Talk:Israel/Archive 24

message: The GDP/Capita adjusted for PPP is true but disconnected from all relevant links.
The figure used (31k) is the revised figure of the OECD, following a change to the PPP methodology.
The general GDP/Capita page contains lists by the IMF (30k) and CIA (26k) placing Israel at either 22nd or 29th place.
Thus the infobox mentions one figure and the links next to it point to completely different ones.
In addition, as the link to bankisrael.gov.il clearly shows, the 18th ranking is among OECD nations only.
Thus the 18th rank is wrong and misleading. There are probaly several nations ahead of Israel in wealth (such as Qatar), which are not OECD members. It's also worth noting Israel is not an OECD member state (although it's in the process of accession).
82.166.189.33 20:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP Per Capita Figure - Infobox 

message: The template  now links to the article History of the State of Israel instead of Israel. So, IMHO it should be removed from this article. It could be replaced by an image related to Israel's history in the 60s and 70s. What do you think? --Victor12 16:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Levant 

message: These two points seem to have been glossed over in the article.  Does anyone know more about them?  I only know the basics of the Rebellion and I can't seem to find the article I read about a year ago which discussed the marked increase in immigration to Israel following the establishment of US Quotas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.233.195 (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Rebellion of 1945 and the Role of US Immigration Quotas in the Fifth Aliyah 

message: I think one of the template groups at the bottom of the article is not working. It just reads "Template:Template group". I tried to fix it but to no avail. --Mika1h 19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: With a population of about 7.2 million, the majority of whom are Jews, Israel is the world's only Jewish state. It is also home to Muslim Arabs, Christians and Druze, as well as other religious and ethnic minority groups.
When looking at other country articles that talk about the population in the lead:
* Egypt: The vast majority of its estimated 78 million people (2007) live near the banks of the Nile River in an area of about 40,000 km² (15,000 sq mi) where the only arable agricultural land is found. 
* Australia: The population is 21 million, and is concentrated in the mainland state capitals of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide.
* Ireland: The population of the island is slightly under six million (2006/7), with almost 4.25 million in the Republic of Ireland[4] (1.7 million in Greater Dublin[5]) and an estimated 1.75 million in Northern Ireland[6] (0.6 million in Greater Belfast [7]).
* South Korea: Approximately one-half of South Korea's population lives in or near the capital Seoul, the country's largest city.
It appears that in the introduction, the largest conurbation of the population is mentioned, rather than listing ethnic and religious groups. The mention of ethnic and religious groups (which would leave some out if in the lead) is generally meant for the demographics section, and this article has already covered that.
What do editors think of: The Israeli population is about 7.2 million, and is most concentrated in the metropolitan area of the coastal city of Tel Aviv. "Metropolitan area" links to Gush Dan. I chose "coastal city", but editors can brainstorm other adjectives/introductory phrases that have been used for the city--cosmopolitan, primary business hub, etc. --Shamir1 05:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnic and religious diversity doesn't play such an important role in the countries mentioned above as in Israel, don't you think? Squash Racket 05:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but that is what a demographics section is for. --Shamir1 07:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Australian mainland has been inhabited for more than 42,000 years by Indigenous Australians." I found that in the lead of the article Australia, one of your examples. Is that history, demography or just a very important info worth mentioning in the lead? Squash Racket 08:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is mentioning who has been inhabiting the mainland in history. It is not listing all the ethnic and religious groups that currently live there, which is almost always something explained in demographics. --Shamir1 19:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I see nothing wrong with the current sentence in the intro. None of those countries you described can be considered the world's only Jewish state; this one is unique. The part about religious and ethnic minorities is present to clarify the country is not just Jews. -- tariqabjotu 05:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe just a mention of Israel being a Jewish state as sufficient and is unique. As to clarifying that the country is not just Jews (which is clarified in Demographics), by saying "With a population of about 7.2 million, the majority of whom are Jews, Israel is the world's only Jewish state" infers that it is because of a Jewish majority population that makes Israel a Jewish state. The reason that makes it a Jewish state is rather complex, and not particularly for us to decide. No, I'm not saying we decided that, but I feel like the structure of the sentence directly infers that idea, which I believe it should not. Britannica writes: "The State of Israel is the only Jewish nation in the modern period, and the region that now falls within its borders has a lengthy and rich history that dates from pre-biblical times."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you're trying to say. -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did make some typo's, I see how that could have confused you. Anyway, I believe that following the mention of "the majority of whom are Jews" immediately with "Israel is is the the world's only Jewish state" gives the wrong impression that it is Israel's Jewish majority that makes it a Jewish state. This can be true, but I do not believe that that idea should be made. I hope that helped clarify things. Also, Britannica's sentence does not require a clarification of demographics. --Shamir1 05:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics in lead 

