Jump to content

Talk:List of cities in Israel/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 6 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. I don't see any opposition here. Note: the move will require admin assistance, which I will request. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


List of Israeli cities → List of cities in Israel – The move would bring the title into the same format as the other articles in Category:Lists of cities by country. The issue of contention here is what to do with reference to Israeli settlements. I think that the most logical thing to do is to list have a listing of Cities in Israel in relation to Cities in Israel and to list Israeli settlements in the article on Israeli Settlements. The West Bank is not considered to be a part of Israel. Israel only claims/designates East Jerusalem as being annexed as Israel - but even here such claim is internationally disputed. There is no claim that the settlements are an annexed part of Israel and the West Bank (along with Gaza} has recently been internationally accredited as constituting the State of Palestine. A Cities in Israel article could easily provide links to the Israeli settlements article to enable cross referencing of content. GregKaye 16:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I know about the subtleties with "Israeli cities" and "cities in Israel". And reading the ratio, I can understand the proposal. But GregKaye, do you know of other discussions about this same issue? It pops up in various talkpages and times I recall. So, if this is a once-and-for-all proposal, that would be great. But I don't want to be surprised afterwards by another, overlapping discussion outcome. (my !vote is: of course, "Cities in X" is the general pattern and it resolves the occupational claims). Al Encyclopedia! -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a valid RM as a quick search on Wikipedia showed that, the common format is "List of...". These all follow the same format as USA, UK, Germany, Canada, Australia etc. Mbcap (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC best resolution of title and content

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There's not even a hint at consensus, or even interest in debating to move again something that was recently moved to this name. Four !voters proposed as many alternative titles. Archived without action. Kraxler (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

A recent RM has brought the title to List of cities in Israel rather than the, I think, more subjectively defined List of Israeli cities. This leads to the problem that areas such as East Jerusalem and West bank settlement cities lie outside the area, even within Wikipedia's definitions, defined as the area of Israel.

Two possible ways to resolve this situation would involve either

I personally favour the second option as it would allow a broader inclusion of information while still presenting an encyclopaedic content which would not require editors to make decisions which might better be made in the sphere of international politics.

I also think it would be worth developing an extra column to the tabulated content so as to indicate whether a city is in full or part in various areas associated with Israel: the area marked as being intended for a Jewish State in the original UN partition plan, the Jewish side of the Green line or the West Bank or the Golan Heights. However, while comments would be appreciated, this might be an issue for another time.

