Talk:Israel/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Why now?

The article has remained relatively quiet in the past couple weeks, largely absent of tremendous changes to the article. Now an FAC has been opened, and for some reason some have decided that it's prime time to introduce major changes to the article, despite the article already having several supports in (pretty much) its original state. I'm especially speaking to the person responsible for the latest drastic change, who, like another editor who has introduced major changes, has been a stranger to the talk page for quite some time. Shamir, there have been several recent discussions related to the intro (it is among the most discussed parts of the article) and you don't appear to have participated in any of them. -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If something has disturbed you, I am sorry, but try not to worry over something that may not need worrying. I have not seen any problems with this version now. The intro of the majority of country articles do not go into such detail of its demographics, religious minorities, diplomatic work, and political pursuances. I have kept certain points from your version and made the intro more similar to that of other articles; keeping the points brief and not repeating information that is already written elsewhere in this article and articles directly related to this one. --Shamir1 04:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know which article(s) you are using as the gold standard. Japan, Indonesia, Chad, Turkey, and Cameroon each dedicate a paragraph to history, but you essentially removed the history paragraph here. Japan, Indonesia, and Peru each mention their total populations in the intro, but you removed that here. Chad, Peru, and South Africa each mention the presence of ethnic minorites, but you removed a mention of them here. Note how all of those articles I linked are featured. Additionally, you added back a statement – Israel is the only country in the Middle East considered to be a liberal democracy – that is not entirely correct (Cyprus is sometimes, such as in the CIA Factbook, considered part of the Middle East; see #Misleading Introduction). -- tariqabjotu 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that I am the author of that liberal-democracy bit. But massive, undiscussed changes by Samir1 do indeed worry me. El_C 05:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So, Samir1 has reverted myself three times, and also reverted Tariqabjotu's removal of the word "terror" once, which = four reverts. El_C 05:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what part of the liberal democracy bit you authored, which sounds odd considering I myself added that bit months if not more than a year ago. (It really does not matter either way.) Not only that, but I dealt with the issue for months following. Between Archives 18 to 20, virtually all questions about the survey were answered with facts from the Freedom House.

Be sure to note that the sentence does not say that Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, but that Israel is considered to be the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. Note that the source, Freedom House, has considered Israel the only liberal democracy (or Free country) in the Middle East. The sentence makes sense.

The history paragraph of each of the countries you pointed out are different in comparison to the one that has now been used for Israel. I actually kept a lot of it and edited some too. This seems centered on Israel's diplomatic role. Nor should anything be started with "original configuration." The talk about its peace treaties, etc. is not needed for the intro, and parts of the history that is included in the summary can make one wonder why others are not noted.

Many country articles do not mention their total population in the intro, but that is not a problem. It should already be written in the infobox, but again, it should not be a problem anyway.

The intro should be about Israel, not about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I believe that a good mention of the conflict is suffice, as I had edited. I have yet to

Really though, our versions are not that different. Even with the new edit, all that was mentioned is still mentioned elsewhere. --Shamir1 22:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, is there any part of that last version that is particularly needed? It can help if we cooperate. --Shamir1 21:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the intro has been discussed multiple times. In regards to the History paragraph, it appeared something along the current lines was recommended for the intro. I'm not sure if everyone still stands by that, but from the looks of previous discussions, that's the way the general consensus was leaning. -- tariqabjotu 06:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"The problem is that the intro has been discussed multiple times." That is not a problem. You are a Wikipedian, and you know that. Tariq, you are not stating any actual problems with the edited version. Saying that it is discussed is not it. There is nothing in there that is not written elsewhere.This is not the intro of the Arab-Israeli conflict or of Israel's diplomatic role. Please try to cooperate. Shamir1 04:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your request to cooperate is meaningless to me because you have not heeded the current consensus intro. As I said, the intro was discussed many times and there has been no objection to the intro in the FAC. In addition, you even added back elements that had been removed weeks ago. So, the burden of proof is on you to explain why your version, which is drastically different from what has been accepted, is so much better. No, Wikipedia does not have a policy that says this is the case, but it's just some common sense that appears to be in short supply on this article recently. That's why this section is entitled "Why now?". Sometimes it feels like I'm the only one looking at the FAC (I know that's not true; okedem obviously has as well). Seriously, look at it. You'll see that most reservations about the article relate to a few sentences that need sources or a few areas that need to be copyedited. But while some, including myself, are trying to address the valid issues raised in the FAC, we have others who for some inexplicable reason feel what the article needs now is a rewrite of the intro or a paragraph moved from Point A to Point B. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but it's not the encyclopedia everyone must edit.

In support of your version, you stated:

The history paragraph of each of the countries you pointed out are different in comparison to the one that has now been used for Israel. I actually kept a lot of it and edited some too. This seems centered on Israel's diplomatic role. Nor should anything be started with "original configuration." The talk about its peace treaties, etc. is not needed for the intro, and parts of the history that is included in the summary can make one wonder why others are not noted.

There's no one-size-fits-all format for history. Obviously, it doesn't make sense to mention much about Cameroon's conflicts with other nations in the article's intro because it's not a major feature of its history. But the Arab-Israeli conflict is a major element of Israel's history. Of course it's going to be mentioned. That you believe two sentences is too much airtime for the conflict is a matter of opinion that basically is not understandable. There is no sentence that begins with "original configuration" and your all-or-nothing approach to the inclusion of history, again, is incomprehensible. No one should expect the few sentences discussing history in the intro is all there is to know about Israel's history; that's why there is an entire article that follows.

If others say they've changed their mind on the intro and agree with your writing, I'm willing to be more open. But that, until now, has not been the case. Until the paradigm shift occurs, it's your opinion against general consensus. Frankly, I care far more about consensus than your opinion at this point. This article is clearly on the cusp of being featured and there's no reason for a disruptive usurpation of consensus to stand in its way. -- tariqabjotu 04:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be good:

Israel (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָאֵל, Yisra'el), officially the State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל^ⓘ, Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةْ إِسْرَائِيل, Dawlat Isrā'īl), is a country in Southwest Asia located on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It has borders with Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, and Egypt on the southwest, and contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area. Also adjacent are the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are partially governed by the Palestinian National Authority. Israel is the world's only Jewish state.

The State of Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, which was met with an invasion by the armies of its Arab neighbors within hours--the first war of a conflict that persists to this day. The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel, a concept central to Judaism for over three thousand years. Jerusalem, the city established as the capital under King David, is the modern state's capital, seat of government, and largest city. The Israeli population is about 7.2 million, and is concentrated in the metropolitan area of cosmopolitan Tel Aviv.

Having a broad array of political rights and civil liberties, Israel is the only country in the Middle East considered to be a liberal democracy. An industrialized and technologically-advanced nation, it is the only developed country in the Middle East. Israel has also been ranked as the most advanced in the region in such parameters as economic competitiveness, freedom of the press, and quality of life, as well as most progressive in terms of human development.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 

See WP:LEAD#Length. Also, the population of Israel is not 7.2 million and the mention of King David is unnecessary and misleading. -- tariqabjotu 04:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The length is fine. There are many sources and the amount of text of both versions are similar.. The mention of King David is just a simple mention of ancient Israel and that government; that mention came from Israel's ministry of foreign affairs. And yes, Israel's population is 7.2 million. I'm glad to see you responding. Shamir1 06:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused the population figure because the source you had originally added (from the Jerusalem Post) to support the 7.2 million figure had stated "Overall, the country's population rose 1.8% from the previous year to 7,116,600." Clearly, that's not actually 7.2 million. The CBS report would be better, if that can be located. As for the length, your version is noticeably shorter. The King David piece is problematic because you are omitting the hundreds and hundreds of years when Jerusalem was not the capital of any state. Regardless, as I have said earlier, I see no reason to rock the boat and get rid of the introduction that no one but you appears to object to. -- tariqabjotu 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A rise of 1.8% from 7,116,600 would result in a population of 7,244,699 => 7.2 million. Also, see [1], for population at the end of July. okedem 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, but that's not what it says. It says a rise to 7,116,600. But no matter; if the CBS stats say 7.2 million, that's good enough for me. I'll assume The Jerusalem Post just made a mistake. -- tariqabjotu 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, sorry... okedem 06:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil and take what I say into consideration. There are some intros shorter than my edit and some longer, that has nothing to do with it. I am asking you to cooperate. A mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict is sufficient, as this is not the Arab-Israeli conflict article. Why go into that when nothing is said about Zionism or immigration? Another very problematic phrase is "original configuration". Which original? and configured by who? Also, what Israel is now seeking diplomatically or politically does not particularly belong in the introduction for the country. These are great subjects, and many of them are already explained in this article. Again, please be open and take this into consideration. Thank you. --Shamir1 05:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you were asking to be civil and what prompted you to suggest somebody wasn't. Regardless... yes, we should take what you say into consideration, but you must also take what others say into consideration. Judging by the fact that others are responding to this section, I'm quite certain you and I are not the only ones aware of what is going on here. However, none of the regular editors have stepped forward (not saying they still can't; it just has not happened yet) to say they like your version better than this one or otherwise withdraw their support of the current intro. I'm not going to bother to dissect your introduction anymore than I already have until there is at least some evidence that consensus on the current intro has changed (and that's going to be tough; the FAC crowd has not taken great issue with the intro so far). A small problem with phrasing (as in the "original configuration" part) does not warrant an overhaul of the intro. -- tariqabjotu 05:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1 is right about the phrase "original configuration." It should say "beyond the borders outlined in the UN Partition Plan." --Gilabrand 05:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with changing it (back?) to "in the UN Partition Plan". -- tariqabjotu 05:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The "no-one-else-agrees-with-you" claim is not a helpful approach. The history that is selected for the intro is not what typically appears on the intro for articles. Peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan? That has to do with Israel's relationship with the Arab League and the Arab-Israeli conflict. That is not something that introduces a country. Furthermore, when going into such detail, there is no mention of such matters as Zionism, immigration, or Israel's closest political ally and backer, the United States. This should be focused on introducing Israel. The edit written above more closely resembles that, and has taken much of what others have said into consideration. Tariq, if I added a good bit about Israel's population, I took what was said into consideration. Thank you. --Shamir1 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The "no-one-else-agrees-with-you" claim is not a helpful approach. Oh really? I thought Wikipedia worked by consensus. No one in the FAC has objected to the content of the current intro and the current intro is the result of (as mentioned earlier) multiple discussions. That you are the lone dissenter so far ought to mean something. You may want to look back at those other discussions for a bit of insight as to why the intro might be how it is now. If you look back at those discussions, you will see why, for instance, the part about the expansion of the borders is mentioned. Changes to parts of the article are, of course, permitted, but what you are proposing are major changes to a part of the article that has been discussed quite a bit. Additionally, I see a couple issues. First, Israel is not the only developed country in the Middle East. Turkey is considered a developed country, according to your source. Also, "cosmopolitan" is an unnecessary descriptor, almost a weasel word. Third, as I mentioned earlier, the mention of King David in the context presented is problematic. It sounds like you are presenting an argument for why Jerusalem should be the legitimate capital of Israel. That's not a dishonorable opinion, but it's not one that should be implied in the article. Fourth, the piece "met with an invasion by the armies of its Arab neighbors within hours" makes the Arab-Israeli War sound like a short battle. Lastly, Cyprus is sometimes considered part of the Middle East, so saying Israel is the only liberal democracy might be a problem. But, ultimately, your version has no support as of now whereas the current intro has been the result of several discussions and survived FAC so far. Would you be content with just removing the last sentence of the current second paragraph? Perhaps that might alleviate some of your concern about too much emphasis on the Arab-Israeli conflict. -- tariqabjotu 22:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I mentioned it was a claim of yours, meaning it was not necessarily true, and its not. I have read these discussions, and Tariq, have been involved with this article for a long time. No, not consecutively, but I have been familiar with this article for a very long time. As for "cosmopolitan" (these are really trivial and do not deserve such an all-out refusal), that is absolutely not a weasel word (please!). The reason for that word is because, after saying that Jerusalem is the largest city, that I say that the majority of the population is within the metropolitan area of the most cosmopolitan city in the country. (My word choice was actually influenced by a recent CNN special: "Barnea lives in a suburb of Tel Aviv, Israel's most cosmopolitan city." [2] (1:25) [I doubt Christiane Amanpour was using weasel words.]) If it needs to be out I am not particularly attached to the word, but I spent time and some simple research in making that sentence actually encyclopedic and saying something that is not just already said in such areas as the infobox. As for the Cyprus ordeal, the considerer (Freedom House) who has considered and called Israel the only liberal democracy in the Middle East (who is not alone in this statement) does not consider Cyprus to be in the Middle East. HOWEVER, I took this into consideration, and if you did not notice, had added a footnote saying: "When considering Cyprus to be Middle Eastern, Israel is one of two liberal democracies in the region." That is a fair citation.

