Talk:Israel

Toolbox
Alt text Citation bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Reflinks

Museums

I think Yad Vashem should be on there. Not sure if I saw shrine of the book. Might be worth adding a section on water use too. --Telaviv1 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the lead state that Israel is a "partially recognized state"?

Several users have insisted on inserting "partially recognized state" for Palestine. I was against it, but given the number of users supporting it, I guess it's fine. Then the same of course applies to Israel as well. If Wikipedia is to remain neutral, we cannot very well describe one side (Palestine) as partially recognized while refusing the same description for Israel. Both are "partially recognized states", so the factual accuracy is the same for both. Jeppiz (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, that was a disambiguation page, not the main article. Second, you are misrepresenting what's going on on that disambig page. Someone changed the longstanding version. Another editor objected. Per BRD, at this point there should be a discussion, but you jumped in and edit warred. Third, OTHERSTUFF. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not WP:OTHERSTUFF (which is about an argument to avoid in deletion discussions). Perhaps you ought to read what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually says:

This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology. (emphasis added)

Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Israel is a member of the United Nations. It has no recognition problem, it is accepted by all five of the UN security council. Palestine on the other hand is not recognized by USA, France and UK who impose a veto on it's legal sovereignty. Just like there is no dispute on Kosovo and SADR who both have a sginificant amount of recognizers (Kosovo is even recognized by most of the world, especially the Western world), there is no dispute that Palestine, is a partially recognized state.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, all of that is irrelevant. There are lots of countries not recognizing Palestine and lots of countries not recognizing Israel. Being a member of the UN or not is a completely different thing, we're not discussing whether to say they are UN members. Both are partially recognized states, both of them recognized by a large majority of the world, and I see no reason not to say it. Jeppiz (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "partially recognised" is a meaningful phrase and I don't think we should use it at all. In journals of international law it barely appears. (Most examples refer to Kosovo.) UN membership is one measure of the acceptance of statehood by the international community, but failure to get past a UN veto (just one: USA; not three, that's silly) is irrelevant. There was about a whole decade when the USSR vetoed membership applications from every state that it did not have reciprocal relationships with—nobody argued that the states involved, such as Italy, thereby weren't really states. Zero^talk 07:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Should the same language be used in the lead for Israel and for Palestine?

There is clear consensus for Option 2 on the basis of WP:NPOV. Neither Israel nor Palestine should denote the nations as "partially recognized states" in the lead. Some editors supporting Option 1 or an alternative were concerned about Palestine's fight for recognition being lost if they aren't denoted as a partially recognized state, but this can be covered in the article body, just as it can for Israel. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 06:33, 11 April 2016 (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.

---

As both Israel and Palestine are partially recognized states, should the opening sentence in the lead of:

1. both Israel and Palestine (and State of Palestine) say partially recognized state?
2. neither Israel nor Palestine (and State of Palestine) say partially recognized state?
3. just Israel but not Palestine (nor State of Palestine) say partially recognized state?
4. just Palestine (and State of Palestine) but not Israel say partially recognized state?

I think those are all the possible options. Jeppiz (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 I first thought that neither article should say it, but then reflected on it and saw that the leads of other partially recognized states (such as Kosovo) also say partially recognized state in the opening of the lead. The current solution, saying partially recognized state for Palestine but not for Israel, seems to be a rather strong POV. So I think options 3 and 4 should be excluded as POV options, and between option 1 and 2, I support option 1 as it is in line with similar articles. Jeppiz (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Why are we limiting this to just these two? Looking at Partially recognized states, I see the same issue applies to China. Perhaps a wider discussion is needed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, Israel and Palestine are closely linked and part of WP:ARBPIA is to try to make sure we treat articles related to the ARBPIA field neutrally. China is not covered by ARBPIA, but Israel and Palestine both are (not that I mind you opening a discussion about China at talk:China, go ahead). Jeppiz (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what ARBPIA has to do with it. We're supposed to treat all articles neutrally. Since there's an issue here that's wider than just these two articles, I think it would make sense to have this RfC where more editors would participate. That would also make it more likely we'd get participation from more uninvolved editors, rather than just the usual suspects as we're most likely going to get here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 per Jeppiz's rationale but with the explicit caveat that my support for this usage is, until further reflection, limited to the specific article occurrences of both Israel and State of Palestine.