GregKaye 16:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

NickCT I think that it would be positive if there was a move to List of cities in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (if that title is OK). This could provide further comparative encyclopaedic content inclusive of Palestinian cities such as:
  • Gaza City pop.949,221
  • Hebron pop.563,146
  • Nablus pop.426,132
These would be added to a listing content including:
  • Jerusalem 815,300
  • Tel Aviv 414,600
  • Haifa 272,200
Given that more content would be added to the article, perhaps an extra column could be added to the table to indicate comparative location. A simple division to Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza Strip might provide a potential reference but I personally think that the important context that no agreement has yet been reached should somehow be made clear. Further distinctions are that many terrtories were neither intended as being either in a Jewish or Arab state in the original UN partition plan as shown in File:UN Palestine Partition Versions 1947.jpg. I think note references would be benefically added to say if locations were originally intended, as in the case of Jerusalem, to be in a Corpus separatum (Jerusalem)/international administration or if, in the case of various territories that Israel has taken by force, they were originally planned to be in an Arab State. What do you think? GregKaye 09:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I think I support dividing it into two different articles, simply because the fact there are cities managed by palestinians inside Israel as a geographic entity at the very least. That said, NickCT's idea for making an admittedly bulky title would boil two lobsters in one pot, although again, bulky title. Either option would show respect to both parties in question, as the more I think about it I don't like how it stands as of this moment. Rotund but Reasonable (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
What would be your favoured title for the exclusively Israeli title, List of cities administered by Israel or List of urban areas in Israel (as mentioned below) or List of cities in Israel both of which, I think, would at least require the removal of East Jerusalem and the settlements. GregKaye 09:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I won't even pretend to understand all the history and political ramifications involved with an article like this, but since I received a request to comment, here's my 2 cents... First, I would leave the name as is List of cities in Israel simply for the reason that it provides a finite and geographic based parameter for the core of the subject matter. Second, I think it is entirely acceptable for this article to then have sections which are devoted to "Israeli run or administered cities" (WITH ample respective redirects pointing to the appropriate section) until such time that that the size of the article dictates that it be split off per WP:SPLIT. Third, I think this article could be simplified with the expansion of the existing tables to include some of the specialized information such as the size and increase/decrease in city populations. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod One way in which something like this might practically work would be to give the article a name such as List of urban areas in Israel. This title would use wording similar to that found in the Israeli source document for the information from the Israeli Central bureau of Statistic and linked here. The documents wording is "Urban localities" and this type of reference might lend to mention of (still disputed) West Jerusalem as being "in Israel". Another way of doing it would be to present West Jerusalem as a city in Israel although I think there is limited substantiation for regarding West Jerusalem, inclusively, as being a city.
"city of west jerusalem" only gets "About 59 results" in books and "3 reults" in scholar. Which of these do you think would suit best?
Otherwise I think that an proposal such as List of cities in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories might work. GregKaye 09:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, I agree with your suggestions and would suggest that for any new articles and their respective names to be keep in mind that not everyone reading this article or searching WP will necessarily speak English as a first language. "Localities", "urban centers", and such are great vocabulary, but may make it harder to find the article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod TY. i THINK that article finding problems would be minimal on condition that the "List of cities in Israel" article acts as a redirect to a "List of urban areas title". Things might be easier to manage if there was just one "List of cities in Israel and Palestinian Territories" article but a two article plan can certainly work. An urban areas article may also need explanation but that is fair enough. GregKaye 19:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The title List of cities in Israel and Palestinian Territories would be more succinct. I don't think that we can yet specify what the Palestinian Territories are. GregKaye 09:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since the above rfc was approved by most, can now something be done about the article content? The basic problem with the article, that the name is "cities in X" and it lists cities outside the boundary of X, remains... ImTheIP (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the Population Table

It would appear that there was a mistake in the adding of the 2016 population figures, since Tel Aviv, Petah Tikva cannot have seen more than 90% population decreases since 2008. I've never edited a table on here, so I wouldn't know how to fix it, but I thought it should be brought to attention.

Thank you 129.2.181.184 (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Sean

EJ

Has been described in this article and in East Jerusalem and in Jerusalem as occupied territory for years. That is not a contentious issue except in the minds of a few people who apparently happen to edit this website. If you want to include areas outside of Israel's sovereign territory then you have to, per NPOV, include what that area is widely and nearly uniformly recognized as. nableezy - 21:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, that part of this article should be covered under ARBPIA. nableezy - 21:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No Move. עם ישראל חי (talk) (non-admin closure)15:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


List of cities in Israel → List of cities in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories – This article used to be called List of Israeli cities, a formulation that got around saying that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and in the Golan Heights are "in Israel" when they are very much not "in Israel". However, this article now is titled List of cities in Israel and a large portion of the material in the article discusses territory that is not in Israel. If this article is to maintain the current title then material on East Jerusalem and any other territory not "in Israel" would need to be excised. nableezy - 21:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 21:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose – at some point some years ago there was a spate of complaints about naming things as in Israel, while they included some things in one of the disputed territories. The simple solution was to name this article "List of Israeli cities". This was applied to some similar cases as well. At some point, editors (mostly outside of the I–P conflict area, which is good) felt that such a solution was inconsistent with similar Wikipedia articles, the distinction in the title was unnecessary, and that it could be covered in the lead, which it is. The proposed title makes very little sense according to many guidelines on Wikipedia, but I am not personally strongly opposed to going back to List of Israeli cities. Just don't feel it's very important. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem with an article titled List of cities in Israel. It will however have to be limited to what is in Israel of course. nableezy - 23:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
It would indeed, but I think the old title would need to be modified to say List of Israeli cities and Israeli settlements if you are only trying to include the Jewish localities in the occupied territories. And then I dont know what you would do with Arab cities in the Golan like Majdal Shams. I think the best course would be in Israel and the occupied territories and have a list that segregates within it but includes everything. nableezy - 00:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Huldra, a list article is not the right place for this and these entries should be removed. Seraphim System (talk)
Disagree... they are in a general sense Israeli cities. But it's difficult... the best test of NPOV in cases like this is that if we hit the balance, neither side will like it! Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Andrewa: I don't understand how an NPOV justification can be made here — the current state of the article goes against the formal consensus in WP:WESTBANK by identifying the settlements as located in Judea and Samaria. The format of the article doesn't really allow for the type of qualification required by that consensus. List articles should be used for simple things - there shouldn't be a list of "Israeli cities" only cities in Israel (the area that is widely and non-controversially recognized as the State of Israel) - Israeli cities isn't an appropriate subject for a list-style article because the inclusion criteria is inherently unclear. There is no way for it be NPOV, which would require a balance of majority/minority views based on WP:RS.Seraphim System (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