I have read those discussions and Tariq, I have participated in past discussions for a long time. Still, many of my questions remain unanswered. Perhaps you would like to cooperate and again, take some ideas into consideration instead of a closed-door approach. Certain discussions and an FAC does not rule out my points, which I believe are valid ones. The beyond original configuration sentence (including the way it is now), was not the most notable result of the end of the 1948 War. It can be argued that that introduces the country as at least somewhat expansionist. With that, there is no actual mention of Israel's withdrawal from Sinai, Gaza, or parts of the West Bank. Should it? It goes hand in hand with the information included right now in the intro. It is not what is needed in the introduction. Please re-read my points and actually think about them. Thank you. ---Shamir1 01:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The aim of CNN is not to write an encyclopedia, but (in part) to produce compelling programs (hence the numerous commentators with obvious point-of-views on cable news networks). In fact, CNN's God's Warriors mini-series most clearly demonstrates that, judging by their repeatedly terming certain people as "one of God's Jewish/Muslim/Christian warriors" -- not quite encyclopedic there. Um... so yes, I believe Amanpour could have been using weasel words (as most of us do in real life) because it's much easier to use them.

As I have said over and over, the current introduction has been stable and largely the result of several discussions that I have pointed out. I'm not sure how you can say you have participated in discussion here when your last talk page edits prior to those this month came in March -- a lot has changed since then. There is no reason for me to "re-read [your] points"; I have looked at them already and even responded to some of them. Disagreeing with you is not a "closed-door approach" or an unwillingness for me to "cooperate". You are right now the only objector to this introduction, due merely to your opinion about what should and should not be included; your opinion should not trump the consensus that appeared to arise for this introduction. You, however, appear to think it does, judging by your sentiment that "certain discussions and an FAC does not rule out my points". And you want me to cooperate? -- tariqabjotu 07:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are giving the impression that the discussion is over. This is Wikipedia, and the intro can still be discussed. Can you please stop shooting down anything that is suggested. You did not even consider the original configuration ordeal until another user backed it. Yes, I want you to cooperate. What are you saying? Just because of an FAC, it does not make my points invalid. Yes, Tariqabjotu, cooperate. Again, please take things into consideration. No, cosmopolitan is not a weasel word, and no, I really dont care if its included or not. That does not signal an all-out refusal of the whole edit, and no, hardly any of my points have been addressed. If you want to discuss them, you ought to.

The mention of King David was actually chosen after viewing other countries that have ancient pasts. King David is the most important political figure, and the tying of him to Jerusalem was just a sort of answer to "why" Jerusalem had been designated as the capital of the modern state. Thats it. The selected history that is included is just as notable (actually, in many cases, less notable) than such matters as Zionism or immigration. The most important result of the 1948 War was certainly not Israel's expanded borders, yet that is the only one mentioned. And, even after introducing the country in a way that could give an expansionist impression, there is no mention of Israel withdrawing from the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, or parts of the West Bank. Peace treaties with certain countries, and nothing about the traditional hostility by the Arab League. Nothing about Israel being the most powerful country's closest ally in the Middle East. Nothing about their relationship. Should these issues be mentioned? They go along with the issues that have been currently selected. However, few of them are needed to be in the introduction of a country article. --Shamir1 20:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My part in the discussion, pending any agreement to your version, is over. My opinion is that I believe the current intro is fine, and you repeatedly claiming I'm not cooperating is not going to do anything to change that. Your idea of "cooperation" appears to be "agreeing with you". I'm sorry, I don't and no one else has so far. Maybe some small changes could be useful (one of which I proposed), but an overhaul, in my opinion, is unnecessary. If you still don't understand why the part about the expansion of Israel's borders is mentioned, perhaps you should, as I already recommended, look at some of the previous discussions regarding the intro (such as #Misleading Introduction). Perhaps opening a new section at the bottom of this page will re-ignite discussion, but to change the stable version of the intro, you're going to need to get a bit more support than your current army of one. -- tariqabjotu 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just to add the first parahraph does not currently make sense. It mentions Muslims and Christians but does not mention Jews: ". With a population of about 7.2 million,[2] It is also home to Muslims, Christians and Druze, mostly of local Arab background, as well as other religious and ethnic minority groups. Jerusalem is the nation's capital, seat of government, and largest city." The word 'also' does not make sense (it can not 'also' be home to when we haven't already mentioned it previously) perhaps a recent edit has removed a sentence but now left it in this incorrect state? 83.67.143.225 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Telaviv1 14:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, actually you have not addressed the points above (cooperation for a start). Unless you do, I can only asssume that the edit above is fine. I am not going to have the introduction of Israel (country) mixed up with the introduction of the Arab-Israeli conflict or the peace process. Dozens and dozens of countries have greatly changed their borders, and yet this is almost the only country that mentions it and as the only result of a war. (And yes, I have read the discussions, and saw its share of "armies of one".)

Now, I have used a good edit whose details do not go into anything too far that could be seen as problematic. If you feel something should be added, please bring it here or in a new section to discuss.--Shamir1 03:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PS - The population bit was modeled after Egypt and Australia. --Shamir1 04:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bottom-post on this talk page if you have to, but you're going to need more support. How many times do I need to say this? Cooperation is a two-way street; you can't just expect me to bow down to your version, when you have no respected the fact that the intro has been discussed many times before with the current version resulting as a generally-accepted version.

"Unless you do, I can only asssume that the edit above is fine." Oh give it up, Shamir; I can't believe you are actually believing that. I said, and I quote, "Your idea of "cooperation" appears to be "agreeing with you". I'm sorry, I don't and no one else has so far." What part of that do you not understand? You're only assuming that my statements are implying that I agree with you (even though they are explicitly stating the contrary) because you have failed miserably at getting a single person to OK as much as a word of your rewrite.

"Not "my" version, but a version that does not included topics still debated in talk" Where do you get this nonsense? If you wanted to do that, the very least you could have done was avoid putting in a paragraph that amounts to pro-Israeli propaganda. I count no fewer than commendations of Israel in ten metrics, with (1) its broad array of political rights, (2) its broad array of civil liberties, (3) it being the only liberal democracy in the Middle East (which, again, is problematic due to Cyprus), (4) it being industrially-advanced, (5) it being technologically-advanced, (6) it being a developed county, (7) it being the most advanced in economic competition, (8) it being the most advanced in freedom of the press, (9) it being the most advanced in quality of life, and (10) it being the most progressive in human development. -- tariqabjotu 05:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, if you didnt notice, its really only been you and I talking here (1 agreer, 1 disagreer ["failing miserably"...great...]). But that is irrelevant, as polls or the such do not create consensus. One user can have a perfectly valid point. It shouldnt take an onlooker (as above) to make you acknowledge any one of them after a complete refusal. But enough of a general Wikipedia lesson. Lets get to it.

The international rankings has somewhat evolved from a while ago, in regards to showing how Israel's socio-cultural and political setting makes it something of Western enclave in the Middle East, as Israel seems to be consistently ranked and grouped among Western countries in such matters. It can still be edited (without the over-exaggeration and misrepresentation above). That is not propaganda. Get serious. Iceland, Finland, Canada, Norway, and Sweden make similar notes (last 4 also have sections). Perhaps, at least for now, a removal of the industrialized/developed sentence? --Shamir1 05:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The commendations are still excessive and no attempt was made to avoid the serious problem with "met with an invasion by the armies of its Arab neighbors within hours". -- tariqabjotu 06:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How are they excessive in comparison to the five country articles given as examples? They are not. No, no attempt was made about that sentence because a) you did not note any "serious problem", and b) the sentence is strongly supported with sources, including the introduction to the film Israel: Birth of a Nation by The History Channel, as well as the CIA World Factbook and others. --Shamir1 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This intro should introduce the country and be general. Repetition is not needed. To repeat: The population bit that I have edited was modeled after the articles Egypt and Australia, both of which state where the bulk of the country's population is located rather than start listing ethnic and religious groups--something reserved for in the Demographics section. The international rankings and such is quite similar to that written for Iceland, Finland, Canada, Norway, and Sweden (the latter 4 also have sections). This edit more closely resembles an encyclopedic intro to a country. If you feel something else should be added, please share to discuss further.

Israel (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָאֵל, Yisra'el), officially the State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל^ⓘ, Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةْ إِسْرَائِيل, Dawlat Isrā'īl), is a country in Southwest Asia located on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It has borders with Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, and Egypt on the southwest, and contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area. Also adjacent are the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are partially governed by the Palestinian National Authority. Israel is the world's only Jewish state.

The State of Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, which was met with an invasion by the armies of its Arab neighbors within hours--the first war of a conflict that persists to this day. The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel, a concept central to Judaism for over three thousand years. Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government, and largest city. The Israeli population is about 7.2 million, and is most concentrated in the metropolitan area of the coastal city of Tel Aviv.

Having a broad array of political rights and civil liberties, Israel is considered the only country in the Middle East that is a liberal democracy. Israel has also been ranked as the most advanced in the region in such parameters as economic competitiveness, freedom of the press, and quality of life, as well as most progressive in terms of human development.

I like the current intro; it gives more information about the country's history. I don't believe this amount of history is excessive, although I'll still be okay with the suggestion from the end of my comment on 22:47, 19 September 2007. You have no support for your drastic change to the introduction. -- tariqabjotu 06:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the current intro too. I appreciate your desire to make a contribution. I suggest putting more effort into subsidiary, linked pages where there is still a lot of work to do as changes to this page upset the delicate balance of opinions that have led to its creation. Telaviv1 08:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like history too, but it should be focused on Israel, not on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Im not talking about excessive talk about history, but the selection of history. I actually tried to add a tiny bit of history on Jerusalem as capital. Certain details of history are noted, while others, that are just as notable or more notable are not. That is what is problematic. Most countries with ancient pasts go somewhat into that detail in the article intro, yet this one doesnt. And the only result of the 1948 War is expanded borders, which is undisputedly not the most notable result of the war. We should try concentrating on introducing Israel, with its history, not the Arab-Israeli conflict or the peace process. --Shamir1 22:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Also I have yet to see another country that goes into detail about demographics. The population is okay, but to start listing ethnic and religious groups is not exactly suited for the intro. The country articles I noted, Egypt and Australia, list the population followed by where the majority of it is located. --Shamir1 22:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Why the attachment to the phase "only liberal democracy in the Middle East" it seems easier just to say "Israel is considered a liberal democracy" rather than adding footnotes for exceptions. Secondly the claim seems to be giving undue weight to Freedom House as a geographic source. Though Freedom House is an excellent source for political freedom and rights its primary function is not as a geographic atlas unlike the CIA world Factbook, which classifies Cyprus as part of the Middle East. While more purely geographic sources do disagree with regard to the placement of Cyprus I do not believe freedom house's classifications should be the be all and end all for geographic matters which is what is suggested in footnote #10.

As a result I would suggest changing “Israel is considered to be the only liberal democracy in the Middle East” to "Israel is considered to be a liberal democracy."

“Israel is considered to be the only liberal democracy in the Middle East” seems to be the result of cherry picking geographic sources in what is defined “as part of the Middle East" and the footnote appears to merely be a justification or reasoning for such cherry picking.

The beauty of "Israel is a considered to be a liberal democracy" is its lack of dispute, while still conveying the same message. As a result it is a far more neutral description of Israel’s political status.Bored college student 22:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be less disputed, but it is also a far weaker statement, with less impact. The notion that Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East implies a lack of democracy in the other (Arab/Muslim) countries in the region, along with other negative connotations which are appropriate to their political establishments. It also implies a stronger similarity and sympathy to the US and Europe. To say simply that Israel is a liberal democracy may be accurate, but it is also sterile and lacks any force. LordAmeth 08:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how strong the superlative is if it's not correct. As Bored said, Freedom House is fine for describing political freedom, but not so great for determining what is or is not in the Middle East. As already said, the CIA Factbook considers Cyprus part of the Middle East. For what it's worth, Britannica also notes this. -- tariqabjotu 17:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If we can't agree upon the notion of Israel being the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, why don't we write something like "Israel is considered a liberal democracy, unlike most of its neighbors" or "unlike most of the countries in the Arab world" or "unlike most countries in the Middle East" or something like this? I don't know anything about Freedom House, and I have no interest in arguing over these kinds of pointless semantics - what is and is not part of the Middle East according to which source and how reliable the sources are. The point here is not to ostracize Turkey or Cyprus or other countries that may or may not fall under the rubric of "liberal democracy", but to help point out that Israel is something of a bastion of freedom surrounded by such nations as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, UAE, Saudi Arabi, Dijibouti, Yemen, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, which are *not* democratic societies, and which are not based on the same notions of freedom, liberty, and equality as most Western countries (incl. Israel). LordAmeth 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedom House (the 'considerer') has called Israel the only free country (equivalent of a liberal democracy) in the Middle East, and does not group Cyprus in the Middle East. Now, it is absolutely true that Cyprus is sometimes included in the Middle, that is why I added the footnote, which should be fine. --Shamir1 23:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some other topics to discuss.

