Misplaced Pages

A capital is a 'designation', not a 'claim'. I can't see how a "designation" can be "not recognized". Do you have reliable citations that verify your proposal? Marokwitz (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.185.182 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz, there are dozens of high-quality sources that state that Israel's declaration of Jerusalem as capital is not recognized and the UN Security Council has explicitly said the declaration is "null and void". --Dailycare (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is clear that perhaps only Israel is the only one that recognises Jerusalem as its capital city. If Misplaced Pages is to be neutral, it should at the least describe Jerusalem as the OP suggested. At the moment, is just looks like Misplaced Pages is being used for Zionist propaganda without an regard to any international law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmie (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. A sovereign state has the right to decide its capital, it does not need approval or recognition from other nations. If[REDACTED] is simply used for zionist propaganda then you should know the proposal to change this is going to be rejected. Lets not waste our time :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not even see the problem, there is a huge reference note explaining the situation anyway if you click the next to Jerusalem in the infobox. There is also extensive explanation on the matter within the article itself. I see no reason for any change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether it "is" or "isn't" the capital isn't the point. The point is that it's a contentious issue that isn't being presented clearly as such, since the text in the article embraces the minority view. --Dailycare (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The infobox states the capital, it links to a note explaining other nations do not recognise it as such. The article is full of text about the situation, i do not see any zionist censorship here. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the infobox states Jerusalem is the capital, which is a contentious point reported here by embracing a minority POV. WP:NPOV says "The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." Saying Jer is the capital, but this is rejected by everyone else is a policy violation since we're presenting Israel's claim as a fact. Now if we said Israel has proclaimed Jer to be the capital, but this is rejected by everyone else, we'd be cleam from a policy POV. In fact as WP:NPOV also says that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not", we'd also be policy-compliand if we omitted Israel's claims to having their capital in Jer. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But that is the whole reason for the note, to ensure neutrality by explaining others do not recognise it as the capital. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to comment on this issue again but if Jerusalem were a gas field we wouldn't be able handle the information this way in an infobox by simply presenting Jerusalem as a unified object in Israel. For example, the South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field doesn't say 'Country: Iran' and it wouldn't say that even if Iran decided to proclaim ownership of the entire field. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources saying Jerusalem is the political capital of Israel. We are not whitewashing anything, the disputed status is already mentioned in details in this article. Marokwitz (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz, that's not the point. See my comment timestamped 11:53, 20 August 2010. --Dailycare (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I really do not think there will be consensus to make the sort of change you are wanting. The infobox states Jerusalem but there is a note that clearly explains the situation and it is explained throughout the article, there for the article is neutral. As a compromise id be prepared to support changing that to so its more clear there is a note, or have an explanation in the infobox note section itself. But i see no reason to remove Jerusalem from the infobox, it is the capital of Israel. Reliable sources prove this to be the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing the link to the note from to has always struck me as a sensible approach but it hasn't been possible to make changes like that in this article using the consensus process so far. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The status of Jerusalem is disputed, no doubt about that fact. The legality of Israeli unilateral annex of Jerusalem is also disputed. To date, no country recognises Jerusalem as capital of Israel, it is a fact. So, this should be clearly stated in Article "Jerusalem is capital of Israel (disputed)".-- Jim Fitzgerald 19:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Tel Aviv is the de facto capital, and that Jerusalem (according to Israelis) is the official capital. To the international community Tel Aviv has long been accepted as the only true capital of Israel.--Gniniv (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not how "de facto" works. Israeli governmental offices and the like are in Jerusalem, that would make it (from a world perspective) the de facto capital, if not the de jure (again, from an international perspective). From an Israeli perspective, it is the de jure capital as well as de facto. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My bad! I meant (vice-versa): Tel Aviv is the official internationally recognized capital, and Jerusalem is the de facto capital (You are correct about the Israeli government offices, all of which are located in Jerusalem, excepting the Ministry of Defense).--Gniniv (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Tel Aviv is not the capital by any mean. Show me a reliable source saying so. Marokwitz (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Tel Aviv is used instead of Jerusalem as a metonym for Israel, and the Times Online Style Guide notes that Jerusalem is not internationally recognised as the Israeli capital. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The first post in this thread demands the inclusion of a clear statement that has already been incorporated in the text of the Conflicts and treaties subsection of the article for quite some time:

The position of the majority of UN member states is reflected in numerous resolutions declaring that actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the whole of Jerusalem are illegal and have no validity.

There is also a Further Information template there that references the Positions on Jerusalem article. It leads-off by saying, among other things, that many countries do not recognize Jerusalem as a city that is properly Israel's. harlan (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital, but . . . Why not follow the example of the British Foreign Office Country Profile of Israel: "Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognised by the UK and the international community."Haberstr (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so recognizing the 'de facto' situation but also that the international community does not recognize that Jerusalem as Israel's possession or capital should be our goal, along with wanting a reasonably short sentence. How about "Jerusalem is de facto Israel's capital, but the international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over the city and there are no foreign embassies there." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the de jure Capital as well. The international community's non-recognition does not change the factual reality, and is mentioned several times in the article. Please let this long standing consensus wording stand. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside the merits of the content, I just want to say that "the capital is where the seat of the government is" as in this revert by Dosbears is not a valid reason to revert an edit. The capital is where the sources say it is and we could do without reverts like this based of editors beliefs about what things are. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Like i have said before, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. That is what the infobox must say. The article text and a note go into far more detail about the situation explaining the issues, that is all that is needed. So no change is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you BritishWatcher. And to you Sean.holyland, you come here to complain that someone made revert of POV and controversial statement that was already discussed 50 times on this talk page which can be found in archive if someone cares to look. But you don't say anything bad about person who went and made edit without any discussion, without reading talk page first and seeing that they have really no consensus to do such a change. Very interesting way to go around here. LibiBamizrach (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not interesting at all, nor is your opinion of it. It's interesting what you have done with my surname though. Yeah, I came here to complain about editors doing whatever the hell they like based on their personal models of reality. Happens all the time in the I-P conflict area and not only is it against policy, it's one of the root causes of much idiocy in this topic area. 'No consensus' is not a policy based reason to revert either. Consensus can change and I have no problem whatsoever with what the editor is trying to do step by step which includes trying to engage people on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What editors feel is the "factual reality" is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what the best sources say on the subject, and they say pretty much what the British foreign office says above. --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources say Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. A country can decide its own capital, it does not need formal permission from other nations, shown through were they set up their embassies. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's your territory you can put your capital where ever you want and no one can tell you otherwise. It's not so much that the international community rejects Israel's right to decide its capital's location but that Jerusalem is in Israel. And since recognition is the basis for a claims legitimacy the international community Jerusalem is only the de jure capital under domestic law. If the infobox were changed to what the British Foreign Office says (but not based solely on its assertions) I think that would be ok but, since theres a foot note and a link to the positions on Jerusalem article, I don't have a dog in this fight. Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Britishwatcher, some sources (e.g. Israeli sources) do, others say that Israel claims it's the capital but this isn't recognized. Per WP:NPOV we can't adopt one of conflicting narratives as the truth, but we must present the issue in terms of a dispute ("The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view). --Dailycare (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is why there is a note and within the article we explain the situation regarding Israel. That is all we need to do to stay within NPOV. Nothing says a country's capital must be recognised by the international community. A state has the right to decide what its capital is. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless the capital isn't in your country. On further reflection, I think putting the controversy into the infobox is worth doing. Even with the footnote it doesn't make sense to adopt one side of the controversy in the most notable spot. Sol Goldstone (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree in that we only need to change the wording a bit to fall right within WP:NPOV. But we do need to change it, since the present wording is "endorsing a particular point of view" which we shouldn't do. Once more, what you or I think makes a capital is irrelevant to this article content issue. What is relevant is what the best sources say on the subject, and they say that the matter is in dispute. --Dailycare (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources clearly state that Jerusalem is the declared capital of the Jewish State. Just because other states dont recognise it is why we have a note. As long as there is a note clearly explaining the status is disputed there is no problem. What exactly are people proposing we put there instead? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a great word, "declared." So why not something like: "Israel has declared Jerusalem as its capital, but the international community does not recognize its sovereignty over the city and there are no foreign embassies there." (Please note that I'm doing all I can to be collegial and flexible here.} The bottom line is that the facts of 'what is Jerusalem's capital' are complex, and the entire "international community" (the British government's words) finds false this encyclopedia's present assertion that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital." Editors' personal opinions about 'how a place/city becomes a nation's capital' are POV and irrelevant. You just don't have an NPOV encyclopedia when we make the assertion of one country, Israel, into 'Misplaced Pages fact'. Not when, if you ask nearly any government in the world except Israel what Israel's capital is, they don't answer 'Jerusalem'.Haberstr (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The State of Palestine article in its infobox simply says "Jerusalem (proclaimed), Gaza, Ramallah(administrative)". So the state of palestine which does not exist simply has "Jerusalem (proclaimed)" in its infobox despite having no control over the city at all. Jerusalem is in Israel, not "another country" BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No to this: "Jerusalem is in Israel." West Jerusalem no doubt is in Israel, but East Jerusalem is annexed territory not recognized by the international community as 'in' Israel. A matter about which there is a near consensus internationally ("Jerusalem is not in Israel") must not be denied by omission if this encyclopedia is going to achieve its ideals of being NPOV.Haberstr (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with BW. I also wonder why the Palestine article can go unmolested of weasel-wording, but this article has to suffer every possible pov-push.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I always thought it was just East Jerusalem that was disputed but it looks like the international communities/various governments aren't just talking about E. J'Lem but the whole city. Otherwise they'd have no reason not to put the embassies in the western part. Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The international community/various governments object to Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. That's why the embassies that were in West Jerusalem were moved elsewhere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the confusion derives from a misunderstanding and misuse the terms 'suffer', 'unmolested', 'weasel-wording' and 'every possible pov-push'. What is actually happening is that some editors are trying to improve policy compliance in this article very slightly by discussing minor changes to content based on what sources say. That is what people are supposed to do here. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If there was no note about all of this and we did not mention the situation within the article then i agree there would be a POV problem and changes would be needed. But we explain it fully within this article and with the note. So many of us believe the article is already in compliance with policies. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So would you want to put (proclaimed) in the Israeli info box so the two sides match? I know a lot of people hate it, but no other country officially considers Jerusalem a part of Israel(if you know of one or more, please add them to the Positions on Jerusalem article)or Palestine, they use some version of "Jerusalem's status has yet to be negotiated". That's not a rejection of cultural and religious ties and claims for either side, just that no one can have clear title until the conflicting claims are resolved diplomatically. It was the same way when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem; they'd passed internal laws annexing the city section but even the countries recognizing their claims to the West Bank drew the line at Jerusalem. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To do the same thing as the Palestine box would be totally unacceptable. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, there is no such state as Palestine and it has no control of Jerusalem to declare it the capital. The introduction of the Jerusalem article simply states it is the capital of Israel, this whole issue of how to treat Jerusalem status as a capital would be better debated there. However as a compromise id support changing the link to the note from to , we clearly can not say proclaimed if that is what the Palestine article says. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying "proclaimed" would be something I'd be OK with. "officially" doesn't work since it's officially the capital only according to Israel. Once more, what editors think is the ultimate truth is irrelevant. What is relevant is that sources say that Israel has proclaimed it to be the capital, and the international community has explicitly rejected this. According to WP:NPOV we can't adopt the narrative of one side in a dispute, and especially we can't adopt the minority viewpoint. Saying proclaimed in the infobox, and following the British FO in the lead, would correct the issue. The Jerusalem article, being a[REDACTED] article, can't be used a source in this discussion. --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, the current wording is the result of a very long discussion. There is obviously no consensus to change it, although it seems the same people try to on a monthly basis. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus can change"--Dailycare (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Has it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Capital According To Whom? arbitrary break1