scope

As the requested move has failed I have removed material on places that are not in Israel. And for the record, not even Israel claims any part of the West Bank excepting East Jerusalem as being in Israel. nableezy - 21:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Nableezy, if this is not tendentious editing, I don't know what is. Everyone understands the scope of this article, and there was more or less a consensus to return to the previous name. I have reverted your edits and moved the article. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Im sorry, but tendentious editing is forcing a minority POV that even the Israeli government does not support, that colonies in the occupied West Bank are "in Israel". Kindly cease making personal attacks, it is conduct unbecoming an administrator. nableezy - 16:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, several users objected to calling Israeli settlements outside of Israel "Israeli cities" as it carries the same implication that they are "in Israel". You seem to have neglected those users in your so-called "rough consensus". nableezy - 16:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The scope of the article is (and probably should be) the 76 Israeli municipalities granted "city" status by the Ministry of the Interior. That four of these lie outside of Israel is unusual and/or controversial, but so are a lot of other anomalies in this complex world. Provinces of China lists Taiwan even though Taiwan has never been a part of the PRC. Including Taiwan on the list does not endorse PRC control of Taiwan; it merely reports what China considers to be a province. Districts of Cyprus includes Kyrenia District even though none of the territory of that district is controlled by the Republic of Cyprus, once again simply reporting what Cyprus considers to be a district. —  AjaxSmack  16:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The difference with Taiwan and the settlements in the West Bank is that Israel itself does not consider those settlements to be in Israel. The previous title specified "in Israel", and Im sorry but I dont feel that Wikipedia should be even more expansionist Zionist than the Israeli government in claiming what is and what is not "in Israel". nableezy - 18:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I think before taking such action we should seriously consider WP:MR, see User talk:AmYisroelChai#Non-admin close. Andrewa (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I think that's a separate matter. "Israeli cities" or "cities in Israel" is the same thing, and would not effect the reverts here. The settlements have to be removed. This fails clause 6 of WP:WESTBANK, it is not used by RS, it is not about geography, it is not about the term, and the article is not about the area. It is in violation of fundamental principles and must be removed per NPOV. Seraphim System (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Except clause 6 has nothing to do with this. I oppose the removal. Best not to erase information from an encyclopedia on nationalistic grounds. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
That view that the meaning of these two is the same thing has been expressed above, and also explicitly rejected by others. But my point is just that this section was premised As the requested move has failed..., and in view of the prospect of a move review that's an unsafe assumption. Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Brewcrewer: Who said anything about "erasing" information "on nationalistic grounds"? Seraphim System (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Best not to lie in an article about what is "in Israel" on nationalist grounds either dontcha think? nableezy - 15:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
"In Israel" is an ill-defined concept with conflicting interpretations. However, "Israeli city" actually has a clear meaning - a city administered by Israel, under Israeli law and funding. All Israeli cities in the West Bank meet this criteria.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Cite a solid neutral reference for that definition. Otherwise it is just a personal claim. It is not how a native speaker of English would interpret the term. It's an Humpty Dumptyish redefiniton defining a phrase in a way that controverts what normal usage says it means, as has been done in the lead. Whatever, this needs wider neutral input, because I expect now one will just get the usual predictable POV lineup, and the farce of the change will turn out to be a numbers racket. It should therefore be reviewed by an independent panel, preferably by people who understand grammar and semantics.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
That comment demonstrates exactly why there is support for "Israeli cities" as the title among the hardcore Israel supporters on Wikipedia. The entire point is to call the settlements, what are colonies according to any dictionary, "Israeli cities" and not "Israeli settlements". That is the entire point of this exercise. nableezy - 13:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the purpose of page is to list municipalities recognized and administered as cities by the Israeli government.Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Then you should have a title that reflect that, not an expansionist Zionist one. nableezy - 14:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Tag

