Talk:Israel/Archive 15

message: On the page, the Prime Minister Ehud Olmert inaccurately is above the President Moshe Katsav. I thought you put the head of state first, then the head of government. Can someone please sort it out? I can't because of this semi-protection (I'm a new Wikipedian). Thanks
RJL 20:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was originally the way you say, then changed, citing the fact that the PM holds the power. However, that doesn't seem to be a relevant argument, as the head of state is the first mentioned in all the articles I looked at, such as Germany, United Kingdom, and India, all of them countries where actual power is wielded by the PM, not the president/monarch. Thus, I'm changing it back. okedem 20:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment above (section 23.1 in the table of contents), from a couple of days ago, after this change was made.  I agree, the president should be listed above the PM.  It is a matter of "protocol", not actual power.   6SJ7 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Head of State should go first.  This shouldn't even be an issue. john k 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong way round? 

message: :::Everybody check Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Human_Rights_in_Israel!
Hm. 10 minutes after I made a request for arbitration, Humus sapiens decided for the first time to include Amnesty International's criticism in his edit. This is a big step forward, because until now this user and his co-thinkers always did all they could to prevent any cite from Amnesty International and other blacklisted sources to appear on the page.
Unfortunately, the result isn't yet acceptable, in my opinion. Many de facto pro-Israel sources are quoted in length, while the only criticism is just given a link, followed by a sentence accusing the criticism to be biased. My proposal was to respect the advice we received from without, ie:
# Keep it short.
# Don't give direct cites in inverted commas, just tell the reader to check the main article or to follow the links.
# Explain why it is a controversial issue and just introduce the different issues at debate.
If Humus sapiens wants to keep all his cites (I mean: those cites he likes so much) in inverted commas, we could simply add the cite from Amnesty International too. That was precisely my original edit, but nobody seemed to like it... --MauroVan 12:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked on a compromise without knowing what you were stirring. MauroVan, you seem to be very opinionated about the contents, the length, the cites, the inverted commas and about other editors and you have a lot to say. If I may suggest: tone your rhetoric down a little and don't make it into a personal vendetta. If the fact that several editors reverted your preferred version doesn't tell you something, reread what they say. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This section shouldn't exist. I examined many other countries' articles. There are only a few in existance and in all of them it is shorter as well. In Brazil, Vietnam, Iraq and others it is only listed in a "see also". There's no sense in listing this as a non "see also" but others on the "see also" starting from terrorism issue and so on. Remove, move to "see also" and deal with the article itself, is the only solution representing wiki policy. Amoruso 01:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Arbitration 

message: Please, this section is for discussing the Chaim Ramon quote, not attacking User: Volksgeist
So the issue at hand: 
Pro:the quote was made by an official during an official meeting and is notable and verifiable
Con:the quote does not represent official Israeli policy and therefore cannot/should not be included.
We need to come to a consensus on the above and stop the petty bickering/namecalling.  Sarastro777 19:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you intend to say that Volksgeist neads to quit throwing around complot theories about Jews on Wikipedia, claiming that countries that let Jews in made a mistake, and that Jews ruined Spain? --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyway, on topic. The quote can be included if it is accompanied by a clarification that the rest of the cabinet does not agree, and that this is not and has never been the official government policy. In which case I do not see why it should be included in any case. As I said before, if this quote should be included, some nice Hezbollah quotes should also be included. They are as irrelevant as this one. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is not about Ramon either. It is equally irrelevant. Add the Ramon quote and I will add Hezbollah quotes about all Israeli citizens having to die etc. Or don't add it and I won't add anything either. I would prefer the latter. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither am I interested in this whole thing. We leave the quote out and we present the official stance held by both (well, all) sides in the conflict. No problems then. We are not going to include extreme statements by leaders on both sides which are not official policy. Problem solved, right? --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Israel's justice minister does not constitute an offical stance, then why is their a quote from "Hezbollah's envoy to Iran" on there? Certainly it looks like there is an Israel policy to virtually destroy Southern Lebanon as there is of Hezbollah to make life unpleasent in Northern Israel.Volksgeist 20:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Argh, do I really need to explain this?? The TASK of an envoy is to convey the POSITION OF HIS MASTERS. That is the whole purpose of an ENVOY. So yes, if Hezbollah's ENVOY says such a thing it is RELEVANT. Just like that if Israel's ambassador to the US says something it is RELEVANT. Because his words ARE assumed to be Israel's official government policy. I cannot believe that I am actually explaining this. Please go learn basic international relations and politics and come back afterwards. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I commend you for your patience. Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you idiot, I never wrote that. Grow a brain. You are really acting like your brain is in your behind. And I am not going to apologize for this. You are completely twisting my words around and lying about what I said. I said that we should either include no statements by Israel or Hezbollah officials which are not official policy, or we include them both by Israeli and Hezbollah officials. Not only Israeli remarks and no Hezbollah remarks. You, apparently, fail to understand what I am saying here after I explained it at least five times. Grow a brain. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, so what? This article isn't about the news. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Back on Topic

