Talk:Israel/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

Extreme bias in lede

Although its necessary and relevant to highlight the Jewish history of the Israel, snubbing non-Jewish history as though it didn't exist is a biased POV. Starting the history with "The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged during the Iron Age" is implying that the region's history started with these kingdoms. "Jewish presence in the Land of Israel has persisted over the centuries" this a vague statement that is also misleading. "Presence" can mean or be interpreted as anything from a family to a majority of the population. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It has already been discussed. No, it implies that the history of Israel as a political entity and a nation state began with these Kingdoms. By mentioning them at first we also omit about 200 years of Jewish existence prior to their emergence. But this is a concise paragraph and should mention the most relevant events for Israel (yet it includes completely unrelated non-Jewish history, so i can't see any "snubbing" here). That's not a vague statement, the history section details Jewish demographics of the region. Infantom (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice; issues still remain. The bare minimum is to include history before the Jewish kingdoms in the lede, and to clarify "Jewish presence". The current situation is unacceptable, it represents solely the Zionist POV. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest change to "small Jewish presence" and adding information about Canaan before the Kingdoms. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, please make that change. You are right. There is still no consensus for Infantom’s mass addition of ancient Jewish history to the lede - the discussion from a few weeks ago petered out without conclusion. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a lengthy discussion above with an agreement of at least 6 editors while Onceinawhile is the only one to object, for a paragraph that exists for more than 3 months. I suggest you reach a sufficient consensus first. Infantom (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Infantom: No one mentioned "Jewish presence" in the discussion. So stop fooling around and help me reach a consensus here. Do you agree to adding "small Jewish presence"? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

How exactly am i "fooling around"? I have already stated my opinion. No need to mention "Jewish presence" explicitly, the current wording, as a whole, gained consensus. By the 7th century there were hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the region, i wouldn't call it "small presence". A more appropriate description would be "to various extents". (and linking to Demographic history of Palestine (region) ).Infantom (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Infantom: You're fooling around by saying that we can't modify anything because the wording as a whole gained consensus. Yeah there were hundreds of thousands of Jews living, they were greatly outnumbered by non-Jewish communities. If any 100-700CE < 700-1900CE, and here's where we should clarify oversimplifications such as "Jewish presence". Makeandtoss (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of sentence is to point out the fact that Jewish presence persisted although the massive depopulation by imperial conquests, and not to imply that non Jews did not reside in the region. It doesn't matter if Jews were outnumbered, it's still not a "small presence". I suggested to add "to various extents" (or something alike) into the sentence and linking it to the demographic history article. That should clarify any ambiguity regarding the sentence. Anything additional would be unnecessary. Infantom (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Any suggestions? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Infantom:

• "To various extents" means nothing really. I prefer "to a certain extent".
• Canaan and Phoenicia are completely snubbed from both the lede and the article. History section magically starts with Jewish kingdoms.
• Modify this sentence into: "The 1948 Arab–Israeli War saw Israel's independence, while the remaining West Bank and Gaza territories were held by Jordan and Egypt consecutively. Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states, and since 1967 it has occupied the West Bank, Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip (still considered occupied after 2005 disengagement)" Makeandtoss (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Fine. whatever...
• Phoenicia is irrelevant. Canaanites are mentioned in the 'Antiquity' section, if you have something relevant to add, feel free to propose. I see no importance to the lede though.
• What's wrong with the current sentence? pretty much the same. Infantom (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Infantom:

• I don't have a thorough insight on Israel-Palestinian history, so its better that someone else suggests an adequate addition to what was before the Jewish kingdoms.
• Because this sentence "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel." implies that Israel was established on all of Mandatory Palestine.
• "and later British Palestine" should be "and later Mandatory Palestine under British facilitation". Role of Britain in establishing Israel should not be overlooked.
• "Jewish presence in the Land of Israel" after Jewish diaspora the land no longer was called with that name. Should be either "in Palestine"

