| Revision as of 21:33, 3 July 2014 editZzuuzz (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators136,902 edits rm; unrelated to article← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:24, 6 July 2014 edit undoSerialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers6,247 edits →Former entities in infoboxNext edit → | ||
| Line 258: | Line 258: | ||
| :As for Armenia, that's the point. It is not really the consensus in Misplaced Pages, 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.--] (]) 13:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | :As for Armenia, that's the point. It is not really the consensus in Misplaced Pages, 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.--] (]) 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?] (]) 10:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2014 == | == Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2014 == | ||
Revision as of 10:24, 6 July 2014
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | Israel is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 |
|
Old archives Israel and the Occupied Territories Jerusalem as capital |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
| Toolbox |
|---|
Jerusalem and Tel Aviv
"Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem (if East Jerusalem is included) is the country's most populous city and its designated capital."
If East Jerusalem is included? Why wouldn't it be included? If you want to allude to the controversy why don't you allude to the controversy? I would remove that (if East Jerusalem is included part).
I also do not see the importance of listing Tel Aviv. It's the financial center. Why don't you mention Nazreth as the second most populous city? If you want to mention Tel Aviv I would probably mention that it is the city that that hosts foreign embassies. I'm curios why that isn't mentioned actually.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- changed to: Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally the East Jerusalem section of the city is not considered to be a part of Israel.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Considering that internationally West Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel, shouldn't it be changed to just, "though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel." Sepsis II (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It will need a source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Victor Kattan, "Competing claims, contested city: the sovereignty of Jerusalem in international law" states on page 2, paragraph 2 that no country recognizes Israeli sovereignty in West or East Jerusalem. Kattan is an academic in the relevant field so this source is reliable for the statement. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
"Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally the Jerusalem section of the city is not considered to be a part of Israel. "- Proposed change in relation to all of the sources involved.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think saying this is simpler: "though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel" --Dailycare (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
lol Ya that's much better.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel." is what it has been changed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialjoepsycho (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Kattan is just one scholar. The issue is far more nuanced and complex than this. See for example "Whither Jerusalem?: Proposals and Positions Concerning the Future of Jerusalem", by renown scholars of international law such as Prof. Ruth Lapitdot. In particualr, pages 15-17, quoting Lauterpucht, Gruhin and Cassese. Avusi nabusi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Avusi nabusi: Certainly, Katan is but one reliable source. However are you arguing that Katan shouldn't be used? That argument can made certainly. It is more Nuanced and complex than this. Far more so than originally written. How do you think it should be written?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- We can't be stating, in Misplaced Pages's voice, that "no country recognizes Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem". That is simply Kattan's opinion (from an advocacy piece he wrote for the Arab League, not an academic research paper, and other scholars disagree with that view. As to how it should be written - I think it was fine the way it was written for a very long time - "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem (if East Jerusalem is included) is the country's most populous city and its designated capital." We have an entire article dedicated to the more nuanced positions. Avusi nabusi (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- What does the Lapitdot source say on pages 15-17? Google Books doesn't display those. And as far as I know, no country does recognize Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem, this is reflected also in several UN resolutions, and isn't a question of someone's opinion, rather it's a question of fact. See this summary of the US position, for example. The UN said in resolution 63/30 of 2009 that "any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void" Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I now found the Lapidot source, it says (page 17, 2nd paragraph and page 18, 1st paragraph) that "most states" haven't recognized Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem. It says that Israel itself and "various international jurists" support the notion that West Jerusalem would be in Israel, which isn't inconsistent with what Kattan says. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Saying "most states haven't" implies some states have, and is thus very much consistent with the false claim of Kattan that "no state has recognized it". Further, now that you found the source, you could spend some time reading it carefully and see for example, on p17 that Cassese is of the view that Egypt recognizes, at least implicitly, Israel's sovereignty in West Jerusalem. Bottom line : we can't state in Misplaced Pages's voice as fact the opinion of one scholar which is at odds with others. Avusi nabusi (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well for one, that's a logical fallacy on top of well poisioning, two you're still banned from wikipedia nocal. Sepsis II (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have two points to make here: 1) saying "most states haven't" doesn't imply that some states have. It states that a majority of states have not, and implies the writer doesn't know of any that have. 2) Both sources are consistent with the actual edit we're discussing: " internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel". This text doesn't mean that no-one anywhere thinks Jerusalem is in Israel, only that it's the consensus view that Jerusalem isn't in Israel. So the wording does accurately reflect both sources, and I'm OK with citing Lapidot as well as Kattan to support it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well for one, that's a logical fallacy on top of well poisioning, two you're still banned from wikipedia nocal. Sepsis II (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Saying "most states haven't" implies some states have, and is thus very much consistent with the false claim of Kattan that "no state has recognized it". Further, now that you found the source, you could spend some time reading it carefully and see for example, on p17 that Cassese is of the view that Egypt recognizes, at least implicitly, Israel's sovereignty in West Jerusalem. Bottom line : we can't state in Misplaced Pages's voice as fact the opinion of one scholar which is at odds with others. Avusi nabusi (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I now found the Lapidot source, it says (page 17, 2nd paragraph and page 18, 1st paragraph) that "most states" haven't recognized Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem. It says that Israel itself and "various international jurists" support the notion that West Jerusalem would be in Israel, which isn't inconsistent with what Kattan says. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- What does the Lapitdot source say on pages 15-17? Google Books doesn't display those. And as far as I know, no country does recognize Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem, this is reflected also in several UN resolutions, and isn't a question of someone's opinion, rather it's a question of fact. See this summary of the US position, for example. The UN said in resolution 63/30 of 2009 that "any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void" Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- We can't be stating, in Misplaced Pages's voice, that "no country recognizes Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem". That is simply Kattan's opinion (from an advocacy piece he wrote for the Arab League, not an academic research paper, and other scholars disagree with that view. As to how it should be written - I think it was fine the way it was written for a very long time - "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem (if East Jerusalem is included) is the country's most populous city and its designated capital." We have an entire article dedicated to the more nuanced positions. Avusi nabusi (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is a huge difference between "considered" and "recognized". To consider is to think or believe, while To recognize is to acknowledge. There is no way of telling whether the international community considers Jerusalem to be part of Israel. Furthermore, the international community (specifically, the UN) has only dealt with the question of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Therefore, it can only be stated that Jerusalem has not been recognized internationally as the capital of Israel - as is mentioned in the relevant page on Jerusalem. --Caliban19 (talk) 12:25, 07 March 2014 (UTC)
Again (if East Jerusalem is included).... Why wouldn't it be included? If there is no point in having here why it wouldn't be included then there is no point in even mentioning it here in the first place. The more nuanced positions in the article will cover that ground as well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Israel's financial center is Tel Aviv, while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally the East Jerusalem section of the city is not considered to be a part of Israel. It is questioned if West Jerusalem is a part of Israel." Proposed change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialjoepsycho (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I object. Today, West Jerusalem is internationally considered as part of Israel - it's the Eastern part that's disputed. -Yambaram (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- EJ is not disputed and WJ is not recognized as part of Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- We have sources, including sources cited in this thread, which say that West Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as being in Israel. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Dailycare and the other editors. I respond to the statement that "we have sources" WJ is not considered part of Israel. "Having source" does not mean source corresponds to Misplaced Pages's views of neutrality and objectivity. Please consider that on page 3 paras 1-4 the author (Kattan) states that he disagrees with the commonly accepted view of "sovereignty" the "international law view" of "sovereignty" as "territorial sovereignty" or the "legal competence which the state enjoys in respect of its territory." (para 1-2). He posits an alternative view of "sovereignty": as akin to the notion of "title" as when comparing a succession of title, and "legitimacy", which must take into account a history of colonialism. It is through this framework that he supports his earlier statement that WJ is not considered part of Israel. This framework of sovereignty is not objective but based on Kattan's subjective view that Israel power over WJ (gained in 1948 armed conflict) and it legitimacy (part of alleged colonization) does not yield sovereignty. Misplaced Pages has a definition of sovereignty which more closely aligns with territory sovereignty and international law, not a historical perspective on title and legitimacy. The majority view of int'l law, int'l scholars and the worlds' nations is that the land of WJ conquered in 1949 by Israel is part of ISrael. Please see UN map which places WJ in Israel, EJ in disputed land: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf
- We have sources, including sources cited in this thread, which say that West Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as being in Israel. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- EJ is not disputed and WJ is not recognized as part of Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I object. Today, West Jerusalem is internationally considered as part of Israel - it's the Eastern part that's disputed. -Yambaram (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Accordingly, I propose to change the sentence from "...though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel." to
- "...though internationally East Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel."
- I further propose to delete FN 21 and to replace it with the UN cite above, as the UN is on this question more neutral and more likely to correspond to generally accepted notions of sovereignty, int'l law, and what is "considered" part of a country. Jonmayer18 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think a change based on the notion that "The majority view of int'l law, int'l scholars and the worlds' nations is that the land of WJ conquered in 1949 by Israel is part of ISrael" would be a good idea. Have you seen the Opinions on the Legal Status of Jerusalem According to International Law section in "Whither Jerusalem?: Proposals and Positions Concerning the Future of Jerusalem" for example ? Perhaps you could explain what led you to believe that the majority view of int'l law, int'l scholars and the worlds' nations is that Israel has sovereignty over West Jerusalem as it is not obvious. What about the EU for example ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- One example would be Misplaced Pages's page on West Jerusalem says that Israel's authority over the WJ is de facto recognized, if not de jure. The citation provided there is much stronger than FN 21 here. There is also the UN map I posted. As stated, Kattan relies on an argument for sovereignty which, by his own admission, not in accord with int'l law. please see paras 1-4 on page 3. http://www.qatarconferences.org/jerusalem/doc1/doc31.pdf Note also that his paper says that it shall not be cited without permission. Is there authority for his permission? Has Misplaced Pages's IP policy been complied with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmayer18 (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. I've already read Kattan because I was involved in the very lengthy and detailed preparations for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jerusalem where it was provided as one of the sources for the statement "Few or no countries recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel". Your proposed change appears to be based on the false premise that "The majority view of int'l law, int'l scholars and the worlds' nations is that the land of WJ conquered in 1949 by Israel is part of Israel". This view is inaccurate as far as I'm aware so it can't form part of the encyclopedia or be a premise upon which decisions about content are made. Israel's de facto authority over the occupied territories is also recognized in the sense that it's recognized as the occupying power that administers those territories. That doesn't mean they are de facto recognized as part of Israel and wouldn't justify removing something that said that they were "not considered to be a part of Israel". I think you are going a bit too far. There are plenty of sources out there that talk about the variety of views on West Jerusalem. It would probably be better to focus on those if your intention is to provide a more nuanced description than "though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel". Sean.hoyland - talk 07:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK fair enough. How about: (1) How about Dumper, Michael (1997). The politics of Jerusalem since 1967. Columbia University Press. pp. 38 (1949 peace treaty gave Israel int'l recognition of power in WJ in exchange for peace); (2) House of Lord recognition of Israel control over WJ in 1949 (https://en.wikipedia.org/File:UKrecognizesIsraelJordan.pdf); (3) Armistace agreement with Jordan 1949 (Jordan recognizes Israel control of WJ (Art V), attaching a map which divides EJ and WJ and recognizes that WJ is part of Israel under its control (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/F03D55E48F77AB698525643B00608D34)), and (4) 1950 Tripartite Decl. of US/Britain/France supporting Jordan -Israel peace (https://en.wikipedia.org/Tripartite_Declaration_of_1950). These imply positive affirmations of Israel's de facto control and less questioning or censure, as distinguished from Int'l reaction to Israel's control of WB or EJ.
- Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. I've already read Kattan because I was involved in the very lengthy and detailed preparations for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jerusalem where it was provided as one of the sources for the statement "Few or no countries recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel". Your proposed change appears to be based on the false premise that "The majority view of int'l law, int'l scholars and the worlds' nations is that the land of WJ conquered in 1949 by Israel is part of Israel". This view is inaccurate as far as I'm aware so it can't form part of the encyclopedia or be a premise upon which decisions about content are made. Israel's de facto authority over the occupied territories is also recognized in the sense that it's recognized as the occupying power that administers those territories. That doesn't mean they are de facto recognized as part of Israel and wouldn't justify removing something that said that they were "not considered to be a part of Israel". I think you are going a bit too far. There are plenty of sources out there that talk about the variety of views on West Jerusalem. It would probably be better to focus on those if your intention is to provide a more nuanced description than "though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel". Sean.hoyland - talk 07:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- One example would be Misplaced Pages's page on West Jerusalem says that Israel's authority over the WJ is de facto recognized, if not de jure. The citation provided there is much stronger than FN 21 here. There is also the UN map I posted. As stated, Kattan relies on an argument for sovereignty which, by his own admission, not in accord with int'l law. please see paras 1-4 on page 3. http://www.qatarconferences.org/jerusalem/doc1/doc31.pdf Note also that his paper says that it shall not be cited without permission. Is there authority for his permission? Has Misplaced Pages's IP policy been complied with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmayer18 (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think a change based on the notion that "The majority view of int'l law, int'l scholars and the worlds' nations is that the land of WJ conquered in 1949 by Israel is part of ISrael" would be a good idea. Have you seen the Opinions on the Legal Status of Jerusalem According to International Law section in "Whither Jerusalem?: Proposals and Positions Concerning the Future of Jerusalem" for example ? Perhaps you could explain what led you to believe that the majority view of int'l law, int'l scholars and the worlds' nations is that Israel has sovereignty over West Jerusalem as it is not obvious. What about the EU for example ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I further propose to delete FN 21 and to replace it with the UN cite above, as the UN is on this question more neutral and more likely to correspond to generally accepted notions of sovereignty, int'l law, and what is "considered" part of a country. Jonmayer18 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I also reiterate a concern with IP issues and reliability of Kattans paper, as it is unpublished. Jonmayer18 (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to others to pick up the discussion but as a general comment I think the lead statement "though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel" could perhaps benefit from a bit of very carefully considered nuancing. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi there. Concerning Kattan's document, it's available on the net so I'm not sure what is meant by "unpublished". Further, Kattan is a scholar active in the area so he's reliable concerning such issues, and he doesn't seem to be using any unusual definition of sovereignty in the sections of the document where he says Israel's sovereignty in WJ isn't recognized. Of course, this is quite easy to square with the fact that no embassies are located in WJ, either. Concerning the UK document, it explicitly provides that "His Majesty's government are unable to recognize the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies". So, in fact, they refer to West Jerusalem as occupied territory, not as Israel. They do say Israel has "de facto" control there. This in-line with the UK's current view, too. In the UNISPAL doc, or the wikipedia page on tripartite, I don't see mentions of sovereignty over Jerusalem. Of course, a wikipedia page isn't a source anyway. See also Lapidot, "Whither Jerusalem", page 17: "Israeli control in west Jerusalem since 1948 was illegal and most states have not recognized its sovereignty there". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't know if it has any value here, but I am Israeli and has also French citizenship and I can testify that all French documents that I receive say that I live in Jerusalem, with no State. In fact sometimes "Israel" had been written and then crossed. So, yes some, many, countries do not recognize any sovereignty to Israel over any part of Jerusalem for whatever reasons. Some country by the way do recognize Israel's sovereignty over Israel, Australia for example and over all of Jerusalem (a recent development). Jerusalem is fully under Israeli control, is an Israeli city, and is Israel's capital de facto and de jure. Regarding this last point, a capital is not defined by other countries recognizing it as a capital. It is a capital because it is. The issue is not recognized as capital as Israel because it is not recognized as part of Israel. I think Misplaced Pages should just state the facts as they are: Jerusalem is Israel's capital and biggest city. Many countries do not recognize Israel's sovereignty over the city. That's all. You can improve the phrasing of course. Benjil (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- That isn't quite what the Australian government said. They simply decided to stop referring to the parts of Jerusalem across the green line as occupied territory anymore, but there's probably no need to get into a discussion about that here. It's not clear to me how to improve the phrasing but a statement like "internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel" looks like the kind of statement about abstract things that might benefit from something being added to the end that starts with "but" or "although" + <something about reality/in practice>. If it's going to reignite a conflict over content though it's probably just not worth it. It could burn for a decade as it has before. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Dailycare, hello. What about the 1949 Armistice Agreement itself and its attached maps? Dumper? The House of Lords document says that "His Majesty's Government regard the territory to which the Anglo-Jordan Treaty is applicable as being bounded by the Armistice Line" until further agreement. Further, if one reviews a compilation of the views of scholars active in the area, one sees that Prof. Lauterpacht, Prof. MI Gruhin, and Anthony Cassesse support the notion that Israel holds sovereignty over West Jerusalem. Against this, FN 21 and 23 cite Lapidot and a Kattan paper (one that is pdfed online but is unpublished by a publisher and expressly asks not to be cited) as the sources on whether WJ is "considered part of" Israel. This seems to be not neutral or at least incomplete. He is "a scholar active in the area" true but so are the forgoing. Presence of embassies relates to capital status, less so what is considered part of a country. Then there is also the issue of a lack of a competing claim; the main competing claim is to EJ, not WJ. Per the forgoing and Sean.Holyland, I suggest a more nuanced view: instead of "while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel" suggest "while Jerusalem is the country's most populous city and its designated capital, though internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and final status and sovereignty remain contested." This accommodates your point Dailycare about embassies and it accommodates scholarly debate on sovereignty (without getting into the nature of sovereignty, "taking a side", or starting 10 years of debate ... it appears this was a recent change on 9 February 2014.) Jonmayer18 (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't know if it has any value here, but I am Israeli and has also French citizenship and I can testify that all French documents that I receive say that I live in Jerusalem, with no State. In fact sometimes "Israel" had been written and then crossed. So, yes some, many, countries do not recognize any sovereignty to Israel over any part of Jerusalem for whatever reasons. Some country by the way do recognize Israel's sovereignty over Israel, Australia for example and over all of Jerusalem (a recent development). Jerusalem is fully under Israeli