This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Discussions of proper names for the articles discussing the three Temples of Judaism
The recent move of the articles below has engendered concern on WP:ANI if the consensus reached was representative of the wider wikipedia project. Therefore, three RfCs have been opened to fully discuss the proper names of the articles, so consensus can be reched. Please visit and opine at the sections listed below.
(XPosting to all 3 relevant projects)
From reading the guidelines on article assessment, it seems that anyone can upgrade or downgrade an article's quality rating (short of GA or FA) unless there is a more formal process that the appropriate WikiProject has. From my reading of what constitutes a "start class" article at WP:ASSESS, this one is well, well above that classification. But given the acrimony over this article, one editor simply reassessing on their own will no doubt meet with a revert war. So what do we do, is there a review/evaluation process here? Tarc (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Start class is being generous, but consensus will end with C. I think it's a no-brainer for editors not involved in the article itself. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure where to go to generate discussion but I'll try here. I'm somewhat concerned with the contents of Category:Anti-Zionism. The subcategories structure looks ok but there are a number of individuals in the category which probably shouldn't be included. In many cases, articles for these people don't even mention Israel or Zionism (for instance Tony Karon). Others, such as Rose Jackson are clearly a stretch and I don't think we should be categorizing people as anti-zionists if they reject the label. Pichpich (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys! My photo request for the El Al head office and the Israeli Airports Authority building is still outstanding. Is anyone here visiting Ben Gurion Airport sometime in the future?
The following map (use Internet Explorer to view) shows the location of the El Al offices. Click "Ben Gurion" and one will see a listing of points on a map, including the location of the El Al offices. - Click on the "Ben Gurion Airport" map and one will see a detailed map of Ben Gurion Airport, including the location of the El Al offices - the offices are adjacent to Terminal 1.
I would recommend going to Terminal 1 and photographing the buildings from within Terminal 1, if the buildings are visible from Terminal 1. If/when the pictures are posted on the Commons, if the original photographer doesn't post Hebrew and/or Arabic descriptions in addition to the English description, I will make requests for descriptions in Hebrew and/or Arabic if they are not already posted.
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting there are ongoing peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The incident that you deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting is having a material impact on these talks, in particular, because pressure from settlers in the West Bank has caused the government of Israel to lift the ban on construction in West Bank settlements [4], [5], but also it is widely understood that Hamas launched the attacks in a deliberate effort to derail the peace talks [6], [7]. there are dozens more article like these. Citing an incident with this kind of impact as a news story of merely temporary interest is incorrect.
My objection to your deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba is that the title under which the article was deleted was, if I recall correctly, a move from a previous title that, like the article, treated the August rocket attacks as the most recent in a series of rocket attacks that jointly target (and cause destruction in) Aquaba, Jordan, and Eilat, Israel. This is not a trivail topic and, unfortunately, not a transient topic as there have been a seris of such attacks in recent years.
I totally agree. The rationale for deletion by the admin was dubious. IMO, his residency in Qatar makes any rulings on Israel/Palestine questionable. If he deleted one of the articles, maybe I would understand. But he gunned for all 3 and included the same exact rationale. Honestly, I doubt he even read the AFD.Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This is unbelievable. How does my being posted to Qatar from Denmark make any difference to my approach to deletion? Why was I not notified of this discussion? I'm utterly disgusted. SpartazHumbug!14:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I unfortunately associated Qatar's status of being an oppressive Islamic dictatorship with your presence in the country as some tacit-approval or at least indifference. It was horribly for me to do this, I'm just not a huge fan of countries where slavery is legal and religious minorities are hunted. Again, apologies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Recently there have been edits in the Years in Israel series, in the Deaths sections, replacing the ages of the deceased with their birth years. I believe it is beneficial to give both—the birth year because it's more factually important (at least, for some people) and the age, which doesn't clutter the page and adds immediate understanding (doing the math is simple, but there's no reason people should be forced to). Any opinions are welcome. —Ynhockey(Talk)19:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As the user responsible, I had removed the ages for the sake of consistency. Of the 96 years covered so far by the Years in Israel /pre-1948 Palestine series, the ages only appeared on seven of the years (2002, 2004-6 and 2008-10) with some ages on one other (2003). Furthermore, for all years, apart from 2002, the date of birth was already included. As the most recent years were created first, I had assumed the the creator, TheCuriousGnome, had thought better of it (especially in light of the fact that ages never appear in the general Year series, e.g. 2010#Deaths, nor generally in any of the two dozen other Year in country series, apart from Argentina) and that this was the reason he/she had decided to drop the age from all the years subsequently created (2001 and earlier). My edits merely followed this decision. I have no objection to the age appearing, but believe that this policy should be consistent (so far as possible) throughout the series. Davshul (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi All. As I founded this project, I still check in from time to time to see how things are going. I still edit articles occasionally, but I kind of dropped off of the Wiki radar without much explanation, so I thought I would stop in and say hello.
This note was spurred by an article I found about Jewish and Israel Wikipedia topics (http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/13/wikipedias-jewish-problem/) Please take the time to read the article, as it explains exactly why I am not here actively editing anymore. Simply put, I was tired of the anti-Semitism.
I sincerely applaud your efforts and fortitude keeping WP Israel going and editing for emet (truth). Keep up the hard work. In case you were wondering, I did not give up internet Israel activities, I started a blog (http://www.israelsituation.com) where I do my online Israel work. Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts.
Mazel tov on all of your sucesses, and b'hatslacha on your future battles. Keep Wikipedia neutral.
A user, Andrensath, removed this message saying that I attacked the group and linked to a "bigot site". They even get in here and remove any questioning of their anti-Semitic motives. I am shocked on that one. A talk page is for talking about the topic, after all. --יהושועEric (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Weird, I did not expect that from Andrensath. My litmus test is seeing if certain editors are contributing and adding positive information to other articles or primarily focused on adding negative information to the Israeli articles. I sincerely respect pro-Arab editors who are building Arab-related articles and also collaborate in the I-P area opposing my position, but unfortunately, most (thankfully not all) never contribute anything pro-Arab at all and merely work the anti-Israel part. --Shuki (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
And do you have an equivalent litmus test for editors who are primarily focused on adding "positive information" to Israeli articles? ← ZScarpia21:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
For the record, the group attack I reverted was the accusation that Wikipedia is anti-semitic, and the bigot site in question was frontpage.org, which also actively accuses wikipedia and its editors of anti-semitism, and is so disconnected from the truth that it seems to believe Barack Obama is a radical. That last is highly offensive, as somebody who actually subscribes to radical politics and knows Obama is not at all radical in his politics. Also, I competely fail to see how removing links to sites that completely fail WP:RS qualifies as 'anti-semitism' (though I am somewhat intoxicated at the moment, so I may be wrong on this.) Finally, I think Eric1985 should retract and apologise for the accusation that I am anti-semitic, as it is a complete and utter breach of WP:Civil. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Andrensaht you are the one being uncivil by accusing fellow editors of bigotry and peddling propaganda. An editor is cordially expressing his POV without name-calling and personal attacks. Antisemitism among wikipedia editors is not a fringe idea and has been illustrated in numerous AN/Is. Eric, sorry to see you go. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
You inferred the original editor of promoting bigotry because he linked the partisan political site FrontPage Magazine. There was nothing bigoted, racist, or defamatory about the article. In fact you can probably find most of the issues mentioned in the article at Criticisms of Wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
No such inferral was meant on my part, and I apologise for not making it explicit that I was accusing the site, and not the editor, of promoting bigotry. However, I disagree that "Wiki has an Israel problem. Wiki has a Jewish problem. Wiki has a kangaroo court problem. Wiki reaches hundreds of millions of people with misinformation about Jews and Israel. We have a problem." isn't defamatory. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Opinion does not equal defamation. The Israel/Arab genre is the most polarized and corrupt arena on wikipedia. Administrators have designed rules for this area independent of other encyclopedic topics. Clearly there is a problem and to say it exists does not mean one is being defamatory or promoting bigotry. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The existence of a problem regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict, and Arbcom sanctions relating to that, does not mean there is a Jewish problem, nor that there is a kangaroo court problem. That said, I'm not sure what the precise definition of defamation is in NZ law, let alone the one used by Florida law. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Should this article about the Judaization of Jerusalem include material on the realities of the degree of religious liberty available to Muslims, Jews, Christians, and others under this allegedly "Judaizing" regime. Or, as alleged by those who have removed this material, must it be limited to sources that explicitly address the "topic of Judaization of Jerusalem." As the article now stands, it alleges extensive "Judaization" without encountering the fact that Muslims , Christians and other freely worship and operate sectarian schools in the city. Discussion now on talk page Talk:Judaization of JerusalemAMuseo (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to edit/develop this page so that it includes a more comprehensive History section and I would also like to add a new section that would cover some of the socio-economic issues which plague the neighborhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka Yaffa (talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Edits to Debka
I am doing research on Debka and just wanted to give a heads up (out of courtesy) to the groups listed on the discussions page that I'll be editing the page on Debka (specifically related to the origins and types of Debka, when it's danced, styles, etc.)
There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Jerusalem over how the article should word certain issues. Some editors want the word "proclaimed" to be added to the first sentence of the article to describe it as the "proclaimed capital" of Israel as the international community does not recognise it as the capital of Israel, others disagree and think the status quo which has existed for about 3 years should remain (something that has been debated many times over the years but retained), and several compromises have also been suggested. The issue has now also spread to other matters, with some editors wanting it to say "proclaimed flag", "proclaimed mayor" , "proclaimed coat of arms" etc, to also highlight the fact the international community does not recognise the status of Jerusalem. This matter could have implications for other articles if changes are made and a similar pattern followed. So input from other editors would be helpful. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hebrew Transliteration
I truly think that all articles containing Hebrew need to have an accurate transliteration solely based on both the Israeli Sephardi and Classical Hebrew (for religious articles) pronunciation
I would like to propose the following method of transliteration. The first letter is how it is supposed to be pronounced in Modern Hebrew and the second one (separated by a semi-colon) is how it was pronounced (and still is by Mizrahi Jews) in Classical/Biblical Hebrew. Feedback is encouraged:
א ʾ
ב b/v; b/bh
ג g; g/gh
ד d; d/dh
ה h
ו v; w
ז z
ח ḥ (not h, ch, and certainly not kh, even in Propper Mordern Hebrew)
ט t; ṭ
י y/i/(nothing)
כ k/kh (not ch; this is how it would be transliterated in German, not English)
ך k/kh
ל l
מ m
ם m
נ n
ן n
ס s
ע ʿ
פ p/ph (or f)
ף p/ph (or f)
צ tz/ts; ṣ (could have been tz/ts in Biblical Hebrew as well)
ץ tz/ts; ṣ (could have been tz/ts in Biblical Hebrew as w
ק q (not k, even in modern
ר r
ש sh/s
ת t; t/th —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yafehmeod (talk • contribs) 23:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
How does an article get reassessed? I and User:Reenem have worked extensively to expand the article Ayoob Kara. It is now over three times the size it was a month ago and I think it should be reassessed. However, I do not know how to do this—whether I do it myself or someone else does it. Thanks--Metallurgist (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Proposal: creating a wiki article "List of Palestinian families, and their roots before immigrating to Palestine"
I suggest building this list in order to put the palestinian claims in the right context...
The idea came to me following an article (in Hebrew) stating that Hanin Zoabi's family came from Jordan and Iraq to Plaestine toward the end of the 19th century [1]
It would take a lot of research, but it would be a wonderful contribution to the subject of I/P relations.
Actually, it sound like an article created just to make a point. Do you have nothing more constructive to do? пﮟოьεԻ5708:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
First - it is an article not yet created, it is a proposal to see if people are willing to share the effort.
Second - it is point worth making. This is the reason I would like to create the article.
Third - wiki projects are for people that have time. Otherwise - they are not here. Having time for creative and busy people is a direct consequence of efficient Time management.