• The sentence "With a population of about 7.2 million,[2] the majority of whom are Jews, Israel is the world's only Jewish state.[6]" infers that its Jewish majority is what makes it a Jewish state. It may be a better idea to just keep it at "Israel is the world's only Jewish state."
• As for population, most country articles that state a number follow it with where the bulk of the population is located in the country; in this case, Gush Dan. (See Australia, Egypt, Ireland)

Thank you. --Shamir1 23:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ameth it may be duller but it is more accurate and lacks misleading embellishments. Furthermore it is not Wikipedia's job to promote a political agenda but let the facts speak for themselves. The purpose of the Israel page is to provide factual, accurate, and neutral information about the politics, culture, history and people of Israel not to promote "negative connotations" about its neighbors or a social commentary on the Arab/Muslim world. This is done well enough in the political sections of articles on places like Egypt and Syria for example. As for linking Israel to the Europe and The United States that is done well enough in the article and does not need the aid of political innuendo. Second it does ostracize Cyprus (perhaps in the eyes of a casual reader) as it did for me when I suggested the change in the first place about a month ago. Finally perhaps a mention of only liberal democracy in the Middle East according to freedom house is appropriate for a footnote, but Freedom House's geographic classifications are not absolutes nor is Freedom House’s primary focus on such classifications.

As for the current footnote it gives undue weight to freedom house as a geographic source and to place Freedom Houses geographic classifications in the article and relegate the far more geographic oriented CIA World Factbook and encyclopedia Britannica to a footnote (which does not even mention them specifically) in the back of the article seems illogical if not blatantly bias in regards to source cherry picking.Bored college student 04:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You are seriously taking this way too far. Almost all countries in a sense boast themselves in the final paragraph in the intro with FACTUAL, ACCURATE, and NEUTRAL information. Many of them do it with international rankings, like the five others I pointed out above. There is no political inuendo.

Take a look at the articles of European countries. Countlessly, you will find sentences such as "the poorest in the EU", "the best ... in the EU", "the wealthiest in the EU", "the smallest in the EU", "the largest in the EU", "the lowest crime rate in the EU"... Those are not intended to be "negative connotations" about its neighbors or anything close. --Shamir1 05:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

First "negative connotations" was a quote from Amenth on 08:41, 27 September 2007, Secondly its questionable whether only liberal democracy in the Middle East is acutually accurate, geographic sources disagree on Cyprus' classification. I'm just requesting that we return to the previous wording about liberal democracy. If I am the only one on this, which I do not think I am, I will step aside and allow the current classification to stay as is. However, I believe the current version gives freedom house undue weight with matters concering geography. As for taking it to far I have not made any edits and have far fewer comments about this then Shamir1 and am simply responding to what seemed to be an undesireable edit from previous discussions in this section.Bored college student 05:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, and am against the "only" bit. Ameth's suggestion might work ("unlike most of its neighbors"). okedem 07:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks unlike most is abosoutly correct and a great compromise in my oppinion.Bored college student 17:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the source cannot be compromised, and is clear. The sentence is also written very clearly, with what and who is considered. It is important to note that Cyprus is only sometimes considered to be in the Middle East. With only that, it does not make anything like "most of its neighbors" or any of that sort. It is grouped out of the Middle East, and in this case, I have added a footnote, which is a fair compromise and accurately reflects the research. --Shamir1 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oy gevalt. We've finally managed to reach a compromise, and you're going to oppose that simply in order to support a statement based on a source which, it is obvious, many people feel is not fully reliable or relevant. Why can't we eliminate the Freedom House source entirely (and all the controversy and difficulty it has brought), along with the references to Cyprus (and all the pointless semantic difficulties that has brought), and simply agree to a compromise? A sentence which we all agree upon is certainly better than one based upon a source which needs extra explanation and conditions in order to be relevant. LordAmeth 03:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The footnote was a compromise. It considers the idea that Cyprus is in the Middle East. That idea is not considered by the research, and would change what it says explicitly. Cyprus is sometimes, not always considered in the Middle East. So the extra citation covers it all. The source is fully reliable and relevant and the study is widely used, including on several Wikipedia pages, that is not an issue. Also, the sentence does not say: "Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East"; rather, it says "Israel is considered to be the only liberal democracy in the Middle East," which, per the source (and many others), it has been. --Shamir1 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed the memo saying your opinion trumps that of four people who accept the current wording. The reason for the change has already been explained here. We are not compelled to use the exact wording of a source (which, by the way, is not direct about proclaiming Israel as the only liberal democracy in the Middle East). The new sentence does not contradict the source at all. -- tariqabjotu 00:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Tariq on this. The source does not explicitly say that Israel is the only liberal democracy in the region. Indeed, it doesn't even use the phrase "liberal democracy" at all. So we are not going against specific quoted language, nor are we misrepresenting the source. LordAmeth 01:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedom House specifically states, on another page, that all the countries rated "Free" can be called "Electoral Democracy" or "Liberal Democracy".

But anyway, I'm with the current wording, and against the "only" bit. okedem 09:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Okedem, every liberal democracy is an electoral democracy, but not every electoral democracy is a liberal one. This was clarified long ago.

Tariq, perhaps you missed the memo about misrepresenting sources. Saying, "Unlike most other countries in the Middle East..." infers that the source says that there are others. That is not what it says. It says, explicitly, as do others, that Israel is the only one. It, as do others, does not group Cyprus as a Middle Eastern country. Granted, it sometimes is, but none of us can change the source. So we can write what it is considered to be, per the source. For that, there is a footnote, which takes the source, and all else, into consideration. The source cannot be compromised. --Shamir1 21:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is just stubbornness. I don't know how much clearer I can tell you this: no one agrees with you. I do not understand why you keep thinking you are entitled to make changes several people explicitly disagree with and then ask that everyone else state their case. No; that's not how it works. This version has been explicitly accepted, and the onus is on you to explain why something needs to be changed. The source has not been compromised here at all; even if it were true without an ounce of doubt that Israel had the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, there would be nothing incorrect about saying "unlike most countries, Israel is a liberal democracy". Yes; that's true. Israel is a Middle Eastern country too, so only most Middle Eastern countries are not liberal democracies. The beauty of the phrasing, however, is that the phrasing leaves open the possibility of another country that sometimes is considered part of the Middle East (e.g. Cyprus) to be including in the set of countries in the Middle East that are liberal democracies. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was the intro changed again? I thought we were 4-1 against changing it.Bored college student 00:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, isn't it obvious? Why do you think we're still having this discussion – which has repeatedly been about asking why Shamir keeps making changes no one agrees with – three weeks after it first started? -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Its just been changed, Tariq, that is stubbornness. I am matching the exact same idea of the research. Not only that, but saying that Freedom House says it. Not the CIA, which has nothing to do with the results of the survey. Do not change the idea of the survey. I have just matched it verbatim. --Shamir1 04:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should accept the opinions of the source. I mean seriously, it is written per a source. It is saying that it is Freedom House's satatemet. It says what Freedom House says explicity and that Freedom House is responsible for saying it, with a source. You cannot change the content of the source and you cannot change the rules of Wikipedia. --Shamir1 04:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This sentence says everything the source used says, ands credits Freedom House for the statement as their findings. In accordance with the rules of Wikipedia, the sentence is suitable.

Freedom House's international research on the degree of political rights and civil liberties in the nations of the world found Israel to be the only one of eighteen Middle Eastern countries to qualify as a democracy--electoral and liberal.

In accordance with the rules of Wikipedia... I'm dying to hear which policies you misinterpreted to support the idea that your opinion trumps all others opposing it. -- tariqabjotu 04:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For starters, what makes yours trump mine when I just edited the sentence once again? That is not an argument to remove a perfectly valid point and to misrepresent the findings of a source. What rule says you can write something and source it with research that says something different.

As for rules, check out: WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The sentence above provides a reliable source (and some further clarifying information) for a quotation. --Shamir1 05:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And from WP:Citing sources: "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research." --Shamir1 05:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The source is actually quite clear about what it thinks about Israel: it believes that Israel, unlike most Middle Eastern countries, is a liberal democracy. -- tariqabjotu 05:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? Please show me how "In the 18 Middle Eastern countries, only one, Israel, ranks as Free (Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region). (Freedom House)" would be "quite clear" in saying "that Israel, unlike most Middle Eastern countries, is a liberal democracy. (User: Tariqabjotu)"? Hmmm... well excuse me for thinking that it meant Freedom House found Israel to be the only one of eighteen Middle Eastern countries to qualify as a democracy--electoral and liberal. --Shamir1 05:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh... yes... sure. The source says "In the 18 Middle Eastern countries, only one, Israel, ranks as Free (Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region)." So, indeed it says "Israel, unlike most Middle Eastern countries, is a liberal democracy". Obviously, it's not a direct quote (much like yours, which you for some odd reason think is "verbatim"), but that is supported by the source. I explained this earlier, at 02:29 (UTC). -- tariqabjotu 05:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh no. "Most" does not mean "most or all." The "beauty" of that phrasing does not leave that idea open at all. Frankly, it does not need to. It does not reflect the content of the source. Read over: "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research." That is the rule. Fair and square. --Shamir1 05:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course "most" does not mean "most or all"; it means "most". Israel is a Middle Eastern country that is a liberal democracy, so it certainly would not be correct to say all Middle Eastern countries are not liberal democracies. We have found a specific group (Freedom House) that holds an opinion, and it is expressed here. -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that all Middle Eastern countries are not liberal democracies? That idea could be gathered indirectly from the research, but I dont seen that written anywhere by myself or the source or anything. Tariqabjotu, we do indeed have a specific group that holds this opinion: "In the 18 Middle Eastern countries, only one, Israel, ranks as Free (Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region)." That opinion. This is their opinion. "Freedom House ... found Israel to be the only one of eighteen Middle Eastern countries to qualify as a democracy--electoral and liberal" (plus citation of publication) means exactly that. --Shamir1 05:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Um... did you seriously not even remember that you said "Uh no. "Most" does not mean "most or all.""? Geez... -- tariqabjotu 05:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you anymore. You are obviously convinced you're right and there's nothing anyone can do about it. That four people disagree with you saying Israel is the only liberal democracy appears to be of no importance to you. Fine. I'm not going to waste anymore time on you. -- tariqabjotu 05:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I really do not know what that is supposed to mean and don't see how it matters in the context of WP:Citing sources. There is no question that the sentence above complies with such rules by writing about an opinion held on a particular issue, citing it to a specific group who holds that opinion, and giving a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. So lets just stick to the rules. --Shamir1 05:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my Godess, you need to stop changing the intro.Bored college student 04:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... trying working by the rules. Tariqabjotu, until you explain to a mediator how WP:REF somehow does not apply to this, the sentence that correctly reflects the words of the research will be put back in. --Shamir1 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Etymology & History

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the word 'Jew' only refers to descendants of Judah; notably, not to the ancient Kingdom of Israel, especially after the reign of Solomon. Thus in the etymology and history sections, some references to 'Jews' have been changed to 'Israelites'. --NZUlysses 13:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Next time please start new section at the bottom of the page. As far as I know, 'Israelite' refers to religious Jewish people, but those sections also talk about secular Jews. Squash Racket 14:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All Jews are "Children of Israel" according to the Jewish religion. The Israelites were driven into exile by the Assyrians and are of uncertain fate (there are many who calim descendancy). The use of Israel was partially intended to make the distinction from ancient Judea, whose land is mostly occupied (if I may use the word) by Arabs. Modern Israel is largely in the territory of (ancient) Israel (though it includes areas from Judea, Philistea and other areas. When they chose the name they didn't know what the final boundaries were going to be. Maybe this is worth some more research as its an intersting point. As far as I know if you're a Jew you're a Jew. Isrealite is not used to refer only to orthodox jews, certainly not by Jews. In Jewish religious texts the word "Israel" is often used to refer to the poeple while the word "Jews" is never used. Telaviv1 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments for FAC

"autonomy to Palestinians"?