control, is an Israeli city, and is Israel's capital de facto and de jure. Regarding this last point, a capital is not defined by other countries recognizing it as a capital. It is a capital because it is. The issue is not recognized as capital as Israel because it is not recognized as part of Israel. I think Misplaced Pages should just state the facts as they are: Jerusalem is Israel's capital and biggest city. Many countries do not recognize Israel's sovereignty over the city. That's all. You can improve the phrasing of course. Benjil (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi there. Concerning Kattan's document, it's available on the net so I'm not sure what is meant by "unpublished". Further, Kattan is a scholar active in the area so he's reliable concerning such issues, and he doesn't seem to be using any unusual definition of sovereignty in the sections of the document where he says Israel's sovereignty in WJ isn't recognized. Of course, this is quite easy to square with the fact that no embassies are located in WJ, either. Concerning the UK document, it explicitly provides that "His Majesty's government are unable to recognize the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies". So, in fact, they refer to West Jerusalem as occupied territory, not as Israel. They do say Israel has "de facto" control there. This in-line with the UK's current view, too. In the UNISPAL doc, or the wikipedia page on tripartite, I don't see mentions of sovereignty over Jerusalem. Of course, a wikipedia page isn't a source anyway. See also Lapidot, "Whither Jerusalem", page 17: "Israeli control in west Jerusalem since 1948 was illegal and most states have not recognized its sovereignty there". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to others to pick up the discussion but as a general comment I think the lead statement "though internationally Jerusalem is not considered to be a part of Israel" could perhaps benefit from a bit of very carefully considered nuancing. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I also reiterate a concern with IP issues and reliability of Kattans paper, as it is unpublished. Jonmayer18 (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi again - I don't see what conclusions could be drawn from the map, this is a nuanced diplomatic issue. The accompanying text certainly doesn't suggest that the map implies any kind of recognition, it rather says the opposite: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question". Concerning the UK doc, see my earlier comment. Your suggestion, however, is quite good. How about amending it to "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Palestine and Israel's designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." This would avoid saying the city is "Israel's". --Dailycare (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Let me give you my humble opinion: I think that saying "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Palestine..." is more POV than saying that Jerusalem is in Israel's (not to mention incorrect, because the Palestinian Authority has no real control over the city). I support the current version, because it clearly states in a single sentence that Israel controls the city and designated it as its capital, but it's not internationally recognized as such (at least the eastern part). Something similar says in the article about Palestine. We have to present the facts, which is that Israel (not Palestine) controls the city, but it's not internationally recognized. That's all.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am sorry but Jerusalem is the most populous city in Israel and there is no reason to avoid it because that is just the reality on the ground whether you like it or not. Saying anything else is at best hypocrisy or POV pushing. And why "Israel's designated capital" and not "Israel's capital". Jerusalem is Israel's capital. This is a just fact. And then the issue is not that Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's capital, as other countries are not required to recognized capitals, but the fact that they do not recognize Israel sovereignty over part or all of the city. Benjil (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- The reason to avoid saying "in Israel" is the WP:NPOV policy and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. This has been discussed at length and there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that Misplaced Pages is going to state as fact that Jerusalem is in Israel or that it is Israel's capital. It won't happen so forget it and move on. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- So "Misplaced Pages" refuses to accept facts ? Jerusalem is Israel's capital. It is. It is not a matter of opinion. Just go there and see for yourself. So if we can't write it, it means this article has no value and is a joke. The fact that other countries does not recognize it has to be stated but it does not change that. But if it is "forbidden" to state facts here, it seems that I understand why more and more people do not see wikipedia as a credible source of information. This is ridiculous. So whatever you decide to write here will have no value whatsoever. Benjil (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages accepts facts. It explains and attributes opinions. You are proselytizing. I don't understand why so many Israel supporters behave this way when it comes to Jerusalem, but it won't change anything here. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- No you don't accept facts, you deny them. There is no proselytizing here. Jerusalem is Israel's capital. The government is there, most ministries, most national institutions. Israel says it is its capital. A capital is decided not by international recognition but by the simple decision of each country. All these are facts, not opinions. The issue about Jerusalem is sovereignty. Because many countries do not recognize Israel's sovereignty over part or all of the city (and the truth is many of these countries just have no idea what their exact position is on the issue), they obviously can't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital if they don't think it belongs to Israel. I don't think Misplaced Pages is supposed to take a side in the argument. It is supposed to be neutral and describe the facts on the ground. What you propose does not. It puts facts and opinions on the same level, it is propaganda. If you want this article to be serious, you need to stop doing that. Benjil (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is not about me. I'm not proposing anything. I am telling you how it is. The fact that you disagree with it doesn't matter now. There was an RfC. It ended 10+ years of conflict over this issue in Misplaced Pages. You are shooting the messenger. I understand your views on Jerusalem. They are made up of facts that Misplaced Pages can and already does report and your personal beliefs about the city, beliefs that are held by many people. Beliefs of that nature aren't relevant here no matter whether it's that Jesus Saves, God is Great or Jerusalem is Israel's capital. I'm sure there was a time when you didn't have beliefs about Jerusalem and didn't care in the slightest about who it belongs to, whose capital it is etc. Can you remember that ? I hope so because if you can remember what that was like it will make dealing with this issue within the constraints imposed by Misplaced Pages a lot easier. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- No you don't accept facts, you deny them. There is no proselytizing here. Jerusalem is Israel's capital. The government is there, most ministries, most national institutions. Israel says it is its capital. A capital is decided not by international recognition but by the simple decision of each country. All these are facts, not opinions. The issue about Jerusalem is sovereignty. Because many countries do not recognize Israel's sovereignty over part or all of the city (and the truth is many of these countries just have no idea what their exact position is on the issue), they obviously can't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital if they don't think it belongs to Israel. I don't think Misplaced Pages is supposed to take a side in the argument. It is supposed to be neutral and describe the facts on the ground. What you propose does not. It puts facts and opinions on the same level, it is propaganda. If you want this article to be serious, you need to stop doing that. Benjil (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages accepts facts. It explains and attributes opinions. You are proselytizing. I don't understand why so many Israel supporters behave this way when it comes to Jerusalem, but it won't change anything here. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Sean and Dailycare: Lets keep up the good work. The current proposal is "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Palestine and Israel's designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." It think saying that Jerusalem is "in Palestine" does comprise POV, while saying that is "in Israel" papers over the EJ issue (though it says nothing about the capital issue). How about we turn to the pre-February text: "Jerusalem is the most populous city in Israel (if East Jerusalem is taken into account) and its designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." De facto control plus lack of contested claims amounts to a region being "part of" a country. The 1949 Armistice is now in effect 65 years with little int'l and scholarly hostility to Israel's claim there, just a forbearance on recognition of de jure contorl until resolution of EJ and 1967 war. Former US presidents speak there; the final status negotiations with PLO since 1988 have never proposed WJ to Palestine. Jonmayer18 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