Icewhiz You are well-aware there is an ongoing dispute about the neutrality of the title. Explain your removal here. nableezy - 13:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

And as youve apparently seen fit to disallow even notifying readers of the issue of the title, Ive tagged the article. nableezy - 13:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
You haven't established consensus for your view here on the talk page - placing a tag after not managing to carry the discussion is not an accepted course of action. Note these might be a 1RR issue - [1][2].Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Where on earth are you getting the idea that a consensus is needed for a tag? The purpose of a tag is to show that there is no consensus about a discussion and invite others to engage in the discussion. Perhaps if you read the linked instructions you might find your belief to be entirely fiction. Note under when to remove it says When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue. That sort of kind of gives proof to the lie that tags require consensus for them to be placed and that adding a tag when there is not consensus for a position is not an accepted course of action. As far as your last bit, I am unaware of what I am supposedly reverting. There is a new tag on the article, as you disruptively removed the more specific one. That isnt a revert, sorry. nableezy - 14:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
While the consensus requirements for a tag (or any edit) are softer than say for a move, it is widely understood that tags should not be applied lightly, and that they should not be applied when they are not expected to go away given the article's content. Tags are meant both to notify readers of a problem in the article, and also to notify editors, who can then fix the problem. The latter does not apply here, as the editors have already spoken, and the discussion can continue. In general, if any edit is disputed (and this one is), the correct step is to open an RfC on the subject. I'm not sure what the point is though, you have already started two different processes—WP:RM and WP:FLRC—and did not get consensus for your suggestions in either case. It might be time to give it a rest.
About the tag itself: at the very least, it should be used when there is, as you said, "an ongoing dispute about the neutrality". There is an ongoing dispute about something, but I'm not really sure what, or why it's relevant—the procedures for changing an article's title are clear. As I wrote in the previous section, if you feel that the title does not reflect the content of the article (or violates NPOV), please open another WP:RM, to a title that you believe addresses these concerns. I'm not sure it should be done so soon after the previous WP:RM (up to you really). Until then, there is no justification for this tag, which is a form of poisoning the well.
—Ynhockey (Talk) 13:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the requirements for a move are in fact clear. Requirements you ignored and continue to pontificate over. And the idea that your undiscussed and challenged move is what should be the basis for any further moves, which apparently now require RM discussions and your move does not, is incredibly hypocritical. I feel that the article content violates NPOV. The title was fine before your undiscussed move, it however requires culling the article of material on place not in Israel. Did you get consensus for your change? Get off it Ynhockey, this game of claiming your edits are pure and wholesome and others are POINTy or whatever other buzzword you want throw at me without even the slightest bit of self-awareness is getting old. nableezy - 22:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
And to be perfectly clear, if you have any real interest in actually abiding by the policies you claim to understand both in letter and in spirit then you will reverse your move. You should also reverse your revert to include the propaganda that Israeli settlements in occupied territory are "in Israel". But I dont expect you to actually follow the policies that you claim to understand, only to continue to use them as talking points. nableezy - 22:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

As Ynhockey has declined to revert his contested move, I will do it for him. nableezy - 16:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Move review

I have taken step one of the move review process, see User talk:AmYisroelChai#Non-admin close if you have not already done so for my reasons. Comments welcome here. Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Closer has addressed my procedural concern by adding the required non-admin closure notification [3], and has replied suggesting a new RM. [4]

That is certainly one way to approach it. But IMO the better way would be to reopen the previous one, and provide a rationale for why the several !votes for a move to List of Israeli cities were not seen as a rough consensus.