or a more neutral term like "in the Land". Makeandtoss (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that the sentence "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel..." is a quote from the Israeli declaration of independence, and not a statement of the article. Britain's role is exaggerated and became more and more anti-Zionist over the years. I see no reason to include Balfour's declaration and not the White Papers (especially the one of 1939). I agree, "Jewish presence in the region" would be more neutral. Infantom (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Even in the Antiquity section, non-Jewish history is marginalized. I hope someone with sufficient knowledge can expand and improve it.
• The role of the Balfour declaration should not be undermined, it was the first instance of recognition of Zionist aspirations.
• Its better if we avoid the quote and replace it with neutral explanatory wording. For example:" the Jewish Agency declared the independence of the State of Israel, and the following 1948 Arab–Israeli War saw Israel's establishment on most of the Mandate territory, while the West Bank and Gaza territories were held by neighboring Arab states. Israel has since fought several wars with Arab countries, and it has since 1967 occupied.." Makeandtoss (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  This article is about the state of Israel. Not the land on which the state of Israel stands. As such, the history relevant to the state of Israel should be presented - and relevance here is different.16:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thats a pretty contradictory statement. A state is built on a land. The history of the state is as relevant as the history of the land. Arabs make up 20% of Israel's inhabitants, do you really still think Israel's history is purely Jewish? All countries in the world talk about their history, whether it was Arab, Roman, Greek or others. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• "...it was the first instance of recognition of Zionist aspirations...": true, but still not lead worthy.
• Both of your proposal and the current sentence in the article are fine, i don't mind. though with a small wording change: "...and the following 1948 Arab–Israeli War resulted in Israeli sovereignty over most of the former Mandate territory". Infantom (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Well I avoided the sovereignty part to improve flow since basically its the same thing because its obvious that Israel exercises sovereignty over its original territories. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Capital (sorted by resources size)

Here is the source (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478). The source is open. THE END. The capital is wrong. --İncelemeelemani (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you aware that you have put yourself in a hurdle? We should not lose our humanity. We have to say this clearly.--İncelemeelemani (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

English Wikipedia, You're not the president of the President of the United States. For years, you taught us the neutrality of Wikipedia. You're not English or American. You are an encyclopedia in English. --İncelemeelemani (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

English Wikipedia, if you want to be president of the United States, I can not say anything to you. But if you say that I'm giving objective information, why did you ban the change?--İncelemeelemani (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Several countries already recognized all of Jerusalem as Israeli capital. Israel controls it, and it has become vast majority Jewish through settlements, so it's Israel's capital yes, and in all likelihood will remain so forever.--Pailsdell (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2017

Since "Roman Republic" is not a person, there should be a "that" instead of "who" in the introduction. Also there's a missing point at the end of sentence (".") To avoid confusion, I write the entire paragraph with the two minor changes I'm asking:

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 and had existed as Jewish autonomous provinces. The successful Maccabean Revolt led to an independent Jewish kingdom in 110 BCE, which came to an end in 63 BCE when the Hasmonean kingdom became a client state of the Roman Republic that subsequently installed the Herodian dynasty in 37 BCE, and in 6 CE created the Roman province of Judea. Judea lasted as a Roman province until the failed Jewish revolts resulted in widespread destruction, expulsion of Jewish population and the renaming of the region from Iudaea to Syria Palaestina. Jewish presence in the region has persisted to a certain extent 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 in the diaspora followed by waves of immigration to Ottoman and later British Palestine.

References

Besides that, in order to avoid confusion we could add the adjective "...the subsequent 1948 Arab–Israeli War saw Israel's establishment over most of the former British Mandate territory" in the third paragraph of lead. Thanks--181.105.98.158 (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Icewhiz made the requested changes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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 https://web.archive.org/web/20170203161044/http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Hammond-Rejection-Palestinian-Self-Determination.pdf to http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Hammond-Rejection-Palestinian-Self-Determination.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) 03:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2017

Change infobox

• (internationally unrecognized)

to

• (limited recognition)

and change

• although the state's sovereignty over Jerusalem is not recognised internationally

to

• although the state's sovereignty over Jerusalem has limited recognition internationally

Calling something "internationally unrecognized" is saying nobody recognizses it, when some countries do. JudgeJason (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the rational behind the first part. We need to find some phrase that does not imply that there is no recognition whatsoever, but also doesn't imply that the recognition is wider than it currently is. I suggested "mostly unrecognized" previously.