(Sean: Respectfully, for me, for Benji to say that Jerusalem is clearly part of Israel is not "behaving this way" any more than one who identies with the Palestinian cause is "behaving that way" when s/he says that Jerusalem is in Palestine. Each person considers different sources to be authoritative. The 10 year debtate on wikipedia ended, but history moves on and facts may change. I'm responding to a Feb 2014 revision (one that drew an "lol" from a supporter of one side here). Lets achieve neutrality in this sentence. It's important. Jonmayer18 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I understand but your comment seems to be based on an implicit but false premise that I think there is a difference between an Israel supporter expressing their beliefs about Jerusalem and an Palestine supporter expressing their beliefs about Jerusalem. I can assure you that isn't the case for me. I haven't been subjected to the lengthy socialization process that seems to be necessary in order to think about people of the region and the status of Jerusalem in certain predictable ways. It's a simple fact that many Israel supporters "behave this way" here and the same beliefs are repeated over and over again. There are almost no Palestinian editors in Misplaced Pages, few Arab editors, and the experienced long-term editors who I think could reasonably be described as identifying with the Palestinian cause tend to focus on solutions to conflicts over the content on this issue that are based on Misplaced Pages's policies and the sampling of reliable sources. I've watched this Misplaced Pages dispute for many years with interest, and spent quite a lot of time to trying to help find a solution even though I have the benefit of genuinely not caring in the slightest about the status of Jerusalem (although naturally as a human being I assume I'm influenced by how the dispute effects real people on the ground). For me it's about trying to find policy based solutions to one of the most intractable conflict-prone issues in Misplaced Pages, a difficult but solvable puzzle.
- On the nuancing the lead, the most important thing to me is that there is a genuine policy based WP:CONSENSUS before anybody does anything to the article. It's a tinderbox. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't assume that you feel one way or another. We are having a dispute about which authority/source to follow, thats all. Benji is following one approach of "facts on the ground" (minus dispute). That does not deserve ridicule. How do you know the number of editors from each religious or ethnic background? What is that relevant? I doubt that these ad hominen labels are accurate or relevant. I also doubt you are uniquely free from the prejudices that infect everyone about Jews versus Arabs, west versus east, cultures versus cultures, US versus EU, UN versus US, and on and on. What do the sources say? Has the process here adhered to Misplaced Pages's standards? Jonmayer18 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I made a little change since I noticed that West Jerusalem is inside Israel's recognized borders.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted it. Sorry but I'm not seeing evidence of consensus for this or any change yet. Also see from <ref name=8.02>{{cite book|title=The Case For Palestine: An International Law Perspective|year=2005|publisher=Duke University Press|isbn=9780822335399|page=93|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=VaUvqHNd6m0C&pg=PA93|author=John Quigley}}</ref> Sean.hoyland - talk 06:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sean, where was the consensus when it was changed in February 2014? The change based upon an unpublished, unciteable, minority view paper that sees sovereignty as tied to legitimacy should be reverted too. Jonmayer18 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is a clear misunderstanding of what I said and I am not sure it in in good faith. I do believe whatever I believe but that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Apparently some people here can't separate facts from opinions and think it is the same. Jerusalem is under Israel's control and is its capital. The Palestinians claim the city or part of it, but have no control over it. Some people are happy with this situation some people are not, that's not the issue. I don't exactly understand why some academic papers are necessary to clarify the situation, this is just silly and feels disconnected from reality. Once again, anybody can just go check for himself on the ground. Regarding Palestinian editors: I don't know if there are many, but there are many many pro-Palestinian editors and people with a very clear pro-Palestinian agenda, so please. The pro-Palestinians have an interest in "finding a solution to this edit conflict" because any solution that puts their claim over Jerusalem on the same level as the reality of Israeli control over the city is a victory for them. In my opinion the best solution should be to just describe the facts as they are, nothing else, in the driest, shortest, silliest way possible. As I have neither the time nor the will to start a fight here, I will stop here, and wish you all good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjil (talk • contribs) 12:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi guys, have a look at the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jerusalem RFC, since these very issues are addressed there in length and we don't need to cover the same ground again here. We have to edit according to sources. Many people will doubtless be convinced that "Tel Aviv is in occupied Palestine" or "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" are facts, but these arguments are not persuasive. Concerning "Palestine", that covers the geographic area where Israel, Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza are. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Dailycare The RFC on Jerusalem does not reach a conclusion on whether WJ is in Israel. It reaches conclusions on capital status. Your sources say one thing, mine say another. Its time to craft a reasonable compromise. Palestine to most refers to the region made semi-autonomous by the 1996 Oslo Accords and the recent UN recognition of state. I suggest "though internationally Jerusalem's final status and sovereignty is contested"Jonmayer18 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Everyone: If I'm not mistaken, the Green Line – despite supposedly being a temporary border according to the armistice agreements – is the internationally recognized border of Israel (at least the facto). Therefore West Jerusalem should be recognized as Israeli territory. However, Sean showed me a source claiming that WJ is not recognized as Israel's, despite the 1949 armistice. I thought that only the eastern part was regarded as "occupied territory" (conquered in 1967), but apparently I was wrong. Any idea?--AmirSurfLera (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- We have two sources in this discussion that say West Jerusalem isn't recognized as Israeli. Here is another source that says even the US doesn't recognize WJ as Israeli. Resolution 63/90 states "any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures" without restricting this to the eastern part. Jonmayer's sources don't in fact seem to contradict this as far as I can see. How about this: "Jerusalem is Israel's designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." The difference to the earlier proposal is to leave out the populous bit, that way we don't need to say it's Israel's or in Palestine. --Dailycare (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Holy City of Jerusalem probably refers to the Old City, which is not in WJ.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi,
- They probably refer to the whole area...