In the section "The first fifty years, 1950s-1990s", third paragraph, it says:

"...signed the Camp David Accords and the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula and gave autonomy to Palestinians across the Green Line." - I've never heard of this, nor do I understand what it means. The first time the Palestinians were given autonomy, to my (incomplete) knowledge was with the 1993 Oslo Accords. Clarifications? okedem 10:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I found out that such a plan was proposed, but never implemented, due to reluctance on all sides, particularly the Palestinians themselves (see here, for example). Also see last clause of Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. okedem 17:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the line " due to apparent lack of interest on all sides" to save space and because the word apparent implies some doubt. I figure people who want to know the why and wherefore can follow the links.Telaviv1 10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The links aren't very useful, I'm afraid. They don't really give more details. I had trouble finding anything out about that part of the agreement. okedem 10:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Foreign relations

It says: "Egypt, Jordan, and Mauritania are currently the only members of the Arab League to have normalized relations with Israel, having signed peace treaties in 1979, 1994, and 1999, respectively."

Mauritania did not sign a peace treaty with Israel, since it was never at war with Israel. They only refrained from diplomatic relations with it till 1994, and opted for full diplomatic relations in 1999 (Two other Arab League members, Tunisia and Morocco, had diplomatic relations with Israel, but broke most of them off in 2000, when the second intifada broke out). okedem 14:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the change. -- tariqabjotu 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Enemy countries

The section on foreign relations names Lebanon, Saudi and others as "enemy countries", citing ref 112. This reference does indeed say that Israelis can't visit "enemy countries", but doesn't list them as could be inferred by the use of the reference. I have no resopn to doubt that the statement is factual, but it is not supported by reference given. anyone got a better one? Epeeist smudge 15:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sentence out of place

This new sentence does not appear to be related to any of the surrounding content. I'm unsure it should be included. -- tariqabjotu 16:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted change

The text:

Arab persecution of Jewish communities precipitated a similar [[Jewish exodus from Arab lands]].<ref name="persecution">{{harvnb|Dekmejian|1975|p=247}}. "And most [Oriental-Sephardic Jews] came... because of Arab persecution resulting from the very attempt to establish a Jewish state in Palestine."</ref>

was changed by Tegwarrior (talk · contribs) with this text:

These years were marked by mass immigration of Holocaust survivors and [[Jewish exodus from Arab lands|Jews arriving from Arab lands]]; many claim that the latter were fleeing Arab persecution.<ref name="persecution">{{harvnb|Dekmejian|1975|p=247}}. "And most [Oriental-Sephardic Jews] came... because of Arab persecution resulting from the very attempt to establish a Jewish state in Palestine."</ref>

With an obvious change of meaning, and not staying close to the source. Such changes, of text that has been stable for a while, are better discussed in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there were two parts to my change. The first was removing the original sentence from the "Independence" section, where I think it pretty clearly does not belong: the exodus of Yemeni Jews, which I think was the earliest major exodus from Arab lands, did not occur until May 1949, a year after Israel declared independence. See Operation "Magic Carpet" at the Jewish Virtual Library.[3]. The larger exodus from Iraq did not begin until 1951[4].

I erred in my first deletion of the sentence (reverted by someone else) in describing the placement of the original sentence after a comment about the Palestinian exodus as "propaganda," which, while accurately reflecting my opinion, is not entirely civil, and I apologize for the statement.

The second matter is that it is stated as fact that Arab persecution precipitated the exodus from Arab lands. This is by no means an accepted fact, and there are obviously other reasons that Arab Jews emigrated to Israel, among them the Arab Jews' own Zionist aspirations and strong encouragement from European Jews already in Israel. By some accounts, Iraqi persecution of Jews after the founding of Israel was mainly a response to the desires of Iraqi Jews to leave rather than a cause of it.

In any case, it is clearly only a statement of opinion, and so it should be made clear that that is what it is: we can prove that people have claimed that Arab persecution was the cause of the exodus, as indeed the cited text does. But there is no proof of the accuracy of such claims.

Barring any convincing response to my explanation here, I will restore my edit in a day or so.

Tegwarrior 00:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing many claim that the latter were fleeing Arab persecution sounds like weasel wording. I would suggest that you locate a decent source that opposes, or at least complements, the explanation that Jews left Arab lands because of persecution and replace the "many claim" bit with something more concrete. -- tariqabjotu 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can make it "According to USC professor of political science Hrair Dekmejian, ..." I think, however, that this wording would make it seem like he is the only one making the claim, which is not the case. I guess I really don't get why you think the use of "many" in this instance is a "weasel word;" I would think it would be more of a weasel word to use "many" if in fact the truth was that exactly six people have made the claim. I really don't see what the problem is with saying "many" and then giving, by footnote, one concrete example. Exactly what confusion do you think this creates that it sounds like a "weasel word" to you? Tegwarrior 01:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I missed part of your comment. On a quick search, I can offer Naeim Giladi, an author and an Iraqi Jew, who claims, "About 125,000 Jews left Iraq for Israel in the late 1940s and into 1952, most because they had been lied to and put into a panic by what I came to learn were Zionist bombs."[5] I don't think it is worth opening a whole can of worms about the matter in the article, though; I think it would be better to note the claim of Arab persecution as a cause of the exodus as just that: a claim, and not accepted fact. Anyone who wants to know more about it probably has access to google. Tegwarrior 02:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If that's the best source you can find that gives an alternative explanation for the Jewish exodus, I'm inclined to think the current wording in the article is perfectly fine. That Arab persecution is not the (or at least a) cause of the exodus is hard to believe without any source to suggest otherwise. It's no secret that relations between Arabs and Jews have not been at their best. -- tariqabjotu 07:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tariqabjotu. If you can't find a better source than Naeim Giladi, your case isn't very strong... okedem 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My case doesn't need to be strong, does it? I only need to show that someone who speaks from a position of some authority on the matter disputes the claim in order, legitimately, to insist that it be stated as a claim rather than as accepted fact, and I think Naeim Giladi, who after all was there qualifies as that. That okedem has some unstated personal objection to Naeim Giladi is not reason to dismiss him. Really, the case against Naeim Giladi hasn't even been made. If you want to disqualify him as someone who can reasonably be taken into account in considering the matter, please clearly state your reasons. That he has too many vowels in his first name is indeed distressing, but not a good reason to disqualify his statements.

Also, I note that no one has supported keeping the statement on the exodus from Arab lands in the "Independence" section. I'll move it this afternoon, barring the presentation of some reasonable stated reason, okedem, not too. Tegwarrior 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I can spare us all the anxiety of debating Naeim Giladi. Tom Segev, in an article for Ha'aretz[6], notes both that the British Embassy in Iraq in 1951 agreed with the official Iraqi government position that Zionist agents were behind a bombing there and that "This claim is also accepted by several Mizrahi scholars and activists." Segev disagrees with this assessment, but that is immaterial: what is material is that "several Mizrahi scholars" and the British Embassy saw matters other than Arab persecution as being central to the flight of the Iraqi Jews.

Anything else? Tegwarrior 11:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Giladi is not a scholar. He, in fact, doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, and his book is published using lies.

That's enough for me. Find qualified sources - that's scholars, notable historians, etc.

Jewish exodus from Arab lands has enough information on the subject to counter your claims. okedem 12:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Who says Giladi has to be a scholar? And on what basis do you claim that he doesn't seem to know what he is talking about, and on what basis do you make your potentially libelous statement about him publishing lies? Naeim Giladi is an Iraqi Jew; I'm guessing that he knows more about Jews in Iraq in 1951, among whom he numbered, than you do, okedem. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia prefer the opinion of an anonymous editor to someone who lived through the matter in question? Tegwarrior 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How can we assess his claims? He claims he was there, he claims that's what he saw. Great. Now, professional historians can assess claims and weigh the evidence - we can't, and shouldn't. He's not a credible source. His book is, at best, personal testimony, and not to be used here.

Lies? See Naeim Giladi#Cover Banner: "This book banned in Israel and United States". okedem 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"How can we assess his claims?" An excellent question, okedem, but perhaps one that you should have considered before you dismissed them as lies. Anyway, as I noted earlier, there is no need to debate Giladi: Tom Segev has clearly verified that the claim that Arab persecution caused the exodus has skeptics including scholars and the British Embassy. End of story. Tegwarrior 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not say his claims were lies, but that his claim of "the book was banned" is a bald faced lie. okedem 17:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that if an Iraqi Jew fled Iraq because he thought he would be imprisoned if he did not, that would not count as leaving Iraq because of Arab persecution, and it would be a bald faced lie to claim that it did? Tegwarrior 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He's marketing his book as "banned in Israel and USA". First of all, his claim that all books in Israel need to be approved by someone is a lie - simply not true (and I know this personally). If you write about issues of national security, you should be careful not to reveal state secrets (like Official Secrets Act). If you're not sure what's okay to publish and what isn't, you may submit your book/article to the military censor, and he'll decide. You can appeal his decision in the courts. No one has ever been persecuted for asking the censor if something's okay to publish - that's his job.

Second, even if it were true, as he says he never submitted it, it could not have been banned.

Third, it was certainly not banned in the US (which, like Israel, doesn't have any mechanism for banning books), and once you get past his initial claim, he's got nothing to back it up - it's just that no publisher wanted to publish his book. It's completely absurd, of course, as anyone can purchase his book in Israel and the US, via websites like Amazon.

Thus - using lies to advance sales of his book. Makes his other claims look real credible... okedem 19:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And why do you think that Tom Segev is a liar? Tegwarrior 20:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And why do you make such efforts to pretend I said something I did not? okedem 20:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Because unless you think Tom Segev is also a liar, your last few posts bad-mouthing Naeim Giladi are irrelevant to the discussion of this article. Tegwarrior 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have little appreciation for Segev, but that's not what you claimed I said. Try not to distort other people's comments. okedem 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Tom Segev is a liar? If not, then please try not to waste my time with moot points. Tegwarrior 21:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tegwarrior, see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What is undue about making it clear that an accusation of ethnic cleansing is disputed? And in particular, what is undue about making it clear that an accusation of ethnic cleansing is disputed even by people other than those accused? Tegwarrior 19:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The source, Tegwarrior, the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You think Tom Segev is a liar? Tegwarrior 21:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot claim to know who is a liar and who is not. As an editor of Wikipedia, that is outside my scope. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read Segev's article and see no reason not to quote from it, but please, attribute properly and do not cherry pick quotes or quote out of context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As I noted long ago, I don't think this article is the place to have a food fight over this issue. It would be my preference to state that some claim that Arab persecution precipitated the exodus, give the cite that is already there, and leave it. We could make it a "he said; she said" if anyone thinks that is appropriate, but I think this would give undue weight to the matter. It is unacceptable to me to state as fact that the Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab lands. There is some truth to this, I have little doubt, but I also have little doubt that there is more truth to the claim that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from a lot of Palestine, and that if anyone ever endeavored to state this as fact, he would be pilloried. Would you prefer "some claim" or "he said; she said?" My preference between the two is stylistic more than material, so I'll happily leave that choice to others. Tegwarrior 21:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I note at this point that this very article says, remarkably blandly, that "During the course of the hostilities, 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, fled from Israel." And this is essentially the extent of the comments on the Palestinian exodus in the article. Jossi, Tariqabjotu, and Okedem, what do you propose to change this to, in order that it preserves the same sort of information that you have been arguing for including in the statement of the Jewish exodus from Arab lands? And where have been your efforts on behalf of such consistency? Tegwarrior 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made changes to the wording on both exoduses (exodi?) to make them roughly parallel. They could both use more citations. Let me know if anyone has any objections, which I'm sure many of you will. Be aware, though, that at this point I will not be very impressed with complaints that seem to be ethnically selective, nor will I have much patience for them. Tegwarrior 23:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The exodus of Palestinians (if referred as such in reputable sources) can and should be described in detail as per sources provided. I see no problem whatspver with that. On the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agree. I'm not sure if the term "exodus" is used, but it certainly won't be hard to track down citations. Taking a step back, the article is painfully thin on references to the Palestinians. It is very much like something on the Old West of the US in the mid 19th century that makes barely any reference to the native Americans, in spite that they were all over the place and were the target or source of an awful lot of friction. Tegwarrior 23:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See Palestine, and British Mandate of Palestine ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In particular, read Palestine#The_question_of_late_Arab_immigration_to_Palestine ≈ jossi ≈

(talk) 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi. Your second link, on a quick glance, seems to be in pretty bad shape. There are a lot of British census results available pretty easily that are far more authoritative than anything quoted there. I'll try to add them later. Tegwarrior 05:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tegwarrior, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop implying that everyone but you is pro-Israeli or anti-Palestinian. I'm sure all of us here are trying to do our best to create a neutral, factual, and well-presented article, so for you to hint at ulterior motives with statements like "And where have been your efforts on behalf of such consistency?" or "Be aware, though, that at this point I will not be very impressed with complaints that seem to be ethnically selective, nor will I have much patience for them" is highly inappropriate.

