Talk:Israel/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Former entities in infobox

Not that i expect for something, mainly because of users who obsessively revert Israeli-related edits which don't fit their POV, but i'll give it a try. What is the problem with former Jewish entities that preceded the state of Israel? Those entities are directly related to Israel. Israel is derived from them and its nationality is based on them. I provided several sources that support the claim. The claim that the article is about modern Israel is false since there are also other articles about modern countries that mention former entities, like Egypt, Iran and Armenia, even with a gap of centuries.—Infantom (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I fixed Armenia to be the same as all other nation articles. Feel free to re-read Talk:Israel/Archive 38#Adding more information to the column about the founding of Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

is there any particular reason why you didn't do the same for Egypt & Iran ? Brad Dyer (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

They already follow the standard used across wikipedia. Sepsis II (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

They have the same ancient history of former entities that you eliminated from Armenia (and apparently, you or someone else did the same here, for Israel). Why? Brad Dyer (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Following what standard? What is/was consensus for the Israel article is not consensus for other articles. To impose the consensus from one article to another article without discussion is disruptive. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As already stated Israel and Armenia, like Greece and unlike Egypt and Iran, have very long periods in which they never existed in any sense and are thus have no direct lineage. To Kansas Bear, no, no it's not, try reading your link. Sepsis II (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The former discussion is irrelevant, this is a new one. You wrote: "This is an article about the modern state of Israel who's history does not reach outside the 20th century "- the sources i brought (6) contradict this claim. The Israeli nation have been existed, at least, since the kingdom of Israel and Judah and was reestablished as the sate of Israel.--Infantom (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The former discussion is very relevant, feel free to strike your words from the old conversation, but the discussion is still relevant. Sepsis II (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't part of the former discussion, this is a new one. I can't import your arguments all the time, please re-wright them here. Not to mention you don't even bother to respond to my claims. The infobox of Armenia has remained the same, Iran wasn't existed between the Sasanian Empire and Safavid dynasty and between the Safavid dynasty and the Islamic republic. There are gaps of centuries. Same for Egypt, Muhammad Ali dynasty has nothing to do with ancient Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infantom (talk • contribs) 11:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree modern Egypt has nothing to do with the Egypt of the Pharaohs - not the same people, not the same, language, not the same religion, not the same culture, not even the same name (but in English). Nothing but geography. Modern Israel contains the same people, speaking the same language, with the same religion as ancient Israel. So Sepsis II claim is at best absurd.Benjil (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you two just make up history to fit your agendas? This is an encylopedia, try going to a forum to write gibberish. Sepsis II (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

if you can't debate with other people in a civilized manner, perhaps you should find a better hobby. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can find one thing wrong in what I wrote, I will be happy to retract. In the meantime you will refrain from insulting other people or even writing anything here if you have nothing to say.Benjil (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to Sepsis II , not you. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I know I was answering to him to. Sorry if this was confusing.Benjil (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Modern Egypt does have something to do with Pharaonic Egypt, e.g. the Coptic language is descended directly from ancient Egyptian and is still used in Egypt in religious contexts. The counter-argument to Israel being descended from the ancient kingdom is that Israel is an artificial colonial implant that has no organic continuity from the ancient country. This view is significant in sources, so if we were to say in the article that Israel is the current form of the ancient land, we'd be neglecting this view. We had a similar discussion earlier and resolved to say something like "Israel claims descent" from the ancient land, which is true. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, and some sources say that aliens control the US government and that the Shoah never happened, so maybe we should also not neglect these views in the relevant articles ? What about the view that the Palestinians are an artificial people that never existed before 1967, indeed a lot of very serious sources claim it. Should it be included in the Palestine article ? Benjil (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A specific ethnic group has something to do with ancient Egypt, but we are talking about the Arab Republic of Egypt and not the Coptic minority.--Infantom (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Dailycare, I would support you closing this thread as hopeless. Sepsis II (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Says the one who has just been insulting people and not able to answer anything seriously ? Now I would like to know why we can link modern Egypt to ancient Egypt when they have almost nothing in common but territory and not modern Israel to ancient Israel ? So can you for once answer something intelligent ? If not we will reverse your edits. Thanks. Benjil (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What you need to do is follow the normal editorial process which includes Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, as it says on the WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES header. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You are speaking to me ? Explain me what I did not do ? I did not reverse or edit anything, I am trying to debate and the one who reversed what seems to be a legitimate edit refuses to answer. So I think I am following the regular conduct before involving an admin. Benjil (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm addressing you. What you didn't do is find consensus. What you did do is threaten to unilaterally impose your preferred content by stating "If not we will reverse your edits". What you should do is follow dispute resolution (which has nothing to do with admins). Sean.hoyland - talk 12:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not initiate anything and have no time for for all this silliness. I asked a question to someone who preferred to answer with insults. And interestingly you are asking me to respect the rules. This is just confirming what I said before: it's becoming difficult to take wikipedia seriously. Benjil (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Well ya he probably could have been more polite. However after reading everything that was said before your response his response is understandable. As for your response... Same people or rather some of their descendants. One thing the number of diffrent ethnic devisions should tell you is that it is a seperate culture. It's not the same language. Modern Hebrew is a revival language. It's even questionable if it is the same religion. Are Baptists of the same religion as John, Paul, and Mary? But then that is original research. There is the one discussion linked above and likely multiple others in the archive. One of the points made above that may have not been clear is a concensus already exists for this. Editing to get a concensus isn't acceptable. With the above issues some form of dispute resolution may need to be used.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