For the second part, I believe there is not a single country (except Israel) that recognizes that Jerusalem is actually part of Israel. Recognition of the fact that Jerusalem is capital of Israel does not automatically recognize that Jerusalem is part of Israel, as strange as it may sound. Read Trump's announcement carefully. It says several times that Jerusalem is capital of Israel, but it also says "We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem". “WarKosign” 21:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Recognizing Jerusalem as capital includes recognizing at least part of Jersusalem as part of Israel. What Trump left unspecified is specific borders (so which part, or even all, of Jerusalem is part of Israel).Icewhiz (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

No, because that would create a false balance. Yes, US recognition is important, but it's still one country. Well, three if we include Vanuatu and Israel. Three out of 190+ is not enough not to warrant such wording. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Guatemala too. WP:FALSEBALANCE is about giving minority viewpoints equal weight, here we need to show what the majority POV is while also saying that there is a minority view. We can't say that it's completely unrecognized, because it's not. “WarKosign” 15:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is completely unrecognized. You just quoted the part of Trump's speech that says it. Until the boundaries are clearly defined, I don't see how it can be added to an infobox. It makes it sound like the US has recognized the boundaries that Israel has claimed.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump didn't state either way regarding eastern Jerusalem. His administration did leak this - TOP TRUMP OFFICIAL: US ‘ENVISIONS’ KOTEL AS BEING PART OF ISRAEL, 16 December 2017 - which would be east of 1949 line.Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The wording in the proposed edit is technically correct, while the wording in the existing text is technically incorrect. By the way, WP:FALSEBALANCE does not here. For example, "false balance" would be including Idi Amin in a list of Scottish Monarchs, which would be ridiculous. In contrast, international recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a political question where major groups support each of the positions – i.e. Israel (which has physical possession of the city) and the United States (the world's only superpower) cannot be called insignificant. OtterAM (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing above changes the fact that East Jerusalem is not currently recognized, and adding this without qualification would be not correct. The problem is Trump also did not say West Jerusalem - what Trump's administration "envisions" for the future does not really help us clarify this for addition to the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Ergo, "limited recognition." The Trump administration recognizes "Jerusalem" as Israel's capital, so does Guatemala and the Czech Republic; Russia recognizes "West Jerusalem" as Israel's capital. Given that the recognition may not be for the city as a whole and the recognition is only by a minority of countries (although the US is a pretty important country), the adjective "limited" is the most accurate. OtterAM (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Consensus is not established although discussions are taking place her and in other venues Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed demographic breakdown in percentages from first paragraph

Demographic information is included elsewhere. I'm trying to use a style similar to other WP articles about countries. Breakdowns to a tenth of a percentage point are not particularly interesting and may become outdated very quickly too. OtterAM (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed bloated reference from lead regarding status of Jerusalem

Since this point already has a group of references included in an explanatory footnote, we don't need to tack extra references at the end of the sentence. I also used an earlier version of the sentence from before the Trump announcement, because this version appears more stable. (The Trump announcement does not necessarily affect this sentence.) OtterAM (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

(RfC) Jerusalem is still internationally unrecognised as the Israeli capital

The official UN stand point on Jerusalem as Israel's capital has not changed, and therefore just because the United States of America has recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, it is still internationally unrecognised as the majority of the world still disagrees with this. Thoughts? –GH (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