message: Firstly, it should not be its own sub-section, any more than the Yom Kippur war and the 1982 conflict are their own sections. Secondly, it is inconsistent with the main article. It is suffering from the conflict being so recent. This should be dramatically cut down, following the pattern of all of the other conflicts. We have a main article for a reason. -- Avi 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's logical, since Wikipedia didn't exist in 1973 and 1982. I think this phenomenon is unavoidable. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That is why we have wikilinks. Clicking on the blue/purple 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is just as good, and does not disrupt the flow of the text. -- Avi 03:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 conflict section 

message: "28% of the land was already bought and owned by Zionist organizations plus additional private land owned by Jews[citation needed]." Could an administrator please either (1) allow me to edit numbers out of a beginning of a sentence, or (2) do it herself? Gracias.
Israel, why have you violated the cease fire five days after it started? I know some israeli is gonna come and delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.234.154 (talk • contribs) 15:36, August 19, 2006
^
!
!
Are you under the impression that the Israeli consulate reads Wikipedia talk sections?
*What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually, we should have facts. Also, it's a bit ignorant to say "pro-Israeli and pro-Arab" as though the two are in conflict. Arabs enjoy more rights and a better standard of living in Israel than they do in any of its neighbours. Schrodingers Mongoose 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That does not mean Israel's cease-fire violations have not occurred and does not mean that my edits are not truthful. How am I any more biased then someone with 9 different wikipedia Judaism stars and resides in Israel? The bias in the same. To say "although cease-fire violations have occurred" is ridiculous and I saw this coming when Israel's violations occurred. The Jews and Israelis here will not allow anything that puts them in a negative light. It's quite obvious there is also a disproportional amount of administrators with the above. Volksgeist 22:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been Israeli violations, and there have been Hezbollah violations. to mention only the Israeli ones is POV. Isarig 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have yet to have heard any in the news or I would of added them. Even Annan's statement only talked about Israel's raid and the airstrikes, where are the ones about Hizbollah?  Volksgeist 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't read much, do you? Or rather, you are quite selective in what you read. Here you go, boy: 
 Isarig 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't a discussion forum. If you want to argue over Israel's actions, go find an appropriate political forum, or open a blog. This isn't the place. okedem 11:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excuse me but I was responding the sponsors who keep changing Israel's blatant ceasefire violations to "although ceasefire violations have occurred." It's quite obvious they don't want the fact that Israel has violated them in the main article and I doubt you're no exception hailing from Tel Aviv. Nothing on Judaism or Israel on Wikipedia is unbiased because of the overwhelmingly disproportional amounts of administrators. Volksgeist 13:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse you me... Are you asserting that there is an "overwhelmingly disproportional amounts of administrators" that are Jewish? Even if that was the case, in Wikipedia we do not discuss an editor's religion, political views, or otherwise. See WP:NPA that reads in reference to personal attacks that: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" is a personal attack, and not allowed in this project. Comment on the edits, and not on the editor. OK? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find it hard to believe an editor from Israel is going to post unbiased accounts of the Israel-Lebanese conflict and the edits in this forum have backed this up. Furthermore, there is a disproportionate amount of Jewish administrators on Wikipedia and I think there is a reason many consider Wikipedia to be biased with certain subjects, namely Israel. Volksgeist 04:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just keep burying yourself deeper. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing Wikipedia with a newspaper. Wikipedia reports what other reputable sources have reported, not original accounts. Thus, the nationality of the editors doesn't matter. And I remind you of Wikipedia:No personal attacks - editors' nationality or religion is NOT an legitimate issue here. okedem 06:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  You do not understand what a "ceasefire" means (or rather, you understand very well, but pretend to be obtuse so as to bash Israel). A "Ceasefire" means you stop shooting. when a ceasefire is reached while one side is occupying part of the other side's land, and shooting by that other side, even if it is wholly within its land, is a vioaltion of the ceasefire. It's actually a good question to ask why the UN did not issue a statement regarding this vioalation. It speaks volumes about the UN's lack of objectivity. Isarig 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not for us to say, however.  Surely the UN is the appropriate judge on whether its own resolution is being abided by, no? john k 16:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, and we can say "Kofi Anan said..."; that's not the same as "The UN said", I don't think, since neither the Security Council nor the General Assembly has made such a determination. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: Please see Israel-Venezuela relations and Israel-New Zealand relations. They could both use the perspectives of Israelis. There appears to be a revived movement to merge the Israel-Ven relations page into Foreign relations of Venezuela so I urge other users to vote against this. Respectfully, Republitarian 19:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign relations pages