Question: If France 'proclaimed' Lyon its new capital, AND moved its government offices to Lyon, but no other country accepted this, would Lyon be the capital of France, or would it stay Paris because no one wanted to move their embassy (for any reason). --Shuki (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Lyon would be the capital of France and wed have to include a note explaning it was previously Paris and other nations have not recognised the change. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Lyons would be the capital with no note. It would be a strictly internal affair (unless someone can dig up a source on it) that the international community has no say in. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It would depend on what reliable sources say on the matter. Question 2: What if France kicked the Israelis out of Tel Aviv and "proclaimed" it the French capital, but the entire international community refused to recognize it and sources said so? The operative phrase here is what the sources say. We don't need to be (and in no case should we try to be) experts in international law. --Dailycare (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: Most of the area of Jerusalem is referred to as West Jerusalem which has been a recognized part of Israel by the UN since 1947. East Jerusalem was part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan until 1967 when they lost the whole West Bank and East Jerusalem at the Six Day war. Years later King Hussein declared the West Bank not to be part of Jordan, hence making it a territory under Israel's control, de facto making it part of Israel, until the Palestinians are granted rights to the land. Therefore, and regardless if a country needs authorization to declare its capital, Jerusalem IS Israel's capital (at least it's West part - without any dispute whatsoever), while the only dispute could be if East Jerusalem is also part of the capital. Hence, it could be said that West Jerusalem is the recognized capital of Jerusalem, or that Jerusalem is Israel's capital while it's Eastern part is internationally not regarded as part of sovereign Israel and is therefore disputed as part of its capital.109.253.69.226 (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a good thing this article was demoted from FA if his is still a question. It realistically is not that hard. Mirror tertiary sources and be done with it. Add a note if it makes people happy. It is not worth this much discussion since Misplaced Pages does not say how it is. That is what the sources do. And at most the sources add an asterisks so then you get a note.Cptnono (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, we're supposed to primarily rely on secondary sources, not tertiary ones (WP:RS: "Tertiary sources (...) should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion"). We've identified from high-quality secondary sources that this is a matter of dispute, so it should be presented as a dispute without embracing either narrative. (WP:NPOV: "Misplaced Pages describes disputes. (...) The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view") --Dailycare (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Here is an Israel related AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Patrol 35. Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The correct place for notices of this type is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Rami R 15:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No mention of ethnic cleansing??

Israel has a well documented history of using many tactics to push out the Arab population living in Israel, including not allowing Arab citizens to return to Israel when traveling abroad, Evicting Arab families from property they legally own, etc. I'm somewhat shocked there's no mention of this in the Israel article. I'm Canadian, and if Canadians spent the last 60 years evicting minorities from the country they're legal citizens of, you can bet the wiki-page on Canada would include a section on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.74.248.49 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The article provides information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and there are other articles covering the whole issue. I do not see a need for any changes to the article on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Arab refugees are not citizens of Israel. However, a little less than half are citizens of Jordan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the ethnic cleansings can be covered in the respective articles, this one is supposed to be quite high-level. Concerning the refugees, legally they are Israeli citizens (according to the Partition resolution and Israel's declaration if independence, as well as normal state succession laws. --Dailycare (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare - Wikifan was referring to Arabs and Arab refugees living in the West Bank. There is no such cleansing done with Israeli-Arabs - their receiving fewer rights (conceived as "cleansing" by some) has to do with several factors such as their being a minority group, their general resentment of the concept of a Jewish State, general support of Israel's enemy views and their less than equal participation in civic duties such as paying taxes properly. Nor is there any systematic cleansing done with West Bank Arabs since essentially all of Israel's neighbors resist the absorption of Palestinians in their countries, so Israel really has nowhere to actually cleanse them to. In fact, Israel's neighbors holding Palestinian refugee camps readily support the "right to return" as a means to cleanse the Palestinians from their land, this supported by the fact the refugees have not been granted nationality and equal rights where they have lived for over 40 years. Further reading about ethnic cleansing: the Syrian Hama event, the Armenian Genocide as well as the Kurdish situation in Turkey and Jordan's Black September among others.109.253.69.226 (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit

"Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, while Israel's main financial center is Tel Aviv, and its main industrial center Haifa." Added period after as such. It seems this was originally all one sentence but it's previous form made 'while Israel's main financial center is Tel Aviv' seem awkward in the new context of the disputed capital. It sounded like while Israel's capital was being disputed people were happily making monetary transactions in Tel Aviv. made 'while Israel's main financial center is...and its main industrial center haifa' a new sentence, and added 'is' for 'is haifa' for syntactic reasons.DavidBetzer (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The change you made has been accepted. No need to explain minor alterations on the talk page like that in future though, just make it clear in the edit summary what the reason for the change is. This article like a few other articles on[REDACTED] is testing Misplaced Pages:Pending changes, other editors quickly see the changes and accept the good changes. Its just to help prevent vandalism. Welcome to wikipedia, oh and remember new sections on the talk page belong at the bottom to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome! I was wondering what to do with minor edits, but jumped with elation when I discovered that I didn't erase the article with my first go at it. I'll probably contribute more to grammar, I am scared of POVs--most notably my own. DavidBetzer (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In the section on the judiciary, there's discussion of "Labour Courts" (Brit. Eng.--with a U) and "Labor Courts" (Am. Eng.--no U). I suspect that the usage in Israel is British. I'd change it myself to make it consistent, but it's locked (for reasons that are understandable).99.188.152.81 (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Martin 16:03, 23 September 2010

Proposed Changes to Independence and first years introductory paragraph

Oiriginal) After 1945, Britain found itself in fierce conflict with the Jewish community, as the Haganah joined Irgun and Lehi in armed struggle against British rule. At the same time, thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe sought shelter in Palestine and were turned away or rounded up and placed in detention camps by the British. In 1947, the British government withdrew from the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews. The newly created United Nations approved the Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, which sought to divide the country into two states—one Arab and one Jewish. Jerusalem was to be designated an international city—a corpus separatum—administered by the UN.