{Explanation: text on dab. pages such as Palestine is necessarily more concise and to state, in the very short definition/description sentence there "State of Palestine, a modern partially recognized state in the Middle East" may very well give undue weight to the dubiety of the State of Palestine's very existence by just mentioning at all its current diplomatic status. Certainly it does seem a rather unbalanced sentence when our dab. page regarding Israel (Israel (disambiguation)) just has the sentence: "Israel commonly refers to the State of Israel" and the page at the article named 'State of Israel' continues to be just a redirect to Israel. BushelCandle (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, now I have reflected more on the situation, I have concluded that the powerful Israel lobby here will ensure that there is never any wording in the first few hundred words of any Israel related article that ever hints that Israel is not completely recognised by all polities and organisations or that the plain single word "Israel" ever becomes a disambiguation page like "Palestine" currently is. Consequently, with and dependent on that understanding, I am changing my support and striking thru' my support for Option 1. I do agree that this discussion page is perhaps not the ideal page for asking for comments, since the issue is indeed wider than just 3 pages. Kudos to Jeppiz for raising the whole issue at all!

Consequently I now

Support Option 2 BushelCandle (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Option 2 per WP:POINT and WP:NPOV. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Malik. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 Per WP:NPOV. It is remarkable that anyone would think that because the USA does not recognise Palestine (but 70% of the world does including China, Russia, India, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia and many more) do that such a blatantly POV and biased approach towards Palestine should be taken. So many editors are determined to de-legitimise the State of Palestine. AusLondonder (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above, a blatant example of so is Palestine entry in List of state leaders in 2016, discussion underway on talk page to change. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2, as I explained above. Zero^talk 10:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Jeppiz.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Either Option 1 or Option 2 are ok to my mind, and in the spirit of WP:IPCOLL. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• There no inherent reason to use same language for both except WP:OSE. Looking at other articles such as China is a good idea. In case of Palestine, the important point is not the partial recognition but the fact that it's not a fully formed state, it's an entity has some but not all characteristics of a state (lacking defined borders and most of the control of its claimed territory, for starters). Both articles can mention or not mention the partial recognition, but describing State of Palestine without mentioning this crucial bit of information is extremely misleading. “WarKosign” 13:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Those reservations backfire because they apply also in good part to Israel, which has never defined its borders, exercises only partial control of areas it claims to be part of its own territory, and is denied recognition as having sovereignty by many of those who 'reside', by force of circumstance, in those areas (East Jerusalem, for example) over which it claims sovereignty. All these factors are equally anomalous for the concept of a modern state. What is sauce for the goose is sores for the gander.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Israel has three defined and internationally recognized borders, the Israeli-Egyptian border following the agreement in 1979, the Israeli-Jordanian border (Without most of the Jordan River part) following the agreement in 1994 and the border between Israel and Lebanon was recognized by the UN in June 2000.

Now what does this mean about Mexico, Colombia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Lebanon, Turkey, Azerbijan, Armenia, India, China and Pakistan who all have areas in which they claim sovereignty but don't fully control? And what about areas with no civil authorities intervention worldwide?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Disputed borders is not the same as total lack of defined borders. Are you disputing that Israel controls (as much as any state can) all of the territories within its borders (as Israel sees them), and also partially controls some territories outside its borders ? “WarKosign” 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The question is moot because Israel refuses to define its borders, making phrases like 'outside its borders' meaningless. I think we should hew to MShabazz's advice and not let a humongous thread develop. Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment No one can deny the fact that Israel and Palestine are not sharing the same legal status. Israel shares the same legal status of China, Cyprus, North and South Korea etc. who are full members of the UN but no reocgnized by all of it's members. Palestine on the other hand is currently fighting for recognition. Palestine is a de-jure state since the Palestinian National Council, the governmental body of the State of Palestine, doesn't practice any administration over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, while the Palestinian Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority does. In order to become a legal member of the United Nations, you need to have the recognition of France, UK, USA, Russia and China. Palestine lacks the recognition of three of the UN security council permenent members and therefore it is not yet a legal member of the UN. Palestine has the same status of Kosovo. @AusLondonder: said that Palestine has the recognition of 70% of the world. This is nice, but Kosovo has the reocognition of 55% of the world so by this Wikipeida "de-legitimise Kosovo"? And what is exactly the legitimacy of Palestine as long as they don't have what they need to become members of the UN? It's not like Vatican or Switzerland (until 2002) who chose not to be members, the State of Palestine is simply not yet a legitimate state because although most of the world recognize it, the US, UK and France has a veto power on it. The fact that in 2012, the SoP (technically PA)'s status was upgraded from an "entity" to a "Non-member state" in the UN doesn't change the fact that there is a veto on it's membership.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Request I know it can be difficult, but please, everybody, try to stick to the subject of the RfC, which is whether Palestine and Israel should be described as partially recognized states. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's important *not* to stick to the subject if the RfC asked the wrong question. The real question is whether Palestine and Israel should use the same description, and the answer is definitely no, because their circumstances are very different. “WarKosign” 18:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2 preferred per NPOV but Option 1 is okay too since it is a fact in both cases. Both articles should of course include details about the extent of recognition and non-recognition. The scope of this RfC should be restricted to Israel and Palestine to prevent scope creep and distraction. Other RfCs can be created by editors who want to deal with other states and/or the broader issues. This RfC should focus on fixing something that is broken because of the nature of the ARBPIA topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 is probably okay, although this question is a bit misleadingly set. What the article on Israel says, is determined by sources that describe Israel. Likewise, what the article on Palestine says, is determined by sources that describe Palestine. We should resist thinking along the lines that this question suggests, namely, that we should use similar terminology if we consider the circumstances to be similar. Of course, exceptions exist. I don't recall the expression "partially recognized" to be widely in use to describe either country, so option 2 gets my nod. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Houston, we have a problem. When I read Palestine is a [partially recognised] state I naturally understand it is de facto as fully fledged state. The facts, however, are that Palestine controls only a small part of the area it claims and even that part is prone to IDF raids. The question of recognition is the small problem in describing th State of Palestine. DGtal (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you for stating the obvious. The elephant in the room is that there is no State of Palestine so all this discussion is pure nonsense. Benjil (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2. A partial recognition is an information that is wp:undue for the lead. This being said, Israel is a State. Palestine is a proto-State. Both are recognized. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Palestine is just a disambiguation page for a variety of subjects and should just use neutral language when pointing to its sub-pages per WP:DISAMBIG. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2. In terms of the "partial recognition" issue, Israel and Palestine should be treated the same way. Israel is not recognized by 32 countries, whereas Palestine is not recognized by 59 (195 minus 136) countries. So they are in a qualitatively similar position. Here, the focus is on the "partial recognition" issue and nothing else. Tradedia^talk 05:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 because options 3&4 aren't serious options and option 1 isn't necessary as they are both widely enough recognized. Sepsis II (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Result