message: Well guys, I just wanted to help, but apparently my attempt lead to way more debate than it meant to cause.  My attempt at compromise was simply that.  I thought I was going to aid in mediating the revert war, but instead I naively stoked the flames and restarted the fire.  I don't think I realized just how stubborn some people can be.  I apologize to both sides for not being around to comment on this debate or post my thoughts sooner, but I've been busy studying for my boards.  Here's my solution now:  Shamir, please drop it.  I originally could sympathesize with you to a degree, as I honestly thought you were trying to improve the article.  I don't know why this has you so passionate, but its just not worth it.  We're all attempting to be constructive here (and I believe including you), but arguing over the wording of one sentence is completely counterintuitive to this.  It would be best for all to let this die.  I've posted my thoughts on the associated request for comments page. --Jdcaust 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never meant to stoke the fires... 

message: I've been debating whether to comment on this, given the recent lengthy discussion, but I have decided to go for it. 
I'm not fond of this recent change to the intro. It was not "minor" at all; whereas before we only had four comparisons to other countries in the region, we now have seven in just two sentences. It now sounds like we're just gloating. We can easily cut down on some of the comparisons though. The human development index, developed country status, and advanced economy status overlap in various ways. The "least corrupt" piece makes for a rather unorthodox comparison and probably is not needed. I also don't believe it was right to remove "is considered" and "has been ranked" from the sentences, although I think the number of comparisons is the bigger issue. Yes, I know accommodating for those changes would put us back to what we had before the change; I see no problem with that. -- tariqabjotu 01:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not mark that change as minor, I said "additions" and minor re-wording (please don't mislead) which refers to the changing of "most progressive...freedom of the press" to "has the freest press" and so on. You may want to see South Korea, Finland, Canada, Sweden, and some others. "Considered" wasnt particularly necessary (it was my addition, back in the day), I believe User:Telaviv1 had an issue with it. Developed country has more to do with industrialization as opposed to the human development index, which measures progress. --Shamir1 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See developed country. I see little reason to doubt the connection established between HDI, advanced economies, and developed countries. Other country articles, like the ones you mention, do talk about their standing in the world in the introduction, but they have fewer comparisons than this article. For those that have what appear to be quite a few comparisons (and even for many that don't), they tend to be more quantitative (Country Q is the x-highest in Category M) rather than superlative (Country Q is better than a group of countries in Category M). In the introduction here, we have mostly superlative comparisons – and quite a few of them. Having the comparisons close together also increases the gloating effect. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Most country articles point out impressive facts in the last paragraphs. Many even have separate sections boasting their international rankings. (South Korea has two such paragraphs in the intro and more explanations of each survey/index.) There are a few surveys here but its written in a pretty concise way, each is short and they all share the same introductory phrase. I think it has less issues that way. Of course ive seen the developed country article, and I didnt say there was not a connection. The article uses those maps to show the different sense of development. But an index of how well a country's human population is developing is different from a country being developed. To ease things, I removed the "advanced economy." That one doesnt really have anything to link to anyway. That does not mean that it is not notable or verifiable. It is, but I hope that a removal can ease things a bit. That should be better for now. --Shamir1 03:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't really say much about the Finland article. The article is not exactly the gold standard for articles. Although it is an A-class article, its biggest pitfall appears to be the very heavy emphasis on rankings. There are tons of rankings and comparisons in the introduction and the article even has its own international rankings section. That's certainly not something we should be striving for here, and something that needs to be fixed on the Finland article. -- tariqabjotu 06:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt expect you say much about it, I agree we should concentrate on this article. I feel that that the Corruption Perceptions Index fits in with the other studies that are ranked in the article. It's a good source and is political and economic, it seems just as notable as the rest. This is my suggestion with it, unless you have a way that you would like to word it.
Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy. "A current list of liberal democracies includes: Andorra, Argentina, ... , Cyprus, ... , Israel, ..." and a developed country. In the region, Israel is the least corrupt, and the most progressive in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and human development.
--Shamir1 18:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: All of these ranks same the same introductory phrase, so its not like we are making a new and separate issue. Middle Eastern standards are generally dismal with what is being measured in all of these studies, but I dont see how it makes the inclusion of this in any way 'bad.' So still, this one seems just as notable and fits in, and comes from a good source. Are there any other actual issues with the source or the wording? I really dont see this as problematic at all. --Shamir1 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, all rules considered, this really should not have any problems. --Shamir1 23:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the intro 