- The legal status of Jerusalem is complex due to the events of '48 and '67. The reaction to this situation is different in many countries. The most legalist chose to refer to the last international agreement and this last one is the UNGA resolution to partition Palestine and in which Jerusalem and its area was a corpus separatum.
- Others consider that the Armistice Line at the date at which Israeli joined the UNO should be considered as the international borders (I think this is the majority point of view but it is not unanimous). In that case, the status of WJ is clear and is part of Israel.
- There is also another point. Everything became even more complex when Israel decided to unify both WJ et EJ because the rejection of EJ as part of Israel is unanimous and this weakened the status of WJ because in the vocabulary only J and EJ remained and WJ disappeared from the vocabulary.
- Pluto2012 (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- (1) Can anyone identify any credible source which identifies a competing sovereign claim to WJ? Jonmayer18 (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- (2) Does anyone disagree that Antonio Cassese was a scholar active in the field who published an article in 1986 entitled "Legal considerations on the international status of Jerusalem" where, on page 38 he claims that Israel has sovereignty over WJ (the west side of the green line)?
- (3) Does anyone disagree that Elihu Lauterpacht is a scholar who was active in the field who published a book entitled "Jerusalem and the Holy Places" where, on pages 43-46, he claims that Israel has sovereignty over WJ over the west side of the green line?
- (4) Does anyone disagree that, in a compilation of scholarly views published in 1995 entitled collects sources claiming that Israel has sovereignty over WJ and those saying the opposite (no sovereignty as of that time)? Jonmayer18 (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Holy City of Jerusalem probably refers to the Old City, which is not in WJ.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- We have two sources in this discussion that say West Jerusalem isn't recognized as Israeli. Here is another source that says even the US doesn't recognize WJ as Israeli. Resolution 63/90 states "any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures" without restricting this to the eastern part. Jonmayer's sources don't in fact seem to contradict this as far as I can see. How about this: "Jerusalem is Israel's designated capital, although internationally Jerusalem is not considered Israel's capital and it's final status and sovereignty remain contested." The difference to the earlier proposal is to leave out the populous bit, that way we don't need to say it's Israel's or in Palestine. --Dailycare (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Everyone: If I'm not mistaken, the Green Line – despite supposedly being a temporary border according to the armistice agreements – is the internationally recognized border of Israel (at least the facto). Therefore West Jerusalem should be recognized as Israeli territory. However, Sean showed me a source claiming that WJ is not recognized as Israel's, despite the 1949 armistice. I thought that only the eastern part was regarded as "occupied territory" (conquered in 1967), but apparently I was wrong. Any idea?--AmirSurfLera (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Dailycare The RFC on Jerusalem does not reach a conclusion on whether WJ is in Israel. It reaches conclusions on capital status. Your sources say one thing, mine say another. Its time to craft a reasonable compromise. Palestine to most refers to the region made semi-autonomous by the 1996 Oslo Accords and the recent UN recognition of state. I suggest "though internationally Jerusalem's final status and sovereignty is contested"Jonmayer18 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi guys, have a look at the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jerusalem RFC, since these very issues are addressed there in length and we don't need to cover the same ground again here. We have to edit according to sources. Many people will doubtless be convinced that "Tel Aviv is in occupied Palestine" or "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" are facts, but these arguments are not persuasive. Concerning "Palestine", that covers the geographic area where Israel, Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza are. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is a clear misunderstanding of what I said and I am not sure it in in good faith. I do believe whatever I believe but that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Apparently some people here can't separate facts from opinions and think it is the same. Jerusalem is under Israel's control and is its capital. The Palestinians claim the city or part of it, but have no control over it. Some people are happy with this situation some people are not, that's not the issue. I don't exactly understand why some academic papers are necessary to clarify the situation, this is just silly and feels disconnected from reality. Once again, anybody can just go check for himself on the ground. Regarding Palestinian editors: I don't know if there are many, but there are many many pro-Palestinian editors and people with a very clear pro-Palestinian agenda, so please. The pro-Palestinians have an interest in "finding a solution to this edit conflict" because any solution that puts their claim over Jerusalem on the same level as the reality of Israeli control over the city is a victory for them. In my opinion the best solution should be to just describe the facts as they are, nothing else, in the driest, shortest, silliest way possible. As I have neither the time nor the will to start a fight here, I will stop here, and wish you all good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjil (talk • contribs) 12:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Change to "only person executed by an Israeli court" (Eichmann trial)
This should be changed slightly; Eichmann was not executed by an Israeli court, he was sentenced to death by an Israeli court, and the execution was (I presume) carried out by the prison service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.239.197 (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- It was on their authority that it happened.. While they may have not directly pulled the trigger that means little.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- That makes sense. What do you think of my edit just now?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Honestly your change does little to actually change it.