@Jeppiz: was this set up as a formal RFC? We need someone to close this now and bring this to a conclusion. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

List of earthquakes

On Feb 12, Triggerhippie4 dropped the list of earthquakes because they're duplicated at List of earthquakes in the Levant. The article is over 300 KB, so I think removing the list was a good move, but today the content was returned by Avaya1. I'm not sure why, because the edit summary seems like the edit was focused on the (longstanding) images, but maybe they meant the list as well. I don't feel strongly about this. In fact, I'm only a once-in-a-great-while editor on this article, but it seems to me that offloading the list was a good move 1) due to the long length of the article and 2) the embedded list disrupts the flow of prose. Dawnseeker2000 02:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

While Avaya1 may have intended to restore the old images, their edit undid many other improvements to the article—such as the deletion of the list of earthquakes. Consequently, I undid Avaya1's edit. If they wish to restore the old images, they will have to restore the old images, not undo 40 cumulative changes by 10 different editors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Malik Shabazz, for revert but I have to disagree with "If they wish to restore the old images, they will have to restore the old images." New images are improvements too - they are great, I spent a lot of time collecting it, gave summaries for it, and can explain further if needed. I've also added images to not-illustrated sections and removed images not relating to the text. Avaya1 not only reverted other edits but restored all images citing "longstanding choice." There wasn't "longstanding choice," its just nobody bother to find better choices for some of the images for years. Some of the pics Avaya1 restored are so obviously inferior its clear the user didn't actually looked at it, and also WP:SMN, WP:OWN. Sorry for my English. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Triggerhippie4. I know you spent a lot of time choosing images, and I appreciate the choices you've made. What I should have said was "If they wish to dispute the images in the article, they should start a discussion about that." (Is that better? ) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 31 external links on Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/education/Israel_Palestine/cold_war_ends.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/sources-of-population-growth-total-israeli-population-and-settler-population-1991-2003
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://news.eteacherhebrew.com/es/node/1344
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/ISXX0026
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.weather.com/outlook/events/weddings/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/ISXX0010
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/settlements-in-the-west-bank-1
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/settlements-in-the-gaza-strip-1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120213230126/http://www.hsje.org/forcedmigration.htm to http://www.hsje.org/forcedmigration.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070629171538/http://info.bahai.org:80/article-1-6-0-5.html to http://info.bahai.org/article-1-6-0-5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060218134833/http://www.mfa.gov.il:80/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/1/Summary+of+the+principal+laws+relating+to+educatio.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/1/Summary+of+the+principal+laws+relating+to+educatio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060913013444/http://www.american.edu/initeb/as5415a/Israel_ICT/itWork.html to http://www.american.edu/initeb/as5415a/Israel_ICT/itWork.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120725031634/http://embassies.gov.il:80/delhi/Departments/Pages/Academic%20Affairs.aspx to http://embassies.gov.il/delhi/Departments/Pages/Academic%20Affairs.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120308122735/http://www.shanghairanking.com/Country2011Main.jsp?param=Israel to http://www.shanghairanking.com/Country2011Main.jsp?param=Israel
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070516021101/http://www.mfa.gov.il:80/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/6/Israel%20and%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/6/Israel%20and%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100315123847/http://www.fmep.org:80/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/comprehensive-settlement-population-1972-2006 to http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/comprehensive-settlement-population-1972-2006
