Talk:Israel/Archive 9

message: Dose the population inhclude gaza/palistinian teretories which are considered to be on israel land by the israely goverment included in the populattion count, and what proportion take part in the israely democracy. I am not asking to be offensive, i just wish to understand. as it is not clear in the article. Is it true also that israel is the only country with an actual goverment pased bill that sets out how torture should be carried out? (again i understand that a lot of countries, even in the west do this and i am not judging israel, i just wish to know the facts.)--Happyhaydn 17:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The population numbers given by Israeli Census do not include the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The democratic process in Israel includes all its citizens, including Palestinian people that remained within the borders of the state of Israel in 1948 and their descendants. Since the occupied territories were not annexed to Israel, its inhabitants are not considered Israeli citizens.
Regarding the torturing issue, even though it’s out of the scope of this article, it is worth noting that Israeli intelligence services are indeed bound that a law that explicitly prohibits torture. The law gives examples of the types of investigation that might or might not be carried out on suspect terrorists.
Gabi S. 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population/democracy

message: The  template is getting unreasonably large and incoherent.  While it's justifiable to want to refer to all of these topics here, it just doesn't make any sense for all of them to mutually-reference.  Look at an article like RAFAEL Armament Development Authority to see how disproportiate this appears in some cases.  I'd strongly favour refactoring this template into a number of smaller, more topic-focussed ones (possibly including a top-level one for the main categories on this template).  Alai 19:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Israelis" template creep 

message: Lists of states that do and don't recognise Israel don't belong in this article. They belong in Foreign relations of Israel or something like that. Adam 03:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List of states

message: And also someone please fix the enormous white space at the start of the article. Adam 03:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see excessive white space at all.  I'm using a Mac, and I tried Safari, Opera and Firefox (all current versions).  It looks fine in all of them (cluttered, if anything).  The two boxes are on the right and the text flows down the left.  --Zero 09:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've fixed it.  The problem appears to have been in the display of the table of contents against the  template.  As long as the template is below the first heading, it appears to display well in both browsers. --Viriditas  | Talk 12:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, it created a problem for some IE users at higher resolutions.  I self-reverted, but feel free to revert back to a version that works for you. I give up. --Viriditas  | Talk 12:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: White space

message: It is not a simple matter to say whether Israel annexed the Golan Heights.  The question is hotly debated between experts on international law.  For example, in vol 20 (1994) of the Brooklyn Journal of International Law, there are back-to-back articles by two Israeli law professors.  One argues that the Golan was annexed and the other argues that it wasn't.  Both of them agree that the 1981 Golan Law was intended to annex the Golan while using language that allowed plausible denial. However, they disagree on whether this objective was achieved.  They also disagree on whether the Israeli Supreme Court has accepted annexation or not.  I found similar disagreement on this question in other law journals.  We should present it as a disputed point, and not adopt one conclusion or the other. --Zero 10:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the purpose in presenting it as a disputed point, obviously it is disputed that Israel had the right to annex it, but the right of the US taking half of Mexico in 1848 was also disputed, but very few sane people would debate that they had in fact not taken the land.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 06:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There is no way to get a straight answer on this question, and there is no such thing as an official map in the sense you mean.  Apart from what is in the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, Israel has never officially defined its borders.  Whenever the subject of negotiations with Syria come up, Israeli politicians adamantly claim the Golan is part of Israel, or isn't part of Israel, according to their political positions.  An example of the ambiguity: enter the Flash presentation on the Israeli Foreign Affairs website at http://64.49.224.152/mfa/mfa.htm and you will find a map of the Golan which carefully repeats the formula "law, jurisdiction and administration" (from the Golan Law) in the caption but says "sovereignty" on the map itself.  Incidentally, the same wording "law, jurisdiction and administration" was used in 1967 with regard to East Jerusalem and spawned the same argument.  This policy of vagueness served Israel well with regard to EJ and was copied for the Golan.  --Zero 10:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: We should not claim that Israel definitely annexed the Golan, nor that Israel  definitely did not annex the Golan. We should describe it as an unclear question that is a matter of dispute between legal experts.  I believe that is an accurate summary. --Zero 13:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So would it be correct to say Israel did not formally annex the Golan Heights, although some experts claim Israel has? Or that what Israel has done amounts to a formal annexation? Or is this a question of de facto vs. de jure? What exactly do these experts claim?--Doron 21:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Golan annexation?