- "Eichmann remains the only person ever to be executed by an Israeli court." vs "Eichmann remains the only person executed by the Israeli judicial system." Effectively you've reworded but you haven't actually changed it. To key in more on what the IP is saying you'd have to go with, "Eichmann remains the only person executed under the Israeli judicial system." or "Eichmann remains the only person sentenced to execution by the Israeli judicial system."
- I don't know, what do you think?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Executioners are part of the system. Courts are another part of the system. He's not the only person sentenced to death. Sa'id Badarnah was also, but he wasn't executed. There may be others besides Badarnah that I don't know of. We can't say the natural thing, which would be that he was the only person executed by the state of Israel, because that's not true either. They've executed lots of people extrajudicially, like many modern states. He is the only person judicially executed by Israel. Hence by the judicial system. Anyway, feel free to try to do better, but be careful, because the facts are complex.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- While The correction system is a part of the Criminal Justice System it isn't actual a part of the court. While it acts as a arm of the court that is generally all, as the court is an arm of the criminal justice system. Though it maybe in the case of Israel. It should be confirmed. Consider the American system. The death warrant. Some times that's set by an executive. The guy that sets the exuction time could be considered just as responsible as the guy the rules for execution, and the guy that does the execution. As far as the executioner consider the old practice of using a blank on the firing squad. This was an attempt to try to absolve such a person of guilt.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Fascinating. How do they do it in Zambia? Meanwhile, since you won't suggest language to express what we all understand perfectly well but can't seem to find a way to say both succinctly and truthfully, it looks like this book has the story in it. Thus, when I get my hands on a copy I'll explain what actually happened in Israel to Eichmann, that being the subject of the sentence we're trying to write.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- While The correction system is a part of the Criminal Justice System it isn't actual a part of the court. While it acts as a arm of the court that is generally all, as the court is an arm of the criminal justice system. Though it maybe in the case of Israel. It should be confirmed. Consider the American system. The death warrant. Some times that's set by an executive. The guy that sets the exuction time could be considered just as responsible as the guy the rules for execution, and the guy that does the execution. As far as the executioner consider the old practice of using a blank on the firing squad. This was an attempt to try to absolve such a person of guilt.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Executioners are part of the system. Courts are another part of the system. He's not the only person sentenced to death. Sa'id Badarnah was also, but he wasn't executed. There may be others besides Badarnah that I don't know of. We can't say the natural thing, which would be that he was the only person executed by the state of Israel, because that's not true either. They've executed lots of people extrajudicially, like many modern states. He is the only person judicially executed by Israel. Hence by the judicial system. Anyway, feel free to try to do better, but be careful, because the facts are complex.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Suggest: the only person executed in Israel after conviction by a civil court. The "civil" is required because of Meir Tobianski. Zero 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Zero0000: Do you mean "civilian"? I'd be pretty surprised if a civil court in Israel has ever sentenced anyone to execution. Formerip (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant civil as in the opposite of military. Since "civil court" has a stronger meaning than "civil"+"court", I should have written "civilian court". Zero 23:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Zero0000: Do you mean "civilian"? I'd be pretty surprised if a civil court in Israel has ever sentenced anyone to execution. Formerip (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Excellent work, as always. Do you have a better source than the one that's in there? I'm already nervous about using it (and rightly so it turns out, due to Tobianski, who I didn't know of but the author of that Justice Ministry report surely must have). It'll take me a couple days to get my hands on Yablonka's book but if you have a good source we can change it any time. Do you know her book, and is it worth anything?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have Yablonka's book, but Yablonka is a good historian/sociologist so her book would be reliable. However, I'll use a journal source. You are right to be doubtful about the source that is there. Zero 08:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not completely aware of the Zambian System. It seems they do use Death Warrants. I think there system works on the Federal level. Anyway the point being the IP's complaint was directly about wording. You can attribute the sentence to the court but not completely the execution. The excution can attributed to the court but not solely.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have Yablonka's book, but Yablonka is a good historian/sociologist so her book would be reliable. However, I'll use a journal source. You are right to be doubtful about the source that is there. Zero 08:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
"best Zionist editor"?
This article from The Guardian caught my eye: Misplaced Pages editing courses launched by Zionist groups--Other Choices (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Article title: "Misplaced Pages editing courses launched by Zionist groups: Two Israeli groups set up training courses in Misplaced Pages editing with aims to 'show the other side' over borders and culture" -- Very interesting reading. Thanks for posting the link. Charvex (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- That reminds of WP:FORUM.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
User LazyFox adding unsupported demographic claims and Jewish ethnic divisions to the lede
The Israeli census doesn't count or differentiate between the different Jewish ethnic groups, and it only lists country of origin (the countries of origins themselves don't determine which ethnic group the immigrants belonged - e.g. large numbers of Mountain Jews immigrated from Russia, and the majority of French Jews are Mizrahi), so what he has added to the lede is known to be an unsupported claim (it's regularly discussed that the information is deliberately made inaccessible by the government). Moreever, at least 35% of Israelis are also of mixed ethnicity (between those groups), so the differentiation between the Jewish ethnic groups in the lede doesn't make any sense, since it implies that these are separate groups, when they are substantially inter-married in Israel.