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100706205408/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/asset/MDE15/093/2006/en/9dc8177a-d3cf-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/mde150932006en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/093/2006/en/9dc8177a-d3cf-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/mde150932006en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070701072212/http://www.mfa.gov.il:80/MFAHeb/MFAArchive/2004/horaot+din+israeli0304.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFAHeb/MFAArchive/2004/horaot+din+israeli0304.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111202140121/http://www.indembassy.co.il:80/Bilateral%20Trade%20Relations.htm to http://www.indembassy.co.il/Bilateral%20Trade%20Relations.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090822162710/http://www.ficci.com:80/international/countries/israel/israel-commercialrelations.htm to http://www.ficci.com/international/countries/israel/israel-commercialrelations.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120224014316/http://www.rieas.gr/research-areas/greek-studies/115.html to http://www.rieas.gr/research-areas/greek-studies/115.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110105210936/http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php?17621 to http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php?17621
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120517224030/http://israelhomeowner.brinkster.net/Glossary.asp to http://israelhomeowner.brinkster.net/Glossary.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080924093635/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/reportsfromabroad/parry/20070815.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/parry/20070815.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130116074212/http://www.hindu.com/businessline/2001/01/11/stories/151139ue.htm to http://www.hindu.com/businessline/2001/01/11/stories/151139ue.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080706184733/http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Economy/transport.html to https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Economy/transport.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070814055003/http://www.mfa.gov.il:80/mfa/facts%20about%20israel/people/jewish%20festivals%20in%20israel to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/People/Jewish%20Festivals%20in%20Israel
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120210070052/http://worldmusic.nationalgeographic.com/view/page.basic/country/content.country/israel_36 to http://worldmusic.nationalgeographic.com/view/page.basic/country/content.country/israel_36
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120103145812/http://worldmusic.nationalgeographic.com:80/view/page.basic/genre/content.genre/israeli_folk_735/en_US to http://worldmusic.nationalgeographic.com/view/page.basic/genre/content.genre/israeli_folk_735/en_US
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070206190159/http://www.mfa.gov.il:80/MFA/Israel+beyond+politics/Israel+Philharmonic+Orchestra+celebrates+70th+anniversary+5-Feb-2007.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Israel+beyond+politics/Israel+Philharmonic+Orchestra+celebrates+70th+anniversary+5-Feb-2007.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070709044752/https://www.imj.org.il/eng/shrine/index.html to http://www.imj.org.il/eng/shrine/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140625083458/http://www.euroleague.net/final-four/milan-2014/maccabi-electra-tel-aviv to http://www.euroleague.net/final-four/milan-2014/maccabi-electra-tel-aviv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150402175757/http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=TRc9ea_CKOUC&pg=PA284 to https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=TRc9ea_CKOUC&pg=PA284
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110805072315/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Israel+beyond+politics/Prof_Yonath_2009_Nobel_Prize_Chemistry_7-Oct-2009 to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Israel+beyond+politics/Prof_Yonath_2009_Nobel_Prize_Chemistry_7-Oct-2009

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

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

I've started discussion on User:Yossimgim disruptive edits related to this article at the administrators' noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Yossimgim. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Israeli Foreign Aid

The blurb in the Wikipedia article about Israeli foreign aid states that their aid is 0.01%. The statistic is taken from a newspaper article which quotes the OECD. However, the OECD clearly states on its website that Israel's foreign aid has been above 0.07% since 2007 (https://data.oecd.org/oda/net-oda.htm#indicator-table) (you can click the table button to see it more easily). This should be changed ASAP. Thanks guys

Aqz101 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Count the zeroes. The article says that Israel spent less than 0.1% of GNI on foreign aid, less than recommended 0.7%. According to the table in 2014 Israel spent 0.07% of the GNI, which is 10 times less than 0.7% and indeed less than 0.1%. “WarKosign” 12:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