message: Hello, if you can please check the edits of 86.105.71.34 because he's a known vandal inserting false figures in romania and hungary related pages, most of the numbers are from dubious sources or with no source at all. --grin ✎ 18:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the question here is, is the amount of people with Romanian origin relevant to a short summary of demographics? The answer is (IMO) no. Therefore, I removed the info. Maybe it belongs to the Demographics of Israel article, but as you said, we'd need someone to check the validity of the information (although it looks valid to me). -- Ynhockey 19:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check edit of  86.105.71.34  

message: I find the table comparing the gross domestic product of Israel with its neighbors inappropriate for this article. It seems like the purpose of this table is to show that the Israeli economy is about as big as all its neighbors' economies combined. To this end, it would be sufficient to say just that (providing a link to the source of these figures). If anywhere, this table may perhaps belong in Economy of Israel, otherwise I cannot imagine what the GDP of Lebanon has to do with this article.--Doron 21:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross domestic product comparison 

message: "It is official policy to preserve Israel as a Jewish state in both its ethnic character and a religious sense."
Could we have a reference please?
:Who are you? Preaky 04:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  racist official policy 

message: "Throughout the centuries the size of Jewish population in the land fluctuated with the population in the region of the present day Israel"
I don't understand the sentence, maybe somebody can rewrite it. Repetition 21:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews in Palestine before 1900s 

message: Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 17:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew naming conventions 

message: I'm sorry User:SlimVirgin, but I doubt you read the changes entirely, or you would not have stated "rv to last version by Zero; I agree that it's better without these changes". That edition you two have reverted to contains outdated information on demography that changes from what is in stated in the intro to what is stated in the demography section. Further, I have also added Ladino as a spoken language. Please do not deny this. And I have also added that Arabic is also spoken my some Mizrahi and Teimani.
Please point out any inaccuracy in my edits, and delete those if you find them. But do not revert under the guise that it “looks better”, but by doing so you delete so much relevant information that should not be omitted.
Again, I cannot comprehend how you could agree (I you have indeed compared version) that it is better without the changes, when the article content conflicts from one part of the article to the other.  Al-Andalus 11:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From your own user page: "Try to avoid revert wars. Never violate 3RR. Be self-limiting in how many times you revert a page in a day. Try to get consensus on talk before reverting. If you do revert without prior discussion, explain why on talk." I have done this. Please do also comply by your own demands. I am the only one who has explained my reasons. I'm still awaiting yours and user Zero's. Once more, please point out to me the inaccuracy in my edits, and delete those if you find them. Al-Andalus 15:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Some of your information is incorrect though. Not 19.5% of all non-Jews are Arabs, but 19.5% of the entire population. On the other issues, I don't necessarily (dis)agree with either side. -- Ynhockey || Talk 18:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Al-Andalus, I don't think the average reader will know what point you are making with the sentence "Jews may be of any race.", and I find it rather jarring.  Perhaps you should explain your intention (here).  --Zero 00:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken it back out [again] from Demographics of Israel where Al-Andalus insists it should be also.  Not only is the subject covered in Jew, where it should be, the subject of that paragraph concerns Israeli census data, and no part of the Israel Census addresses "race".  I doubt this will end the discussion on the matter, or the reversions of this rubbish back into the article, despite the fact that IMNSHO it should.  Tomer TALK 03:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've looked at the insertion and the whole thing doesn't make any sense to me.  Does the Israeli census really talk about what "race" Jews are?  Even if it's true, wouldn't that information make more sense in the article about Jews? Also, you've used "first generation" and "second generation" incorrectly.  "First generation Israelis" are immigrants, "second generation Israelis" are the children of immigrants. A "Sabra" can never be a "first generation Israeli". Also, ALL of the of the non-Sabra are "foreign born", so there's no point in saying so, and "olim" includes both "voluntary" and "refugee" Jews. Preaky 02:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I made changes based on my comments above.  I also fixed some grammar problems. I notice that a sentence was added which says "It is official state policy to preserve Israel's status as a Jewish state in both its ethnic character and religious constitution."  What does this mean, and where is this policy written? Preaky 02:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edits. Jayjg (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the problem is that by using the term "race" in the context of Israel's demographics, we are stating a premise that is contentious in itself.  The point may be that Israeli Jews are a highly diverse group of people (though they clearly have some important characteristics in common), but even that is raising a misleading issue, since it can be argued that Arabs and Palestinians also are highly diverse. --Leifern 13:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly; we certainly don't state that Arabs are "multiple races" either, and the Israeli census bureau doesn't state anything about race at all. Jayjg (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, I note that Al-Andalus has added back "foreign-born" to describe people who weren't born in Israel.  As Preaky points out above, all non-Israeli born Israelis are by definition "foreign born"; this is redundant and confusing at best, POV pushing at worst. Jayjg (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted it because it's odd looking, and I also deleted the sentence saying "Jews can be of any race," because the writing is odd and the point is jarring, as Zero said. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SlimVirgin 