As for one of your other statements, I'd like to point out you were the first person to include the concept of "ethnic cleansing" in this article (and in regard to the plight of Palestinians, not Jews from Arab lands). The phrase "ethnic cleansing" is very loaded and by no means synonymous with "persecution" (which was what was used to described what happened to Jews in Arab lands). -- tariqabjotu 00:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The facts are pretty clear, Tariqabjotu. You and okedem have been falling all over yourselves to prevent me from making clear that "Arab persecution precipitated the Jewish exodus from Arab lands" is not an undisputed fact, while all along the article makes no reference at all to why the Palestinians fled. If you want to acknowledge that this inconsistency on your part was a mistake, and that you ought to have been more concerned about the lack of any mention at all of Palestinian flight reasons than about preventing questioning of the reason claimed for the Arab Jewish flight, then I can accept that you are not blinded by a pro-Israeli bias. Until then, I have no reason to believe that any of your actions here won't be affected by a pro-Israeli bias. I'm just telling you the truth. Also, the term "ethnic cleansing" is what the Palestinian exodus is broadly referred to as by a lot of historians. That's the fact of the matter. Do you really imagine that an article on Israel that does not mention the ethnic cleansing charges is in any way encyclopedic? Tegwarrior 05:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me also note that I am not unaware, Tariqabjotu, that you defended omitting any references to forced expulsion of the Palestinians in a section of this talk page above. The facts are pretty clear. Tegwarrior 05:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposition

Here's my suggestion:

Change "Arab persecution of Jewish communities precipitated a similar Jewish exodus from Arab lands." to "Several factors, including Arab persecution of Jewish communities, and Zionist aspirations precipitated a similar Jewish exodus from Arab lands."

We can also mention the Jews who were killed or expelled from Jewish towns by Palestinian Arabs/Arab armies, like Gush Etzion, Kfar Darom, Atarot, Neve Yaakov, Beit Haarava, Ein Zurim, and others, among them the Jews residing in the Jewish Quarter. But, as with the Palestinians, this isn't the place for that much detail. okedem 14:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

But you apparently think that the exodus of Jews from Arab lands "had everything to do with the 1948 War," which I can't see. Why do you think this? As I mentioned before, the earliest major migration began after the war was over. You seem to have bought in to the moral "settling of accounts" position that I mentioned before: that because similar numbers of Jews fled Arab lands, this somehow makes the Palestinian refugee situation more acceptable. Is that accurate? I don't think such a position holds water for a few fairly obvious reasons, which I can discuss with you if there is a need. Anyway, I think the statement belongs in the "First fifty years" section rather than the "Independence" section. But I do like your idea of noting multiple reasons for the exodus. Tegwarrior 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You ask if this is accurate or not, so I will refer you to WP:V, that reads: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. . In simple words, in Wikipedia we describe what significant sources say about a subject, and we avoid letting our opinions drive content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Borders vs. territory

Speaking of recent changes... let me take the opportunity to object to this edit. Need we hint at the illegitimacy of Israel's borders to this extent? I clearly understand that the 1967 modifications have been disputed, but the 1949 borders should be presented as just "borders" not "territory". Tegwarrior has pointed to this map as part of his evidence. I'm not sure how that fits as evidence. You can read the rest of the discussion on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

However, the 1949 "borders" are not borders; they are merely armistice lines. The 1949 Agreement, as the government of Israel prominently notes, is very clear on that. I hope that our bias is to be accurate rather than inaccurate, and "territory controlled" is accurate while "borders" is inaccurate. Is there some compelling reason, Tariqabjotu, that accuracy should be abandoned in this case? Maybe I'm more of a stickler for accuracy than you are, but I'd be happy to hear why you think the article should be inaccurate in the way you propose. Tegwarrior 19:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A border is the separation between two states, usually. It doesn't matter whether it's supposed to be the final border, whether both sides (or the UN) accept it, or any other point to that effect. It's physical reality. okedem 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"A border is the separation between two states, usually." Which two states did the 1949 Armistice lines separate?

"It's physical reality." I've seen many interstate and international borders, and with rare exception, they are not physical realities. There are generally no heavy black lines on the earth to designate borders. Sometimes there are fences or walls, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Surely you meant to write something else. Tegwarrior 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The armistice lines separated Israel from Jordan/Syria/Egypt/Lebanon. Even though the West Bank was not annexed to Jordan, but remained under military rule, it was still under Jordan's jurisdiction.

The physical reality is that you're crossing into another country, with another entity in charge. Also, mind you, in this region, a border is marked by fences, guard towers, and military patrols. These aren't the borders between Iowa and Nebraska ... okedem 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So it is your position that the West Bank was part of the state of Jordan, and thus that Jordan's western border was the Armistice line? What is your position? (Tariqabjotu, do you think the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory?) You also seem to confuse physical reality with political reality, and there was little in the way of fences, guard towers, and military patrols in 1949. Tegwarrior 21:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing the political boundary (applicability of law, international views etc.) with reality. Regardless of political status, the west bank was under Jordan's control, the Jordanian military being the sovereign. Similarly, today the Israeli military is the sovereign in the West Bank. okedem 01:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with using "territory" is that it has several connotations in a country standpoint. It can just mean "area" or "land", but the word "territory" is used almost entirely in the contexts noted at territory (country subdivision) – i.e. contexts that emphasize that an outside government is overseeing the land. You seem well aware of this, and even intended this, as demonstrated by the fact that you call the new territory "territory controlled". However, the new land was sovereign territory and appears to be generally accepted nowadays as such (with the 1967 land being the real issue). -- tariqabjotu 21:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Who says that the new land is sovereign territory? Not the law, according to at least one scholar[7]. And the 1949 Armistice Agreement seems to agree with this. What makes territory "sovereign," anyway? Can we say that the parts of the West Bank that are not on Israel's side of the Green Line are sovereign territory to someone? To whom, if this is the case?

Do you think that the connotation that you claim for "territory" in this instance is as strong as the connotation that I have noted for "border?" I do not. You seem to want to introduce an inaccuracy in order to avoid a fairly mild connotation of something that you think is inaccurate, but that you may not have thought very much about. Tegwarrior 21:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If we were to go on the link you said, the land designated in the UN Partition Plan would be the only part that could not be considered "territory". We'd then have to write much of the article in the context of this disputed land (much in the same way we say "Other landmarks of great religious importance are located in the West Bank..."). But that's simply not a pragmatic approach – as the author notes, he's writing "entirely on [his] understanding of international law" – when just about everyone is at least okay with giving Israel the pre-1967 land (beyond that is the matter of dispute). To state that even that much is too much is where the fringe opinions creep in (many of which amount to Israel does not have a right to exist at all). Even some of Israel's biggest opponents (say, for example, Saudi Arabia) accept at least the pre-1967 land. As for your connotation of "border"... I don't know what connotation for "border" you are talking about. No matter what the new land post-1949 was, the Green Line was still a border. -- tariqabjotu 01:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you overstate the matter. Tegwarrior 05:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Tariq is right regarding that sentence. Better to talk about borders of the state, than "territory controlled by the Jewish state". Sounds like this control is only temporary and the 'Jewish state' is not in Israel. Squash Racket 07:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

However, in the sentence in question, it is discussing armistice lines set after the 1948 War. This was only temporary control, certainly until the UN brokered the peace by which they would be recognized as the boundaries between national control. It's very simple: when the Israeli military (or, conversely, the Jordanian military, if you like) crossed the boundaries for the territory that had been allocated to the Jewish state (Palestinian state), it was expanded the territory under its control. It was not expanding its internationally recognized borders; the UN, rather than recognizing the military advances, could have said, "everyone go back home, where home means what was allocated to you under the partition plan." (Yes, I know; the UN would never do anything that required that much spine, but they do have the authority to do it.) It was only when the UN recognized the armistice lines that it can be said that the internationally recognized borders of Israel/the Jewish State were expanded. Tegwarrior 14:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tegwarrior, you edit makes it look as if the Palestinian refugee issue has one clear cut reason. But that's not true.

If you want to talk about so-called massacres, you might want to tell the readers that Arabs performed a whole lot of them, instead of the false impression you give them now. You might also like to say that the attacks on villages were common from both sides during the guerrilla warfare that took place. That the Palestinians fought the Jews alongside the invading Arabs armies. That many of the villages were used as bases for attacks on Jewish villages.

But I suppose the truth would make your case seem a little weaker, a little less one-sided.

Pappe is a fringe historian, an raving anti-Zionist, and cannot be used as a source here. Stick to mainstream.

I've reverted your edits, and will do so again. It seems to me you're here to push an agenda concerning this issue, and I will not allow that. okedem 09:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet you insist on making it look as if the exodus of Arab Jews has one clear cut reason, which is not true. You are a hypocrite, okedem. Tegwarrior 14:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Had you tried to approach this issue without attacks, disputed edits and non-notable sources, you would not have had that impression (and my suggestion on this page is proof of that). okedem 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to push the agenda of what I consider to be accurate. It's clear that you have a different opinion about what is accurate, and that is fine and to be expected. I think, however, that it is demonstrably true that your version of accuracy is a lot easier to drive a Mack truck through than is my version of accuracy. And I think you should work on that. Tegwarrior 14:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You know nothing of my opinion, since the only thing you've done since you came here was to attack everyone, cite non-notable sources, and twist other people's words. We can actually discuss the issue, if you wish, but we can only do so if you decide to stop with the disputed edits to the (quite stable) article and the tags.

I actually don't think our positions are quite that far apart, but if you insist on quoting Giladi or Pappe to me, we can't have a serious discussion. okedem 14:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I know one thing about your opinion: that you have insisted on contradictory standards. I can't have a serious discussion with you as long as you persist in such things. Tegwarrior 15:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

How wonderfully enigmatic of you. okedem 15:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Regarding some of the comments above: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

• Discuss the article, not the subject;
• Discuss the edit, not the editor;
• Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
• If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

POV tag?

POV tags are not a weapon. If there are specific POV aspects, please provide rationale here.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And maybe cool it a bit, take a little break from the article and come back in a few days. It really helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many POV aspects, in my opinion. The most glaring at the moment is that almost nothing is said of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Tegwarrior 14:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not cross-post on my talk page. I have this page in my watchlist. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is thoroughly covered in a myriad separate articles that are linked from here. See Wikipedia:Content forking ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Stable version of the article

Please leave the original version of the article until concensus is reached, this edit war goes nowhere. And I'd like to ask everyone involved to keep discussion page formula. Squash Racket 15:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please restore the POV flag that I placed. Tegwarrior 15:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article is POV. I put that tag on really disputed articles, there are only disputed phrases here. This is a featured article candidate. Squash Racket 15:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What matters is that someone thinks that the article has POV issues to the point that they placed a flag, which I did. Note that I only placed the flag after attempting to make minor changes that I thought would address those issues, but having my changes repeatedly reverted; I did not whimsically add the flag. If it is left to me to restore the POV flag, I will restore my edits as well. Tegwarrior 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There's always someone who thinks an article has POV issues. If we'd place a tag every time that happens, many articles would be permanently tagged, regardless of its condition. An article about a controversial subject can never please everyone, and compromises have to be made, on both sides. There will always be some who think the article is POV, both on the "pro-Palestinian" and the "pro-Israeli" side.

Coming in all of a sudden, making serious changes without discussing them, and without even being aware of how long it took to reach the current phrasing - is just insulting. Just because your changes weren't immediately accepted, doesn't mean the article has POV issues. okedem 16:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks in advance to everyone for not removing my restored POV flag. It makes me much more willing to discuss issues if the fact that there are issues is not concealed. Tegwarrior 17:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are aspects that you feel are not POV, please present them to the specific sections using {{sectNPOV}} and present your arguments in talk. Adding a POV tag is making the whole article POV, when that is indeed not the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, that is indeed the case, Jossi.

POV issues: Intro is biased in that it makes almost no mention of Israeli-Palestinian dispute, which is clearly a very important matter in Israel's history. "Indepence" section is biased in that it includes a statement on a matter unrelated to Independence and largely from a separate time period, which statement is made in a way that historically has been used to suggest a moral "settling of accounts" between the Palestinian and Jewish Arab exoduses. Section is further biased in that it states as fact a single cause for the Jewish Arab exodus, which cause is broadly disputed. Section is further biased in that it declines parallelly to name any causes for the Palestinian exodus, in spite that (unlike the stated cause of the Jewish Arab exodus) these causes are very much part of the history of the country that is the subject of this article. "The first fifty years" section is biased in that it makes no mention of the ongoing issues of the Palestinian refugees, which matters shaped much of the relationship of Israel with the rest of the world and particularly with its neighbors. Section is further biased in that the first mention it makes directly of Palestinians is to note that they launched a "wave of attacks," implying, given the silence on the ongoing issues of the Palestinians, that these attacks came from out of the blue, rather than being responses to other matters, including Israeli resistance to efforts at justice for the Palestinian refugees. The "Districts of Israel" map is biased in that it has the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights shaded with the highest gamma colors on the entire map, giving the impression that these regions, which are broadly regarded as territories occupied by Israel rather than part of Israel itself, are legitimately included in the stated subject of the map. "Foreign relations" section is biased in that it makes no mention of the profound friction that Israel experiences with the rest of the world, including more UN condemnations, from both the Security Council and the General Assembly, than any other nation by a wide margin. The "Military" section is biased in that it downplays the reliance of the Israeli military on US weaponry. The "Economy" section is biased in that is does not mention the extent to which Israel has benefited from foreign assistance.

