much less objection to it right now and besides, it is sourced well enough. Instead of removing it, those who think it is problematic can go to the paragraph that is now on the article and edit, tweek or change it to whatever way you think it will be more neutral. I.e. be WP:BOLD. Removing it and saying "there is no consensus" is just playing on Wikipedia's policies. The section is sourced and balanced enough in order to be in the article. I believe the best way to tweak this paragraph well is with it standing in the article, forcing the big mouths to edit it by themselves instead of sitting here on the talk page.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bolter21: please read this, specifically "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." I believe you are currently in violation of the restriction. I reverted this paragraph after 4 different editors expressed their disagreement. The onus to prove that this edit should be in is on those who wish it in. See WP:NOCONSENSUS. While the discussion is going on, the article should remain in its original state. My objection is not centered on POV (although the paragraph can use more balancing), but on WP:WEIGHT - the section is too big and is simply undue here, we already have links to two other articles dedicated to the subject. “WarKosign” 15:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't care much about the technical matters right now, especially when the discussion was revived by canvassed users called upon by Email. You say the paragraph is too long and extensive. There are 159 words there, of them 83 words are arguments by international organizatons against Israel. 77 words are the response to these claims. The first part can be also divided into two parts: a presentation of the arguments in general, from according to some observers... to ...war crimes against civilians.. We have 28 words in this part. This leavs us with 55 words that describe the allegations against Israel. It includes six spesific allegations against Israel: violations of international humanitarian law, mass arbitrary arrests, torture, unlawful killings, systemic abuses and impunity, denial of the right to Palestinian self-determination. Do you think one of these six allegations should be erased? Go on. Remove it. That simple. If you wish instead to report me for whatever policy I broke, please at least let me finish my work on the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to report anyone, however I believe in WP:BRD - it's ok that Fixuture tried to add the paragraph, article, it's also that several editors objected and this why I reverted. Now it's time to reach consensus here on the talk page and if indeed the majority agrees with you - we will add it back in, I can do it myself. At the moment there is a technicality preventing me from removing the paragraph - WP:1RR. There is also a technicality that was supposed to prevent you or Fixuture from restoring the disagreed material. Please self-revert and let a few more people express their opinions. “WarKosign” 18:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

References
References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2017

Good idea to add the controversies surrounding Israel 24.228.178.35 (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20051127033448/http://www.irac.org/article_e.asp?artid=199 to https://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/return.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003072906/http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/questions.htm to http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/questions.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912101430/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/1ce874ab1832a53e852570bb006dfaf6/0b3ab8d2a7c0273d8525694b00726d1b to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/1ce874ab1832a53e852570bb006dfaf6/0b3ab8d2a7c0273d8525694b00726d1b

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Jewish naqba

No mention of the jews expelled from Arab lands i.e., Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and the loss of their possessions makes this expulsion a Jewish naqba. These unfortunates sought asylum with israel, France and North American countries. Jews from all countries facing persecution are able to find a homeland in israel. During the entebee hijacking it was the Israelis who rescued jews who were forcibly separated from non Jewish passengers on an Air France. The captain and crew members did not desert these passengers an event noted as during world war 2 the French collaborated with german occupiers and handed over women and children of Jewish descent despite the fact that the germans only asked for all Jewish males. Shosh18 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

This is mentioned though perhaps needs expanding. Note that Israeli state hagiagraphy, as well as the views of many if not most of said immigrants, sees arriving in Israelnas an act of salvation, a 2000 year dream come true. So this is not quite viewed as a naqba, or disaster. So while a similar amount of Jews (to arabs leaving Israel) were expelled from the muslim world, without them being a military or subversive threat... The view of Israel and the expelled place this in a different conrext.Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

See Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries “WarKosign” 13:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20170317223538/http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20state%20of%20israel.aspx to http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20state%20of%20israel.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070709193315/http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/st02_01.pdf to http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/st02_01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit Requests by under-privileged editors

Near the end of the fourth paragraph is "among the most educated countries in the world with one of the highest percentage of its citizens holding a tertiary education degree". That should be "percentages" (plural). Login54321 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2017 - Original name in lead