Pardon me if I'm pointing out the obvious, but Jordan and Iraq didn't exist at the end of the nineteenth century. And what was the extent of the area alluded to by the authors as Palestine? ← ZScarpia12:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
You are pardoned. Jordan and Iraq did not exist, but the territory on which they now exist was there already. This is hardly the issue. What matters to me is that Palestinian maintain projects like "Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War" and "List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus". So, it seems to me appropriate maintaining a list showing where they come from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbeehvh (talk • contribs) 14:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Should we do this for Israeli Jews? This one from Russia, this one from Europe, this one from America ...? nableezy - 15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't get the point of the list as an article. Why is it notable that people are descended from immigrants? Isn't everyone? Sol (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If you've got the sources, why not (but please don't use From Time Immemorial or anything using it as a factual source)? Perhaps you'd be better dividing the subject up into two articles, one for Ottoman-era Palestine and another for British-era Palestine. ← ZScarpia19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I support this and would help. It is important for context and we already have a similar article of questionable importance "List of villages depopulated..." (no other conflict has such a loaded article).--Metallurgist (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a article intended to promote the Palestinians-don't-come-from-Palestine thesis. SInce that would be an improper motivation, how do you intend to make it not have that nature? To start with, the suggested title is quite unacceptable for that reason. Zerotalk05:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. There is no reason for the WikiProject Israel banner to appear on the OECD Talk page and it should be removed. None of the WikiProject banners of any of the other 32 member states appear on the Talk page. Although OECD membership is clearly important to Israel (and probably to many of its other members), this does not warrant the cluttering of the Talk page with such banners. There is no more justification for member countries WikiProject banners to appear on the OECD Talk page than on, say, the UN or NATO Talk pages. Davshul (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
WhisperToMe and his friends do not get to decide what is of interest to Israel or Wikiproject Israel. Israel's central bank governor, Stanley Fischer, called Israel's inclusion "an important milestone for the integration of Israel into the global economy." I would say his input is of greater importance than WhisperToMe's opinions. Davshul's argument about "cluttering" up the page is nothing short of ridiculous. WhisperToMe and his friends' agenda appears to be related to this [[11]], and fits in nicely with other attempts by POV editors to minimize Israel's contributions.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with WhisperToMe and Davshul. I came here seeing it on my watchlist, so I think that makes me neutral. As for your accusation, I am a staunch Zionist and I find your accusation completely ludicrous and baseless. OECD is of no significance to WikiProject Israel even if Israel is a new and significant member.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Israel to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man01:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Israel-related articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Israel-related articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
I believe that rather than collapsing it, we should eliminate this template from most articles where it currently resides. There is no reason to have such a generic template in specific articles like elections in a certain year. The trend should be toward navigation using navboxes at the bottom of articles. —Ynhockey(Talk)11:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an article about the current event, which I am sure is important to every Israeli at the moment. Everyone, please expand the article per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Ynhockey(Talk)21:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The page Dubrovin Stanislav should be changed to Stanislav Dubrovin. Dubrovin is the surname and Stanislav is the given name. The reversed order is used in some European reference works, but is not the format for the English Wikipedia.EricWR (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
About an abbreviation
Over the last couple of days I've encountered the abbreviation "MK". Is this the common abbreviation for "Member of Knesset"? Wouldn't the more familiar usage "Member of Parliament" be preferable? (I'm not insisting on that, but I thought I should raise that question before proceeding to what I consider are more important issues.) If not, then shouldn't it either be presented the first time in each article as "Member of Knesset (MK)" & the abbreviation used afterwards, or simply link "MK" to either Knesset or List of Knesset members? If nothing else, a link or gloss at Mk would assist readers who are otherwise unfamiliar with the structure of the Israeli government. -- llywrch (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
MP should not be used - the English language Israeli media refers to them as MKs. As for the other suggestion, I think linking [[Member of the Knesset|MK]] may be a good idea. Number5720:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
i understand that this might not be the best place to help with this, but i am having trouble finding any place at all. there are editors who insist that a wiki bio about a person can include 'jewish' under 'religion' only if that person is a practicing and/or orthodox jew. no acceptance of the fact that jews come in many stripes and 'religious' is only part of it. so, editing is taking place removing 'jewish' from people even if they are jewish. any ideas? any rules about this listed anywhere? thanks. Soosim (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Over at WikiProject Football, we're trying to work on the backlog of unreferenced BLPs about footballers. As we have very few editors who can read Hebrew, we are struggling to source articles on Israeli footballers, which now account for a reasonably large proportion of those remaining. As they have often played for very prominent clubs such as Maccabi Haifa or Beitar Jerusalem, their notability is not usually in question, its merely a matter of adding a couple of sources. We're just having trouble reading them! We would be most grateful for any help. The full list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Full list, or for just the Israeli players try here. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
National team
The national team page is also devoid of sources for important sections. Can someone get to this as its impiortant to national football history.(Lihaas (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).
The title of the page is "This is a WikiProject to organize information in articles related to Israel better." This is bad English: there is no English construct such as "Israel better?" or "alligator green". Perhaps the author meant "This is a WikiProject to better organize information in articles related to Israel". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.234.28 (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Next August Haifa will host Wikimania convention. In order to give the readers and attendees a better coverage of the city, I suggest an organized improvment drive that shall take place a couple of months before the convention, for about two-three weeks. What do you say? Kulystab (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The main article Haifa is in a decent state though (although any improvement suggestions are welcome). I hope that the drive will mainly focus on peripheral articles related to Haifa, of which there are dozens and many are in a very poor shape. —Ynhockey(Talk)21:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Jewish land purchase in Palestine
I'm looking at the article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine and it's pretty shoddy. What I'd like to see is:
1) a record of Arab land ownership - what pieces of land in 19th century Palestine did individual Arabs own before Jews and groups like the Jewish National Fund started buying it up from them?
2) a record of Jewish land purchase - exactly what pieces of land did Jews purchase from the Turks, from Arabs, how many acres, for what cost, etc.
You could try searching for the term "Davar" in articles from 1988 on Google News. You won't find full articles from Davar, but other newspapers, Israeli and Western, have quoted their stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.71.230 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Ancient Near East archaeological sites reorganization (Suggestion)
I have done all I can without any knowledge of Israeli culture whatsoever. I need something of an expert here to finish any remaining copy editing. Raymie (t • c) 04:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands
Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands was edited today in a way that left the article with fractured grammar and a lead that fails to summarize the article. I reverted this but have been reverted back. IRR on I-P conflict articles leaves me hesitant to even attempt to fix the bizarre sentence structure that has been left there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The article does say that some Jews left out of Zionist aspirations, so the addition of Zionism to the lede isn't entirely wrong. I think my changes are more grammatical and get the point across that only a small percentage left because they wanted to make aliyah. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk05:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Goodbye
This to announce that I am not a Wikipedian anymore. For four years I was the main (only?) editor of Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. Since my suspension two days ago, two editors went on a rampage and deleted six sources, all critical of the UN. Good luck with them. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
A 2 day suspension is nothing. Man up! Don't leave just because of a setback. Think of Israel in the United Nations. --GHcool (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Howdy, I noticed Category:Israeli settlers has been created recently. I don't know the rules regarding cats but it seems to be this cat gives undue weight to an assumed political view of the person by dint of association. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually don't mind this category. The category highlights that these individuals belong within a certain historical/political movement. --GHcool (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Personally I do not understand why this is POV. It is a verifiable fact if someone is a settler or not (Avigdor Lieberman for instance). Number5720:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a very strange and confusing article, mostly because it repeatedly conflates the situation of Israeli Arab siticens with the residents of the Palestinian territories. Equally troubling is the fact that the article treats material about Israel's treatment of Palestinians entirely differently than it treats other virtually identical situations. Many peoples in the world are divided by borders against their will. Kurds, Azeris, Basques, Roma (Gypsies) and many more peoples are separated by borders not of their making. Like Palestinians, Wikipedia acknowledges the ethnic unity with articles such as Palestinian people , Kurdish people, etc. but the articles about their political situation are separate Kurds in Turkey, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan, Kurds in Azerbaijan and Kurds in Syria, more than one of which has a sub-section titled Racism and Apartheid. I looked around. Material about the political and economic situation of populations in Wikipedia is handled by creating articles on populations according to the polity in which they live Algerian Women in France, Turks in Germany, Arabs in Europe, Arabs in Bulgaria, British Pakistanis, Roma in Greece, Roma in Romania, Roma in Hungary, and Roma in Bulgaria These articles then have sub sections called things like Problems of exclusion and discrimination. This is the normal way of handling discrimination on Wikipedia. I see no justification for treating the Palestinians differently than the Roma people or the Kurdish people or the Basque people. There is a discussion under way about the best way to handle the apartheid question as it relates to Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 22:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There is now a proposal to separate the article into 2 separate article, one dealing with Israel proper and the other with the West Bank and Gaza territories.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that what Malik is getting at is that, while it is appropriate to post messages at a wikiproject pointing to a discussion that may be of interest to the wikiproject members, the better form is for the posting to be neutral in tone. Malik -- let me know if I misrepresented your thoughts. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I gave it somewhat of a Start by talking about what the essay was about and its modern significance. Feel free to help improve.--Babank (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Some articles in desperate need of copy-editing
These articles have been created within the past year and are in serious need of assistance.
Why do you machine-translate huge articles? I don't know if anyone has time to copyedit that, not to mention that the articles are mostly unintelligible. Please translate articles manually next time. —Ynhockey(Talk)09:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I have created {{ILS}} to display Israeli currency in a consistent form across articles. {{ILS|123}} will display as NIS 123. It also priovides a link to Israeli new shekel. {{NIS}}, {{shekel}} and {{sheqel}} redirect to {{ILS}} to give the same effect (eg {{sheqel|123}} gives NIS 123). But I am not sure which currency symbol should be used. The obvious choices are:
ILS - the official ISO 4217 code but not well known outside of currency experts.
NIS - seems to be in common use within Israel.
₪ - the official symbol but not well known outside of Israel and might not display in commonly used fonts on the web.
At the moment the template is using 'NIS' but I can change it to whatever consensus we get here. Thoughts? Stepho (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ein Zeitim
I am really confused. Could use some help.
From page 40-41 of Jewish National Fund. (1949). Jewish villages in Israel. Jerusalem: Jewish National Fund. Read about this Jewish village of 100 in 1947 and went to check it out in Wikipedia. Lo and behold it redirects to Ein al-Zeitun, an all Arab Muslim village of 800+ in the outskirts of Safad, same as the Jewish Ein Zeitim. I then Googled some and found a few more sources that say it is Jewish...although there are sources that say it is Arab as well. The JNF article is entirely different from the Wikipedia article, but appears to be the same place. If someone has a moment to check this out and offer a comment, I'd appreciate it. After you read the below from the JNF, please check out the article Ein Zeitim.
Ein Zeitm is built on the site of an old Arab village in the Safad Hills in Upper Galilee where there was a Jewish community duuring the Middle ages. The modern settlement was first established by the Agudat Ha-Elef in 1891 (an assoication of Jews of Minsk, Russia) who planned to settle a thousand families in Palestine. Despite strong opposition from the Turkish Government, farms based on olive groves, orchards, poultry and dairy farming, wer begun. By World War I, however, the settlement had disintegrated owing to internal differences among the settlers. After the war some of the farmers returned to the settlement, but it was ruined during the 1929 disturbances. Attempts by some young people from Safad to resettle Ein Zeitim proved in vain. At that time the J.N. F. acquited possession of the land. In January 1946 the "Meginim" (Defenders) group, composed of Palestinian-born graduates of the Hanoar Haoved Movement and young immigrants from Hungary and Transylvania settled at Ein Zeitim. The hill settlement is now in the process of development and the neglected olive trees are being revived. A J.N.F. forest is being planted, the land is being ameliorated and various branches of farming have been undertaken. In the present war, prior to the occupation of Safad by the Israel Army in April, the kibbutz bore the brunt of concentrated Arab attacks aimed at the destruction of the entire Jewish community of Safad. The large Arab village of Ein Zeitim was captured by the small garrison of the kibbutz, thus paving the way for the liberation of Safad, and indeed, the Eastern Galilee.