This is after a quick look. Can you see why I did not open up all of these issues to begin with? Can you appreciate how the profound recalcitrance of so many editors to address the few issues I tried to confront made me feel that a POV flag was necessary? Can you guess how it makes me feel to have you blatantly and repeatedly disregard my concerns about the bias of this article?

Tegwarrior 18:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

First, you need to stay cool, Tegwarrior. This is an article about Israel, and there are many articles that cover all the subjects you describe above. This is what is called a "Summary style" article, in which subjects are expanded in spinoff articles. Read the spinoff articles that are wikilinked and see if these are properly summarized here. I think they are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it. A POV tag is a strong measure. You shouldn't use it for issues you've only just raised, and haven't given anyone a chance to address.

As to your points:

• "Independence" - The Jewish "exodus" had everything to do with the 1948 War, and so there's justification for the sentence being there. Also, it should be next to the Palestinian refugee sentence, as they are two sides of a very similar issue - the nation state and relation between Jews and Arabs. Just as few Arabs remained in the Jewish state (~20%), few Jews remained in the Arab states (much less than 20%, obviously). Mind you, I've made a suggestion above, which you've yet to reply to.
• As the refugees don't live in Israel, I see no reason to write about them while discussing Israel's history, beyond the time they left/fled.
• "Israeli resistance to efforts at justice for the Palestinian refugees." is not an event, or action. In any case, for a reader wishing to know why the Palestinians launched attacks, "wave of attacks" links to Palestinian political violence, which has plenty of details.
• Map - quibbling about gamma values is absurd. In any case, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan are colored in a darker shade than Israel proper. There's no POV there. If we'd use a different color, someone would jump up and claim we're trying to hide the occupation, or some such complaint.
• Foreign Relations - right, the condemnations aren't mentioned, but if they would be, we'd have to explain how the UN completely mistreats Israel, how it so often finds the time to condemn it, while ignoring much more serious violators, how it lets dictatorships like Syria sit in its Human Rights committee, etc.
• Military - "...relies heavily on high-tech weapons systems designed and manufactured in Israel, although some are foreign imports, especially from the United States." - That's enough. I don't think you're aware of exactly how much IDF equipment is Israeli made, like all the tanks.
• Economy - "...Israel has received economic aid from the United States, whose loans account for the bulk of Israel's external debt." The reparations agreement with West Germany is already mentioned in "The first fifty years, 1950s–1990s", and those are (were, in the case of Germany) pretty much the only sources of economic assistance for Israel. Nowadays American economic assistance is nearly non-existent, though military aid is high. We can add a sentence about it in the military section. okedem 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd cool off a lot, Jossi, if you would stop ignoring the clear wording on the NPOV flag: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I clearly responded to you above that I saw many POV problems with the article, and I named one that spans the whole article. In spite of this, you summarily dismissed virtually all of my concerns. Also, I know that this is a summary article and that there are many other related articles. I just think that some of the things that are largely ignored in this summary article should not be ignored in the way that they are. Tegwarrior 19:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what you need to do, Tegwarrior: For each section in which you have placed a sectNPO tag, there is a full article. The section is only a summary of that article, so adding a SectNPOV is not appropriate. If you believe the article that is summarized in these sections is not NPOV, go and challenge that article. There is no point in labeling a section to be not NPOV, as it is only a summary of that article. Please remove the sectNPOV tags and place a POV tag in these articles, or alternatively, make sure that the summary is a good one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got a better idea: why don't you restore my POV flag for the whole article? Summaries, too, can be biased. Tegwarrior 19:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If the summaries are biased, fix them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what exactly do you think I have been trying to do here? Tegwarrior 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is one thing that you need to appreciate. The current version of this article represents the consensus of hundreds of editors that have contributed to it. In adition, this article is currently an FA candidate. So, you may want to take that into account and respect the consensus established, asking for clarification when needed and working with others to improve the article rather than asserting "all is wrong", which is clearly not the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Given my experience, I suspect that the current version of this article represents the consensus of a few editors who have driven off anyone else who tries to make changes. I have noted that many of the changes I have tried to make had been mentioned on the talk page by others before me, but somehow the article has failed to reflect their concerns. I note also that ultimately all that you and Tariq and okedem and Squash Racket have done here in response to the concerns I have raised is to continually undo all of my edits. You haven't even had the courtesy to respond to my request for settling a very simple point of apparent agreement that I raised below. Why is that? Tegwarrior 19:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited this article at all, Tegwarrior, besides the last round of issues related to your POV tags. I do not buy the argument that "editors have been driven off", as anyone can make changes to articles: this is a wiki. If your edits or the edits of others do not stick, that would be because there is a reason. It takes tremendous patience to change an established article, so do not you give up and do not get more frustrated. Make your arguments, read other's arguments, and take a really deep breath. I have been editing Wikipedia for more than three years now, and believe me when I say that there are no shortcuts to hard work, persistence, and patience when editing articles about which there are strong POVs at play.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the POV tags placed on the sections in question by Tegwarrior. Editors deleting those tags should make an effort to address the POV issues being raised. I would like to add my own concerns to those of Tegwarrior, part of which I have mentioned here before which were also not addressed. If editors are serious about getting this article to featured status, they should work on adding content that addresses these concerns. Trying to assert that an article is aiming for NPOV by its omissions of detail and nuance is unconvincing, particularly since those omissions are part of the reason the article as is lack NPOV (Remember NPOV means representing multiple viewpoints, not one monolithic voice sparse in detail). Please also see my comments at the FAC talk. Tiamut 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So, both Okedem (talk · contribs) and Tegwarrior (talk · contribs) have been blocked for WP:3RR. Now Gilabrand (talk · contribs) has removed the WP:NPOV tags [8] after I restored them, in agreement with Tegwarrior's placement of them, articulated just above. Can someone explain why the POV tags should be edit-warred over rather than addressing the concerns raised? Thanks. Tiamut 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to handle it than filling the article with POV tags would be to discuss things point-by-point (and by this I mean one point at a time, not a laundry list of grievances that we are commanded to fix). When it comes to hot topics like Israel, one person's "truth" looks like an extreme POV to someone else. For the most part, the article is stable, and it's not going to be rewritten in such a way as to vilify and delegitimize the state it describes. That doesn't mean greater neutrality can't be found; it means people who feel the article is too "pro-Israel" need to accept that theirs is but one of many viewpoints, and not attack the article in such an adversarial fashion as we've seen recently. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've raised at least two specific points:

1) There should be some mention in the First Fifty Years section of the fact that there was martial law in effect for the first 18 years of Israel's existence. A couple of simple sentences with a link to Martial Law#Israel and perhaps the related Defense (Emergency) Regulations would suffice.

2) There should be some mention of Internally Displaced Palestinians who are Arab citizens of Israel and the Land and property laws in Israel that helped relieve them of their lands. These are pertinent issues.

I would add that as of now, there is hardly anything of intercommunal relations or representation for the diverse groups in Israel. It's a very Ashkenazi-centric article.

There are other issues as well, but why don't we start with these then? Tiamut 19:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Given a very succinct NPOV phrasing, I might support addition of your first point. The problem is, as I've said before, just mentioning the military administration, without explaining the reasons for it, would give readers a false impression. The administration was established due to legitimate concerns about the loyalty of the Arab citizens to the state, given the fact many of them fought against Israel when it was created. Although there may have been other, less legitimate reasons, this was the main, and stated, reason for this action. We can debate all night over whether the measures (or their extent) were justified, or whether they should have lasted as long as they did (and I'd probably agree with you more than you think), but it wasn't without cause. Can you suggest a phrasing that would do both sides justice?

I don't think your second point deserves mention in the very limited space we have here.

"intercommunal relations" - What would you like to write? Can you write anything about the subject that won't be painfully shallow, given the space we have? And I protest the claim that the article is "Ashkenazi-centric". What's the basis for that? Where does that come into play?

Here's a suggestion - if you want to add something to the article (we can all think of things that might belong there), suggest something to be removed from it. We shouldn't make it any longer than it already is. okedem 21:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In the mean time, may I suggest you add the military administration issue to History of the State of Israel? It undoubtedly belongs there. okedem 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First issue: the POV flag should be on the entire article and not just on one section. Once we get that straightened out (reasons given above), we can start looking at individual issues. Tegwarrior 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously not interested in working towards improving the article. okedem 08:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not unless it can be demonstrated that I won't be abused for my efforts. Tegwarrior 14:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to make efforts, beyond tagging, so how can you even know there will be abuse? Give it a try, make some edits, and do your best to avoid POV language yourself. One method may be to find a FA of a few countries and use that language as a template. --Jdcaust 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to go against your advice in this matter. Tegwarrior, beyond tagging, has made a few edits. They were POV, and only hurt the article. As almost every word of the article has been debated, I ask that any changes that might be controversial in any way be brought to discussion in the talk page. I have replied to a few claims made by Tegwarrior above, but have received no reply (I guess it's harder to talk without tags littering the place). okedem 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said below, I really haven't been following this like you guys, so I'll defer to those with more experience on this page. Its just maddening that certain people can't be satisfied with some kind of consensus. Its either agree with them and their view or they complain that the article is completely biased. If Tegwarrior has been making POV edits and been unwilling to compromise, then I can understand everyone's frustration. Compromise is what makes wikipedia work. --Jdcaust 12:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to get involved in an already heated dispute, but I read through the article and found no reason in include the POV tag in the "Indpendence" section. The section sticks directly to the facts, presents both sides of the issue (both Palestinian and Jewish persecution) and is all in all a pretty simple section. Before I get flamed for this, remember the POV has more to do with the words that are there than those that aren't. Claiming a section is biased because it doesn't include what you want solves nothing. If a section doesn't include what you want, its incomplete. The best way to fix it? ADD TO IT! Don't tag and retag and complain about it and expect other editors to do the work for you. From what I can see, neutrality issue was solved by a consensus majority opinion and only Tegwarrior seems to be in opposition. It seems to me that this fight is more about tags and character attacks than actually improving the article. Tegwarrior, if you want to see things added and fixed, then add to the article. Getting yourself blocked for reverts doesn't do much to instill other editor's confidence in your own lack of bias. --Jdcaust 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Points of Agreement

There seemed to be at least some non-disagreement that anything on the exodus of Arab Jews probably belongs in the "First 50 years" section rather than in the "Independence" section. Can we all agree with that? Tegwarrior 17:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where you got the impression there is some non-disagreement on that. -- tariqabjotu 04:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While the main exodus took place after 1948, there was a great deal of emmigration before 1948. Iraqi jews (for example) were smuggling into Israel/Palestine at a rate of 1000 a month during the second world war. 10% of Yemenite Jews migrated to Israel/Palestine/Southern Syria in the late 19th century. Beause the Jewish exodus was from such a wide area it is hard to make generalizations about it, however I think some mention of causes is necessary. The persecution that led Jews to leave the Arab world was not purely post-1948, it was a long history of persecution combined with a post-1948 intensification and religious/ideological motivation. In Libya the Jews were quite simply expelled.

Given that much of the causes of the Exodus were pre-1948 and that the two Exoduses are deemed to be connected by both opponents and supporters of Israel, I think it makes sense to leave them together. As it is I feel unsufficeint space is given to the issue of Jews from the Middle-East which is why I am struggling to insert the reference to the Black Panthers.