The wording of the Balfour Declaration states that the government "view with favour" which is quite different from the existing text as copied below. It also goes on to add the condition that "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

existing text from Wikiedia page on the Balfour Declaration

The Second Aliyah (1904–14), began after the Kishinev pogrom; some 40,000 Jews settled in Palestine, although nearly half of them left eventually.[110] Both the first and second waves of migrants were mainly Orthodox Jews,[114] although the Second Aliyah included socialist groups who established the kibbutz movement.[115] During World War I, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, that stated that Britain intended for the creation of a Jewish "national home" within the Palestinian Mandate.[116][117]

would you please edit to show "view with favour" instead of "intended" and add the condition stated. Roger Watson-Starship (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

^re@Roger Watson-Starship: 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. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 10:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

I want to refer to the statement written in the last paragraph of the "Etymology" section: "From 1920, the whole region was known as Palestine (under British Mandate) until the Israeli Declaration of Independence of 1948"

This statement is not entirely correct. The area, under the British Mandate was called "Palestine EI" where the EI stands in Hebrew to "Eretz Israel" i.e. Land of Israel. It appears clearly also on British Mandate stamps, where it is written "Palestine" in English and Arabic, alongside with א"י in Hebrew, means as I wrote "EI" which stands for "Eretz Israel"/ Land of Israel/ "ארץ ישראל". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.181.12 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you quote a reliable source that supports this ? “WarKosign” 12:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ditto WarKosign. As the IP himself points out א"י was only included in the Hebrew rendition in any case. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's one document, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine_passport#/media/File:1924_Palestine_travel_document.jpg, taken from: Mandatory_Palestine_passport that shows that in Hebrew it said Palestine EY, and doing an image search clearly shows passports with Palestine EY in Hebrew. Here is a link to a coin from the same time period also showing that Palestine EY was used in Hebrew, http://pinterest.com/pin/309481805616320282/ Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, IN HEBREW, but not in English or Arabic. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Correct, but I think that was the OP's point. In Hebrew the area wasn't just called Palestine, it was called Palestine EY, and therefore the Etymology section should reflect that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In a footnote, maybe. It is splitting hairs rather if you ask me. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Could be, but I added as a note. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec)We don't make deductions from wiki. 98% of historical works on the period refer to Palestine. That stamps etc., for internal circulation catered for the linguistic abilities of the three major political and ethnic constituents doesn't affect the broad term used by the British and the world. In any case, think analogically: would an Indian make this kind of argument for East Africa based on the Gujarati script on the old East African shilling banknote issued by Great Britain?Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The government documents don't say פלשתינה, they say (פלשתינה (א״י

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The EY was part of the official name of the Mandate, as you can see amply sourced at the Mandate article. Of course this should be noted if you're describing the name of the area during Mandate times. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not quite. WarKoSign and Cliftonian rightly are following wiki procedure to the letter in requesting sourcing for this equation. It has a complex history and one should not, even if understandably, let oneself be influenced by the fact that Israeli historical works generally tend to refer to Mandatory Palestine as eretz yisrael, esp. since this is rare in English historical usage (Ulrike Schultz, Gisela Shaw (eds.) Gender and Judging, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013 p.87).

The Zionists certainly pressed for this equation, while the Palestinians opposed it. Caught between hammer and anvil the Poms allowed alpha yod on currency, stamps and official documents as a concession to the former constituency, but denied Zionists permission to pronounce the full word in broadcasting. It was effectively forbidden to read out the term in any Hebrew transmission.(Andrea L. Stanton, "This Is Jerusalem Calling": State Radio in Mandate Palestine, University of Texas Press, 2013 pp.174f.)(Nur Masalha, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion, Pluto Press, 2000 p.6).

One can therefore rightly note the fact that Alpha Yod was on those items, but not infer that the Mandatory Authority accepted the use of the word that combination of letters allusively ciphered. It's a fine point, I know, but this is an encyclopedia, based on precise sourcing, and not on inferences made from stamps, currency etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not a "fine point", it's well poisoning. EY was part of the official name of the Mandate in one of its official languages. That should be noted. The fact "Israeli historical works generally tend to refer to Mandatory Palestine as eretz yisrael(sic)" should also be noted. That should also go in the etymology section, obviously. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

NMMNG you are absolutely wrong to suggest that the "EY was part of the official name of the Mandate". The mandate was official only in the languages of the League of Nations, which were England and French. The א״י was added as part of the "national title" in one of the three languages to be used on stamps, passports and currency. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The Mandatory government, not the Mandate instrument. They used these official languages for everything, not just stamps and passports. All announcement, forms, etc, were all in the 3 official languages. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)