message: The external links section just seems a bit too much; it consumes half of the table contents and adds a lot of unneeded bulk to the page; if I knew more about the subject matter I would trim it myself.  Or perhaps just remove it from the TOC? Peyna 20:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the External Link subheadings from the TOC; I think it looks a lot cleaner now.  It was a little distracting before.  Peyna 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think most of the links there ought to be removed, I think many of the links there are unnotable or do not conform to Wikipedia policy about external links.--Doron 08:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right; I just didn't want to step into a page with so much discussion and work behind it and unilaterally delete most of those links. Peyna 15:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I've moved the list of Israeli media sources to a new section. There are two major uses for this list, a user may want to find an Israeli newspaper's website in order to read the news, or a user may want to know something about the media in Israel. When the list was in the external links section it couldn't be comprehensive or helpful to people who wanted to know about the media in Israel in general because it didn't make sense to add a link to one of the many Israeli newspapers in Arabic/Russian/Hebrew etc. that didn't have an online English edition. As a separate section it can be a comprehensive and fair guide to the Israeli media (which doesn't seem to exist outside of wikipedia) and it can also be useful to people who just want to find a link to the jerusalem post. 
I do worry that it may require a separate article due to length.
GabrielF 00:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section for Israeli Media 

message: Gaza is no longer "occupied" post unilateral disengagement.  A newer map would be in order. Savidan 06:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is outdated 

message: Regarding Jacob's assailant: If the original Genesis (in Hebrew) is referenced, the term "man" or "God" or (effectively, regarding the lack of reply to Jacob's questioning the assailant as to his name) "unknown assailant" can be used...but there is no latitude for using "angel" unless a different source is going to be used.
Reference:  link
If someone would be so kind as to refer directly to the Tanakh source for all of this, we'll nip this whole issue in the bud, as I will very gladly defer to a *direct* translation from that holy source (which is also the source for the Christian Bible's Old Testament and, of course, Genesis).
--AustinKnight 22:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the commentary of Rashi which is one of the most accepted commentaries by religous Jews. See http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8227&showrashi=true --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes...and thank you for responding.  We can see that he is clearly focusing on Hosea over Genesis.  But do you know why?  It seems odd, as Hosea is one of the 12 minor prophets. --AustinKnight 00:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Torah refers to the assailant as "a man" (Genesis 32:24) and after the struggle Jacob refers to the assailant as "G-d" (Genesis 32:30)...but there is no reference in Genesis 32:24-30 to an angel. Will stay with the current "fix" (literal-quotes for both Genesis and Hosea) if that's acceptable. --AustinKnight 00:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that the 'fix' for the moment is to cite original quotations from the Tanakh.  I'll do that for the time-being. It's possible that this is otherwise unsolvable, and I don't think we necessarily have to 'pick' one over the other. --AustinKnight 00:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of the name "Israel" 