As for making this article non-controversial. sorry guys (we do all seem to be guys?). There are WAAAAY too many anti-Semites out there for Jews ever to be non-controversial. Telaviv1 13:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But the passage reads, "During the course of the hostilities, 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, fled from Israel. Arab persecution of Jewish communities precipitated a similar Jewish exodus from Arab lands." Did a similar Jewish exodus from Arab lands, which I think strongly implies in numbers approaching 711,000, occur during the Independence phase of Israel's history? No, it did not. So why is this statement in the "Independence" section? Tegwarrior 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not go for the "this is anti-Semitism" approach. Also, I'm quite certain Tiamut (talk · contribs) is female. -- tariqabjotu 15:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a major problem here is that some have decided to interpret the lack of coverage of certain subjects as bias. This article is not intended to be all there is to know about Israel; Wikipedia has a large number of articles related to the State of Israel as well as the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's time editors stop advocating that we add more about some ethnic group or another so that readers can understand their position. We're not here to garner sympathy for anyone – Israeli or Palestinian. (For the record, I don't believe the Black Panthers bit is necessary.) -- tariqabjotu 18:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, please ignore that sentence.Telaviv1 16:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Black Panther episode is widely quoted in Israeli surveys of the period. It is also important as discrimination aganst non-Ashkenazi Jews was an issue that dominated Israeli politics for many years, and although on the decline, remains an important issue. the history section suffers from being iternaitonal-relations centred and a history of "Israel" needs also to be about the people (or formation of the people). I think the history is also made more readable by inserting more local history (and history that people are less familar with). There is a tendency to ignore the sephardis by both supporters and opponents of Israel. In pushing their insertion I am correcting an inbalance and, in my opionion, making the article less controversial. However I will take you comments into account and not press this issue any further. Telaviv1 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. Jews could not legally emmigrate to Palestine from (the rest of) the Middle East for the same reason they coldn't from Europe: the British were operating tight quotas on the number of Jews admitted. The Jewish Agency decided who culd take up te quotas and it was dominated by Europeans. The situation in Europe was so impossibly dire that it was reasonable that places only be give to Europeans. Telaviv1 23:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights again

I was just looking at the government and politics section and it struck me that criticisms of Israel's human rights policies by international groups like Amnesty basically relate to the Occupied Territories. Shouldn't that disctinction be made in the text? We make it earlier about the Freedom House index.

While this is on the agenda, why not mention that israel is the most democratic country in the region in the intro? I looked at the definition of the Middle East and Cyprus is not usually considered part of the Middle East, expecially now that it's part of the EU.

Telaviv1 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

One reason not to mention it is that it leans toward being cheerleading rather than informative. Why not say more about Israel's democracy directly instead of noting that it stands out in one of the most undemocratic regions of the world? Really, being the most democratic country in the Middle East is similar to being not bad looking for a fat girl. Of course, maybe cheerleading is the intent. Tegwarrior 03:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that such a reference should be included. Context matters. A democracy surrounded by theocracies and various sorts of dictatorships faces a very different reality than a democracy bordered by liberal democratic neighbours. Any other thoughts on this? I'm not going to rush in and change the article without some consensus. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have a comment. It is also more cheerleading and less informative to say that Israel is a "liberal democracy," which is a profoundly meaning-deficient but positive term, as opposed to saying that it has a parliamentary government or something with similar, specific meaning. That, and I think you're toast. Tegwarrior 05:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to change the article; this was, is, and, for the most part, has always been in the article, in the introduction no less. I'm not sure what else Telaviv wants, but the mention of its status as one of the only democracies in the Middle East is sufficient. The Cyprus is in the EU does not change its status as possibly being in the Middle East. Cyprus is considered part of the Middle East in, for instance, the CIA Factbook. As for the part about human rights, it is noted that the criticism relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict; would you prefer it say the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? -- tariqabjotu 04:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it probably should say the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but I don't feel very strongly about it and won't change it myself.Telaviv1 07:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're toast

A few folks here want to get this article to be a featured article. But apparently what they really want is to get a version of this article that promotes a few of their preferred viewpoints to be a featured article. Toward that end, when people come along and question aspects of the article that promote the preferred viewpoints, these people are subjected to argumentative babble and disrespect, and the viewpoints are protected. And every so often someone will archive a lot of the dissent from the talk page so that the ridiculous claim that there is a "stable version" of this article can be promoted.

What you folks don't get is, you're engaging in a sort of mental masturbation here, and getting a seriously inbred perspective that directs this article. You make people who agree with you happy, and drive anyone else off.

But at some point, this article will face a nominally objective and removed audience to decide whether it should become a featured article. Maybe you've already got that process rigged, and so don't need to worry about this, which would be a sad situation for Wikipedia. If you don't have the process rigged, however, you're going to be in a situation where you will likely see a lot of the criticism that you've ignored, but, as far as getting the article to be featured goes, you won't be able to ignore it. And frankly there is probably so much worthy of criticism that the article will hit the wall early in the process, and not at the point where you get asked to make a few changes in order to bring it up to standards.

Tegwarrior 03:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of uses of the "you" to directly attack other authors: 9. Number of suggestions for improving the article: 0. This ad hominem, argumentative style is counterproductive. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. You have assumed bad faith of everyone else here since the moment you looked at this article. -- tariqabjotu 05:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely toast. This should be fun to watch. By the way, Tariq, just because I think you're biased (which clearly you are) doesn't mean I have assumed bad faith of you. I wish there were some way to roast marshmallows on the flames I expect you to go up in. Tegwarrior 05:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain that last sentence. How, why and where do you expect Tariq to burn?

Telaviv1 07:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tariq will figuratively burn when his preferred version of this article gets considered to be a featured article, and he will get burned because he has been unable constructively to accommodate legitimate criticism of the article, and it will happen on these very web pages. Why do you ask, Telaviv1? Tegwarrior 14:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: Tariq himself lights the match. Tegwarrior 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My grandmother and aunt were burnt by people who apparently found nothing wrong with their behaviour. I don't think you should make this kind of statement as it is open to misinterpretation. Even without this, I think its a horrible thing to say. I suggest you soften your language and approach. You seem very full of hate. This does not bring good things. Try Odessa_Massacre#Massacres_of_October_22-24 Telaviv1 08:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, folks: Ignore Tegwarrior's warmongering. He obviously has nothing of interest to say, only attacks on everyone else. okedem 08:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Israeli-occupied territories

I've suggested, on numerous occasions, that a section on the territories be written. To my surprise, no one seemed to be interested. As I feel such a section would improve the article, I've written a rough draft, below. I've tried my best to stick to facts, using Israeli-occupied territories as a basis, and cutting away as much as possible (it's still too long, I think).

Please don't attack me if you think the following is POV. If you have suggestions as to how to improve it - please write them - I'll do my best to cooperate. Please - help me keep it concise! This section can easily take over the article if we write all we want to. We should keep its length in balance with other sections. My view is that this should be a short section (less than two full paragraphs), with the bare minimum of facts (this is why, for instance, I chose to omit the Qassam Rockets and Gilad Shalit).

Here it is:

Main article: Israeli-occupied territories

See also: Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestinians and Israeli law

The Israeli-occupied territories is one of a number of terms used to describe areas captured by Israel from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War of 1967. The term is generally used to refer to the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The term was also used to describe the Sinai Peninsula, which was returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. Following the capture by Israel of these territories, settlements of Israeli citizens were established within each of them.

Most negotiations relating to the territories have been on the basis of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, calling on Israel to withdraw from Occupied Territories (extent disputed) under comprehensive peace treaties in return for peaceful actions from Arabic states.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip both have populations consisting primarily of Arab Palestinians, including historic residents of the territories and Palestinian refugeess of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. These areas are widely seen, by Israel, the Palestinians, and the international community as the future site of a Palestinian State.

From their occupation in 1967 until 1993, the Palestinians living in these territories were under Israeli military administration. Since the Israel-Palestine letters of recognition of 1993, most of the Palestinian population and cities have been under the internal jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, and only partial Israeli military control, although during periods of unrest and terror attacks, Israel has on several occasions redeployed its troops and reinstated full military administration in various parts of the two territories.

In 2000 The Israeli government started to construct the controversial Israeli West Bank barrier in response to, and as a preventative measure against, increasing terror attacks as part of the Al Aqsa Intifada.

In 2005, Israel removed all of the Israeli residents in the Gaza Strip and in four settlements in the northern West Bank, and withdrew its forces from those areas, as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan.

Your comments are welcome. okedem 10:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In principle I think this is right and belongs. I fear it will attract a lot of abuse.

You will need to move the human rights stuff relating to the territories into this section.

Mind you I am happy with things as they are. Why ask for trouble?

Sincen you mention it I think about it we should mention the Qassams on Sderot. Telaviv1 11:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I, too, fear it will attract abuse. However, I feel the article is incomplete without discussing it. Every Israeli knows the impact this has had on the country. Not talking about it sorta feels like avoiding the elephant in the room, you know? The occupation isn't a passing phase in Israel's existence. It's been going on for 40 years, more than 2/3 of the country's age...

Human Rights - there isn't much about it now anyway, but we can place the sentence about Freedom House's rating, and Amnesty's criticism of Israel to this section (since they're talking about the territories, not Israel proper).

I prefer not to mention the Qassams, since then we'd start an edit war over whose suffering to mention more - someone will add Qassams, so someone will add Israel's assassinations, so someone will add the suicide bombings, and someone will respond by adding supposed massacres, and we'll never be done with it. Besides, the issue is far greater than rockets on a few towns, unfortunately. I prefer a bird's-eye viewpoint on this matter (though maybe birds see mostly the rockets...). okedem 14:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, one thing that I believe is omitted and should be mentioned is the difference between East Jerusalem, the rest of the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. From what I can ascertain they are treated differently. Also, the proposed section needs some copyediting, removing the short paragraphs and other minor things. I believed that the Human rights paragraph out to be incorporated into this section, but I'm not sure how it really could work here and it might be better off where it is located now. The human rights paragraph is not just talking about the territories. (If you would like my reasoning for some of my proposed changes below, feel free to say so.)

The Israeli-occupied territories – the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights – are the areas Israel captured from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War. The term was also used to describe the Sinai Peninsula, which was returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. Following Israel's capture of these territories, settlements consisting of Israeli citizens were established within each of them. Israel has applied civilian law to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, incorporating them into its territory and offering their inhabitants Israeli citizenship. In contrast, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have remained under military occupation, and are widely seen – by Israel, the Palestinians, and the international community alike – as the site of a future Palestinian state. Most negotiations relating to the territories have been on the basis of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which calls on Israel to withdraw from occupied territories in return for peaceful actions from Arab states (see Land for peace).

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip both have populations consisting primarily of Arab Palestinians, including historic residents of the territories and refugees of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. From their occupation in 1967 until 1993, the Palestinians living in these territories were under Israeli military administration. Since the Israel-Palestine letters of recognition, most of the Palestinian population and cities have been under the internal jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, and only partial Israeli military control, although Israel has on several occasions redeployed its troops and reinstated full military administration during periods of unrest. In response to increasing attacks as part of the Second Intifada, the Israeli government started to construct the Israeli West Bank barrier, which opponents note is partially built within the West Bank. In 2005, Israel removed all of its residents and forces in the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the West Bank as part of its unilateral disengagement plan. [proposal modified 19:30 (UTC); original here]

-- tariqabjotu 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Golan has nothing to do with the Palestinians. How about: "Israel has applied civilian law to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, incorporating them into its territory and offering the inhabitants Israeli citizenship. In contrast, the West Bank and the Gaza strip have remained under military occupation, and are widely seen – by Israel, the Palestinians, and the international community alike – as the site of a future Palestinian state. (No point in a distinction between Gaza and the West Bank. Even though nowadays there's an issue of the Hamas controlling Gaza, no one in Israel actually wants to control it, so it will be a part of the future Palestinian state, one way or the other).

I like your copy-editing. One point, though: "...United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories in return for peaceful actions from Arab states." - The word "the" shouldn't be there. The resolution specifically said "withdraw from occupied territories", not "the". This was explained as intentional (after many discussions between the countries on the council), since they realized Israel's 1967 borders were indefensible, and so did not intend to call for full withdrawal. okedem 16:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I made changes accordingly. The previous version can be found here. -- tariqabjotu 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. Let's see if we can get some more input. okedem 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, references are going to be needed. -- tariqabjotu 19:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Are they? I've looked through the section, and I can't find anything that isn't common knowledge, or easily confirmed by the linked articles. For the Palestinian State part - how about we link to Road map for peace (in the text, or as a "see also" in parentheses)? Seems to be the major plan in the matter, reasonably accepted by all parties. okedem 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... yes. Sources for this section will probably be easy to find, but they're still necessary, especially because we're talking about a contentious subject. You can use sources used in other Wikipedia articles, but you can't use those articles as sources. -- tariqabjotu 20:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. The sources in the linked articles don't seem to be of any help, as they're all too specific, and everything we've written is too broad. I'll look for sources tomorrow. okedem 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding sources to your text above. okedem 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree the Elephant deserves a mention. I think we should say in the history section that since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza x many Qassam missiles have been fired at Sderot or something like that. This is a page about Israel so we don't have to discuss what goes on in Gaza, especially as we no longer occupy it. We probably should mention that it is now regarded as a hostile entity and israel is in the process of ending all contacts with Gaza. But maybe thats being too up to date.