A few books noting the Jewish nature of Ein Zeitim:
Frederick Martin; Sir John Scott Keltie; Isaac Parker Anderson Renwick (1922). The Statesman's year-book. St. Martin's Press. pp. 1372–. Retrieved 16 May 2011. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) calls it a Jewish colony (in 1922)
Three phases characterized the founding of the moshavot, the great enterpise of the third of thses streams ... The second phase was primarily 1890-1 and then subsequent years when two large settlements were founded:Rehovot and Hadera. Several others were also established; Bat Shelomo and Meir Shaefaya in the Shomron (Samaria), 'Ein Zeitim not far from Tsefat. and Mishmar ha-Yarden in the Upper Galilee. Jacob Goldstein (April 1998). From fighters to soldiers: how the Israeli defense forces began. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 9–. ISBN9781902210025. Retrieved 16 May 2011.
The yeshiva of Moses ibn Machir was located at Ein Zeitim, near Safed. Fred Skolnik; Michael Berenbaum (2007). Encyclopaedia Judaica. Macmillan Reference USA in association with the Keter Pub. House. ISBN9780028659435. Retrieved 16 May 2011.
surrounding hills, except Mount Canaan, were in Arab hands, and the only nearby kubbutz was Ein Zeitim, which could barely defend itself... 108 Until the last minute British officers sought to persuade the Jews to give up both Safad and the Ein Zeitm kibbutz before it was too late.J. Bowyer Bell (1969). The long war: Israel and the Arabs since 1946. Prentice-Hall. Retrieved 16 May 2011. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The article on the Hebrew wikipedia says that Ein Zeitim was a separate settlement built close to the Arab village of Ein Zeitoun. Whilst the Hebrew wiki has one article covering both, I think it would be fine to have a separate article on Ein Zeitim as it is a separte place, rather than the same place under a different name. Number5707:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of a separate article. How would it be named? Could you point me to the actual article in the Hebrew Wikipedia? I would like to look at the translation, but wouldn't begin to know how to put it in the search box! Thank you! Snakeswithfeet (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
1931 census. 'Ein ez Zeitun 567 Muslims, Ein Zeitim 11 Muslims and 1 Jew
1945 survey. Ein ez Zeitun 820 Muslims, Ein Zeitim listed as having 3707 dunums of land owned by Jews but no population mentioned
I'm guessing that the 1931 near absence of Jews in Ein Zeitim in 1931 was due to depopulation in 1929; I have a vague memory of this. I also see evidence of some population in 1947 as well as a Hagana garrison. Maps of the 1880s don't show Ein Zeitim or any settlement at that place; the JNF description is likely to be spin. Ein ez Zeitun had a mixed population in the late 16th century (56 Muslim households and 45 Jewish households) - this is missing from Ein al-Zeitun and I will add it. The newer location of Ein Zeitim needs a new article. Zerotalk09:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Zero, we have to stop meeting like this! But seriously, that is interesting, indeed. I suspect you are right about 1929, as the article says "it was ruined during the 1929 disturbances", which is what the Jews called the 1929 Palestine riots. I totally disagree though that the JNF article is spin. The book was compiled in the middle of the 48 war as documentary evidence of existence in case Israel in whole or part was lost to the Arabs. I have checked out quite a number of them against their Wikipedia articles (and other sources) and have found them factually accurate. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
To be completely honest, it's not on my high priority list, but if you have some reliable secondary sources, I'll gladly convert them into an article for you. —Ynhockey(Talk)20:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
"Israeli troops killed the Syrians to harvest their organs for Shavuot. This is a proven fact."[15] "Syrian refugees fled to Turkey - they were welcomed with open arms. Syrian refugees fled to Golan - they were shot by evil Jews. Should the article reflect this difference in approaches by the civilized and the barbaric countries?" [16]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad17894 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I have previously raised an AN/I on the talk page at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#2011_Israeli_border_demonstrations in which I mention the hat note where this remarks are hidden. Personally, I take the first quote as a bad taste parody of conspiracy theories and as not meant seriously. The second is more concerning. But if anyone wants to raise it in my AN/I thread I won't object but please remember that Nutmegger will need a link to the thread on his talk page.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a request to amend Gilabrand's permanent ban here. As editors on this project know, Gilabrand was a frequent and valued contributor to the project. Editors are invited to comment. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not that familiar with the spelling conventions but I don't see any discussion about this recent move either.
(Move log); 19:00 . . Stephen MUFC (talk | contribs) moved Judean Mountains to Judaean Mountains
(Move log); 19:00 . . Stephen MUFC (talk | contribs) moved Talk:Judean Mountains to Talk:Judaean Mountains
--Shuki (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There doesn't have to be a discussion - editors can move pages without an RM. If you're bothered, why not raise it with the person who did it? Number5721:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikimania
Reminding all Israeli Wikipedians that Wikimania takes place in Haifa on the next weekend. You can sign up now at http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org or even just come to the conference (keep in mind that there is an entrance fee). This is an event that will be taking place in Israel for the first and probably the last time, so it is highly recommended for anyone even slightly interested in Wikipedia! Hope to see you all there. —Ynhockey(Talk)17:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Could someone do an assessment on Avichai Rontzki on the WP:Israel? It would be appreciated. Maybe the "Start" maybe also need to be re-assessed including the importance assessment has not yet been done. Adamdaley (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi =) Article was last assessed in 2009 at 8,999 bytes, is now double that - time for a reassessment methinks! Thanks, Nikthestoned16:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This article needs SERIOUS improvment. I, for one, would propose it for deletion and merge certain parts into the "Israeli Navy" article. Also some facts look suspicious, like the drop-out rates. And the title itself is misleading since it doesn't exist a naval academy per se in Israel like other countries have. Yosy (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I have added some tags to the article. You are right that it's in very bad shape, and the title is incorrect. However, unfortunately I have neither the knowledge nor the sources to seriously improve it, and IMO it shouldn't be deleted because the subject itself is notable. Can you do anything with this article? —Ynhockey(Talk)21:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Can't really help ya. Article doesn't seem to be going anywhere, even though it is essentially a copy and paste from the original article. WikifanBe nice21:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Redirects of Hebrew language names
It strikes me that redirects should be created, of Hebrew language names to the English language articles, for articles such as those of notable Israeli persons (and the like). That does not seem to generally be the case at the moment. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Just looked through: it's really pretty bad (I left a brief note on the talk page). Needs updating, copy-editing, expanding, critical info. Anyone able to help? After the recent Wiki conference in Tel-Aviv, really, this WikiProject could do with a few improvement drives for such articles, don't you think? If others are interested, I can do a little, but I don't have up-to-date sources. Tony(talk)03:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll be happy to hear more specific on the problems. While the article is far from FA or even GA quality, I don't think it's in such poor shape. However, as a top importance article, I do believe that it should be held to higher standards. I will gladly help in improving the article, but other than being out of date and not entirely comprehensive, I don't see any outstanding issues. The topic is broad and therefore naturally hard to write about. Can you point out more specifics in what needs improving? I will then definitely give the article as much time and effort as I can spare. —Ynhockey(Talk)19:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
To start with, the table in "Income" is out of date and compares apples with oranges. I suggest it be removed or radically updated and rethought. Choices of countries (and US states???) seem arbitrary. Tony(talk)06:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Experienced editors with specialist regional knowledge urgently wanted
Because of increasing activity in the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.
Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.
If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 18 September 2011. Roger Daviestalk15:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Yom Kippur War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Further to the discussion above ("Israel's capital"), a similar dispute has arisen in List of national capitals, regarding the capital of the Palestinian territories (referred to in the article as "Palestine"). I amended this to Ramallah (for West Bank) and Gaza (for Gaza Strip). My changes were reverted to show the captal as Jerusalem. I have opened a discussion here and, although I have reinstated my changes, I would appreciate comments. Davshul (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I proposed deletion, because I don't think it is notable; I think it is a quite-new society, and doesn't have significant coverage - but, I could be wrong; it may have sources in Hebrew or something.
Thanks for bringing this article to our attention. In my opinion, this article is not worthy of Wikipedia; it is essentially a polemic filled with nothing but original research and a disregard for NPOV. I believe it is not salvageable. For those of you who are interested in discussing this article further, I opened an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli peace camp. --GHcool (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Khirbet Qeiyafa Vandalisation of Israeli history by user Zeero000,
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Khirbet_Qeiyafa
Please if anyone have time to take a look, all references that this inscription is Hebrew were removed, the section "Oldest Hebrew inscription" was deleted.
and the whole article was rewritten in manipulative way.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 12:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Examples of manipulative editing
1. "Excavations were carried out by archaeologists Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of the Hebrew University beginning in 2007, who dated the site to 1050-970 BC by pottery styles and two burned olive pits tested for carbon-14 at Oxford University.[7] The theory that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a Judean city inhabited by 500-600 people during the reign of David and Solomon has been challenged by Israel Finkelstein.[8] Based on pottery finds at Qeiyafa and Gath, archaeologists believe the sites belonged to two distinct ethnic groups.[9][10] "
Although this sites are inaccessible, nowhere the findings of Haifa university scientists are mentioned, while Haifa university was solely responsible to examine the site and gave their verdicts regarding this issues. In fact anonymous criticism of officially established facts were written, while ALL FACTS WRITTEN BY EXCAVATION TEAM WERE SIMPLY REMOVED.
2. "Other readings are possible, and the official publication presented many possible reconstructions of the letters without attempting a translation.[21] The inscription is written left to right in a script which is probably Early Alphabetic/Proto Phoenician,[21][22] though Rollston and another expert consider that it might be written vertically.[22] Early Alphabetic differs from old Hebrew script and its immediate ancestor.[22] Rollston also disputes the claim that the language is Hebrew, arguing that the words alleged to be indicative of Hebrew either appear in other languages or don't actually appear in the inscription.[22] One expert believes it is mostly a list of names.[22] Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar said the inscription was very important, as it is the longest Proto-Canaanite text ever found.[23]
Who is Rollston and who is the another expert???
All my editions were erased within minutes
In the same time, the vandalization of my contribution went so far, that texts like this "'Oldest Hebrew script' is found" from BBC was used to prove that this script is not Hebrew
From whole of this article (which is btw outdated) because (Haifa university scholars have translated this script in 2009, while BBC text was written in 2008) user Zero0000. have written on his site the following: "Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar said the inscription was very important, as it is the longest Proto-Canaanite text ever found" using this BBC text as reference, while removing all links that the text is in fact a Hebrew script. http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043 All the rest of my quotes( and other parts of this article) with direct links were also removed. The section "Oldest Hebrew inscribtion" was totally erased by Zero0000, without any explanation.There is really a huge need that someone unbiased supervise this particular subject, because the page currently has nothing to do with archeology or science, its totally manipulative and full of false and unbalanced claims written only out of political considerations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 12:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs)
Zero is not a vandal but a seasoned editor making valid edits. You should take this up in the article talk page before bringing it here. It seems to be very active, you're sure to get a reasonable response. Poliocretes (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Zero is a very experienced, responsible, level headed editor who understands policy well. He also happens to be an administrator. You should talk to him to resolve issues. Sean.hoyland - talk14:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Those edits do seem questionable. I would suggest starting addressing them by discussing them with the editor -- at the article talk page is, as Pol suggests, a good place to start. Hopefully that will resolve the matter. If not, you can elevate it to an appropriate noticeboard for attention by others. BTW, inasmuch as you are new, the fact that an editor is seasoned, or an admin, does not mean that their edits are necessarily appropriate -- which is why I (and the other two editors, perhaps) are suggesting that you should pursue the discussion, rather than drop it. Nor is the view that Poli and Sean express above as to his general editing a universal one -- even years ago, we had this kerfluffle, with a range of views expressed, involving in part his edits/block in an editing dispute in the I-P area, and a couple of years ago he was blocked for edit warring in an article relating to Zionism--so, it is possible for individual edits by admins, at times, to be ones that it might be reasonable to question.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand it's far more likely that Tritomex is wrong. They should check their facts. Here are all of Zero's edit to the article+talk page.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] some of which simply revert vandalism such as removal of content sourced to academic publications like "Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University". It's a pity Zero doesn't block more people in the I-P topic area who won't follow the very simple rules. Sean.hoyland - talk16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, when admins are blocked for edit warring in an area -- actually, as it turns out, blocked more than once for edit warring in that particular area -- they often take the view that they are involved editors in that area, and act accordingly. This is in keeping with the general principle behind WP:INVOLVED, which states: "administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include ... disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."