And even then, the edits are highly confusing and illiterate. The edits seem to imply that there are only three Jewish ethnic groups? And the edits claim there are more Bedouin and Druzim, than Ethiopian Jews or Yemenite Jews (neither of whom are listed, even though they are both larger groups). Avaya1 (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Avaya1, thanks for responding. Do you have any WP:RS that justify that Ashkenazi Jews are not the largest ethnic group in Israel? I have presented (and cited) a few that show they are. Secondly, the edit is not confusing nor incompetent, it gives the reader an overview of the major ethnic groups in Israel before going into the Israeli goverment designations and population data after. Lazyfoxx (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Another point I forgot to add, is that the Israeli government only counts the country of origin by paternal line in the family. As the majority mixed families in Israel began with a father of European origin, this is also said to increase the over-counting of 'European origin' families. The sources usually say that Jews including Mizrahi heritage are at least half of the Jewish population in Israel, one goes (Drucker 2005) as high as 63% of the Jewish population of Israel (http://www.academia.edu/1804726/Mizrahi_Feminism_and_the_Question_of_Palestine_JMEWS_). However, the reality is that nobody knows, since the Israeli government deliberately doesn't count it. The categories themselves are not clear cut (how would we count Uzbek Jews or Georgian Jews, let alone the 35% of Jews from mixed backgrounds?). The sentence you added is factually incorrect, but the categories you use are themselves not clear cut either. Avaya1 (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Avaya, the source you quoted saying Mizrahi make up 63% is from 2005, I suggest we find some more recent sources. The Statistical Abstract of Israel, 2009, CBS. "Table 2.24 – Jews, by country of origin and age" (PDF) says that 47.5% of Jews in Israel are of Ashkenazi descent. Either way, depending on more sources we can find, those three ethnic divisions of Jews are undoubtedly the most populus in Israel and they should be distinguished in the lead, like the other large ethnic groups such as Palestinians, Bedouins, and Druze. I encourage more editors to chime in here if they have sources we can use. Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Another point I forgot to add, is that the Israeli government only counts the country of origin by paternal line in the family. As the majority mixed families in Israel began with a father of European origin, this is also said to increase the over-counting of 'European origin' families. The sources usually say that Jews including Mizrahi heritage are at least half of the Jewish population in Israel, one goes (Drucker 2005) as high as 63% of the Jewish population of Israel (http://www.academia.edu/1804726/Mizrahi_Feminism_and_the_Question_of_Palestine_JMEWS_). However, the reality is that nobody knows, since the Israeli government deliberately doesn't count it. The categories themselves are not clear cut (how would we count Uzbek Jews or Georgian Jews, let alone the 35% of Jews from mixed backgrounds?). The sentence you added is factually incorrect, but the categories you use are themselves not clear cut either. Avaya1 (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, let's list the main ethnic groups without making controversial statements about their size. The Israeli census, doesn't distinguish the ethnic groups, but simply lists the paternal country of origin. A large proportion of Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews immigrated from Europe and Russia. And a large proportion of Israeli Jews are mixed. Avaya1 (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- That is fine with me, however I believe Ashkenazi should be first considering based on the sources put forth thus far they are the most populus, on the Mizrahi page, it says Mizrahi + Sephardi make up over 50% of Jews in Israel while citing one of the sources I provided on this article. Ashkenazi by definition make up 47.5%. I know you have stated Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews immigrated from Ashkenazi countries but no sources for that have been presented to indicate that the 47.5% of Ashkenazi origin are Mizrahi or Sephardi and not Ashkenazi. Lazyfoxx (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm missing the relevence. Is this the diff that we are talking about? Are complaining because only Israeli recognized demographics are being used?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- That is fine with me, however I believe Ashkenazi should be first considering based on the sources put forth thus far they are the most populus, on the Mizrahi page, it says Mizrahi + Sephardi make up over 50% of Jews in Israel while citing one of the sources I provided on this article. Ashkenazi by definition make up 47.5%. I know you have stated Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews immigrated from Ashkenazi countries but no sources for that have been presented to indicate that the 47.5% of Ashkenazi origin are Mizrahi or Sephardi and not Ashkenazi. Lazyfoxx (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, let's list the main ethnic groups without making controversial statements about their size. The Israeli census, doesn't distinguish the ethnic groups, but simply lists the paternal country of origin. A large proportion of Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews immigrated from Europe and Russia. And a large proportion of Israeli Jews are mixed. Avaya1 (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Egyptian immigrants
Hi User:AmirSurfLera, re your last edit comment, see Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries#Egypt. As it explans, the vast majority of Jews in 20th century Egypt were not "Egyptian Jews" by ancestry or nationality / citizenship. Of those who were known to have been expelled post the suez crisis, more than 90% were British or French (per the figures in Laskier). Oncenawhile (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- These Jews had French or British citizenship but had been living in Egypt for centuries. They were not foreigners. Benjil (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
New president
new president has ben elected today, Jun 10 2014: Reuven Rivlin.
New president
new president has ben elected today, Jun 10 2014: Reuven Rivlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.145.121 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Yellow Smiley
Although the editors on this talk page are unlikely to engage in anything less than polite discussion, this Yellow Smiley will nonetheless serve as a reminder for any future editors who may occasionally be tempted to lapse. Courtesy of the Random Smiley Project.
(Explanation)
Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
- They already follow the standard used across wikipedia. Sepsis II (talk) 00:06, 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- is there any particular reason why you didn't do the same for Egypt & Iran ? Brad Dyer (talk) 23:21, 24 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2014
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Israel is not a state. There are Jews in Palestine who call themselves Israelis. This self-proclaimed Israelis stealing the Palestinians their country. 109.91.154.207 (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2014 (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. Sam Sailor 05:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- "GaWC – The World According to GaWC 2008". Globalization and World Cities Research Network. Retrieved 1 March 2009.
- "''Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel''". Knesset.gov.il. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
- Victor Kattan, "Competing claims, contested city: the sovereignty of Jerusalem in international law" states on page 2, paragraph 2 that no country recognizes Israeli sovereignty in West or East Jerusalem.
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Top-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Top-importance Judaism articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class Western Asia articles
- Top-importance Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press