Proposed) After 1945, conflict arose between Britain and the Jewish community in the Mandate of Palestine, as the Haganah joined the Irgun and Lehi in armed struggle against British rule. At this time, thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe were seeking shelter in Palestine and being turned away or placed in detention camps by the British Authorities. In 1947 the British government withdrew from the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews. The newly created United Nations approved the Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, which sought to divide the country into two states—one Arab and one Jewish. Jerusalem was to be designated an international city—referred to as a corpus separatum—administered by the UN.

--'conflict arose' as opposed to 'found themselves' ie 'suddenly' intended to de-POV British perspective in the conflict. Included "Jewish community in the mandate of Palestine' because although Jews in the diaspora may have been in opposition to British policy, the text is referring to opposition within the borders of the mandate by specific groups. Limited the dissociative effects caused by "At the same time" as these events were correlative (at the very least geographically). Removed 'Rounded up" as it seemed repetitive. Added a few gerunds. Clarified the use of Corpus Separatum, though I think linking through the word international to the article on corpus separatum would be more friendly to the average user. I recognize I'm at the point in the wiki where a misplaced indefinite article could be debated endlessly, so I humbly submit my ideas here. Tell me what you think? DavidBetzer (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

no problem with those changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

the helicopter picture

I think it should be repalced, because this isn't an Israeli helicopter. 84.111.73.64 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems an Israeli helicopter would be more relevant and consistent with the other photos in the section on the one hand--on the other hand, as the section is describing military, and not only military hardware, US/Israeli joint training exercises seems an appropriate photo as well. The captioned photo sits alongside text which mentions US involvement in military aid and joint training, which gives it weight per context. Perhaps you have a photo in mind which shows joint exercises while depicting Israeli hardware? That would be ideal. DavidBetzer (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, makes sense to have an image there of joint ops. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

who and where are the lost tribes of isreal

can any one tell me who they think the lost tribes of isreal are, and can it be linked to native americans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.124.138 (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

See Lost tribes of Israel. --jpgordon 23:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

'Left' rather than 'fled' Arab lands in Israel's early years

Jews who fled Arab and Muslim lands and their descendants constitute approximately 50% of Jewish Israelis.

Whether virtually all Jews fled from other lands in Israel's first years is a matter is in dispute, and that requires the non-committal 'left' rather than the POV 'fled'. Please note that the three current sources for the sentence's notion of virtually everyone fleeing do not meet RS standards:

• 321: A Lyn Julius opinion piece,
• 322: Jewish Virtual Library is a POV source.
• 323: This blog interview/opinion piece does not contain the words 'flee' or 'fled'.Haberstr (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Common sensically, the reasons for emigration to Israel in its early years were complicated and varied: ". . . the Israeli revisionist historian Tom Segev summarizes emigration immediately after the founding of Israel, especially in relation to North Africa: “Deciding to emigrate to Israel was often a very personal decision. It was based on the particular circumstances of the individual’s life. They were not all poor, or ‘dwellers in dark caves and smoking pits.’ Nor were they always subject to persecution, repression or discrimination in their native lands. They emigrated for a variety of reasons, depending on the country, the time, the community, and the person.”Haberstr (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Then it is more accurate to say, Jews who either fled or left Arab and Muslim lands. Using only left assumes a normal movement of peoples. --Shuki (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, 'left' doesn't assume anything about why they left their homelands and came to Israel; its meaning subsumes 'fled'.Haberstr (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) If they indeed were varied, according to the one revisionist historian you quote, we should not change it from one specificity to another specificity. Perhaps we can have both "fled" and "left." Regardless, we should request the input of other editors before changing longstanding sourced material. See also Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands for further clarification of this subject.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

See it indeed! What an incredibly non-neutral article. --FormerIP (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

'Left' doesn't assume anything about why they left their homelands and came to Israel, and subsumes the word 'fled'. Example: "We left the room immediately because of the fire."Haberstr (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"left" on its own has a distinctly different meaning then "fled" on its own. Your version just says they "left" and leaves it at that, not explaining that it was due to a "fire."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has a distinctly different meaning, that's the point. It has the neutral 'not ascribing motives' meaning, while 'fled' ascribes a motive to the movement from one country to another. Surely we all know that 'left' on its face is accurate as the entire verb phrase, while 'fled' is inaccurate as the entire verb phrase. 'Left or fled' is a reasonable compromise.Haberstr (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Left" is certainly not the correct terminology. It is estimated that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were forced from their homes or fled the Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s; 260,000 reached Israel between 1948–1951, and 600,000 by 1972. The Jews of Egypt and Libya were expelled while those of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa left as a result of physical and political insecurity. Almost all were forced to abandon their property. By 2002 these Jews and their descendants constituted about 40% of Israel's population. One of the main representative bodies of this group, the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, (WOJAC) estimates that Jewish property abandoned in Arab countries would be valued today at more than $300 billion and Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands at 100,000 square kilometers (four times the size of the state of Israel). The organization asserts that a major cause of the Jewish exodus was a deliberate policy decision taken by the Arab League.

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

None of what you've written contradicts 'left'.Haberstr (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of partisan sources is certainly problematic. Professional historians should be used as sources instead.--Frederico1234 (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if we ignore the nature of some of the sourcing, it doesn't support "fled". The Haaretz article is primarily about one indiviudal, who can fairly be said to have been persecuted in Egypt. But in relation to the migration of Jews generally during this period, it says "left" rather than "fled". The HSJE site says: "Jews arriving in Israel after 1948 were similarly inspired by the Zionist ideal of returning to their homeland. However, for the most part, they were forced to become refugees overnight, to flee ... as a result of persecutions" - coming from a partisan source, this suggests to me a mixed picture. The Jerusalem Post piece is a Reliable Source for the view of World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (ditto their website) and similarly the New York Times piece is an RS for the views of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries. The Forgotten Millions says that the migration was "the outcome of mutual pressures: on the one hand, that of anti-Jewish populations and governments and on the other that of Jews, internally and externally, on those governments". So, I think this is not good support for "fled", and it appears to me that our article on that topic is even less neutral than these partisan sources. --FormerIP (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: It was good to see us arrive at the 'left or fled' compromise and to see it sticking. This exchange is a good example of collegial I/P editing.Haberstr (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Alphamoro, 22 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Well... yeah! I thought I will have done a great thing to humanity by clearing the contents of this page. Sorry to ask! How much should I wait until you've accepted my request? Alphamoro (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Eichmans seizure

I realise that people have strong feelings about matters concerning Israel and have therefore not altered anything, but I would like to raise a point that occurred to me whilst reading the page. The paragraph that covers Eichman's seizure, trial and much-deserved execution makes no mention of the controversy that followed Eichman's arrest, particularly Argentina's reaction to what it viewed as a breach of it's own sovereignty.

Doktordoris (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a link to Eichmann's article which has a subsection devoted to the issue so the issue is covered, just not here. It's an interesting part of the trial's history but it seems a little beyond the scope of the article. Sol (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I just thought the international hoo-ha which arose from the Eichman affair was an important part of Israel's history, because it clearly shows Israel's determination to do the right thing despite it being an obvious breach of international law just like the hit-squads after the olympic hostage taking, and as such deserved a mention on the page.