In any event, the point I sought to make is that, while you may be a fan of the editor in question, he clearly has been both blocked for edit warring in the general area, and subject to community comment in this regard -- for some years now. The new editor (Tritomex) who read your personal view of Zero could, without this being pointed out, have been inadvertently misled into thinking that Zero's edits were above reproach, given both your view of Zero and your focus on his admin status. I know it was not your intention to leave Tri with that understanding, but I'm simply encouraging Tri(as you did) to pursue normal edit dispute resolution approaches, and not misinterpret your view of Zero as meaning that Tri's interest in pursuing the substantive matter should be chilled.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
What exactly do years old blocks and ANI threads have to do with an editor (note that it wasnt Zero who reverted those edits but rather MichaelNetzer) reverting edits that removed well sourced material because he doesn't want to go to a library to access the source? Would you like people to raise your history of socking every time they have a disagreement with you? The edits made by our newly registered friend were bad. They removed material from the best kind of sources (academic, peer-reviewed, journal articles written by experts in the field) because they are supposedly inaccessible. Instead of raising these irrelevant things like an ANI thread from over four years ago regarding the blocking of a long since banned editor as a way to attack an editor you might consider informing our newly registered friend that removing reliably sourced material without cause is not acceptable behavior. Instead of making the laughable assertion that Those edits do seem questionable you might consider whether it would be wise to let our newly registered friend know that instead of following your example of personalizing the dispute by digging, and I mean digging deep enough to pull out issues from years ago, up dirt on another user he should attempt to explain his position and bring his sources to the talk page. That would be helpful. nableezy - 18:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
What exactly do you find ambiguous about WP:INVOLVED, on this point? Which states: "administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include ... disputes on topics, regardless of the ... age ... of the dispute"? In any event, I pointed out not only this language above. But also why I raised the issue, following others raising the bald (personalized, as you put it) fact that Zero was both seasoned and an admin -- that failed to convey to Tri the broader aspects mentioned above. My comment made sure Tri had access to a more balanced and fulsome understanding; rather than the "here are reasons why you should go away ... zero has years of seasoning and really understands wp's rules well and follows them" approach. That's what this is about -- this isn't an RFC on Zero. Furthermore, you can see quite clearly above what my advice was as to Tri discussing the matter with Zero.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
What I see is that Zero has not taken any administrative action so the reference to WP:INVOLVED are at best a red herring and at worst an attempt to sully Zero's name with bogus accusations. What I see is an editor who, instead of telling an inexperienced editor that they should not remove material cited to high-quality sources, is raising completely irrelevant things from years past, sort of like all those socks of yours, to malign another editor. nableezy - 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Examples of manipulative editing by Zero000
1. "Excavations were carried out by archaeologists Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of the Hebrew University beginning in 2007, who dated the site to 1050-970 BC by pottery styles and two burned olive pits tested for carbon-14 at Oxford University.[7] The theory that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a Judean city inhabited by 500-600 people during the reign of David and Solomon has been challenged by Israel Finkelstein.[8] Based on pottery finds at Qeiyafa and Gath, archaeologists believe the sites belonged to two distinct ethnic groups.[9][10] "
Although this sites are inaccessible, nowhere the findings of Haifa university scientists are mentioned, while Haifa university was solely responsible to examine the site and gave their verdicts regarding this issues. In fact anonymous criticism of officially established facts were written, while ALL FACTS WRITTEN BY EXCAVATION TEAM WERE SIMPLY REMOVED.
2. "Other readings are possible, and the official publication presented many possible reconstructions of the letters without attempting a translation.[21] The inscription is written left to right in a script which is probably Early Alphabetic/Proto Phoenician,[21][22] though Rollston and another expert consider that it might be written vertically.[22] Early Alphabetic differs from old Hebrew script and its immediate ancestor.[22] Rollston also disputes the claim that the language is Hebrew, arguing that the words alleged to be indicative of Hebrew either appear in other languages or don't actually appear in the inscription.[22] One expert believes it is mostly a list of names.[22] Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar said the inscription was very important, as it is the longest Proto-Canaanite text ever found.[23]
1.Who is Rollston and who is "the another" expert???
2.Where are the findings of those who examined Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription ?
3.Why all references about the Hebrew origin of text were removed?
4.Why all references that this was an Israelite city were removed?
5.What kind of edition is this "The theory that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a Judean city inhabited by 500-600 people during the reign of David and Solomon has been challenged by Israel Finkelstein.[8]"?
6.We didn't even see "that theory" which is in fact an official finding of Haifa university scientists,because it was simply censored by this people,yet we can read only the denial of "that theory" while I can not even find that Israel Finkelstein challenged that Khirbet Qeiyafa was Judean city, or inhabited by 500-600 people
I have spoken in the past with user Zero000, without any results.
He simply removed all editions which didn't suite the interests of the group he is representing
As I received a warning for any future edition in this particular site, I didn't came here to call you to engage in dispute with Zero000 or any other Palestinian editor.
I came here to call you to make this article, a non biased,objective and scientific with your edition!
Tritomex, do you understand what everybody has written here? This isn't the place for you to bring this dispute. The article's Talk page is the appropriate place to have that discussion, and if you feel you're getting nowhere, try WP:Third opinion or other steps in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk21:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Tritomex should be topic banned if not banned altogether, and I'm confident this will happen soon. He/she doesn't seem to have a clue about what "reliable source" means. Doesn't seem to be able to understand page history either; about half of what he/she lists in 1-7 above isn't even my edits. Further, ignorance is not a crime but loudly and abusively imposing one's ignorance in place of high quality sources counts as a crime around here. Look at this rubbish: "Haifa university was solely responsible to examine the site". Bzzzzzt, the directors of the official dig are from Hebrew University and the Israeli Antiquities Authority. When someone from Haifa got the publicity instead, he was accused of unprofessional conduct. (I'm not stating an opinion on whether that accusation had basis.) But then the idea that one group has the right to decide a historical question is itself profound ignorance. Being the dig directors gives the right to first publication by convention amongst archaeologists, but after that it is a free for all, and consensus is the only measure of success. Oh, and dear Tritomex, Christopher Rollston is one of the world's leading epigraphers. Do you know what "epigrapher" means? Zerotalk22:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
As for my editing, my policy is to track down the best source that exists, where possible the actual report of the experts involved, and try to report it accurately. I'm sorry if that means I sometimes replace lesser sources like newspaper stories that don't know the difference between "language" and "script", but that's how it is. I'm proud of it. Take it to some noticeboard if you don't like it, but don't expect any mercy. Zerotalk22:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep threatening me after every single post I made.
Why should I be banned from the topic and why should I be banned altogether? This is second time you are sending me this kind of threats.
2.If the scientists mentioned above is Christopher Rollston, why his name is not mentioned,more so why there is no accessible link to this alleged claim?
3.Who is the "the another" expert?? why there is no accessible link to the findings of "the another" expert?
4.What kind of edition is this "The theory that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a Judean city inhabited by 500-600 people during the reign of David and Solomon has been challenged by Israel Finkelstein.[8]"?
5.We didn't even see "that theory" which is in fact an official finding of Haifa university scientists,because it was simply censored by this people,yet we can read only the denial of "that theory" while I can not even find that Israel Finkelstein challenged that Khirbet Qeiyafa was Judean city, or inhabited by 500-600 people
Again, no accessible link
6.Why all references about the Hebrew origin of text were removed?
7.Why all references that this was an Israelite city were removed?
8.What this mean "7.What is this? "One expert believes it is mostly a list of names.[22]" ??
0. You should be topic banned because you have been disruptive and uncollaborative since you came here, as anyone visiting your talk page can easily verify, and I strongly suspect an SPI would identify you as the IP who twice vandalized the article yesterday. 1. I never removed that source. 2. Rollston is mentioned, even you mentioned him, and the other expert's name was added already. There is no requirement that sources used in the article are ones you have access to. You should look for a library that can help you get access. 3. The other expert was named already. 4. Why don't you ask whoever made that edit? 5. Huh? See #2 about accessible links. 6. They weren't removed, they were explained in the context of the dispute that exists on the matter, with the best sources that exist. 7. Why don't you ask whoever made that edit? 8. This is already expanded in the article. Zerotalk12:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
First of all I wish to thank to everyone who made the Khirbet Qeiyafa article much more objective and scientific after my post. I am skeptical that it will last.
Second I think that no one should have the right to silence criticism and reply to them with threats, using his position as an administrator.
I do not wish any further conflict with user Zeero000, as I never wished conflict with him, while he is threatening me second time in two months, and removing my posts, with different explanations.
7. Yes, its true that I didn't speak "with those who made that edits", whoever they were, I spoke only here with you and those edits were changed.
3.The other expert was named already- thank you Zeero000. Still the fact the alleged claim by Israel Finkelstein, and "H. Misgav, Y. Garfinkel, and S. Ganor (2009). The Ostracon. In: Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor eds. Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 1: Excavation Report 2007–2008. Jerusalem: 243–257. Cited in C. Rollston (2011), The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon: Methodological Musings and Caveats, Tel Aviv, Vol. 38, 67–82
^ a b c d C. Rollston (2011), The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon: Methodological Musings and Caveats, Tel Aviv, Vol. 38, 67–82" remain no accessible, which raise suspicion that any such quotes were taken out of context, or are falls.
Again I repeat I do not wish any conflict with you Zero000, the reason why I came here was that all my previous contacts with you finished with placing your warnings and threats on my page, which are now not standing there, yet I am sure you remember them.
I do not believe that I am perfect, and as beginner I may have a lot of mistakes, yet I am sure that in this particular case I had to ask for objective, neutral and scientific article without political considerations.
user tritomex--Tritomex (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the source "The Rollston (2011), The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon: Methodological Musings and Caveats, Tel Aviv, Vol. 38, 67–82". Although, as you have been informed, sources don't have to be online, you can see the source here. Sean.hoyland - talk05:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I dunno. It seems pretty good to me. The sources include stuff from Yale University Press, Stanford University Press, Indiana University Press, etc etc. The objections here basically amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --GHcool (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Which page is the "master" article for the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict
If a reader is looking to follow a narrative of the conflict over the land of Israel on Wikipedia, starting in the early days of the Zionist Movement (or earlier) through the present day, where should he go? Jsolinsky (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
How to describe what happened to the Mandate for Palestine after the 1948 war
Talknic and I have reached an impasse on the League of Nations mandate page. All or most of the mandates include a characterization of the mandate after the mandate ended. Talknic feels that the current language doing this for the Mandate for Palestine is misleading. We have had difficulty working with each other in the past. A fresh set of eyes might be able to find a solution where we are plainly not. Jsolinsky (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that hyphenated dates in archaeology articles are showing up as Skype phone numbers with a little phone icon?? Is there any way to fix this? --Geewhiz (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I used to get this when the Skype add-on for Firefox was enabled. I think there's an option on the Firefox 'Tools/Add-ons' page to turn it off. Roger Daviestalk13:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Poliocretes, I see it in Jericho, for example. Actually, I have never downloaded any add-ons. I looked in Firebox Tools and saw that the box was not checked. So how do I get rid of this crazy thing. If I touch it with my mouse, it starts dialing...--Geewhiz (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to have downloaded the add on: it's automatically installed during the main Skype set up. This is certainly a Skype/Firefox problem. Try looking at the options on the Skype icon at the top RH corner of your browser. You may be able to turn off number highlighting there. Roger Daviestalk14:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes! I think it's gone. I messed around a bit and finally found the number highlighting box, which I unchecked. Thanks so much RogerDavies!--Geewhiz (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Naming Dispute over History of Pottery in the Southern Levant
Recently, the article History of Pottery in the Southern Levant was moved to History of Pottery in Palestine. It had been under the title History of Pottery in the Southern Levant for around 5 years, and it had been my understanding that this was in order to keep the article NPOV. I am currently in a dispute with the editor who moved the page on the article talk page and was wondering if anyone would be able to assist regarding the proper naming of the article. Thanks Drsmoo (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Have you ever been involved in an editing dispute in which you were accused of being POV, and not even understood what the other party is complaining about?