But it continues to get more complicated... 12:58, 21 July 2018‎ Ynhockey (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (30,779 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Ynhockey moved page List of cities in Israel to List of Israeli cities over redirect: There is an apparent consensus on the talk page). That seems to make MR moot. I note that Ynhockey is an experienced admin of more than ten years' standing. Andrewa (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it's really complicated. Most editors commenting in the original move request said that they could live with the title List of Israeli cities. There is no unanimous consensus, but there isn't much to discuss because no reasonable alternative has been proposed—this is enough to say that there is a general consensus for this title. I don't mind more editors chiming in of course. Here is a summary of the options so far, with my opinion added:
  • List of cities in Israel – opposed by several editors on the basis that some of the cities are located on disputed territory. My opinion: the title is fine, because the article makes a clarification, but in light of countless past discussions I can see why it might be opposed.
  • List of Israeli cities – generally supported, opposed by two editors because the title might imply that all the cities on the list are in Israel. My opinion: this makes the most sense, and the title does not imply anything, plus there is a clear clarification in the article.
  • List of cities in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories – generally opposed on multiple bases. My opinion: doesn't make sense because a) uses a loaded term that's not clearly defined. Is Gaza part of this? Area A? and b) because it would inevitably include Palestinian cities. Violates WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE (part of a policy), and IMO also WP:NPOV.
  • List of cities in Israel and Palestine – not discussed in-depth, opposed by one editor. My opinion: doesn't make sense as above, more specifically, there is no reason to have a list with cities in two separate political entities.
  • List of Israeli cities and Israeli settlements – not discussed in-depth. My opinion: doesn't make sense, as the vast majority of Israeli settlements are not cities. This list is about cities.
This leaves just one option that's both supported by multiple editors. Again, I am open to more discussion on the subject, but frankly don't see what more can be added.
—Ynhockey (Talk) 10:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree with all of that (but I am of course involved). Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Nobody said might imply, please do not be so dishonest in representing others positions. Their view was that it does imply that the cities are "in Israel". And nobody besides you has used the phrasing "disputed territory". Again, not even Israel claims the West Bank as being "in Israel", you are seeking to make Wikipedia more right-wing Zionist than even the most right-wing Zionist Israeli government in history. And you are claiming to do it in order to comply with NPOV. That is absurd. nableezy - 15:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
And Andrewa, the fact that Ynhockey is an admin has absolutely nothing to do with this. He is an involved editor in the Arab-Israeli topic area, and the fact that he made an undiscussed move that had multiple explicit objections to it without making an RM honestly says to me more that he should not be an admin than all is well because he is one (Open to recall however does not appear anywhere on his page). nableezy - 15:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
If you feel that either or both of us have shown poor judgement in this sufficient to warrant de-sysopping, then there are channels for this, and I'm happy to help you to follow them. Discuss on my talk page please.
In the case of Ynhockey of course the first step is to discuss their actions on their talk page. I see there's already discussion there, but not on this particular issue. Andrewa (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
This must rank as one of the grossest violations of Wikipedia policy by an admin I've witnessed in 12 years. Changing 'cities in Israel' to 'Israeli cities' conserves by a grammatical dodge the meaning of the first title while disguising the geopolitiocal violation of commonsense patent in the other title. It's rather unbelievable that supportive editors cannot see this. It hasn't received anything like the discussion such an expropriative or appropriate piece of political mangling this equivocation deserves. I didn't even notice the semantic scam, and scam it is, until I noted mention of it on Nableezy's page just now. Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
There's no "geopolitical violation" here - these cities are recognized, admistered, and funded as Israeli city by the Israeli government. the reality on the ground (recognized by multiple reliable outlets referring to Israeli settlements in the West Bank) is that these settlements (including the ones with Israeli city status) are administered as Israeli cities.Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The point is, identifying 'settlement cities' (the proper term) as just 'Israeli cities' is an in-your-face violation of NPOV, because it makes out that the descriptor is neutral. 'City' status, per sources, has been pursued for a declared motive, to ensure that in any future discussions the 'Israeli city' will be exempted from any territorial discussion. Hockey has effectively framed this political position as neutral, when it is nothing more than the annexationist perspective of one party to the conflict, and it's beyond me how one can get away with such an abusive move. It incorporates as one article the material appropriately accorded a properly titled article, namely List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank, and therefore is cannibalizing a neutral article for political ends of redefining parts of the West Bank so that they become part of Israel, anticipating history (WP:Crystal). Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