Doktordoris (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Israel

The article is not clear on how "Israel" is defined, and in fact uses a wide variety of different and inconsistent interpretations throughout the article. This makes the article both confusing and misleading. Below are some examples of paragraphs which are misleading for this reason:

• (a) the population figure used throughout the article includes Israeli citizens living in "Green Line" Israel, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the Seam Zone and the Israeli-controlled settlement areas throughout the West Bank. As an aside, this number excludes the Palestinians living in the latter two of these same areas (the Seam Zone and the full Israeli-controlled areas of the West Bank (Area C))
• (b) the headline area (km2) figure used includes "Green Line" Israel, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, but does NOT include the Seam Zone or other settlements throughout the West Bank
• (c) the first para in the lead mentions the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem but does not mention their occupation or annexation by Israel. The demographic reference in the same paragraph selectively includes East Jerusalem but does not reference the Golan Heights and does not explain why the other occupied territories are not covered also;
• (d) the third para in the lead lists the territories occupied in 1967, without mentioning East Jerusalem
• (e) the fourth para in the lead describes Jerusalem as the capital, without mentioning that East Jerusalem is disputed territory according to the international community. This para also mentions universal suffrage, without specifying that this does not apply to the non-Israeli-citizen Arabs in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights included in the population statistics - which would be fine if the article was only focused on Green Line Israel.
• (f) the first two subsections under history refer to the whole region including the entire occupied territories without explaining as such. In particular, the first sentence refers to the “Land of Israel”, without explaining the complexity of defining this term. More generally, if this section is to refer to the whole area (which makes sense) it should be made clear. As another aside, the history section as a whole is heavily POV as it is focused on only the Jewish history of the region, but that is perhaps best left for a separate comment.
• (g) the main demographics section covers the population of settlements in the West Bank but leaves out the Palestinians without adequately explaining the situation;
• (h) The geographical regions section shows Judea and Samaria as states with their Israeli name, but with no explanation.
• (i) The geography section mentions the occupied territories in turn but does not mention the Gaza Strip, which would be appropriately referred to as a government defined "foreign entity" over which Israel still holds control over the airspace, coastline, and over 80% of its land borders. There is also no mention of the disputed Shebaa farms, although this is clearly very small.

To make this article work, we need to decide what the scope of this article is, define it clearly, and then stick to it.

My view is that the article is technically about the "State of Israel" - i.e. the Israeli government, including the land and the people controlled by it (see State (polity)). This means that it is necessary to have clear references to the occupied territories which are all still controlled by Israel to some extent, including the occupied population and settlers, in the lead paragraph. However, for practical reasons we should define the focus of the article on the area in which Israeli law applies, such that the detail of the Israeli settlements and the Palestinian civil-administration areas can be dealt with in other articles so long as these articles are clearly referenced here.

The complexity of the situation should be dealt with up front in the article (for example see the relevant paragraph and table in the Geography of Israel article which attempts to clarify the issue). This should be initially explained and defined clearly in the lead - my suggestion below.

The territory of Israel can be defined in a number of ways as a result of a complex and unresolved political situation. The sovereign territory of Israel, excluding all territories captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War, is approximately 20,582km in area, with a population of approximately 6.7 million. The total area under Israeli law, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, is 22,072km with a population of approximately 7.2 million. Including the occupied but unannexed areas under the full Israeli military and civil control in the Seam Zone and Area C of the West Bank, the total area is 25,233km with a population of 7.5 million when including the area's 300,000 Israeli settlers but excluding the area's 150,000 Palestinians (representing the standard definition of the total population as per the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics). The total area under full or partial Israeli military control, including the partially military-controlled but Palestinian-governed Areas A and B of the West Bank and the Palestinian-governed territory of the Gaza Strip over which Israel controls the airspace, coastline, and over 80% of its land borders, is 28,177km with a population of approximately 11.7 million.

Grateful for thoughts on all this before any changes are made. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems to make a lot of sense. Good work!. Sol (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK well i've made a start. Need to think carefully about edits for consistency as need to keep the article simple and readable - can't have complex explanations about which territories we are including each time we use the word Israel in the article.Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, you were reverted (not by me tough); while I agree that your approach is worth giving a thought, you do not use any sources; that's a problem. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK fair enough - I have added detailed references as requested. Hopefully the section makes a start on solving the overarching problems with the article as per above comments.Oncenawhile (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Much better. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Although the sourcing is now improved, much of it appears to have been arrived at by a synthesis from different sources? But this is not why it has been reverted. The reason I reverted it is that it belongs not as an independent section on this page, but needs to be worked into one of the independent and detailed sub-section pages: history, geography, occupied territories, administrative districts - or if necessary to have an article of its own. Misplaced Pages has a specific format for its country pages, usually following summaries of: etymology, history, geography, government, demography, etc. The concept of a detailed definition of a country belongs to one of the detailed subsection pages.

As for the issue of inconsistent uses of the word "Israel" within the main page, that should be addressed by adding the relevant qualifications (by adding more detail) to the uses of the term within the article. E.g. "The population of Israel *(counted within the greenline)" etc. Avaya1 (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't have a specific format for its country pages. What it has is a recommended structure and a set of guidelines shown here. Editors are free to develop new structures and ways of dealing with pertinent information in a way that is best suited to a particular country through consensus. I don't have any views about the best approach in this case but it's rather important, in my view, for editors to be aware that they are not constrained by a project-wide standard. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct, there is no specific format; more importantly WP:SYNTH tells us not to combine facts to advance a certain point of view; as hard as I looked, I cannot find any point of view or opinion in this. It simply list numbers and describes the different areas and population figures. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing that's being overlooked is that the 1967 line isn't a border, it's an armistice line. Israel's borders are set in the partition resolution. Here and here2 are two notable experts who have published in the field (i.e. the texts are WP:RS) on the record to that effect. So strictly speaking e.g. West Jerusalem isn't Israeli sovereign territory. --Dailycare (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare - this sounds like a sensitive subject, but I have made amendments which hopefully neutralise it and make it technically correct.Oncenawhile (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Population numbers for the Golan heights are wrong, it lists the Syrian population together with the Israeli settlers as if they were Israeli Citizens, but the majority of Syrians there do not have Israeli citizenship. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point Supreme - the column of the left includes permanent residents. Amendment made.Oncenawhile (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits are blatant OR and SYNTH and there is no precedent on[REDACTED] to support such a table, especially right below the lead. Graph should be moved to Demographics of Israel if it stays. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I disagree, and you need to give some more reasons. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. As the editor wishing to ADD a fair amount of controversial text to the article, the onus is on you to get consensus for its inclusion, after it was reverted once. Please read WP:BRD. And also don't abuse TW be labeling the revert of your edit as "vandalism", which it isn't. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a serious discussion? The edit is blatant SYNTH and original research. The table is simply obnxious sitting right in front of the lead. No other country contains such a chart. Any statistics belong in demographics of israel, not "definition of israel." What does that mean??? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm the editor proposing the addition of the text. I disagree with Wikifan and Hup - there is absolutely no OR or SYNTH here, and the "controversial" label from Hup is not justified - nothing in the text or table is either controversial or even close to POV. It is simply trying to solve a fundamental problem with this article, very clearly identified in the discussion above. Please could the editors who disagree with the inclusion answer the following questions so we can reach a thought through agreement:

1) Do you agree there is a fundamental inconsistency in the use of the term Israel in the article? And do you agree that the article will become unreadable if all 700 references to Israel are caveated as Avaya suggests? How else would you propose solving the inconsistency problem?

2) Do you agree that the first sentence in the proposed text "The territory of Israel is not formally defined by the Israeli government, as a result of a complex and unresolved political situation" is supported by RS and is NPOV?

3) Do you agree that Israel is a special case in this respect - i.e. no other country in the world has such a complex and undefined territorial situation as such a fundamental part of its overall makeup - and therefore the needs of this article have to be looked at in their own right?

4) Please can you identify specific examples violating ] and WP:SYNTH so they can be discussed? As discussed by other editors, none of the data is forming views. What is your real concern here - and how can it be addressed in a constructive fashion?

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes this discussion is serious; I agree the header is too vague, but that doesn't mean that everything in it is junk. Arguing from precedent cannot really work here, because, well, there is no country like Israel. I still don't see the synth in here. I'd like to know where others see it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is OR. Cherry-picked data compiled by an editor placed in a graph. I know original research. Here is a chart I made illustrating UN resolutions and death tolls. The information was accurate and cited, but the graph was still OR. And while there is no country like Israel, there are plenty of countries with border and territorial disputes. "Definition of Israel" is dubious headline. Israel is a sovereign country loaded with Jews. See, there's a nice definition and I can find hundreds of RS to support the assertion. If the chart does remain it should be moved to demographics of Israel, not next to the lead of Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, with all due respect, the table that you linked is blatant WP:OR as you would have needed to go and add up all the resolutions and take a view how to allocate the countries etc - not a simple task - and the table is reaching a conclusion about who has the most resolutions. Your difficult experience should not mean that you should feel the need to ensure others suffer the same fate, at the expense of improvements to[REDACTED] articles. The proposed table in this article does not suffer from the same faults as your table - it takes the important numbers direct from RS, sticks them in to a table to make a complex topic digestible, and totals up the numbers to make it all fit together. It is trying to solve a problem with an article, not prove a point.