I am currently having that problem with talknic in Palestinian refugee. His Palestinian refugee article begins thusly:
The definition for Palestinian refugees or Palestine refugees accepted by the drafters of UNGA Res 194, as confirmed by the UNCCP[3], included Arabs whose normal places of residence was in Israel and Jews who had their homes in Arab Palestine, such as the those from the Jewish quarter of the Old City.
I think that this is utterly obtuse. It is much more likely to confuse than enlighten a first time reader. Can somebody at least explain to me what talknic is so concerned about? I gather that there are multiple definitions, and that some of those definitions would tend to support the contentions of Israelis and/or Palestinians. But I am unable to ascertain exactly what talknic is concerned about.
Perhaps it is possible to address his concern without making the lede unreadable? I request help or at least enlightenment. Jsolinsky (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Do any of you work at Ben Gurion Airport or will be going to Ben Gurion?
If so, would any of you be interested in photographing the El Al headquarters and the Israel Airports Authority buildings?
They are adjacent to Terminal 1, by a car park area
Thanks
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I checked it out but the El Al building is behind a security checkpoint so no chance of taking a picture without getting interrogated. I suggest someone sends a request to El Al for them to provide a picture of their HQ. --Shuki (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Sean.hoyland and location Israel vs West Bank
Hi,
Over the past week I've noticed the following edits of user Sean.hoyland changing Israel to West Bank. I'm not sure what WP policy is on the matter so I have not jumped in. Perhaps someone more experienced that I can lend a hand. The following is a partial list of edits with this issue.
To me this seems a type of change that needs to come from a policy statement across WP as it is disturbing a status quo in a broad range of articles. I don't know what the relevant policy's are and thoughts and assistance in how to respond would be appreciated. I am also putting a notice on Sean's talk page and invite him to support his changes with WP policy. Joe407 (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Umm, Israeli settlements in the West Bank are not in Israel, they are in the West Bank. Not even Israel claims these places as being in Israel. The policy? Im not sure Wikipedia has a policy on correcting false statements in articles. We seem to be missing that one. nableezy - 19:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, I've been actively searching for and fixing basic factual errors. Locations across the green line in the West Bank aren't within the State of Israel's territory even according to the Supreme Court of Israel (HCJ). They're within territory held by Israel under belligerent occupation and administered by the IDF on that legal basis as the HCJ has stated in their rulings on many occasions. It's also the consensus view of the international community and something that is supported by countless high quality reliable sources that applies to all Israeli settlements and associated infrastructure in the West Bank. I don't think there are any circumstances where places outside of Israel can be described as being in Israel using Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice in article bodies, infoboxes, templates or categories without it violating basic mandatory verifiability and neutrality policy and the discretionary sanctions. Essentially it's misinformation and misleads the reader into believing something that is simply not the case. There will be cases where sources mistakenly or deliberately describe a location outside of Israel as being in Israel for various reasons (e.g. [27]) but those are "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" to quote WP:NPOV.
In practice, I'm trying to limit the replacement of "Israel" with "West Bank" to cases where the content is specifically talking about where something actually is or the location itself is important in that context in some sense
If it's just a passing mention or the specifics aren't necessary, I'm just removing Israel e.g. "in his synagogue in Beitar Illit, Israel" -> "in his synagogue in Beitar Illit".[29]
I'm planning to continue this clean up here in Wikipedia (and in Commons if I have time). I wasn't planning to discuss or get into negotiations about any of these changes in detail on article talk pages as it shouldn't be necessary. I'm watchlisting the relevant pages but I don't believe that reverting these changes can be justified by policy or that they need to be agreed centrally because from a policy compliance perspective they should be uncontroversial.
There will be some cases where I'm unsure what, if anything, should be done. Israeli footballer Ran Kadoch for example was apparently born in Ma'ale Adumim. Removing the "Israel" in that case doesn't seem entirely appropriate given that the infobox should somehow say that he is Israeli and that only appears to be possible by leaving it alone given the way Template:Infobox football biography has been set up. I don't know whether anyone has any thoughts on how to handle cases like that.
As for disturbing a status quo in a broad range of articles, I think the apparent rarity and scattered distribution of these kind of errors across article space given the large number of instances of settlement name usage suggests that the status quo, if one exists, is to comply with policy on this issue, as it should be. The options seem quite limited. It's not possible for Wikipedia to say that places across the green line in the West Bank are in Israel and the use of "Judea and Samaria Area" is restricted by WP:WESTBANK. That leaves replacing "Israel" with "West Bank" (or some variation that refers to Area 'C') or "the Palestinian territories" or saying nothing.
New article for the hype generated recently. I think it is primarily based on the article which itself is mostly synth and OR. I do think that the subject is worthy of an academic article and not just to glorify and take out of proportion a few isolated incidents. Somewhat related, the shallow Israeli media has lumped the cadets leaving the concert into this issue, but I do not think this is relevant since it actually is an example of Exclusion of men in Israel. --Shuki (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The horses have left the starting gate. Five articles being loaded with the same rehashed material. This is being heavily influenced by the endless amount of news being generated by the Israeli tabloid media and cluttering up all the articles on WP. Feel free extend this list if I have missed something.
The user aprock has placed many AfDs on various random Israeli related articles (he mostly states that they need to be deleted because the subject matter is not notable or because there are not enough sources). Please help me save and improve the following articles which now are nominated for AfD:
There was recently a AfD held regarding the the deletion of the article Religious coercion. The article survived the AfD BUT there are still Wikipedians whom argue, in the discussion page of that article, that the titles of that article and the article Religious coercion in Israel are "inherently one sided view of the subject" and therefore they consider the content of these articles as dubious and biased. Any wikipedians familiar with the Israeli society are more than welcome to help expand and improve these important articles as well as help add reliable sources to them. Thank you. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
(Posting this to WP:Palestine and WP:Israel, as the two sponsoring wiki-projects)
I wonder if anyone could take a look at the article on Solomon's Stables (Marwani Mosque) on the Temple Mount.
Goranmilo (talk·contribs) substantially re-wrote the section of the history of the site in a series of edits on 25 May 2011 (diff), based on a 2004 conference paper that some might say reflected temple denial rather than serious archaeology.
I've demoted what he added to an "alternative view", and restored the previously sourced material (diff).
But I'd welcome input on the talk page (section: "Alternative view") as to the best way forward. If this is a widespread thesis we probably should report it; but should we really suggest it is credible, if it really isn't? Jheald (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Good faith updates to Strauss (company) are the latest of many edits that occur when 'breaking news' hits the media. While I think that WP is notpaper, and I also agree with the boycott against Strauss, I don't think that every news item needs to be updated into articles, and certainly if it has no proven lasting value. --Shuki (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Merge of Mandate Palestine into British Mandate for Palestine
In 2010, the article "Mandate Palestine" was forked out of "British Mandate for Palestine" article, becoming an identical article since. Due to the almost complete overlap (technically both articles describe a former Mandatory geopolitical entity of Palestine under British rule, which has only one article in other languages) and ongoing confusion (some insisted that "British Mandate for Palestine" is more the name of a 1922 document and not a country), i propose to merge Mandate Palestine into British Mandate for Palestine, and make an additional article named British Mandate for Palestine (document) to prevent confusion between the document and the geopolitical entity. Please vote with a proper reasoning here.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Israel will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Israel's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Can someone do this? I think its there or almost there and would like to know what more it needs, if anything. I would do it myself, but Im so familiar with the article and it would be disingenuous and corrupt to self-eval. Thanks--Metallurgist (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I recently created the article King Hussein's federation plan which covers a somehow controversial topic which is still of great importance both to Palestinians, Jordanians and Israelis. For this reason, it is very important that the article would be covered objectively and be well balanced.
Honestly, I don't think this topic is worthy of its own article. Its pretty minor and never came close to fruition. --GHcool (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Free HighBeam accounts
The internet research database HighBeam Research has 1000 free accounts available. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits on any Wikipedia. Here's the link to the project page: Wikipedia:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Feel free to sign up to help improve your work on this project's articles. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk15:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Katz was the Israeli Ambassador to the Soviet Union at the time of the Six-Day War. He was a passenger on BOAC Flight 712. Anyone want to earn a Writer's Barnstar by creating an article on him that is at least C class (IMHO). Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
This image is a POV due to Golan Hights and west bank blanked out , the idea presented in the hebrew wikipedia was to use a diffrnet color for that area could someone resolve that here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.51.198 (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
as a less POV example someone could adjust (that doen't distinct between the legal state of Golan and West bank but it is far less controversial) 109.226.51.198 (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think its controversial. Nobody (not even Israelis) believe that the areas captured in 1967/1973 are annexed into Israel aside from East Jerusalem. --GHcool (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
the law of Golan and East Jerusalem doesn't use the word annexed (it is covered in the Golan Law and East Jerusalem article refs), but the situation in the field from the municipal point of view and governance both are withing Israel (see UN statements in the manner that it declares both laws are void) and even the English wikipedia use the word annexed for both, the West bank is a different story as the IL laws doesn't work there (the area is under the Martial law ). About the Golan heights, people living there aren't considered settlers (except for the Jordan Rift Valley) in the statistical information example [2] the economical the healthcare ,educational and monicepel set of laws (contrary to the situation in the west bank). The Golan heights are printed in official maps nonfree map of Israel including Areas A B and C in the west bank, 109.226.48.197 (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Categorization of populated places and local government
Today I was editing an article about local government in Israel when I noticed that there were a lot of overlapping and some certainly redundant categories about populated places and local government in Israel. Currently we have:
While I can see how they are all subtly different, I don't think we need all these categories, or we need to change how they work. The simplest solution IMO would be to remove all local government-related categories from "Subdivisions of Israel" and only use that category for districts, sub-districts and statistical areas (if articles are ever written about them). For the others, I suggest having cities, local councils, regional councils, etc. under Municipalities of Israel, which will be under both Populated places in Israel and Local government in Israel.
Hi all, there are various important Jerusalem-related articles out there which are in dire need of attention. Jerusalem during the Crusader period and Jerusalem during the Mamluk period were machine-translated from the extensive articles on Hebrew-wiki and are currently incomprehensible. They were recently blanked and transformed into redirects, but that was undone as a lot of good information, unavailable elsewhere, would have been lost. Any effort going into transforming the two above-mentioned into proper articles would be much appreciated, be it translation, formatting, grammar, citations or images. We once went through the same process with Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period and the result wasn't half bad. Poliocretes (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
What infobox should be used in the 2012 Israeli legislative election article
I think the page should be deleted. It is certainly not relevant anymore and purely speculative. --Shuki (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Bassem al-Tamimi
I've given a start to an article on Bassem al-Tamimi, a Palestian activist controversially convicted for organizing stone throwers in Nabi Salih. Other eyes would be welcome, however. I'd be particularly interested if a Hebrew-speaker can turn up an Israeli government or Tamimi critic comment on today's conviction to balance what's there from the English language press. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I looked for some Hebrew-language sources and found that the subject isn't covered at all by the mainstream Israeli press (non-notable), and is only covered in non-reliable sources critical of Israeli policies. Perhaps the notability of the subject should be reconsidered. —Ynhockey(Talk)08:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. It has been carried in reliable sources internationally, such as The Washington Post, Associated Press, The Guardian, and Agence France-Presse, and has attracted sustained international comment, so I'm comfortable on notability for now. But I really appreciate your taking a look. Khazar2 (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Oranit - seeking to align with Hebrew, hijacked
Hi, I awoke from years of inactivity to try and improve the very small page on Oranit by aligining it with the Hebrew, and adding in some extra basic information.