To everyone upset about my move: I did not say I was not involved, and did not take any administrative action on the article. A reminder how WP:RM works: 1. someone requests a move, 2. there is a discussion, 3. if no consensus is reached, the article is not moved. This is exactly what happened here, so according to the move discussion, the article should stay at List of cities in Israel. Because I noticed that several editors supported a title that takes into account some of the concerns that were raised about the original title, I took the initiative and moved the article there: List of Israeli cities. I see that many people are upset by this move, and I can certainly move the article back. Not sure that's desirable though, I'm not here to make a point. In my opinion however, removing some cities from the list or opening an FLR based on the title alone—are indeed WP:POINT actions. Again, I am not speaking as someone who is uninvolved, but as someone who (hopefully) understands Wikipedia policies, both in letter and in spirit. Finally: if there is another title that anyone believe there is a greater consensus for, they should feel free to open another move request. —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

So, in sum, those who have differing views than you are violating WP:POINT, but you however are not, when you are the only person here who seems to have ignored Wikipedia policy in making a move without discussion that had explicit opposition. I was fine with this article remaining at List of cities in Israel, but that did in fact necessitate removing anything not in Israel. That is not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and if you are going to continue making such false accusations Id ask that you do it an appropriate forum. The current title is misleading in that it conflates two things, cities in Israel and settlements that even Israel does not claim to be in Israel that Israel has designated as cities. nableezy - 09:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Israel claims these cities are Israeli. The Palestinians claim they are Israeli and demand their removal. The entire world community recognizes settlements in the West Bank as "Israeli settlements" - as do RSes reporting on the matter - one would be hard pressed to find any source not referring to these settlements as Israeli. The title Ynhockey moved to was the title of this article for many years, including when it reached FL status.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
No, the Palestinians and the wider international community say that they are colonies in occupied territory. Not that they are "Israeli cities". Kindly stop distorting your interlocutors arguments, it is quite unbecoming. nableezy - 22:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Most RSes use settlement, not colonies. However, even those that say colonies - say Israeli colonies. The Israeli nature of these urban settlements is not disputed by any side or serious source.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I dont honestly see what you are arguing here. You seem to be arguing that if a source calls this place an Israeli settlement then that means you can apply "Israeli" as an adjective to any other noun. Israeli settlement is a noun phrase, meaning a settlement established by Israel outside of Israel and in the occupied territories. The conflation of places in Israel and places not in Israel violates NPOV. nableezy - 16:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Even though there is a technical difference between "cities in Israel" and "Israeli cities", we are obliged to consider what the casual visitor reads into the title. (Wikipedia is for the readers, not for the editors.) In my opinion, a typical casual visitor will not understand the difference so the title is misleading. Failing to internally separate the different categories serves to cement the misunderstanding. I can't help but think that it is deliberate. Zerotalk 09:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Well the technical difference that gets the crystal clear 'cities in Israel' to extend into settlements in the West Bank by a rename 'Israeli cities' is a piece of Orwellian language manipulation that unambiguously implies annexation, anticipating the future, and therefore pure POV pushing of a rather patent political kind. But the problem with 'Israeli cities' is not only there. 'Israeli cities', as opposed to villages, towns, kibbutzs and moshavim, have mixed populations reflecting a the 20/80 divide between Jews and Arabs. This is not true of the 'Israeli cities' in the West Bank which, despite some minor presence, are designed to established Jewish citizens of Israel within the West Bank. In that sense, there is an additional distortion, implying somehow that settlement cities are open to free movement of all Israelis, and have a notable Palestinin Israeli presence. So it is doubly deceptive in its POV gamesmanship.Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The lead needs therefore rewriting to reflect the title, and the matter regarding these settlement cities should be excerpted and relocated on the proper wiki page, List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Israeli Arabs can live in settlements, and indeed - some do according to Reuters. There may be acceptance committees for some small communal settlements (less than 500 households or people, don't remember which) - however any large settlement - in pre-1967 Israel or in the West Bank is open to all Israeli citizens - this is particularly true for the Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank.Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Map issue

The map used in the lead of the article seemingly shows the Golan Heights as though it were in Israel. That is of course a minority position and using such a map violates NPOV. nableezy - 16:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The Golan heights are administered under Israeli law following annexation.Icewhiz (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The Golan Heights are internationally recognized as being outside of Israeli territory. Again, this is a NPOV issue in that it presents an extreme minority view, that the Golan is in Israel, as a fact. nableezy - 17:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Ive corrected this issue in the template. nableezy - 17:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_cities_in_Israel/Archive_2&oldid=1263929154"