message: # Where can I read about "mention of the name 'Israel' in Ancient Egyptian accounts of conquered lands in Asia minor, dating back to about 1500 BCE."?  I only know of the mention (probably as a group of people rather than as a place) in the Merneptah Stele dated to approx 1210 BCE.
# Where can I read about "the remains of the First temple"?
--Zero 11:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding (1)- One of the most famous references is the Shishak Relief in Karnak, which describes the raid of Shishak on both Israel and Judah around 10th century BC (some say this is when the Ark of the Covenant disappeared forever).   Sangil 22:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, but my question was about a claim that used to be in the article about 1500 BCE, which is much earlier than any mention of "Israel" afaik.  That claim is not in the article any more.  --Zero 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your'e welcome :) Sangil 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Historical roots" section

message: "Much evidence has been tampered with over time, due to Muslim conquest, the Crusades, and more recently, an attempt by the Muslim Waqf to destroy acheological evidence on the Temple Mount." Note the spelling error before reverting. I am editing this inflammatory comment. --68.217.111.53 13:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archeology 

message: what about Herzel's "If you will it ,it is not a legend" ?
(Or a better translation if possible...the original was not said in hebrew I suppose)
The Procrastinator 14:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moto for israel 

message: Interesting apocryphal story I once heard, in that the stripes are blue because that is the color on a Sephardi talis. Ashkenazim have black stripes. Both are reminiscent of techeiles, the question being just how dark an indigo was the actual chilazon extract. Avi 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the darker color contrasts better with the white and that color should only be blue. I will look around for more clues though. Any other takers? gidonb 15:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard that the stripes on Ashkenazi tallesim are mourning over the destruction of the Beit hamikdash (Temple)  -Epl18 13:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue from talis 

message: I copied some text from the CIA World Factbook (public domain) into the history section of the article.  Original here:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html.  It needs paraphrasing, but I don't have time, and I think the article is much better with a verbatim copy of the factbook than with almost no information more recent than 1980.  If someone has the time, it'd be much appreciated if you could improve the text.
: That's not how things work here. Please refer to Wikipedia:Copyrights. The copyright-violation text will be reverted until you (or someone else) paraphrases it, if the content is not already in the article. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CIA World Factbook is in the public domain.  There is no copyright violation.  Jkelly 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted again.... Jkelly is right World Factbook is PD and therefore not subject to any copyrights. It would be nice to integrate it better though... but there even is an ongoing wikiproject to integrate the new factbook info from 2005 (most of the stuff we ahve is from 2000) Sasquatch  t|c 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent history addition from CIA World Factbook 

message: Why is Israel negotiating with terrorists? Destroy Hamas and Hezbolla. In fact, it's time for another 6-Day war. Take everything west of the Euphrates. Deport all the resistance to camps in the desert and let them return to their nomadic ways terrorizing sheep and camels.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sargonious (talk • contribs) .
:Please use article Talk pages to discuss improvements to the article, rather than expressing opinions about the subject of the article.  Thanks.  Jkelly 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Jkelly, that was a really random comment about a way too emotional comment. -- Israel's right to exist... I actually wanted to start writing 'if something exists, why does it need to prove that it has legitimate reason to exist?'. (Do others need to prove the contrary?) The idea of enhancing the article with a passage treating the claim that it has no right to exist would be too much in an article written and expanded because of the sustainable existance of Israel. LIllIi 23:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reoccupy Sinai, Gaza, and Don't cede the West Bank or the Golan. 