However, as soon as I started to edit, the page started to get edits from lots of POV editors - just see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Oranit&action=history. I'm not seeking to distort the truth, but some of those edits are way out of proportion, the "sources" are not themselves sourced, and in one case (Keter Plastics do not have a factory there), clearly and obviously incorrect. I'd appreciate some assistance on handling this in a correct manner, thanks. Topdog1991 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Before that, I'd also recommend you engage them on the article's talk page, which appears to have zero posts; that's what it's there for, after all. =) Khazar2 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks both of you for the feedback. I really don't want to start reporting people as a knee-jerk, it's a drop in the Wikipedia ocean. I need to re-familiarize myself with the massive about of guidelines here, and already I remember why I don't edit much, it is like treading on eggshells. But kudos to those of you with the patience and dedication. Topdog1991 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Former villages in Palestine/Israel
I have noticed an odd tendency for pages about small farming villages depopulated in 1948 but that had two or 3 thousand years of history to be dominated by discussion of the late Ottoman era and depopulation event. For example, Magdala, home of Mary Magdalene. The page is actually named al-Majdal, Tiberias, and when I tried ot change the name to Magdala, I was reverted. Or Huqoq, another former village. The page is now entitled Yaquq and is dominated by odd green boxes emphasizing the depopulation event. In fact, the place is the site of an archeological dig more notable than the very minor late Ottoman village. Which name is to be preferred?WmTyndale (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest doing a requested move for the articles, but be warned that common sense and logic play little part in debates in this sphere of Wikipedia. Number5719:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Tal committee (article) and Tal Law (redirects to Tal committee) need some attention. There's a huge political flap in progress, with over 600 news articles in Google News today, as the issue of drafting the ultra-orthodox into the IDF reaches a climax. I put a current event tag on the article, and listed some references in talk, but haven't made any substantive changes yet. Anyone want to?
The redirect is probably in the wrong direction now; the Tal Committee has been dissolved, but the Tal Law is still a big issue. Should that be reversed? --John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I was actually surprised to see the article at the Tal Committee (which I didn't even know happened) - I've only ever heard of the Tal law. Number5710:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
FAR
I have nominated Operation Wrath of God for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)19:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
As you know, I've talked with you about this on Arafat's page before, so I'll just quote my first statement and put it here as my opinion. "I propose that we wait a while, at least until the issue starts boiling down. This is for a few reasons. Firstly, WP:Recentism. Secondly, anything can happen. What I mean by that is no exhumation may occur and the whole issue will just quiet down in a month, which I believe is most likely to happen. Aides to Abbas and Abbas himself listed a few prerequisites before exhuming the body, such as sending a delegation to the Swiss lab, etc. In my opinion, he has more important work to get to and doesn't want to be embroiled in this whole controversy and have accusations flung at him, as many interprted Al Jazeera's story to be aimed at P.A. political rivals of Arafat. Of course, I could be wrong, and the body could be exhumed and investigated. On the other hand, more analysts may come out and agree with the assessment that the polonium levels were way too high to have been planted 8 years ago, and should've decreased by a factor of over 1 million and be nearly microscopic today, which could also cause the issue to quiet down quickly. In fact, the past day the issue appeared in the news much less than usual, with the only major story about it that Abbas wanted a joint international probe. So I recommend just waiting a bit and seeing what happens, and if need be, we can merge the information into a new article and add more information. That certainly wouldn't be an issue. If most people want to create a new article and one is created, I wouldn't have an issue and woudl be willing to contribute information." --Activism123401:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Lee Zeitouni
I would like to work with some other people (a minimum of one) on creating a page for Lee Zeitouni. She was brought up in the media recently again. We don't necessarily have to work together, just each person will contribute to the article so it makes it easier than having one person create an article from scratch. Let me know if anyone is interested. It should take approximately 1-2 days. --Activism123401:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This section, which used to appear in the article Wars involving Israel for quite a long while, has recently been removed repeatedly by the users DePiep and Sean.hoyland whom claim that it should be removed because it is Original Research. Do you think it should be included? If so, please help improve the content of that section (proofreading + adding more reliable sources). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The section strikes me as fair, but if there are no sources then it's a problem if some editors disagree with the content. Martin van Creveld's The Sword and the Olive might back up the facts in the section, but I don't have a digital copy and don't remember where to look. If you find a digital copy I'll be happy to at least try to find relevant passages there. Otherwise we can use more generic sources, but it's hard for me to say which as most of my sources are very specific and I have very few generic ones. —Ynhockey(Talk)14:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The users who removed it are legitimate in removing it, as it's uncited. Therefore, I propose that we work here to add references to it and then put it back in.
Activism1234: the book doesn't seem to have either a full or partial preview. If you have a copy I believe you can legally send me one since I own the book, so feel free to do so by email :) —Ynhockey(Talk)08:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Ynhockey, can you please clarify? If you click on the link I gave, it will take you to the book, and you'll be able to read most of it. A few pages are left out. There's also a search tool on the left side that will take you to specific pages. If you remind me in about 10 hours, I can look at what was removed and add in refs from the book where appropriate. --Activism123413:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Upgrade Egypt-Israel border attack
Can someone review the article 2012 Egyptian-Israeli border attack and see whether it should be upgraded to a B article? I feel it should. The article is highly detailed, well formatted, a great infobox complete with a map and tons of references, easy to navigate, and has important information.
This article seems to be looking good, but I don't know how to upgrade articles or what a B article requires, and thus am unfortunately unable to help you out on this. Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That's ok. I decided to seek "Good article" status for it, instead of B status. You can see that here. Anyone who hasn't expanded or nominated the article is allowed to review it on the nominations page I linked to, in accordance with good article criteria (although they should know more about that first). Waiting for someone to start it. --Activism123400:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I Created Two New Useful Maps Today
Jewish Holocaust death toll as a % of the total pre-war Jewish populationCumulative aliyah numbers by country since 1948 or before 1948 if pre-1948 data is available.
The maps are nice and cover an important subject. However, a few comments: the first map's legend is completely broken, it doesn't display the stats and the squares aren't aligned correctly. This might be an export issue with your vector graphics software, but without fixing this it's very hard to read the map.
Regarding the second map, it looks good but the data is unlikely and you should try to provide a source for it. It's also unclear why the year that this map was based on was picked, and whether it's related to the data; were there really over 50,000 olim from Ethiopia prior to 1959?
Overall these maps have great potential to be used in articles, hopefully you can address the issues above.
Yes, I am aware that the legend for the first map doesn't work. I tried fixing it but for some reason my graphics software doesn't display the text. In regards to the second map, the data is 100% accurate. The reason I used the 1959 map as a source rather than the modern map is because Israel apparently doesn't list aliyah statistics by each Soviet country, and thus rather than use a modern map and erase all the Soviet country borders (which is very time-consuming and annoying), I just used an old map where the U.S.S.R. was displayed. If you notice, I combined Egypt and Sudan as well, as well as India and Pakistan, since Israel doesn't have separate aliyah data for those countries. The aliyah numbers are for 1882-2010 for each country, or for the earliest available year (1919, 1948) if there is no data for 1882. Yes, there were over 50,000 olim (to be more accurate, 86 thousand olim) from Ethiopia between 1948 and 2010 (Ethiopia does not have aliyah data for before 1948).
For the record, I put a legend on the description part of both maps.
The Jewish population growth/decline by country between 1945-1946 and 2010. The countries with the greatest Jewish population losses since 1945 were primarily those in Eastern Europe, which had Communist governments for most of the late 20th century.
In both cases you should list on the image description page where you got the data from and include information about the exact meaning of the data as you have described above. That will make the images much more useful. Zerotalk00:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I used Inkscape to create these maps. As for the sources, I put some of the sources on the Wikipedia pages that these images are located on. Futurist110 (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the maps from the articles they're used on. Two of them have unnecessary whitespace, none of them has a key, and the third one has a huge amount of OR in the caption. Number5708:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that it would have been much better to improve my maps and captions rather than to simply remove them. I'm new at using Inkscape, so I might have made some technical mistakes, but they're still good, accurate, reliable maps. Futurist110 (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
We can't have incomprehensible material cluttering up the article. It's no commentary on you; it just does't rise to the quality standards to which we need to adhere. Being intimately familiar with Inkscape, I suspect you're most likely using the "Save" function rather than "Export". I could be wrong, but you might want to try that and see if it helps (make sure you have all the image elements selected before exporting, as well). Evanh2008(talk|contribs)03:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Futurist, unfortunately there are too many flaws in your maps to use them at this point, aside from technical glitches. For instance, if the Aliyah data is from 1882–2010, then you shouldn't use a 1959 map, or if you do you should make it clear on the file page (or on the map itself) what years the data covers and why the map isn't "realistic". Moreover, as Zero0000 said, you need to provide sources for the information on your map, otherwise it's difficult to verify. Hopefully you address all the issues raised here so that your maps can be used in the future. —Ynhockey(Talk)21:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I have now fixed the historical Aliyah map as well. As for why I chose the 1959 map, again, it's because there is no separate aliyah data available for the Soviet republics or for India, Pakistan, Egypt, and Sudan. Futurist110 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Jewish % of the population in each SSR in 1939Jewish % of the population in each SSR in 1959Jewish % of the population in each SSR in 1989
A few comments:
The key for these maps needs making properly, rather than imposing text on the maps.
The numerical divisions seem random and are not consistent (I'd expect 0-20, 20-40, 40-60 etc)
The phrasing in the caption of the third map "As evidenced by this map" needs to be deleted immediately as is a violation of WP:OR. Number5708:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The second map needs the grey "no data available" to be added to the key, as there's clearly been immigration from Australia and some other countries not coloured. Number5708:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me respond to each of these:
Why does it need to be made properly? What's wrong with the way that I did it?
I can fix that.
I already fixed that right now.
The grey does not mean "no data available" for the aliyah map. If you'd look at my scale (on the map itself), the gray means 0 to 9,999. Futurist110 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the Beitar Illit about the removal of part of a generic text which is sourced to general sources, not specific to Beitar Illit. Please weigh in. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Possible problem with Israel regional council templates
This is about the templates in Category:Israel_regional_council_templates. I put a couple of these on my user page to remind me of things I wanted to work on later. Today I noticed that they were making my user page show up in the associated categories for the regional councils (Category:Mateh Binyamin Regional Council and Category:Gush Etzion Regional Council to be specific). Looking at the source of the templates, Template:Mateh Binyamin Regional Council and Template:Gush Etzion Regional Council I saw that the categories that the templates were in weren't included inside the noinclude tags. This has the effect of including any article that the template is transcluded in in the associated category, which is nice, but according to the documentation at Help:Template#Documentation_and_categories it's discouraged for inclusion into content categories. I suppose it's discouraged because if the template is used anywhere outside of article space the content categories end up with a lot of stuff in them that shouldn't be there (like my user page, e.g.). I changed the two templates mentioned above so that the content categories were inside the noinclude tags, but this had the unfortunate side effect of removing all the entries from their content categories. I went through every page in the two templates and put in the appropriate content category by hand, but I don't have the will to do it for the others. It seems as if it'd be something a bot could do, but I have no idea who to ask or how to do that. Thus I figured I'd ask here, since all the templates are of interest to this WikiProject. Cheers!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
If you want to put a template like this on your user page, substitute it there (i.e. {{subst:Gush Etzion Regional Council}}) - that way your userpage won't appear in any categories. Number5708:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is that a better solution than following the guidelines for templates? Don't you want to talk about it? What if other people who aren't paying attention put the templates on non-article-space pages?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's a better solution, just that it is one. The existing system has worked ok for about four years now, so I don't really see the rush to change it, but of course you're welcome to do so if you wish (although remember to put the Regional Council articles themselves in the category – you left Gush Etzion Regional Council out of its own category!). However, I'm surprised you managed to find some obscure policy on templates but couldn't find Wikipedia:Bot requests. Number5715:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I know about the bot requests page. I didn't want to initiate some sweeping change on templates of interest to this wikiproject without a discussion, which I'll still wait to see if others have an opinion on. It's not an obscure policy to people who write templates, which I do. I left the template out of the its own category because it's not so common to include templates in content categories, although I suppose there's no problem with having them in there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, apologies, I just interpreted "It seems as if it'd be something a bot could do, but I have no idea who to ask or how to do that" as you not knowing. I created probably the majority of those templates (and hundreds of others for elections), but had never heard of that guideline. Also I meant that you left the main article (Gush Etzion Regional Council) out of its own category, not the template, but I've since fixed it. Cheers, Number5716:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, on rereading my original comment, I realized that that sentence was probably why you said that. What I meant to say there was "I have no idea who it would be acceptable to ask or how to do that in a way that would be agreeable to people who were interested." It's so hard to type clearly!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I tried that and it put the entire source code for the template on my user page including the one category that wasn't between the noinclude tags. So your suggestion is to paste the code for the template on to my user page essentially and then remove the included category by hand? By the way, I'm sorry I didn't fix the Judea and Samaria area ones, it must have slipped my mind. I notice that you didn't revert the two regional council templates that I changed where I added the category to every entry by hand. Does that mean that this feels like an OK solution to you? If so, perhaps you wouldn't mind if I tried to scrape up a bot to change them all in order to address the wider issue?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Firstly, you don't need to be Jewish to be a member of this WikiProject. Secondly, if you intend on removing it from your userspace, let me know beforehand so I can put it in my sandbox. I'd work on it now, but have to go and won't be back on for another day. Some other editors here should be able to help out with the article though.