In case some people are unaware the page is under arbitration sanctions. On the top of this page there is a warning with the details. Some of details Sean has politely offered above. I would further like to point out that this is the Israel talk page. Relevent for the discussion of Israel. I'm not aware of the situation with the Armenia page but the details of that page and changes to it are best discussed on the talk page of that article. You were linked to the previous discussion on current concensus. As he has already discussed this and linked you to it I see no reason that he should say more.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll answer both your comments here. The Arab Republic of Egypt has nothing to do with ancient Egypt. No language, culture, tradition, religion, symbols, myths, folklore.. simply nothing, completely different entity. If some of their descendants is enough than i can't see how it doesn't apply to Israel where most population is ethnically linked to ancient Israel. Yes, Modern Hebrew was revived as a spoken language, but it is still Hebrew language. The Jewish religion of today has been developed directly from second temple Judaism, unlike Islam and Christianity in Egypt which their origins are not from ancient Egypt.

The former Jewish entities are integral part of Israel's history, You can read in every reliable and legitimate source (i provided six of them). You can read it in every encyclopedia, including this website(in several articles and even this one). Mentioning it in the infobox is just a matter of formality.

As for Armenia, that's the point. It is not really the consensus in Wikipedia, only when it comes to Israel. it's simply double standards. Look at the section below this one, this is the opinion you don't want to neglect.--Infantom (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

They are an integral part of Jewish history not modern Israeli history. Modern Hebrew.. Is it a continuation of classical hebrew a relexification of Yiddish? I wasn't aware that debate had conclusively ended. While Judaism may date back to the second temple, Masorti Judaism dates back to the 19th century Germany. As for Armenia, they have a talk page. This is the talk page of Israel the modern country. I'm not sure how many people edit here and there. I assume like here they edit by consensus. I'm not exactly sure how your moral outrage is supposed to change that consensus. Have you considered an RFC?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A late comment, but anyway: apparently the articles History of Israel and this one are not in agreement with you, the former entities are part of Israel's history. Articles like Jews and Israelites claims different from you- that Jews are indeed the very same people as the ancient Jews. There's no debate over Modern Hebrew; the vast majority of scholars classify it as continuation of Classical Hebrew. "relexification of Yiddish" is a specific claim of one person that even other scholars that question Modern Hebrew disagree with it. What i'm suggesting is adding to the infobox things that are already in this article(and other Israel related articles), just making it formal. As for Armenia, i have been told that a "direct link" is needed, but this is not the case with Armenia and other countries, that's why the consensus here is a pure double standards--Infantom (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Modern Jews are certainly not "the same people" as ancient Jews, for several reasons, the most obvious one being that the ancient Jews have all died a very long time ago. At most, modern Jews are in part descended from ancient Jews. Modern Palestinians, and other populations, are also partly descended from ancient Jews. Modern Jews are also in part descended from populations other than ancient Jews. Zionists today draw parallels between ancient Israel and the modern country, but the original Zionists were under no such illusions and referred to Zionism as a colonial ideology. The key point here is that entirely serious people disagree with reasonable reasons with the notion that the modern state would somehow flow as as a continuation from the ancient one. Therefore, mentioning the ancient ones would amount to taking sides in that argument, which we shouldn't do. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about ethnic relation. Palestinian Arabs are definitely not part of that definition, even if some of them are genetically related. Many other Israel and Jewish related articles on this website completely support my claim. "Original" Zionists always claimed Israel on historical and natural basis, and not under "illusions" since these were(and are) legitimate reasons. The key point here is anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and to a large extent, anti-Semitic POV that you base your "consensus" on, while ignoring the sources i provided(initially) and many other articles on Wikipedia. Anyhow, what i'm suggesting is already on this article, the side you are afraid to take has already been "taken". Infantom (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Main cities

I changed the main city of the Northern District to Nazareth- It's a larger city. If it was Nazareth Illit for a reason, feel free to change it back, but there didn't seem to be a reason previously for Nazareth Illit. Dmelc9 (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No political party has ever held a majority

This statement is technically correct, but also a bit misleading. The Alignment held a majority of seats (63/120) for a brief period in 1969 between its creation and the 1969 elections. Like the Israeli Arab party bit above, I think the reality is a bit more complex, and so simplistic terms like "No political party has ever held a majority" should be avoided. Number 57 11:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. The article you linked to states with respect to Alignment in 1969: "The two constituent parties remained separate, but with combined electoral campaigns and candidate lists." And the Fourteenth government of Israel, which you are referring to, was a coalition government including other parties.