Articles of every other country have original names in both infobox and the first sentence of lead (check Egypt, Syria, Netherlands, Japan, Ethiopia and many others). Could somebody restore it in this case as well? (just "Israel" in Hebrew and Arabic, which are the official languages) Why Israel should be an exception? Thanks--Michelle Bnox (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Of course. Debresser (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the other articles. We need to declutter the first sentences. Let's declutter this one too. Jytdog (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Most states have their names in its official languages in the lead. The only exception I found so far is Switzerland, they have 4 official languages so it would indeed be clutter. “WarKosign” 12:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog What other articles have you deprived of this information? Debresser (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This will just have to wait until the several wider discussions about de-cluttering the leads of articles are completed. So be it. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog And where are such discussions ongoing? Debresser (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That would probably be here, and as you can see there, there is huge disagreement, and that proposal is probably not going to make it. Please do not be disruptive, Jytdog, by editing knowingly against existing guidelines. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog and GliderMaven, I wrote in support of the original Signpost op-ed but opposed any change to the WP:LEAD guideline. I have moved all non-essential material from the opening sentences of practically all the FAs and GAs on which I have worked. Unless WP:LEAD is changed, and it doesn't look like there is consensus to change it at this time, I believe the decision whether to include foreign names and other such material in an article's opening sentence remains a matter of consensus among the editors who edit the article and discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Since between the two of you, you have been reverted several times, it seems clear (to me) that consensus is against removing the simple Hebrew and Arabic names from the opening sentence. If either of you wish to seek explicit consensus to remove the non-English names, I suggest you ask for comments, perhaps opening a formal RfC. In the meantime, please don't remove material that others clearly want and that is not prohibited by policy or guideline. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Malik - I changed this once, Debresser reverted. I changed the others, and Debresser in their lovely way, followed me there and reverted those. That is where it stands, and as I noted above, I don't intend to try to further until there is consensus on the larger issue. Do not misrepresent what I have done nor what I said I am going to do. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to misrepresent anything, Jytdog, and I apologize if I did. In the past two weeks the material was removed three times. Your (single) removal was the latest of the three instances. That's why my message was addressed to both you and the other editor involved. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That's more clear, thanks. Sorry to bark. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is the world's longest military occupation in modern times

I think this is a false statistic. "Modern times" is not a definable period.

• Diego Garcia, originally part of Mauritius has been occupied (and subject to military rule) for longer (since 1965).
• Portuguese Macau was occupied for almost 500 years ending in 1999.
• Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute is since 1833.
• Tibetan sovereignty debate is since 1959.
• Guantanamo Bay Naval Base has been occupied since 1903.
• Disputed status of Gibraltar since 1704.

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Diego Garcia's population was deported prior to making it a military base, so there is no military occupation (or there is the empty sense) - and it is British Indian Ocean Territory a British Overseas Territories - so annexed to UK. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was transferred by treaty (though one can argue about gunpoint treaties) and has no non-US civilian inhabitants - so there is no military occupation versus enemy aliens. The other examples are examples of sovereignty disputes (a non-controlling state also claims these territories or an independence movement exists) - but they have been annexed by the controlling nation - but they are administered by a civilian administration as part of their entire nation. There might be an example of a longer military occupation per-se (and this depends on the ill-defined modern period - if we take from 1500 (one definition of early modern) - it might be possible to find various examples (e.g. in South America or various south-east Asian locations)) - but it depends on definitions. Military occupation is usually transitory - as the conquering nation will usually annex, setup a puppet govrnment, create a protectorate, etc. - and not keep this usually temporary state of affairs. In limiting the sentence to military occupation (and not to disputes) - it may be correct.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think "modern times" is defined in this article as either in this last century or from the birth of Israel. 76.103.37.34 (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That is completely unclear. Given, this: Modern history I would say the information as currently phrased, is simply wrong. Telaviv1 (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2017

Could somebody revert this edit? It was gramatically better before and more concise. Besides, it could be considered WP:Synth since sources don't mention ranking of countries by size, which is not relevant, let alone for the occupied territories which are not considered part of Israel proper.--201.177.17.237 (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

To claim it is WP:Synth is absurd. It provided a source for calling it small, while the text that replaces it provides no explanation or source for describing Israel as a "relatively small area". I think it is valuable, given the amount of attention this topic recieves to give reader's a sense of Israel's size.Telaviv1 (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)