So we can move forward, can you please answer the questions posed - we cannot resolve this debate if you do not engage in dialogue.Oncenawhile (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your questions are meaningless. Simply designed to justify the blatant OR. Here: "Do you agree that Israel is a special case in this respect - i.e. no other country in the world has such a complex and undefined territorial situation as such a fundamental part of its overall makeup." What does this mean? Israel is a "special case?" Compared to what? See List of territorial disputes. Israel is far from unique. The table is obnoxious, plain and simple. If it does remain it should be moved to demographics of israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your questions are meaningless? Wikifan, I will not discuss this further with you unless you start following WP:EQ - two relevant ones for you "Do not ignore questions" and "Be polite, please". Oncenawhile (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If Oncenawhile's questions are meaningless, then your objections are meaningless; therefore, if you aren't willing to discuss this in a civilized manner, you can leave. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Your questions have nothing to do with policy. I gave an example of how meaningless your questions are. I'm not being mean, just honest. Editors can't design their own rubric to justify contributions and edits. The reality is the chart is blatant OR and SYNTH. There is nothing unique about Israel's territorial issues and I demonstrated above it is quite a common issue. So, if the section does remain - it doesn't belong in front of the lead and should be moved to Demographics of Israel. it has no place here, period. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, you have not demonstrated anything above, because you have not shown any willing to enter in to proper debate - you are just repeating the same POV over and over without responding to challenges against your POV. To try to move this forward, I will engage with your single question in good faith. The link you provided above re border disputes proves nothing - all of the examples are either very straightforward, clearly defined and/or wholly irrelevant in the context of their overall countries. If you want to prove your point here, please provide ONE example of a country whose territorial situation fits the criteria I laid out in (3) above - i.e.:

• (a) it is similarly "complex" to Israel - Israel technically has seven areas each with a different internal and external legal or control status as communicated clearly in the table, and is therefore defined differently within Israel by politicians, the CBS and others
• (b) has a similarly "undefined territorial situation" - see references provided in the text
• (c) and that all of this is "such a fundamental part of its overall makeup" - for example Green Line Israel is 6.7m people and 20.6km2, whilst the whole area is 11.7m and 27.7km2 (an additional 75% and 35% respectively)

Please show us one country that comes close in all three of the above in order to retain the credibility of your argument. And then, please either leave this debate or else answer questions (1), (2) and (4) above so we can move forward. Thank you.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

At best a graph like this would go in Demographics of Israel. The merit and importance of territorial issues has nothing to do with original research and synth. I don't see how any uninvolved editor would look at the chart and support its inclusion second to the introduction. And "definition of Israel?" Territorial and population issues does not define Israel as a state. More evidence for SYNTH. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your new statement The merit and importance of territorial issues has nothing to do with original research and synth suggests a backtrack from your previous statement There is nothing unique about Israel's territorial issues. You have contributed nothing to this debate except a wholly unjustified POV. Please leave the debate rather than waste everyone's time. I will undo your and Hup's unjustified reverts which violated WP:DRNC. I am happy to discuss further with anyone who is willing to enter into a constructive debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, you've clearly put a lot of effort into your chart, and while it appears to be NPOV and sourced, the way you've combined the sources is nonethless WP:Synth and WP:OR. While there might be a case for separating the information, and putting it in the more detailed subarticles on demographics, geography and occupied territories (although I think most of it is already covered), there's no argument for putting it on the top of the country article. There's also no such thing as a "definition" of a country - but insofar as a definition can be provided, then it consists in the information covered by the whole article (i.e. in the subsections: history, geography, demographics, occupied territories etc). Avaya1 (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Avaya,

• On the WP:SYNTH debate, the title of the regulation is "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" - please explain to us why you think that the section "advances a position"
• I disagree with your point on the definition of a country, but for the sake of argument am happy to change the title. How about we change the section title to "Name" (which has a number of precedents in country articles), and integrate the etymology section (which itself has a lot of room for improvement).
• And I disagree with your wider point - clarifying this information is so fundamental it cannot be left to the bottom of the article. I would like to debate this point further but I have provided so many reasons for it above (points (a)-(i) at the top and questions (1)-(3) above) so I would ask that you respond to those so we can reach a resolution here.

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps consider placing it in a sub-section entitled "Terminology and scope"? A valuable addition to the article, Onceinwhile's efforts in putting it together should be commended. The points raised as to why it is necessary are convincing and the material is well-sourced and neutrally presented. Putting together information from different sources to make an article subsection that is comprehensive in its coverage of a given topic is not SYNTH. The fact is that there are varying definitions for Israel - a place that means different things to different people, both now and historically. The reader will benefit from the inclusion of a concise and neutral guide to the varying definitions, and how they impact the scope of the area and population under discussion. Tiamut 13:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A clarification, and comments: Since my earlier revert has now been called "unjustified" twice, I'll repeat what I wrote earlier. I saw an editor adding a large chunk of controversial text to the article, the same chunk removed by another editor claiming it was synth, and that edit being reverted, using Twinkle, with an edit summary that said it was vandalism, when it clearly wasn't. I made a fully policy-compliant revert of that edit, and thus my revert was entirely justified. It turns out the "vandalism" claim was made by mistake - that's fine, but (1) Twinkle is not supposed to be used in contents disputes, in any case, and (2), per WP:BRD, once that bold edit was reverted, the next step is to get consensus here, not to edit war it back into the article. There is no consensus for it at this point, and not even a majority supports its inclusion, so let's agree, at a minimum, not to continue to put it into the article until a consensus is reached.
As to the material in question, and the arguments for and against inclusion: There is merit for the claim that the table is a violation of SYNTH. By its very existence, when no similar table exists for any other country article, it implicitly advances the argument (which was explicitly made by supporters of the table on this Talk page) that 'Israel is a special case'. It also implicitly makes some unsupported arguments such as that a difference exists between people living in the "Seam area" and those living in other parts of the West Bank, or that Gaza should still be considered as under Israeli control or occupation
But even if there was no SYNTH violation, I don't see a need for such an unwieldy table to deal with the problems is is intended to solve. If we want to clarify what we are talking about, a simple statement along the lines of "Unless otherwise noted, when discussing geographical features such as area, coastline etc.. this article refers to Israel within the the 1949 armistice lines, when discussing population, it uses the Israeli CBS figures, which include Israeli citizens living in the occupied territories." Dealing with different definitions for population and territory is hardly unique in Misplaced Pages country articles, it is usually handled with a footnote in the infobox, or multiple entries in it - See for example the USA article and its treatment of Puerto Rico citizens, or the France article and its treatment of French DOM/TOM vs. Metropolitan France. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

HupHollandHup, thank you and good work - you have spelled out the root of the debate here - that you believe the text implies that Israel is a special case. That explains why other editors who have suggested the text should be moved have not been able to comment on the specific text, or answer any questions posed.

IMHO the other points in your post are less core to the debate, but I will respond briefly to each one. The reference to "unjustified" was because when first challenged to give a proper justification of your revert, you went silent - you have now stated your position appropriately so we are OK. The implication argument does not apply to either the Seam Zone vs. West Bank (you are welcome to suggest amendments to the text - the differentiation is clear consensus here Seam Zone) or the situation of Gaza as a "Palestinian governed area. Israel controls airspace, maritime border and 80% of land border. Occupied in 1967, unilaterally disengaged in 2005, declared a foreign entity in 2007." (you are welcome to suggest amendments to the text, which is clear consensus here Gaza Strip).

Your last point re the importance of this refers to your first point I believe - i.e. the core of the debate. Let's focus the conversation to reach consensus whether or not Israel is a special case, and therefore whether such an explanation is required. I have set my points out above, so would be grateful if you could respond to them. To the specific examples you raised, the USA and France clearly do not meet the criteria above - they fall flat on points (b) and (c), since they are both very clearly defined and neither is material to the overall makeup (Overseas France is in total only 2.7% of the population of Metropolitan France and all the Territories of the United States combined make up only 1.5% of the population of the US proper. These are not in the same ballpark at the 75% number mentioned above for Green Line Israel vs the other territories.)