The statement "No political party has ever held a majority" is very well sourced. Having said that, to take your point into account, we could nuance it by saying either:

• "No political party has ever won a majority" [the word "won" here being the key], or
• "All Israeli governments have been coalitions between multiple parties"

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Alignment was an alliance, which is why I said the wording is technically correct, but alliances are sometimes treated as parties. Perhaps "No party has ever won a majority in an election, and all governments have been coalitions between several parties." would be the best option? Number 57 12:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Capital: Jerusalem

The UN recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, in its 2013 country statistics. West Jerusalem is universaly recognized as Israeli territory, except by those calling for the destruction of Israel (thus contravening Jewish self determination). The move to Tel Aviv by embassies was a protest at the annexation of East Jerusalem. This makes Tel Aviv a financial/diplomatic centre, but not the capital city. Therefore I think the "disputed" should be rmoved from the captial city entry. Bellezzasolo (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, please see here for what the UN thinks about Jerusalem. We had an authoritative RFC about the Capital-of-Israel issue recently where the issue was settled for now, you can see the discussion and result here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

More NPOV problems

User:Infantom has removed the following from the "Independence and first years" section:

"The history of Israel’s independence is controversial, with the traditional narrative differing significantly from the story told by Israel’s New Historians."

Providing only the traditional narrative, without any reference to the New Historians, is very misleading an not a NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

First, not everything you disagree with is a NPOV problem. Your statement (besides being disputed) is not sourced, not explained or clarified and not in the right place; You can't start a section like that with this kind of statement. Please read the rest of the section and see how it should be written (well sourced and explained). Infantom (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it poor style to cite the statement, as it should be self evident from the Wikipedia New Historians article hyperlinked. There are 21 references that prove this factual statement already given in the New Historians article. Dragging as many as necessary over to this article can be easily done. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be "poor style" but it is policy. Policy trumps opinion. Sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. You can find this under WP:WHYCITE and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If it can easily done then please go ahead and do it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Gouncbeatduke, I suggest you add this sentence back with the appropriate citations from the linked article.

Infantom, do you have any other concerns about the sentence? If so, could you kindly propose amended drafting rather than deleting the sentence in its entirety? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tried, reverted by User:Plot Spoiler Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The "new Historians" versions are very controversial themselves, i don't think it has a place in a summarized section in a general article about Israel. Infantom (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. There are no remaining policy-based reasons for excluding this. User:Plot Spoiler please explain your rationale. User:Infantom, above you stated you think the sentence is in the wrong place - where would you propose it goes and why? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have any explanation? Gouncbeatduke, if no answer for a few more days I think we can put this back. I propose we follow the advice at WP:DISCFAIL. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A such claim should be in the right context and not a general unexplained sentence in the beginning of the section.Infantom (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I support Infantom Ykantor (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Gouncbeatduke, per Infantom's suggestion, are you happy to add additional context / explanation around the sentence? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that Israel has always been an independent state, so that the article should be referring to the first years of Israel's existence rather than the first years of its independence?     ←   ZScarpia   21:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

- This section started with a talk concerning narratives. I can not understand how come that there are 2 parallel histories (so called narratives). There was one history only, is not it? sometime we don't know the facts and there are few alternative reconstructions of the relevant history but it seems that most of this conflict is well documented.

- The Israeli establishment use to claim that the Arab refugees left because they were ordered to leave (wrong), that Israel was the weaker side (partially correct) etc. But nowadays we are aware of the real 1948 situation although there are fringe historians like Pappe that should be ignored. Ykantor (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Population

The population figure just cryptically jumped by quite a bit, I think the explanation is that the Jerusalem Post article includes people living in the settlements, which aren't really in Israel. The OECD has 8.1 million, the World Bank has 8.059 million, the CIA has 7.8 million and the WTO has 7.9 million. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The formal and most valid source for this is the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, which gives the number 8.2383 million for the end of August 2014 (cited on the page). The other are secondary, less updated, sources. What's the connection to the Jerusalem Post? It's not mentioned as the source. Of course this number includes the settlements, since their population are Israeli citizens in Israeli controlled area. All the other sources that you mentioned also include them. Lophostrix (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ottoman law in Israeli Legal System

Israel often uses Ottoman law to justify converting occupied lands into Israeli state lands. I wonder if it should be mentioned in the legal system section that Israel also uses Ottoman law? It is mentioned in the Israeli land and property laws article. PizzaMeLove (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Israeli law was based on the British mandate law, which in turn was based on the Ottoman law. However, the overwhelming majority of the Ottoman laws were annulled over the years. To the best of my knowledge (I'm not a lawyer), there are only remnants of Ottoman law in the current Israeli law. The land and property laws (which I've just checked) are modern ones, with the exception of "holy grounds" (Waqf, etc.). This influence is also mentioned in the Israeli law article. I think it would be misleading to write that Israel "also uses Ottoman law". I added a link on the page to the Israeli law article, although I think it is badly written and should be merged with Judicial system of Israel. I would be glad if someone would suggest to merge those pages, as I don't know how. Lophostrix (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)