message: How about moving the title of the article to State of Israel....to be, you know, precise? Paul 02:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: State_of_Israel already redirects here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See the Coat of Arms of Israel. It has one word: Israel. Are we now renaming all the country articles to whatever is their official name? If so, why start with Israel? For Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, we have article Jordan, for Arab Republic of Egypt - Egypt, for Syrian Arab Republic - Syria, for Italian Republic - Italy. Shall we continue?  ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to move the article. Most people will look for Israel, and those looking for State of Israel will find it as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded. -- Avi 15:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Israel" -> "State of Israel" 

message: This article is supposed to be about the State of Israel. There should be short entries about each war, with wikilinks to the specific articles. This is not the place to start copying every detail from the 2006 conflict article, that is why we have it, and its myriad daughter articles. -- Avi 14:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. In the last few months, there are incessant attempts to turn WP into a blog which it is not. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail of 2006 conflict in this article 

message: I am concerned that some of my edits are being reverted by pro-Israeli forces within 1 minute of them being written and I am being accused of undue POV. I suggest that due consideration has not been given.
I was attempting to provide balance about the Lebanon-Israel war. Ar present it appears that the only casulaties have been Israelis (mentioned 4 times I think: my attempt to mention Lebanese casualties was immediately deleted.
Johnbibby 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Lebanon does not have an extensive section on Israeli casualties, why should this article have one about Lebanese? But if you ask my opinion, the 2006 conflict should take up only a few lines in this article, not several paragraphs like it does now. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Over-swift reverts by ==

message: This should be redirected to the State of Israel with Israel being a disambiguation page with links to other articles.סרגון יוחנא 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it should not. Pls. see above [[#"Israel" -> "State of Israel"]]. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of Israel 

message: This talk page is 90% bickering. It's about time that most of this was wiped clean. It's difficult to see any reasons for edits among all the PoV comments. If you want a chat room go meet in one but try to use this page for discussing the content of this entry rather than your own agendas. Candy 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a major clean up 

message: *The contribution talked about HRW and AI, but only referenced the HRW properly. Each citation should use a different "ref", and preferably link to a URL, where everyone can read the source. 
*The HRW source said nothing about "deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians", only that the IDF isn't taking civilians into consideration properly.
*The HRW source also didn't mention cluster bombs.
*It also didn't mention the Geneva Conventions. Detemening whether something is a breach of the conventions is a legal matter, and an editor saying that here would constitute original research. 
okedem 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition by [[User:Gallaher san@msn.com]] 

message: Our article states that the area of Israel is 22,145 km² (149th) 
8,019 sq mi 
- Water (%) ~2% 
The BBC profile states that "Area: Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics cites 22,072 sq km (8,522 sq miles), including Jerusalem and Golan." Where does our figure come from and how reliable is it?
Capitalistroadster 01:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area of Israel 

message: NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Wikipedia? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views.  Thank you. IZAK 09:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish WIKIVERSITY 

message: Would be great if somebody could write a short component about this.
:true, it's mentioned in zionism and alyiah and then in the years sections but should be expanded. Amoruso 02:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only people with 1/4 or more Jewish blood as determined by the Orthodox Rabbinical Court. With some numerically insignificant exceptions. 24.64.165.176 20:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel's Immigration Policy