In order to move this forward, please provide could you let us know if you can find an example of a country which meets points (a) - (c) above, so we can reach consensus on whether or not the Israel article deserves this explanation?

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oncenawhile you have mischaracterised our objections. 1. Firstly, you've inserted a new, unprecedented and controversial section right at the top of the article, without getting a consensus for it. 2. Your table is a work of Synth, not because it advances the position that "Israel is a special case", but because you've amalgamated a lot of separate sources in a way that constitutes original research regardless of whether or not it's advancing a specific position. 3. Additionally (this is a separate problem), its insertion does advance positions, eg. (i) that a country has a "definition", (ii) that its "definition" is constituted by its territory, (iii) that its territory and population includes areas it merely has some degree of the military control over etc (I could go on). 4. Your argument for including the "definition" is the inconsistent use of the term "Israel" within the article. To me this is an extremely weak argument, because you can easily remedy any inconsistent use you find problematic by inserting more detail (e.g. the population of Israel + *"including settlers"*), within the subsections of the article, and the more detailed separate articles we have for this purpose, on history, geography, etc. There's nothing wrong with adding more detail, in fact it's far more precise than attempting to summarise everything in a single section. This isn't a matter of leaving something at the bottom of the article. In fact, the only way to summarise the country's "definition", is with the whole article, particularly including the history section.Avaya1 (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

1. This is classic and appropriate WP:BRD - we should all be proud of ourselves. 2. Your statement is internally inconsistent - you are saying it's SYNTH because it's OR, but SYNTH is a type of OR not the other way round. Your interpretation of the policy is logically flawed and therefore has no merit. 3. This is what I am trying to get to a conclusion on - please answer my questions so we can move forward. 4. There are about 700 references to Israel in the article. You are welcome to caveat all of them, but I suspect this will ruin the article. If you are unwilling to improve the article in the way which is your preference, please let the rest of us improve the article in a more simple way.Oncenawhile (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HHH that something along the lines of "Unless otherwise noted, when discussing geographical features such as area, coastline etc.. this article refers to Israel within the the 1949 armistice lines, when discussing population, it uses the Israeli CBS figures, which include Israeli citizens living in the occupied territories" would neatly solve the problem the table is ostensibly supposed to solve.

The table is obviously SYNTH. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The obvious conclusion no RS explicitly stated is that these numbers are related to each other in a way presented by this table.

As for the list of "criteria" (which are obviously designed to prove a point), Israel is not the only country that occupies land and considers some or all of it to be part of its territory (see for example China where the political issues around Tibet aren't even mentiond). What percentage of the population this covers or the "undefined territorial situation" are important because they are mentioned on a wordpress blog, HS today (who?) and The Epoch Times (what?)? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The proposed sentence does not deal with any of the points (c)-(i) at the top of this discussion. The situation regarding Tibet is clearly defined, and Tibet represents 0.3% of the population of China - again, this is simply not in the same ballpark. The refutation of the sources is absurd - the undefined nature of Israel's borders is an uncontested fact - see for Ehud Olmert's recent plans to confirm the borders, and here for Benjamin Netanyahu's recent confirmation that the Jordan Valley (which forms the majority of Area C) will likely be annexed. Can we please stay on the core of the debate rather than going on tangents - we need to reach consensus re whether Israel deserves a more clear explanation of how it is defined than other countries.Oncenawhile (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The situation regarding Tibet, well defined or not (and it's not, in case you're not aware), isn't even mentioned in the China article.

While I find your speculation about Netanyahu and the Jordan Vally interesting, what does it have to do with the table you made up and want to include in the article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we stay focused here please? Your points are tangential, but I will answer them anyway. The China article is not relevant here - if you think the article should mention Tibet, you should suggest it on that talk page, not this one. The situation in China/Tibet is not comparably undefined as per Israel. The debates over Tibet relate to historical rights to the land (i.e. which country the land should belong to, not which country it currently belongs to) and human rights - whilst these topics clearly have analogues in Israel's sphere, that is absolutely not what we are currently discussing. The analogue of our current discussion would be whether Tibet is deemed a part of the PRC today - that is an undisputed and well defined fact. And as I mentioned before, Tibet's population is 0.3% of China, versus the 75% number above. On these two bases, the Tibet comparison is therefore wholly irrelevant. On the Netanyahu and Olmert points, you were questioning the sources used to prove the simple fact that the borders are not yet defined, so I found some even more concrete RS to close the debate on the undefined nature of Israel's borders. The Olmert quote said "In the coming period we will move to set the final borders of the state of Israel" - thereby confirming that the borders are not yet set, since his proposed policy was clearly not implemented (hence the recent Haaretz report on Netanyahu).

Can we please try to close the core debate here - if you don't believe Israel deserves a more clear explanation of how it is defined than other countries, please provide one example of another country in a similar territorial situation (i.e. complex, undefined, and relating to a large population when compared to the "core").Oncenawhile (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Whose name begins with I and ends with L?

There are plenty of territorial disputes going on in the world. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG, with respect, please could you read the whole section chain before posting again? That link was provided by Wikifan, and was provided an appropriate response "The link you provided above re border disputes proves nothing - all of the examples are either very straightforward, clearly defined and/or wholly irrelevant in the context of their overall countries". We are trying to improve the article here, please don't waste time. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my point. There are plenty of border disputes. You are making up specific criteria to make Israel a special case. Your specific criteria are not wikipedia policy on which editors should base their edits. In fact, they just show you are trying to add SYNTH into the article. Quoting yourself as an "appropriate response" was a nice touch though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to suggest your own criteria for comparative relevance, or else provide constructive comment on how my suggested criteria could be improved. Can we please move forward with the discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of countries have territorial disputes. This one is not unique. No extra criteria necessary.

You were given two good suggestions, by Avaya1 and HHH, on how to fix the problems you listed with the article. I strongly object to the section you tried to add. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have interpreted this to mean that you will not be providing any substance to support your points of view. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nice Guy. I said numerous times there is nothing particularly outstanding about Israel's terroritorial disputes. Editors cannot invent and design their own graph and then plug in information they found through independent research. Unless a chart or graph in full-form exists somewhere in a reliable source, with all corresponding NPOV data, then I could see the info merged into Demographics of Israel. Even assuming the graph is 100% consistent with[REDACTED] policy, it still doesn't justify inclusion in the introduction of the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Your points have been discussed and challenged above many times. Repeating them over and over will not improve the article. Please add some new substance to the debate if you want to contribute.Oncenawhile (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Your points have also been discussed and challenged above many times by many different editors. You obviously don't have consensus for the large change you wanted to make. Why not start improving the article by doing things that there is consensus to do, like add more detail where you think the current wording is incomplete or misleading? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, i have made a start.Oncenawhile (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of these changes are just fine, others, not so much., For example, suffrage is offered only to citizens, everywhere, thus there's no need to call out in the lead that non-citizens do not vote. The 1949 armistice lines are just that - they are not "internationally recognized borders". I'll be removing those claims. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Please make smaller edits, it makes it easier to remove just stuff that is being challenged.

The part you added about Israel's borders being undefined is poorly sourced, as well as doesn't make much sense since Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and has a UN defined border with Lebanon. That's over 50% (too lazy to look up exact numbers) of Israel's borders which are defined quite well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) :::::I see NMMNG has already reverted your change - let me echo his recommendation: make these changes one at a time, so we can get the non-controversial ones into the article. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I am trying my best to work with you guys. Can I please encourage HupHolland's technique over NMMNG's. NMMNG it is not appropriate to comment on one small piece and then revert the entire change. If you don't like any of the changes, then explain. If you like some and not others, then work selectively to revert ones you don't like. I am putting a lot of effort into improving this article, so if you would like to be involved I request that you work with the same diligence. To help you here I am trying to do it in smaller chunks.Oncenawhile (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's completely appropriate to revert a whole edit when a big part of it is being challenged and the rest is scattered all over the place. Which is why I recommended that you make smaller changes, which I see you are now doing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, "when a big part is being challenged". You need to clearly specify challenges for it to be appropriate. I think we have an understanding. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