message: There seems to be a weight of evidence supporting the view that Israel does hold nuclear weapons, so perhaps the relevant section should reflect that. Here's an informative link:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
EdX20 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those links should form part of the article.  Here is another http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/statefct.asp Midgley 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuclear Weapons Status

message: There's plenty of unsourced material in this article but can someone please provide references for the following, in particular:
:Throughout the centuries, the size of the Jewish population in the land fluctuated widely. Circa 1881, in the region approximating present-day Israel, the Jewish population numbered approximately 20–25,000 of a total population of 470,000.
:Since 1844, in Jerusalem the Jews have constituted the largest of several ethno-religious groups. By 1896, they were an absolute majority of the population.
Thanks.--DieWeibeRose 06:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added source request templates to the "Historical roots" section.--DieWeibeRose 02:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: DieWeibeRose, I have individually referenced some of the statements in this section. Please tag with individual s other statements for which serious doubts remain. Or is it just the 1881 data? gidonb 18:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The 1844 claim still does not have a  reliable and reputable source. Mideastweb (Table 10) references Focus on Jerusalem, a "Biblical Prophecy Ministry" where the figure is undocumented.--DieWeibeRose 05:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Request for [[Israel#Historical_roots|Historical roots]] 

message: Why is the population of Jerusalem treated in this article to such detail?  This is not an article on Jerusalem.  Besides, the information given is misleading.  The 1844 figures were outliers for 19th-century estimates - most estimates don't show a Jewish plurality until about the 1870s.  Also, the 1948 UN figures are for the corpus separatum of Jerusalem, not for Jerusalem city.  It included Bethlehem and quite a few Arab villages in the surrounds of Jerusalem.  --Zero 23:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jerusalem population

message: Israel no longer occupies sinai, that belongs to is Egypt since 1973. The map in the page is misleading, and must be fixed !
: The map clearly shows Sinai as "Egypt".  Look again.  --Zero 02:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISRAELI MAP 

message: Please support category Kurdistan against some biased users. Thank you very much. 
Diyako Talk + 17:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shalom

message: Hello.
Firstly, this is my first edit/follow-up discussion, so please excuse any protocol I may have neglected.
I was just reading some of this article, and in the "Establishment of the State" section, towards the end, there was the note: "Soon after the fighting broke out in Palestine between Arabs and Jews, (likely it was instigated by the Arabs in most places)...".  There was no reference, and what I do know about the history of the area does not agree with such a general claim, or at the very least suggests disagreement and uncertainty about the specifics of the area.  I removed the bracketed note as I feel that it adds no objective or valuable information to the section.  If someone readded it with a reliable reference, I would have no objection.
Comments and feedback are quite welcome.
I can 
: Israel by Martin Gilbert (ISBN: 0-522-99545-2) backs up that statement over the course of a chapter, but i think that statement makes a rather moot point for this article, which can be better discussed in the relevant article where there is more room to expand upon it. I don't think that passage is particularly lacking without that sentence.
-- Lordandmaker 11:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A fairly significant claim? 

message: It's too bad that both muslims and jews fight over this piece of land because of religious reasons. For all I care the country of Israel could be renamed Piece of Land and have a completely secular government. Religion shouldn't be used to justify war or military occupations. God does not belong to any government or political party. This unsigned comment was left 17:20, March 26, 2006 by 168.243.222.28
:Its too bad that the muslims attacked the jews because they hate them and want them completely wiped off the map with their country.  1948 and Yom kippur wars. And why is the title "Give Caesar what is Caesar's"? Caesar was driven off by by germanic tribes.  Epl18 16:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: someone has done it. 12:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give Caesar what is Caesar's 

message: Please add the link to the article in the Occitan Wikipedia. Thank you oc:User:Joao Xavier
:someone has done it. 12:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add oc:Israèl 

message: Can't correct this myself due to the lockout, but the latest map is currently described as a "Relief Map of Isreal" Can anyone clean this up? 130.15.190.219 20:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has dealt with this problem. -Reuvenk[T][C] 06:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling Error