What exactly do you propose to change in the article ? Of course Jerusalem can't be said to be internationally recognized as capital, but it is recognized by several countries so saying that it is internationally unrecognized is equally wrong. I suggested above to write "mostly unrecognized" or "largely unrecognized". “WarKosign” 11:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Internationally Unrecognised refers to whether or not the UN accept the city as the capital of the state. As the UN do not accept this, the city remains internationally unrecognised. A separate section on the article should be there to reference recognition by the United States and so forth (and the citation should remain in place), however it should not be simply listed as 'Jerusalem' as that suggests that there is international agreement over the status. –GH (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the user who made the note citation, that is not enough as it is not clear (four countries recognise it as the capital, by that logic, I recognise the Principality of Sealand as a sovereign nation and it is no longer internationally unrecognised) -- You see how dumb that sounds? -GH (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You are not a country, so your recognition is irrelevant. Who said that UN equals international recognition ? If the intention is to represent UN's position, the article should say "Unrecognized by the UN" - but what makes UN's position so important ? UN is famously biased so of course it doesn't recognize Jerusalem as capital. “WarKosign” 12:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@WarKosign: You're an Israeli, so you're biased, if four countries recognise it, it is internationally unrecognised, I made the request for comments purely so I can get views from people who are not American or Israeli, as both will be inherently biased on this article, if it cannot be solved by this, I will request permanent protection, so only administrators can edit it. GH (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Look, I'll level with you how about 'mostly unrecognised' or 'partially recognised'? Either one is fine in my opinion, this topic is taking up too much of my time, so this topic is no longer of interest for me. The RfC can stay open if it is needed, but if you make the changes (for clarity's sake), you can close the RfC, but I won't be contributing any more. Good Luck! --GH (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@GippoHippo: Heres my suggestion- leave the bit about Jerusalem with "mostly unrecognised", but have Tel Aviv in there too, with a note indicating this is the internationally recognized capital. Solves everyone's problems.

As for @WarKosign: Wikipedia isnt here to take a position on whether or mot the UN is subjectively right or subjectively wrong- it exists to simply compile knowledge on a given topic. This claim of UN bias as a reason to put Jerusalem as a fully recognized capital is laughable. - ක - (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jesuschristonacamel: What you did here is called Straw man - you misrepresened my position and then refuted it. Of course UN being (or not being) biased does not make Jerusalem recognized. However, UN not recognizing Jerusalem as a capital of Israel does not make it internationally unrecognized when it *is* recognized by several countries.

As for Tel Aviv, would you care to provide any sources showing Tel Aviv recognized as capital by any country ? You need to stick to facts and sources, you can't just invent facts to suit your opinions. “WarKosign” 13:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@WarKosign: So apparently my knowledge of geography is way off and TA is not a recognized capital of Israel either. For this, I accept I was wrong, making my initial suggestion irrelevant. I was under the impression most nations treated TA as a capital going off of the sheer number of nations that had embassies in TA and not Jerusalem. You can see why I (and others) might be excused for thinking whatever city had all the embassies in was indeed the city that most nations recognized as that country's capital. So no, you're technically correct here in that, other than what I've just said, there exists no official recognition of TA as a capital.

Also, thank you for not being condescending in explaining what a straw man argument is. That point I made stands, regardless of whether you think it was a straw man or not, because I'm absolutely sure you understood what I meant with that bit of hyperbole, especially since you also engaged in the very same tactic with "You are not a country, so your recognition is irrelevant". Simply because the USA recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital does not make Jerusalem the 'recognized' capital city, seeing as the overwhelming majority of other nations on the planet have (so far) made no such statement of recognition. Despite what some would have you believe, the US in and of itself is not the international community. The international community at large has made no indication they recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, making it- at best- 'partially recognized' or 'mostly unrecognized' as GH pointed out.

The problem here is I'm unsure if you're in any state of mind to understand you're getting this response because of the abrasive way you've dealt with this whole issue. That said, I'm out. I noticed this whole thing and thought I'd pitch in, but you're clearly more interested in furthering some agenda than understanding what it is we do here on Wikipedia. - ක - (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If a handful of countries recognize Jerusalem as the capital, but the overwhelming majority makes a specific point of not doing so, and the Security Council has explicitly labeled as illegal the proclamation of Jerusalem as capital, then the capital status of Jerusalem is internationally unrecognized (even though 2% of countries do recognize). Alternatively we could state "Internationally controversial". "Partially recognized" fails NPOV since it gives way too much implied weight on the few recognitions. Even as to the American position, we shouldn't put too much weight on the rantings of a deranged old coot. --Dailycare (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I am probably going on a limb here but I think that both cities should be included as Israel's capital. We are not here to solve an international debate. Israel's capital is one. You may prefer Jerusalem to be Israel's capital and I may prefer not to (or vice versa). What I like is not an issue. I won't solve an international issue/debate. Neither what you (plural) like is an issue. Neither will you (plural) solve an international issue/debate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. At encyclopedia we read the truth and there is one and only, undeniable truth. Some countries and organizations recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and others are recognizing Tel Aviv as its capital. Both should be included with a notification and perhaps a link leading to a paragraph explaining the situation. As such, Jerusalem should remain as Israel's capital (with the notification existing at this moment) but Tel Aviv should be added with a respective notification as well. Phaethonas (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"others are recognizing Tel Aviv as its capital" - I keep seeing people write this, but I've yet to see a citation that shows a country that recognizes Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. For my own enlightenment could you show me one? - Hoplon (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