HupHH, can we discuss your comment about suffrage? I am happy to change the words, but we cannot exclude the underlying issue here. Put is israel a democracy in to google, and every article which comes up is basically about this issue. Can you suggest a more appropriate form of words here? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made some tweaks to your latest series of edits, which for the most part are fine. I removed a blog source for a statement that already has 4 other, better sources; clarified that the Arabs in annexed territories who are not citizens have declined citizenship offered to them; reworded the language about the Green Line to reflect that it was not "borders"; removed the POV-statement that the Seam area has been "de-facto annexed". Israel is a democracy, with universal suffrage. Threre's not going to be any more appropriate words here. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Under what policy do you believe that questions re Israel's democracy are not appropriate to include reference to? They are so popular I don't believe it is possible to claim they are WP:FRINGE? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Realiable sources have described Israel as a democracy, and WP:UNDUE says that putting weird sentences that suggest there's something unique or unusual about not granting non-citizens the right to vote into the lead is inappropriate. This topic has been discussed in the past, many, many times. I suggest you read the archives. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have put in a lot of time and effort to make this article better, in particular to find a way to walk the very fine NPOV tightrope whilst making the facts logical and easy to understand. Sadly, the facts being easy to understand in this article appears to a problem for editors on one side of the spectrum. As does any suggestion that Israel might be in some way different to other countries in the 21st century. The rest of us can only question why all the defensiveness about the reality of things, although IMHO an excellent quote from today's Haaretz might shed some light on the psychology behind it "That's what happens when the fire is still smoldering under the rug, the fire of the basic lack of faith in the justice of our path". I have just seen NMMNG's most recent edits, which, consistent with his name, require either fighting or surrender. Since I do not have the time to compete alone with what I personally suspect to be coordinated Astroturfing, I have decided not to fight this and I will leave (un)gracefully - back to the "once in a while" status that my name implies. See you all later. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, the NPOV "tightrope" is the whole point of wikipedia. As you reveal above, you have an obvious NPOV interest in this article. You give up your facade of neutrality after attempting to introduce substantial quantities of OR, and an unprecendented new section, at the top of an article that the rest of us have spent a lot of time (years) putting together. And when we revert your OR, you then claim that we are on a coordinated Astroturfing campaign (i.e. working for the Israeli government)? All we ask is that you edit in a piecemeal NPOV way (where you discuss any controversial changes with other editors first). Best, Avaya1 (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

State of Israel is where ever its' sovereignty is and inhabitants enjoy full citizenship. It applies to the Golan which became de facto part of Israel in 1967, after Israel defeated the Syria in a clear preemptive strike, and is now under the sovereignty of the state of Israel for 43 years (excluding the very long time it was under the sovereignty of ancient Israel), more than Syria ever had it. Syria is calling now to Israel to "return" it the Golan heights, which means that it's Israeli territory. The whole discussion on redefining territories in Israel is pure OR. --Gilisa (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A reader's perspective: Where is Israel?

I am offering here a reader's perspective only. I decided to have a look at this article because I wondered how Misplaced Pages, and also various interested groups, dealt with the issue of where Israel actually is. On the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, obviously, but where does it start? Where does it stop? Who lives in Israel (perhaps according to different definitions of Israel) and who lives outside Israel? I know other states have territorial disputes (some quite substantial; if the old Irish constitution was to be taken literally, it included a claim on Northern Ireland that would produce a very large increase in the population and area included), and there are other states with unusual territorial definitions (where what's "in" or "out" of the country depends on the definition you are using e.g. Metropolitan France) but there is something absolutely extraordinary that even Israeli law doesn't seem to establish where Israel is. And as a reader, it's definitely something of a headscratcher that e.g. the Golan is included in some definitions of Israel (including the "official" one), but the population of the Golan doesn't count towards the official population of Israel. The approach taken in older encyclopedias towards Ireland was, since NI was in practice under British administration, to mention the theoretical extent of territorial claims and then ignore it, dealing only with territories actually administered by Dublin. The Israeli case can't be dealt with so simply, because disputes are with more than one group, and in terms of practical administration, as I understand it there isn't a clear dividing line between "entirely Israeli-adminstered" and "entirely outside Israeli control" regions.

I don't really care what editors here do, but was interested to see the discussion immediately above as it crossed a lot of the points I was thinking of as a critical reader. At the moment this article seems to totally fudge what's within the scope of the word "Israel" (understandable since it's disputed and fuzzy, but unhelpful and vague for readers). Not only that, it doesn't make clear what important interested parties mean when they say "Israel" - where it starts, where it stops, who is "in" it. That's less fuzzy and should be made clear. I'm not expecting the article to come up with a single unambiguous definition of "Israel", nor for every single mention of the word to be disambiguated. But (a) every time the word "Israel" is mentioned, it must be clear what scope is being implied; (b) the meaning that relevant groups attach to the word should also be made clear. Clarity clarity clarity, please, I don't mind how it is reached so long as it is neutral, accurate and sourced! TheGrappler (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that there's any "fudging" - the article (and lead) clearly describe what is the current situation: There was a partition plan (links to article that shows its proposed borders), it was rejected by the Arabs, war ensued, culminating in armistice lines over which Israeli law was enacted (links to relevant articles, 1949 armistice lines, Green line), subsequent wars and Israeli legal actions led to a situation where East Jerusalem and the Golan were annexed, and other territories where Israeli citizens live are occupied, but not annexed. I suggested language that addresses your issues (a) and (b) - something along the lines of "Unless otherwise noted, when discussing geographical features such as area, coastline etc.. this article refers to Israel within the the 1949 armistice lines; when discussing population, it uses the Israeli CBS figures, which include Israeli citizens living in the occupied territories." HupHollandHup (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The article does an ok job of describing a complicated situation. There are three basic perspectives on where Israel is: the Israeli government perspective, the international perspective and the rabid denialist perspective. Israel believes East Jerusalem and Golan are official parts of their territory with the West Bank's status "to be resolved", everyone else thinks Golan is occupied Syria and East Jerusalem and West Bank are occupied Palestinian land that might become Israeli pending negotiations. Except, of course, for the denialist countries that don't recognize Israel, I have no idea what their maps look like. I'll re-read it to see if anything pops out. Is that even remotely helpful or not what you were looking for? Sol (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

EJ and GH are not part of the State of Israel, these two regions are occupied by Israel. Israel extending its laws does not change that they are occupied. It can not be presented as a fact in the article that these two regions are part of Israel and not occupied. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the responses above, I hope that I can stimulate useful debate: I have no agenda to grind here, other than as a reader of the article I felt that it doesn't handle some aspects very well. HupHollandHup's suggestion of a comment for clarification of figures etc is very good, that's certainly one thing that the article is lacking. Please can I advise HupHollandHup and Sol to re-read the article pretending they know nothing at all, except what they read? I don't feel there is anything glaringly incorrect or controversial about the article text, but that's because I know about the situation already (as does HupHollandHup), so nothing jumps out when reading it through. But if you imagine you know zilch, and only are building up your knowledge by what you read in the article (particularly sequentially, which makes it far worse) you'll surely notice that it is confusing and unclear on some key points. Some examples:

• The infobox gives two area figures: incl/excl EJ and Golan. Are both of these including Sheba farms? (unclear, but I'm presuming so; I acknowledge that this is a different type of territorial dispute to EJ but probably deserves cursory noting that it's being included) What part of the West Bank is being included in these figures? It needs to be made clear what line is being used to separate WB/Israel in these figures.
• I'm presuming the line being used is the 1949 armistice line. Why is the 1949 armistice line actually used as the basis for so many figures? It's clear to a reader that the 1949 armistice line is in many practical respects irrelevant (it no longer represents the "frontline" between Arab/Israeli control; Israel now has some control beyond that line; there have been wars after 1949 each of which had their own armistice lines; the 1949 line isn't a physical barrier, doesn't match the original UN partition proposal, doesn't correspond to a continuous physical barrier) so a reader is left guessing what significance it has beyond historical. Is it a legally-important line? ("The border between Israel and the neighboring West Bank is not formally defined by the Israeli government" doesn't suggest so, or if it is legally recognized, it's not by the Israeli government). Is it a line of political importance? Is it a line generally used by international orgs/governments? Is it a line used when compiling Israeli government statistics? Is it a line used by the Israeli courts to define the "occupied territories"?
• To a new reader, "The border between Israel and the neighboring West Bank is not formally defined by the Israeli government" is a little confusing, because one is quite accustomed to seeing a demarcation between Israel and the WB on maps. Does the sentence I just quoted imply that the line one sees in a map, is only used by a particular cartographic convention, and the Israeli governments failure to officially define the border implies that some areas to the left of the line may not actually be in Israel at all, while some areas to the right might be? (E.g. is the failure to define borders, an acknowledgement that areas to the left of line could be conceded as part of the final peace settlement deal without it being a concession of "Israeli territory"? But then, I'm pretty sure - though this is not made clear in the article - that the area to the left of the line is treated as an integral part of Israel from the point of view of present law and government...) Or does "The border is not formally defined" mean something different: that the line on the map is a "minimal" border (Israel contains at least as much territory as is indicated in the map) but the Israeli government is reserving the right to say that some territory to the right of the line on the map, may also belong within Israel's borders? I'm trying to make quite a subtle point here and I'm not sure I'm succeeding, roughly speaking does the statement I quoted mean that the line on the map is regarded as "fuzzy", or just that it's regarded as the minimal extent of Israeli territory?
• What do Israeli courts regard as "Israeli" vs "occupied" territories? Is this different from the government position? Apologies if I missed this in the article, but I couldn't see either of those facts.
• The population figure is relatively well-explained in the infobox. I understand that the Israeli diaspora is unusually large, are Israeli citizens living permanently overseas excluded from the infobox figure? I actually think in the case of a country with a large diaspora, it's relevant to know the number of national citizens as well as the population living in the country. To open a can of worms: if citizens in the WB are included, but non-citizens in the WB are excluded, this is obviously somewhat contradictory but understandable given the circumstances. Part of me would find it helpful to know what number of non-citizens in EJ and Golan are included in the population figures... and of course there are guest-workers in Israel too, which bumps up the number of non-citizens considerably in a way unrelated to the Arab-Israeli issue. So I can understand leaving all that discussion to a dedicated demographics article. I hope you can see that a reader might find it odd/controversial that you are including WB citizens but excluding WB non-citizens, though. I hope you can also see that it's strange at first sight, to give two area figures (depending on EJ and Golan) but to only give one population figure (in which they're both included). I can actually appreciate why it's been done that way when I put on my editing thinking hat, but with a reader's hat on it does look curious. I don't know if it would be better to give one population figure for the entire permanent population of Green Line Israel + EJ + Golan, excluding the WB, (perhaps distinguishing the number of citizens and non-citizens) and a separate population figure that "Additionally, the WB contains X Iraeli citizens and Y non-citizens" or "X Israli citizens in a total population of Z"? I suspect this issue is one where there is a gulf between NPOV and making life easy for the reader to understand :) The current infobox population figure is probably the most appropriate, once you understand the mechanics of the Israel/Palestine situation, but to a first-time reader it does seem rather artificial in what it includes and excludes. I don't know quite how to improve the situation (perhaps a footnote would be better than cramming the infobox) but I'm sure I can't be the only one who can see some issues here? Any suggestions would be greatly welcomed! TheGrappler (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sheba farms is pretty small, I assume that's why it's not dealt with specifically. Israel considers it part of the Golan. It was occupied with the rest of the Golan in the 1967 war.
• The 1949 lines are important because UNSC 242 calls for a return to those lines. I'd need to find a source, but I think it would be correct to say that this is the de facto recognized border of Israel.
• I agree that "The border between Israel and the neighboring West Bank is not formally defined by the Israeli government" is kind of awkward. It was an attempted compromise regarding which of Israel's borders are defined by the Israeli government, and this is the only part that isn't. I think it would be more correct to say that the border between Israel and the West Bank/future Palestinian state is considered by the Israeli government as a subject for negotiations, or something like that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. When I have my "I do know something about this topic" hat on, I agree with your second point - I feel like I "know" why the writers here have used the 1949 lines, in a sense it's "obvious" and everybody does it... but actually if you adopt the "I know nothing" perspective, it's clear there's an unstated assumption in play here. "De facto recognized border" is probably too neat to encapsulate it, I'm sure that statement itself would be revealed to not be 100% clear-cut on close examination, but it's expressing the kind of sentiment that makes 1949 the appropriate choice to present to the reader. I know Sheba farms is small; if it's being treated in these figures as part of the Golan I think it would be better to be explicit about it - no need for an essay; "Golan heights (including Sheeba farms)" or "Golan heights (including Sheeba farms, which is claimed by Lebanon)" rather than plain "Golan heights", would make it clear. I do wonder what "not formally defined" means; I never get the impression that it's meant to imply any area to the left of the 1949 line is not assumed to be, or treated as, 100% Israeli, but maybe that represents nothing more than a collective political assumption that it won't be conceded in negotiations. Does anybody know about how Israeli government and Israeli court positions on the extent of Israel's territory can be integrated into this article? I did try to read the article carefully, and the court position in particular was something I was expecting to see as a reader. Also, does anybody have any thoughts about diaspora citizen numbers being noted in some way? I understand there's a lot of them, proportionately... are there comparable countries for which the total citizenship figure is provided in the article, to supplement the population figure for permanent residents? TheGrappler (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• I meant "de facto recognized border" in the sense that this is viewed by most other countries to be the basis for a future settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. As you correctly stated, this is a political assumption, but I think it's pretty widespread.
• IIRC, the Israeli courts treat areas formally annexed as part of Israel and the rest as occupied.
• I have no opinion either way about diaspora citizens. Do you have any numbers? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Israelis living oversea are not included in the population of Israel. They are estimated around 750000 people, 80% of them Jews, this including the children of these former Israelis. Many of them are also former new immigrants who went back home or to another country 80.179.125.162 (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Independence/Establishment

Egypt and Ethiopia are also modern countries. The situation is entirely comparable. And all three had their independence curtailed for extended periods. In the case of Egypt, the original dominant nation has been even been replaced (ancient Egyptians=Copts by Muslim Arabs). I don't see why Israel should be treated differently. Monosig (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

All three remained "countries", even when not states; Israel did not. In any case those "establishments" are vague & excessive. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I dot not see that you have actually edited Egypt and Ethiopia. Monosig (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no point in arguing that just because other pages make some sort of claims, other articles should do the same; this article is about the country founded in 1948. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That's your legitimate POV. However the "country" was not founded in 1948. It only became independent. This is not the Wikepedia norm. See Armenia, Czech Republic (so much so "not a country" in history that it doesn't even have a name in English), Ukraine (was never a state or a country under that name), Georgia (country) (kicked off as Kingdom of Georgia in 300 BC, was independent 1918-1921 and only regained independence in 1991, most of the time under Mongol and Russian rule there being no state and no country). Zimbabwe ("established" - as the British crown colony of Southern Rhodesia - in 1901; that would dictate Israel and Palestinian National Authority tracing themselves back to the founding of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1917-1920). The "formation" of Germany, it appears, occurred in 962 AD as the Holy Roman Empire... The examples are endless. They are not "sort of claims". They are the sovereign roots of all these nation states. See the list in the previous post above (visiting them shows clearly that these are not "some sort of claims" - and as you know, if they were they woould not remain in Misplaced Pages). So either you have your work cut out (amending each and every every country solely to the modern state-entity) or agree to Israel being standardized with everyone else. Monosig (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no standards. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the modern State of Israel, a parliamentary republic in the Middle East. Marokwitz (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And that comment is not applicable to all the other nation-states mentioned above? Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia, Zimbabwe, Germany. All of these - and many more - have historical nation-state establishment dates in their Infobox Country greatly preceding their modern political independence, even if they spent centuries under foreign subjugation and/or ceased to exist as a country at all. There may be no "standard" but there certainly appears to be common usage. So when the modern Federal Republic of Germany is deemed to have been established in 1949 (or 1870), not as the Holy Roman Empire in 962 AD, Ethiopia is deemed to have been established in 1855 rather than in 980 BC, Egypt is deemed to have been established in 1922 rather than in 3100 BC (an entirely different non-Arab nation which is now the small Copt minority) - then Israel can be deemed to have been established in 1948 rather than in 1100 BC. One way or another. Monosig (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Good. Go there and start your discussions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Arab Republic of Egypt was established in 1922. I agree that both articles should be treated the same way. Marokwitz (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Israeli settlers in the lead

In the lead it says: "Citizens of the State of Israel also live in Israeli settlements in the West Bank."

It doesn't say anything about that Israeli settlers live in Jerusalem and GH. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about that Israeli settlers live in Jerusalem because Israeli settlers don't live in Jerusalem. LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

1. BC Kessner, HS Today. "Israel's Hard-Learned Lessons". Retrieved 7 October 2010.
2. Ahmed Ismail / BBC News. "Israel: A Country Without Defined borders". Retrieved 7 October 2010.
3. The Institute for National Security Studies. "The Legacy of Undefined Borders, Tel Aviv Notes No. 40, June 5, 2002". Retrieved 7 October 2010.
4. The Epoch Times. "Israel Journal: A Land Without Borders". Retrieved 7 October 2010.