message: Articles references section needs to be brought up to standard.
--CommonGround 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The references now conform to the Cite.php standard. Green Giant 00:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your edit, GG, because you had added descriptions to the embedded links, which goes against WP:CITE, the relevant guideline. What is the Cite.php standard? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please elaborate why a wholesale revert was necessary including mispelt external links and why the existing descriptions in embedded links are acceptable. Green Giant 01:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have been tricky to retain good edits and delete bad ones, and I saw you had added quite a few descriptions to the links, so I reverted. If there are other links like that in the article, they should go too. Can you say what the Cite.php standard is? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, my mistake, I shouldn't have moved the descriptions in the first reference such as for the embassies. In the rest of the references, the descriptions refer to the wepages themselves, to make them easier to locate than just the address. For example, references 12 and 13 were to a specific pdf and the description is only of the title of the document and the source of the document. Anyway it is better you reverted as I note I made a couple of errors. By cite.php, I was referring to :meta:Cite.php but it isn't really a standard so much as a citation tool. Green Giant 02:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. The drawbacks of adding descriptions to links is, first, that the reader may not realize they're being taken off-site until it's too late; second, if another link is added later to source the same material, the link included as a description will appear to be the authoritative one; and third, if you add a description, the links can't be remembered or referred to as numbers, which can be useful. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good points, but I would add that the references as they stand are not informative enough. In most of the references I was trying to use the :Template:Cite web as that gives enough detail to allow a reader to search for the source in the event of a dead external link. I believe it would improve the references section in the way CommonGround was requesting above. Are you amenable to cite:web being used for the references with fewer parameters such as url, title, and access details? Green Giant 03:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're using embedded links, the full citation should be in the References section. I'm not familiar with the citation styles you're suggesting. Can you show me examples? Alternatively, we could change to the <ref> footnote system. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: With cite.php, the citation is added into the text itself, but the  tag collects the information and presents it in the References section. For an example look at the article on AIDS which uses this style. Green Giant 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually GG, you were right and I was wrong, so I've reverted myself to your version. I'm sorry for reverting all your work. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No worries, my original edit had some errors anyway, but I've fixed them now. Green Giant 06:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: Deficiencies fixed, article passes GA review.
--CommonGround 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passed GA 

message: I object to the anon's massive edit/expansion of History section. First, this is supposed to be a short summary of a subarticle History of Israel. Second, I am noticing a certain political slant. This is news to me: a buffer zone was maintained until May 2002 when Israel unilaterally returned to Lebanon. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive edits by 69.251.8.216 

message: I put in this header line:-
:This article is about the nation. For other meanings, see Israel (disambiguation).
and someone promptly deleted it. Why can't Israel have a pointer to other meanings of the word, any more than many other pages whose names have other meanings? Anthony Appleyard 05:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we should ask gidon, what on earth was that? I mean two last edits -- tasc talkdeeds 07:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the link should be there. --  Ynhockey (Talk) 07:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to [[Israel (disambiguation)]]

message: Wtf? do you see diff? what is that supposed to mean? there is no claims about arabic being semii-official language... -- tasc talkdeeds 09:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my answer on your talk page. I apologize for not checking and this system problem. Will fix the edit immediately. gidonb 09:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the comment is not about the status of the languages it should not be in the info box. The info box is for the very basic facts, not for discussions. gidonb 09:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gidon 

message: I edited this section for a few reasons. Firstly, it's an unusual thing to have at the top of a country article. Secondly, the two issues are not obviously related. Thirdly, what was said about the flag was not a useful summary of the contents of the separate article Flag of Israel, to which there is already a link in the info box. Fourthly, the top of a country article is not the place for detailed scriptural discussions - although I quite happily kept the references in a footnote. Finally, the important thing to get across in discussion of the name is that the terms Israelite, Jew and Israeli all have important differences. Discussing the etmology of the word 'Jew' at this point in this article is just confusing, but a distinction between Israelite and Israeli is, arguably, relevant. If these differences are judged to be a subtle point, then maybe the whole section should not be placed so prominently in the article.
Since tasc reverted my edits without putting any justification, I am restoring my edits and look forward to hearing his (and others') views here. Nomist 13:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name and Flag

message: Wondering if it's worth protecting this article over Yom Ha'atzmaut? I don't know what vandalism's been like on this topic in previous years, though. -- Lordandmaker 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection over Yom Ha'atzmaut?