GH; you should not accuse people for being bias, based on their nationality. I am not aware that anyone recognized Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. So such edit would be original research.Tritomex (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it can change when only the US (and I think only 2 other countries, one of which is El Salvador) recognize it as such - especially where the U.S. declaration of recognition has not actually changed anything. The only thing that has changed is the plan to move the embassy. The passport issue is the same, the maps remain unchanged, and the State Department has said over and over again that the final status of borders still has to be negotiated between the parties. If the article says it is recognized as the capital by the US, the plain meaning of this for most readers is going to be that these issues are resolved and that the US has recognized Israel's full claims but that is not what has happened. It has also been opposed by major countries, including China, the UK, Sweden, Turkey, France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. The political reality is that this is a declaration that has not resolved anything, and is opposed by very powerful people even within the administration. Trump has signed the waiver. It is just a statement of intent to move the embassy, which I think the U.S. will initiate. Beyond that, the only thing significant about Trump's statement has been the amount of force that has been marshaled to oppose it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Should someone who engages in anti-Semitic blood libel be allowed to edit this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonysonic (talk • contribs) 19:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Jerusalem is still internationally unrecognized as Israels capital. Only US and Vanuatu supports the israeli position, Czech Republic and Taiwan only recognize Western Jerusalem as capital of Israel. These four countries are still a very small insignificant minority.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The US is an insignificant minority? Oh, wow. 89.134.92.49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Tritomex You have me confused with someone else, I never said Tel Aviv was the Israeli capital (because its not). Please read what people have said before suggesting people have said stuff which they infact have not said. Like I said, I am not interested in this issue anymore because the issue is being consumed in bias and people imposing their opinions on one another. I suggest people do a vote and reach a consensus rather than continue arguing. Good Day –GippoHippo (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest that this "RfC" be closed because it's unclear what is being requested, the question is not worded neutrally, and a RfC on a more specific question has ben opened below. OtterAM (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on literature portraits

The consensus is to have only a single photo in the section, that of Agnon, because there is no room for other photos. Editors noted that another photo could be added if the section gets large enough.

Cunard (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Let's put an end to a dispute over pictures in 'Literature' section.

• 
  Shmuel Yosef Agnon
• 
  Amos Oz

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey (literature portraits)

• Keep one photo of Agnon. Literature section is short. And even if we ever include more than one picture it should be a novelist and a poet, not two of the same. So only one of the two images should be included. Oz's works has been translated into more languages, but, as I said before, I think this can be attributed to the fact that he is a more recent author, in a world that is more globalized. Unlike Oz, Agnon won the Nobel Prize for literature and his portrait appeared on Israeli currency. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Agnon. 50 shekels on Agnon. Much more notable. Some of Oz's contemporary peers have similar notability. If we were to include a second picture it should be of a poet or playwright (several possibilities for both, more notable than Oz) - not another author.Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Agnon Oz is certainly a notable person but he can't compare to Agnon. When we want to highlight one person for this section, it should be someone at the caliber of Agnon. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• The debate was not that we should remove Agnon. It's whether we should have Agnon alone, or whether we should have both pictures of Agnon and Oz. Avaya1 (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Rachel Bluwstein, Leah Goldberg, Nathan Alterman, or Shaul Tchernichovsky should be in as no. 2 before Oz.Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Well those are good suggestions as well.Avaya1 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Agnon only. He won the Nobel Prize in Literature. There isn't enough room in section for another picture.--Mariolis MG (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• It looks like there is a consensus. I guess if the section gets larger, Oz can go in there (maybe not) but Agnon is paramount. South Nashua (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion (literature portraits)