I think your discussion of 242 is very important. There is an alwful lot of ignorance about that it says.

Telaviv1 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I already explained - please, no suffering contests. We list the number of rockets, and we'll have to list the number of innocent Palestinians killed by Israeli attacks, of people dying on the way to hospitals because of roadblocks, and more. Let's keep it concise. If we decide, up front, not to allow such things from both sides, we might be able to prevent some possible edit wars of this.

The hostile entity thing, I feel, is too recent. We only want a bird's eye view, in a very short space. okedem 16:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The main reason this article arouses such passion and debate is that when one "side" feels some significant offense should be included, the other "side" feels that some other offense must be included to prevent POV. Including "hostile entity" and the Qassams on Sredot without including perceived Palestinian offenses will only cause more debate. Keep such things in their own articles. This isn't supposed to be a complete work of everything Israel. Its also not supposed to have a complete history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The main solution is to keep things limited to a few important facts and framework, then link to the articles on those events for further information. Weighting this too heavily one way or the other would make me rethink my positions on this being NPOV.

I am not Jewish, Muslim, arabic, or Israeli, but I don't want to see a very high quality article brought down by trying to include anything and everything. --Jdcaust 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Gilabrand's recent changes

Some objections to a few recent changes by Gilabrand:

• 09:38, Sep 25 (UTC): I just changed this back, but essentially this is not political whitewashing. The article is called Iranian Revolution on Wikipedia, so we should assume that should be accepted as the best name for referring to it (and I fail to see what's wrong with that name anyway). If you have a problem with that, state your case on the talk page there.
• 09:36, Sep 25: This new sentence does not belong. I'm not sure if or how the present situation with Iran should be mentioned, but focusing on the invitation for Israelis to come to Iran is not the way to go.
• 08:19, Sep 25: I believe the fact that very few Bahá'ís live in Israel (and are not supposed to according to religious rulings) is significant.
• 07:58, Sep 25: This needs a reference. Also, this might introduce confusion with the next sentence, which begins with "It".
• 07:48, Sep 25: The change from "albeit not without conflicts" is contrary to the source. Do you want me to present the quote supporting that statement?

Also, I don't know how the serious error to the references got introduced, but I am not fixing it. Gilabrand has been editing Wikipedia for over six months now, and this is not his major first referencing mistake on this article. He should know how to double-check major edits by now. And he should also know how to use citation templates. If that is not the case, now is a good time to learn. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted on his talk wall about reverts and making changes without coming here and discussing them. He's either refused to acknowledge this or completely ignored me. I'm a relatively new wikipedia editor. What's the solution to this? --Jdcaust 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't refused to acknowledge you or completely ignored your comment; he responded to your comment and stated he made a mistake. For the record, though, not all changes have to go through the talk page. Drastic changes to an article such as this one probably should go through the talk page, but there's really no reason to do that unless people have objections. Small changes, like the one's Gilabrand made above, don't really need to go through the discussion page though. I disagree with a few of his recent changes, but he was not wrong to just go ahead and make them. -- tariqabjotu 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, then, and I apologize to Gilabrand if I missed his response. I swear I searched the talk page and couldn't find it anywhere. In any case, I'm still learning and I appreciate the feedback. --Jdcaust 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Article is too long.

Amongst all the fighting about what parts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should and should not be included, no one noticed that the article has grown to 125kb. If you look at the top when you edit, there's a tag that mentions that the article is over 100kb and could use cutting down. To me, this means too much has been included, as opposed to not enough. I propose we start a discussion on what gets too much exposition and can be cut down and halt further discussion on what isn't here. Much of what people propose should be here is already covered exhaustively in other articles. Let's link to those and keep this one clean and succinct. Any thoughts? --Jdcaust 20:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just did another check for length. To further emphasize this, the article includes over 200 references and prints at 18 pages long. I don't think I've ever seen an encyclopedia entry that long before. --Jdcaust 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The numerous references are because every single word here gets attacked, and has to be defended with sources. okedem 20:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article is actually 100kb long, as the header says when you edit the article. You receive that message quite often for major topics since it appears after an article reaches 50-60 kb (not sure what the exact setting is now). However, this is not really a problem here as much of the length is due to the numerous references. Looking at the amount of prose (which you can estimate from copying the printable version to a different page), the article has about 42 kb of prose. According to WP:LENGTH#A rule of thumb, that's reasonable. -- tariqabjotu 20:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The need for the number of references is, of course, incredibly frustrating and unfortunate. My main point is that before we continue to propose new sections and more references and words to be added, lets try and find ways to cut things down. We're not writing a book here. I don't know that we need to add a whole lengthy section about the Israeli-occupied territories when there's already an article on this titled that exact way! Things like this should be linked. Instead of appeasing everyone by including more, let's try and have an even discussion about what can be linked off instead. --Jdcaust 20:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not supporting the Occupied territories section to appease anyone. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not here to start another fight, by any means. If there's no support for this, then so be it. However, in comparing this article to other featured articles about countries, it just seems too long. Japan and Germany, for example, both have had histories as exhaustive, eventful, and controversial as Israel, but follow WP:Summary_style. If the ultimate goal is to eventually make this a featured article, wouldn't these examples be the ones to follow? WP:Summary_style also includes ideas about ways to avoid long lists of references. --Jdcaust 20:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me take this moment to once again express my objection to having the sentence, "Demonstrations by the Israeli Black Panthers generated public awareness of resentment within the Mizrahi community at inequalities in Israeli society.", included. It's out of place and does not relate to the surrounding content. Feedback on this would be appreciated. -- tariqabjotu 20:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with you there. I don't know how it makes sense to go from talking about the Olympic attacks to the Israeli Black Panthers, then on to the Yom Kippur War. --Jdcaust 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the reference to "operation wrath of God" is unnecessary and only in there because of the movie. the history is prone to being about the Arab-Israeli conflict instead of being about Israel, and Mizrahi resentment has been a major factor in Israeli history. Begin came to power in no degree because of his ability to ride this resentment. I guess one could take out the black panther reference and lengthen the sentence about Begin coming to power. Pesonally though, I think the Black Panthers are important and shoud be there. References to Golda's rule often relate to her meetings with the panthers and the demos were a turnig point. We're a small country with enough history for a super=power. Incidentally Tariq, Tegwarrior apologized. Telaviv1 00:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the Operation Wrath of God piece is probably not necessary either, but I'm wondering what should go in its place. Removing that and the Black Panther reference would result in a jump between the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Certainly something happened in between then. Perhaps involving Golda Meir? -- tariqabjotu 00:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Gush Emunim

Referring to Gush emunim is not intended to elicit sympathy. Gush Emunim and their supporters were the prime force behind the settlements and it was the settlements that led to increased conflict with the Palestinians. I can provide a reference but not immedately. Sorry if I piss you off Tariq... Telaviv1 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think mentioning Golda is a good idea but prefer to keep mention of Palestinian attacks: I would leave in the Munich attack. From that point I can start to remember things...

The sub-headings need changing. there should be a new sub-heading after 1967 (1967 - ?) and another I would suggest after Oslo or Rabin's assasination (1995 - present). the 21st century is not relevant. Its too late for me now so I'm off to bed.

Telaviv1 01:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the past few months' discussions

The last time I posted on this page it was to express my displeasure at the lack of content regarding the conflict. At the time, my own thoughts were more akin to those of Tiamut and Tegwarrior. Every attempt I made to insert a mention of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was instantly reverted. This was incredibly frustrating. As has been rightly acknowledged by the editors on this page (finally!) this is not simply a trivial aspect of Israeli history of politics. This has been a defining characteristic of the country almost since the moment of its inception. As I've mentioned the few other times I've posted here, my viewpoint is largely that of an outsider. I'm not well-learned about Israel or the conflict. The latter I know of because, in the Western media, that is largely the lens through which we view Israel. I've had some time to observe the progression of this page, and while some of it is inspiring, some of it is frustrating, to say the least.

I want to say, first, that I understand the viewpoint of those who don't want an article on "Israel" to become an article on the conflict. This point did not particular strike me the first few times I visited this page, but has become more convincing to me as I've watched discussions and arguments unfold. However, as mentioned by me at the time, it is also unencylclopedic to expect that no criticism should be entered into a country article. The analogy I used mostly related to the United States (my own country of origin). For a long time, any and all criticism of the U.S. was edited out. It took a FA nomination to finally drive a consensus to the point where certain disreptuable aspects of American history (slavery, previously without a mention!) were inserted. This is most evident in the foreign policy section of the United States article, an area of American policy that is, I think it is safe to say, one of the most controversial. Yet, by that same token, the United States article is by no means a rampant criicism of the United States. It mentions these controversial aspects of U.S. history, and current U.S. policy, while at the same time mentioning objectively positive aspects such as the economy and the standard of living.

The point I'm trying to make with this, I think, is that you take the good with the bad. If you look at the foreign policy section of the United States article, you'll see it links to another article that discusses U.S. foreign policy in much further detail, and is laced with much more specific criticism that is inappropriate in a summation article about the entire country. That is to say, an entire article about a country should not be limited to mentioning criticism of that countries political/military policies. There are other things to discuss here, and links to specific articles on those topics where those criticisms can be elaborated upon are more appropriate.

At the same time, controversial aspects of a country's history and current political/military policy should absolutely not be omitted because people with ties to the country are afraid that it will paint the country in a negative light. Especially with appropriate citation, a major international issue like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot simply be omitted from the Israel article. I would like to start by commending Okedem (who is Israeli, I believe?) for finally deciding to write and insert a section on the conflict. That took enormous initiative, especially as his repeated requests for such a section have been unmet. Furthermore, Tariqabjotu (a Muslim, I believe?) is to be commended for attempting to balance both sides in his relentless attempt to bring this article up to FA status. I have not seen anyone on this page attacked as much as Tariq, and those attacks have come from every direction imaginable.

This perspective comes largely from the perspective of an outsider, and one who considers his own ideology best described as "humanitarian." I sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, I will come right out and say it. I also do not subscribe to the belief that Israel is inherently evil. These human rights controversies could just as easily be brought up on a number of Middle-Eastern Arab countries, and if you take a quick look you will see that Saudi Arabia, rightly, has a section dedicated to human rights. Iran had such a section, from what I remember, which was displaced as a result of constant edit warring.

TelAviv1 made what I believe to be an adequate suggestion. Move the criticism from groups such as Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem (an Israeli organization, let's remember) to Okedem's new conflict section. As has rightly been acknowledged, the criticism of Israel's human rights record does not largely focus on Israel as a whole. Though the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the status of Arab citizens within Israel, have been the subject of criticism, I think it is safe to say that most criticism of Israel in the international community stems from the Palestinian conflict. Rightly or wrongly, however, it is a major focus of international attention on Israel and deserves mention in the article. At the same time, I agree that it should not envelope the entire article.

I am an outsider. I'm not even well-learned in the conflict, to be quite honest with you. But I've hardly seen such hostility on Wikipedia. I offer my thoughts as someone who is not Arab, who is not Jewish, who does not place the rights or wrongs of any one country above another. This article has made enormous strides in the past few months. I commend those of you, all of you, who have worked to move it forward. Even through your confrontations, you have brought out important issues that have come closer and closer to resolution. Those of you who truly seek to strike a balance, and have worked tirelessly to do so, know who you are and deserve to be commended above all else. Regards, SpiderMMB 21:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Template issues?

Is it just me or is there a problem with the templates at the bottom of the page? This has been like this for awhile for me, but I haven't bothered to fix it. I can only see one of the template groups and templates after that show up as mere links. However, oddly enough, when I go to section edit for the "External links" section, everything shows up fine. I'm using Mozilla Firefox... is this issue happening with everyone? -- tariqabjotu 21:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm having the same problem and I'm using IE7. I'm going to take a look at the code for the tables. --Jdcaust 16:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks fine now and I didn't change anything. --Jdcaust 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Featured Article

Wading through the debate, I just wanted to say congratulations to everyone who worked so hard here to make this article a good one. It was just promoted to feature article on September 30. I haven't really been around this article long, but I know a lot of blood, sweat, and tears have gone into it. tariqabjotu, I know you in particular deserve some props for the work you did. I know a lot of other people put in some hard work, too, including okedem, telaviv1, and Gilabrand. Good job to everyone, and keep working. As long as time progresses, Wikipedia articles are never truly complete! --Jdcaust 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone! I'm afraid I've been away as there are a lot of public holidays in Israel at the moment (New Year, Yom Kippur and Sukkot). By the way we really need to fix up the History of Israel page... Thanks for the barnstar Jdcaust Telaviv1 07:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Honestly, I NEVER thought this article could get this far given the determination of certain parties to derail it with their own POV. Great work by all who patiently fought through the nonsense. Schrodingers Mongoose 23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)