All of the images and the data series on the site are licensed under CC, so to allow them to be included in Wikipedia. I hope people in this project will be interested in including more statistical graphs about the state of Israel.
Wow! That's great. But what about some editors objecting to it, saying it's not an RS? Perhaps you should show the citation for each statistic you have, and where you got it? --Activism123423:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Amazing job. :) However, I have a question--isn't it necessary for you to adjust the population totals for non-census years? I've noticed that Israeli population data for non-census years ends up being different from the actual next census data. Anyway, other than that, very nice job. :D Futurist110 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
1996 Israeli election article
I have a question--should I try submitting this article to good article status? I improved this article by adding reactions to Netanyahu's win from prominent public figures. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Futurist110,
At this point the article is unlikely to succeed, although I'm sure that there are enough materials out there, even just from media sources, to potentially make it a Good Article. There are a number of major improvements that needs to be done, among others: expanding the background section, converting some of the list style to prose, and expanding the article overall to include information about the political rivalry, the polling, etc.
It really depends on the subject of the article and availability of materials, but in general it can take weeks to months or research to write a high-quality article on Wikipedia. Good luck with the task, and let us know if we can help.
Please assess the article Jewish holiday for this project. Please remember this is a survey article meant to point people to more specific information. I assume this article should be rated as B-class rather than Start-class for the purpose of this project, too. Note: I am in the process of upgrading the article, holiday by holiday, but I think it already qualifies as B-class. Thanks.
StevenJ81 (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Both traffic statistics and article assessment do not seem to be working. Does anyone know why? Can these things be fixed?--Geewhiz (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Mergers
I ask editors to participate in discussions on merger of Al-Kabri -> Kabri (Galilee) and on merger of al-Bassa -> Betzet (Galilee). The Al-Kabri and al-Bassa place names are essentially Arabic pronunciations for existing Kabri and Betzet (Hebrew/Canaanite pronunciations), and belong to still existent localities, with none or negligible changes in location. Currently, the Al-Kabri and al-Bassa articles claim to describe only the Palestinian Arab localities (Mandatory period), even though the villages still exist today within Israel and existed prior to the establishment of Mandatory Palestine (Ottoman and Mamluk periods and earlier). I hence proposed that those articles be merged into Kabri and Betzet accordingly. This merger is in accordance with similar cases of Amka, Ashdod and Caesarea, though in one case the merger was not agreed upon (case of Alma, Palestine and Alma, Israel).Greyshark09 (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
What a nonsense - it should be "history of Palestine" "History of the Palestinian Authority", since Palestinian territories is not a state.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Jewish holiday. We've been reworking it over time. Overall two other projects (Judaism and Holidays) rate it B-class. The overall structure of the article and holidays through Hanukkah have been fleshed out, and I'm planning work on the rest of the holidays over the course of the year. The specific sections on holidays of modern Israeli origin are still fairly rudimentary, but (a) it is not intended for this article to be detailed, only introductory, and (b) I assume the assessment is supposed to reflect the whole article. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Since I haven't heard anything from anyone on this, I will wait until 15 December (one month from above). Then if there is not an independent assessment, I will change the assessment myself to B-class. It's true that I'm the principal editor right now, so I might be assumed biased. Still, the article also has independent assessments from two other WikiProjects, and I am only proposing to match them, not leapfrog them. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Would historic articles related the geographic Palestine region, but otherwise unrelated to modern Israel, such as Kingdom of Jerusalem fall under the scope of this wikiproject? What about pages such as Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) that are related to Jewish history in Palestine.
Is this WikiProject like WP:Palestine in that respect, or would a historic article need to be more related to Israel and the Israeli people in some way beyond merely being related to Palestine region for WP:Israel to cover it? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
As I wrote on the page, "Adding Jesus to WikiProject Palestine is a fatuous political move. It says nothing about Jesus or Palestine. It is as absurd as applying WikiProject Egypt to the Moses article." --GHcool (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Help improving professional/ Biography page of Mody Kidon
I'm looking to create and improve entries regarding Israeli start-up,marketing and media industries and this specific entry brought me here. can anyone improve it and give me specific guidelines for improvement? What is needed to make it better?
Yaelgo (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Are "Palestinian territories" titles still appropriate for topic articles
Operation Entebbe, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn(talk)14:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
1948 Arab–Israeli War
I should probably post it on the 'WikiProject Military history' project. However, you probably more motivated/knowledgeable on the subject. I think that the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and its related sub articles operation/battles/etc could really use a nice navbar, to make navigation more fluid. For your consideration.--Mor2 (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
There are already at least two different navbars being used—one for the major operations of the war and one for the souther front. What do you have in mind? —Ynhockey(Talk)11:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
RFC on Meta
Hello everybody, this is to inform you that a RFC on Meta concerning serious abuses, violations and defamations by some WP's French admins against French WP's contributors involved in editing articles about the Israeli-palestinian conflict facing continuous harassement including unfair treatment of Anti-Semitic issues and accused to be Zionist/Israeli propagandists. Thank you for your comments. Yoav, 81.218.206.83 (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
This phrase appears: "...Israeli settlements built in the occupied West Bank, which were intended to establish permanent Israeli footholds in Palestinian territory."
I made two simple corrections - which were immediately changed back by someone else. I corrected it to read: "Israeli settlements built in Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank, which were intended to establish permanent Israeli footholds in disputed territory."
1. Why can the Biblical names of these areas not be provided? Do readers around the world not have the right to know that these areas are what they read about in the Bible as Judea and Samaria?
2. The areas in question are not "Palestinian" - not under the Oslo Agreement, nor under any international agreement or proviso. In fact the are in Israeli territory. However, I wrote "disputed territories" so as not to arouse opposition and debate. Under what right does someone change it to mis-read "Palestinian" against all international usage?
Because we use the common names of areas or things. The common name of the West Bank is just that (and Judea and Samaria, as well as being historic names, is also a very controversial name because that's what the settlers call the area). The same goes for "occupied" in preference to "disputed". Number5716:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
> I can understand what you're saying about Judea and Samaria, more or less. But how does the same go for "occupied"? From a legal standpoint, the term makes no sense - who was it "occupied" from? There was never any sovereignty over it! (Jordan was never recognized, and the PA has no borders, even according to the recent UN vote.) Technically and in every which way, the correct term is "disputed." If Wikipedia doesn't use it, then who will??
This entry is seriously lacking. For a guy who is apparently a top 50 Israeli or all time, and now a major power player in your parliament, the biography is fairly brief. You all should get a professor or something to deepen it. Did he go to school, what are his polices, any details about anything? Maybe I'm asking for too much... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.19.56 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
At WP:AFC/R a user pointed out that Idan (moshav) seems to be misnamed; apparently the official transliteration of the name is "Iddan". On the other hand, "Idan" is the transliteration used by Haaretz. Could someone more knowledgeable in transliterations of Hebrew than me please take a look and move the page if necessary? Thanks, Huon (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Another "vote" for Idan, which is the common transliteration for Hebrew עידן, also correct per WP:HE. The sign is actually not official (government), it looks like a JNF sign. —Ynhockey(Talk)19:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I played tourist on Google street view. The large green road signs on highway 90 say "Iddan" with two "d"s before the turn-off in both directions. The white signs at the intersection pointing to the place also have "Iddan" in both directions. These are ordinary road signs, not special signs like the JNF sign. The Central Bureau of Statistics also uses IDDAN, see for example this and many other documents at CBS. Zerotalk14:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. The IL CBS, road signs, government IDs (i,e, passports) all use the official English name, Iddan. Additionally, I've lives there for many years, and while the common spelling may be Idan, the CORRECT spelling is Iddan.
Please fix this. I would recommend petitioning Google to change this as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.240.222 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The official spelling is not necessarily compliant with WP:COMMONNAME. A quick Google shows that Idan is clearly the common one ("moshav Idan" gets 28,000; "moshav Iddan" gets 170). I could cite numerous other examples such as Beersheba (which is Be'er Sheva on signs) or Petah Tikva (which from memory is ridiculously transliterated as "Petach Tiqwa" on road signs?). Number5716:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Anti-Zionist proposals for alternative Jewish homelands
I just came across this funny article that presents a remote fringe theory in the words of the theory's proponents, but never actually points out that no serious historian buys it. I really wanted to divide the article into sections (one for each quotation) and add the sentence "However, this view has not achieved mainstream accepts among scholars of either Jewish or Japanese history."
However, I don't actually have a source by a credible historian that even acknowledges this viewpoint, so I can't actually provide a source for that statement. Could someone with more expertise in this area take a look at it? Thanks!
I actually posted the above at three WikiProjects: this, Japan, and Jewish History. Japan and Jewish History seemed the most obvious given the content (although I'm not sure about how active Jewish History is). I posted here, because the article in question is covered under WikiProject Israel but not under either Jewish History or Judaism. I have no idea why. But posting the same message a fourth time seemed a bit excessive... elvenscout742 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Could anyone who knows Hebraic/Israeli politics, say something about the notability of Yaakov Vider and The Haredi faction in the Likud. The articles are horribly written, so they will need language clean-up if kept (I removed a large part of the Haredi faction article), but I'd like to get input on notability first. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Certainly there is almost zero in the English language media about either. With regards to the Haredi Faction, there is also little in the Hebrew press – nothing in Haaretz, Yediot or Maariv, one article on Walla (written by Vider, so not independent) and a couple on Arutz Sheva (including this). I'm not sure this amounts to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."
This audio file, which contains Hatikvah, also includes antisemitic graphics. I've reported the problem and asked for assistance at the Commons help desk.[31] If anybody is familiar with ogg files and is able to help, please reply there. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk03:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Pope Francis article: Israel as apartheid state argument on talk page
I'm not sure this is an appropriate place to post this request, but I hope it is. I've made some contributions to the article on Pope Francis, especially in the section on his (very positive) relations to other religious communities, including the Jewish community, when he was a cardinal in Argentina. Now an editor (Herzen) is objecting to a quote I included from an editorial in the Jerusalem Post, in part because he says that Israel is an apartheid state. (He is also objecting to the quote because it mentions the Holocaust --and he is saying that ANY MENTION OF THE HOLOCAUST is an implication that the last pope, Benedict XVI, must have been anti-semitic. I find his statements extremely worrisome and I would appreciate it if any of you would have the chance to check the talk page for the Pope Francis article (near the bottom, in the section on the pope's relationship to the Jewish community in Argentina) and share your opinion [about a quote from the Jerusalem Post used in the article which has been proposed for deletion]. Needless to say, his statements about Israel are more than inappropriate...[The quote] says that while John Paul II had a strong relationship with the Jewish community in Poland when he was young, before the Holocaust destroyed most of that community, Francis had a relationship with a "living, breathing" Jewish community in Argentina his whole life. I think this is an insightful quote, and valuable. Thanks, NearTheZoo (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Here is the rule about canvassing: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However, canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate." In this case, I think it's appropriate of you to place a note about an ongoing discussion related to Israel on WP Israel. However, it ought to have been done in a very neutral manner, not arguing a specific outcome. I am posting this rule here, because you may not have been aware of it, but be aware next time. Maybe you could strike out a large part of your post, just leaving a link to the discussion. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
IANAL, nor do I really know common's policies, but since the picture was definitely taken more than 70 years ago, there's a good chance it's in the public domain, and thus can be uploaded to commons. RamiR11:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The article Culture of Israel, except for the first paragraph in which I added some Arab Israeli perspective, is sorely lacking of commentary on Arab Israelis. No pictures of Arab Israelis (only Jewish Israelis), no mentioning of their history as an Israeli people beyond the first paragraph (only then on in relation to their encounters with Zionist settlers)--It's almost like having an article on South Africa without so much of a mention of white Afrikaners.