---

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

Golan Heights

Should the "Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is the world's longest military occupation in modern times." statement by amended to include the Golan Heights? Which is non-Palestinian territory? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Israel annexed it, so it's no longer occupied territory. It's just that except for USA and a handful of other countries which implicitly recognized it as part of Israel (Shebaa farms has been recognized as part of Israel even by UN, which said Israel fully ended occupation of Lebanon), most scholars and countries are not sure about all of Golan's status (including Syria's 1/3 part of the Golan), not only Israel's 2/3 part of the Golan, in the future peace deal, if at all there's one ever. Besides, Israel is quickly settling many many Jews in Golan, so in all likelihood it will remain part of Israel forever.--Pailsdell (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Per NYTimes article in 2015, As Syria Reels, Israel Looks to Expand Settlements in Golan Heights--Pailsdell (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, per that article:

The United Nations Security Council condemned Israel’s annexation of Golan, and most of the world officially considers the territory occupied and the settlements there illegal, just like the West Bank.

The status of the Golan Heights, like that of East Jerusalem and the surrounding areas, is technically different from that of the West Bank in that they are annexed (even if that annexation is unrecognized) while the West Bank is occupied. Among other things, one difference is the application of civilian or military law in the territory. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as evident from the highly reliable NYTimes article, " most of the world officially considers the territory occupied," not all. As such I suggest that, do not refer to Golan Heights as occupied territory in the lede of this article.--Pailsdell (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the alleged occupation or alleged illegal annexation, the Golan heights are not under military administration - so it is not under military occupation - making the situation there quite different from the West Bank. Note that in terms of allegedly illegally occupied areas - there are much longer running disputes - e.g. Portugal and the Spanish occupation of Olivenza since 1801-15 (and there are probably longer running ones). The situation in the West Bank is "record breaking" in terms of the military administration (still applied in Area C) length.Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if either or both of you have reading comprehension problems, but I wrote that the occupation of Golan is different from that of the West Bank. Both are occupied, however, and the lead section will continue to reflect that reality. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not it's occupied is up for debate. Scholars openly and some countries implicitly already recognize all of Golan Heights as belonging to Israel. "The Bashan region, now known as the Golan Heights, is a part of the biblical territory promised to the Patriarch Abraham and the people of Israel."[1]--Pailsdell (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it really isn't, and citing Arutz Sheva and the bible as if they were reliable sources damages your credibility. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

How about we keep our imaginery friends in the sky to ourselves and away from politics in WP. I dont know of a single nation that recognizes Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights. Makeandtoss (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Golan heights is still occupied by Israel, so it cant be removed from the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

According to the WP article on the Golan Heights, the Golan Heights was "De facto" annexed by Israel in 1981. The WP article on Military occupation defines difference between occupation and annexation which appears to define the status of the Golan Heights as annexed. Regardless of whether there is international recognition of the annexation, as an encyclopedia it would make sense to both acknowledge the international position as well as the reality on the ground. If the UN doesn't recognize something, a good neutral position for WP would be to start with reality and then characterize a position. Perhaps a neutral phrasing would be to say "Israel controls the Golan Heights" and clarify in a note that "*the Golan Heights territory is internationally regarded as an occupied territory, but is de facto annexed by Israel as of 1981". Fileyfood500 (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

Based on this edit by User:Triggerhippie4, the image of Shimon Peres with King Hussein should be moved to the right side to avoid MOS:SANDWICHING. The image of the Dolphinarium discotheque massacre could be kept or removed, but the image of Israel and Jordan establishing relations is more significant and should stay regardless, in my opinion. Moreover, I don't see any reason why the image of the 13th-century Ramban Synagogue in Jerusalem in this section should be on the left side (assuming it should be in article at all), since there is no paragraph in the middle to keep distance between the synagogue and the "Jews at the Western Wall, 1870s".--181.105.97.247 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Go away, AndresHerutJaim, before you get every IP in Argentina blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)