I request help from my fellow wikipedians to correct this bias, but be forewarned--given the blankings by three separate users of my contributions regarding ethnic minorities in Israel, there will be some opposition to the inclusion of facts.
OK. Page is on my watchlist, and I will try to help you defend neutral, sourced contributions. But let me emphasize: neutral, and sourced. My own view is that too many Wikipedia articles concerning Israel are too biased in the other direction, and I'm not interested in supporting that, either. I'd encourage you to edit with a light hand if you want your contributions to stick. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Rest assured, 85% of my edits (by my estimate) stay, and I'm more interested in removing politically-charged language from neutral terminology, or that which has an inherent systematic bias (such as referring to Israeli culture as originating from "religious Hebrew Israelite traditions", when in fact, it's so much more than that), then adding content that is potentially controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solntsa90 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Linking
Dear colleagues, just a note that I've been going through quite a few violence-related articles that have your template on the talk page; this is because they seem to be popping up an awful lot on chronological links to lists, like "links to 1980s". Could you watch the overlinking? Generally, we don't link years, dates, or common terms on en.WP. "Bomb", "shooting", and "Lebanon" linked twice within five seconds, are not uses of the wikilinking system that are encouraged on en.WP. I can explain more if you buzz me. WP:MOSLINK has useful information.
As far as big-picture link targets go, like country-names (Israel etc), we're encouraged to find more specific links, whether section links or offspring articles; these may or may not be piped, but are more likely to be clicked on if they don't look like the same old plain country-name links to which readers have become inured.
Also, in many cases I've had to harmonise the date formats to dmy or mdy, whichever seems more prevalent in the article. It needs to be article-consistent.
These are pretty well covered topics, I think—well done.
There is currently a dispute over whether the Golan Heights should be mentioned as being occupied by Israel on the talk page of Beer in Israel. The user who made these edits has also been making similar edits on other pages, so this issue also has implications for other articles. --PiMaster3talk19:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Inclusion of Holocaust Remembrance Days on Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays
There is currently a request for comments open about the lead section of the Jerusalem article, and all editors are welcome to give their opinions. The dispute over the lead section is one of the oldest on Wikipedia, dating back to 2003, and focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result will be binding for three years. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and will be open until 22 June 2013 (UTC). — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I have a question. I previously proposed the idea of holding a referendum on Arab East Jerusalem neighborhoods in the event of a final peace deal here (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_August_8#East_Jerusalem_Arabs_and_Israel). What would be the best way for me to try contacting some prominent Israeli politicians and to share my proposal with them? I know that the chances might be low, considering that I am an ordinary person and a dual Israeli-U.S. citizen who has lived in the U.S. for the entire last decade (and longer), but I still want to try doing this considering that it appears that no one in the Israeli government (in this one and in all of the previous ones) has ever suggested a proposal similar to the one that I suggested. Also, I asked this question on the Wikipedia Reference Desk two months ago, but I want to hear what people here have to say. Also, does anyone here have any contacts/(direct) links to Israeli government officials? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Which Israeli politicians do you think would be most amenable to my proposal? I'm thinking Yair Lapid and his party due to the fact that he is a fresh face and that his party is new, but I'm not completely sure. Futurist110 (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I just hope that at least one of them will receive my idea and try proposing it to someone more influential. I guess that I should try e-mailing all Knesset members in Yesh Atid and Hatnuah, since they seem to be the parties which are most open to peace talks and territorial concessions within the current Israeli governing coalition. Futurist110 (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
OK--I was focused on schoolwork over the last two months, but now that I am on vacation, I wrote a draft e-mail to certain Israeli MKs. Before I send it, though, how about I post it here:
"Hello,
I am an Israeli citizen who is currently living abroad (in the United States of America). I have closely been following Israeli political news whenever I could over the last several years. As you know, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is a very important issue for Israel. Peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will need to restart eventually. In regards to solving the debate over Jerusalem, I was thinking about a proposal which would be the fairest to both sides in regards to this issue. I am proposing that each neighborhood in the Arab parts of East Jerusalem hold a referendum among its population to determine if the people who live in these neighborhoods want to remain a part of Israel or become a part of Palestine (the new Palestinian state) in a final peace treaty. My proposal could also apply to the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, though it appears pretty obvious that the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would choose to remain a part of Israel in a final peace treaty. My referendum proposal could also apply to the Old City of Jerusalem as well, with the exception of the holy sites, which will need to be discussed and dealt with separately in the peace negotiations. As you might know, there was a poll done relatively recently which found out that more Arabs in East Jerusalem want to remain under Israeli rule than those who want to live under Palestinian rule (here is a link talking about this poll: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/would-east-jerusalem-arabs-rather-be-citizens-of-israel-or-palestine-1.336758). Here is the most important quote in this article -- "When asked if they preferred to become a citizen of Palestine, with all of the rights and privileges of other citizens of Palestine, or a citizen of Israel, only 30 percent chose Palestinian citizenship – as compared to 35 percent that chose Israeli citizenship. Another 35 percent either had no answer or declined to provide it." While am I unsure if this poll is accurate/correct, this poll does help strengthen the case in favor of allowing the Arab residents of East Jerusalem to decide for themselves if they want to remain a part of Israel or become a part of Palestine. I think that holding a referendum on this issue in the Arab (and maybe Jewish as well) neighborhoods of East Jerusalem is by far the fairest and best solution in order to resolve the dispute over Jerusalem in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. After all, the residents of East Jerusalem are the ones who will be most affected by whatever outcome these negotiations produce in regards to Jerusalem. If the people reading this are not Members of the Knesset, please do your best to forward and share this idea with the Members of the Knesset themselves. I seriously hope that I explained my proposal and ideas in regards to East Jerusalem clearly enough in this e-mail. Thank you very much, and if you have any questions, comments, and/or concerns, please respond back to me via e-mail. Thank you very much. Have a good day.
Anyway, several days ago I sent this e-mail to all of the MKs from Yesh Atid, Hatnua, Kadima, and to PM Benjamin Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, and Naftali Bennett. Today, I got a reply from one of their offices--MK Dov Lipman's chief of staff e-mailed back to me and told me that I had some interesting ideas. I'm going to e-mail her back and ask her if she is able to share my ideas and/or e-mail with MK Lipman himself. MK Lipman is originally from the United States, which might help in allowing me to get his attention in regards to this issue. Futurist110 (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I seriously hope that I'm not overreaching here, but I'm hoping that my proposal will (eventually) get the attention of not only MK Lipman himself, but also the attention of Yair Lapid, Tzipi Livni, and/or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Lipman can share this proposal with Lapid (the leader of his party), who can in turn share it with Netanyahu and Livni. As I previously mentioned, I literally e-mailed thirty (Yes, 30, or 1/4th of the entire Knesset) Israeli MKs, the overwhelming majority of whom appear to be (strongly) in favor of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the creation of a Palestinian state (on terms that the Palestinians can agree with). Thus, considering how long it took MK Lipman's office to respond to me, there is probably a possibility that I'll get one or more additional responses to my e-mail in the (near) future as well. Do you have any advice for me about how I can increase my chances of success (as in getting many Israeli MKs to notice and think about my proposal), Evan? Also, just curious, but are you in favor of my proposal, Evan? Finally, do you see some flaws in my proposal (other than in the details of its implementation, I mean)? Futurist110 (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I hope this proposal goes somewhere too. Honestly, I would have went in not even expecting a response, but that you got a reply from Mr Lipman's chief of staff is probably as good a sign as you could expect. I know absolutely nothing about how to generate a response or about the details of implementing such a plan, but the idea sounds quite reasonable, and seems like it would be more sustainable long-term than a deal brokered by the national leaders without input from the citizens on a local basis. So yes, I'm absolutely in favor of it! I don't think I can offer much helpful advice, but once again, good luck! Evanh2008(talk|contribs)06:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Look, GHcool, I'll be honest with you. You will never, ever win this argument on Wikipedia, regardless of whether you are right. It just won't happen. In my opinion, and it's just my opinion, there is one and only one way to get any mention of this as an antisemitic boycott into the article. (I think that would be a worthwhile thing to do, by the way.) What you must do is find one (preferably two) neutral, reliable sources that link BDS to classic antisemitic boycotts. And work those into the text of the "criticism" section of the article.
That, you will be able to defend and keep. The problem with categories and see-alsos is that they are not places for working out neutral wording. They are yes-or-no, true-or-false, and only one side generally gets to win them.
See also does not "categorize". "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_section Is it ever suggested by any prominent organizations or individuals that Boycott, Divestment and Sanctionsmight be antisemitic? "The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel is an “antisemitic” vehicle used by those who want to destroy the country, a new report from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre has concluded."[32]Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say it did. And frankly, I'm on your side. I know very well that this is related. I personally believe that much anti-Israel sentiment in the world, more broadly, is because it is more politically acceptable to be "anti-Israel" than "anti-Jewish" or antisemitic.
But I'm telling you in practical terms that you/we will not win on this anyway. Better to let "'antisemitic' vehicle" link through a piped link to "antisemitic boycotts". StevenJ81 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
"NGO Monitor states that by singling out Israel explicitly, the BDS campaign qualifies as antisemitism under the European Union's Working Definition of Antisemitism [source: NGO Monitor's website]. Abraham Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), penned an advertisement that ran in The New York Times that referred to the BDS movement as antisemitic 'at its very core.'[sources: [33][34]] According to the ADL, James Petras—whom it characterizes as an antisemitic conspiracy theorist—is on the advisory board of the U.S. Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI).[source: [35]]"
The rationale behind the removal of the above is that the ADL and NGO Monitor are unreliable sources for their own statements. Those who have an opinion on the matter are welcome to comment here. --GHcool (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been featured
Hello, Please note that Yom Ha'atzmaut, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theopolisme at 03:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team
In this article -- http://www.jpost.com/National-News/CBS-study-projects-114-million-Israelis-in-2035-317738 -- among a couple of other articles, it means that Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics recently created new population projections for Israel up to 2035. Does anyone know where the original population projections here are located? I checked the English version of the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics website, but I couldn't find them, and I don't speak or read Hebrew (anymore), so I was unable to thoroughly search the Hebrew version of this website for these projections. Also, are these projections only in Hebrew or is there an English version of them? As a side note, I might be able to add some of the information in these population projections to some Wikipedia articles. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, someone should look at about dozen lists on articles about various Israeli ministries, which previously contained party colors and (in several cases) pictures, but they were since removed. I think those lists should be reverted back to its previous form. These are articles in question:
Beyond that, how to handle colors within individual ministries may be more complicated than how to handle colors for Speaker, Prime Minister or President. Better to gain consensus on those first before handling the complexities here. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This WikiProject and WikiProject Palestine should develop a Portal:Jerusalem. I notice the Arabic Wikipedia and other Wikipedias also have Jerusalem portals, so I think this Wikipedia needs one too.
The article on Israeli Yarden Gerbi will appear on the main page in a couple of days (in DYK). If anyone has strong facility in Hebrew and would like to further expand the article with Hebrew-RS info for ירדן ג'רבי .. then please feel free to do so. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