message: Israel is characterised by recent demarcation and colonisation, it is a military state which has been in a state of permanent conflict since its formation, whether it be due to all-out war or internal terrorism. 
some of the most important facts regarding Israel are that the us the size has doubled since the original demarcation and due in equal parts to Israeli and Arab offensive, Israel currently  holds control over a large refugee population- I'm not for either side, but I'm disappointed that wiki has not represented this topic in a way that perhaps an Oxford academic or external observer would have  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gt jaya (talk • contribs) 05:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Israeli control of the occupied territories and Palestinian refugees is briefly covered in the 'Occupied territories' section of the page. A 'refugees' hyperlink leads to a fairly detailed article about the Palestinian refugees. Royfalk 12:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagrant omissions- this article fails to presents the state and history of Israel from a global academic perspective 

message: "Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is a liberal democracy[10][11] and a developed country.[12] In the region, Israel is the most progressive in terms of freedom of the press,[13] economic competition,[14] and human development.[15]"
I pasted the following quote above from the main Israel Page. I think those statements are inaccurate in some ways. If Israel is a liberal democracy then why doesn't it seperate church from state like America? I understand that Israel wants to maintain Judaism as the state's main religion and that is already understood by its creation in the beginning. Second the statement says that Israel is the most progressive in terms of freedom from the press. This is inaccurate in many ways. One example is the recent illegal intrusion into Syrian airspace and the bombing of a certain site. The Israeli government threatened to punish any media outlet in Israel if they cover the news or carry out inquiries. Third the statement that says Israel is the most progressive in human development is also the most inaccurate in many ways. If Israel is for human development then why doesn't it recognize the rights of the Palestinians to have a homeland? Why does the Israel systems discriminate against non-Jew citizens of Israel? If Israel is for human development then why does it have different levels of citizenship for Jews to non-Jews? If Israel is for human rights and development then why does the government regulary humiliate the Palestinians? If Israel is for human development then why do most of the goverment leaders call the Palestinians "lice" and "cancer" like previous ministers such as Rehavam Ze'evi? The following quote above needs to re-edited by Wikipedia administrators to reflect accurate facts. The sources that were used for quote above are from people who are Pro-Israel who only produce reports based on selective areas and not the whole truth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyqs (talk • contribs) 01:26, October 22, 2007
:These sound like great questions for the sources, not for us. Also, the sources are very critical in "selective areas". Either way, these are the sources. --Shamir1 06:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your post has way too many false claims and conclusions to even discuss. okedem 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Since Shamir1 did not elaborate, I will. 1. A liberal democracy does not need to have seperation of state and church, merely freedom of religion. Most European countries have an official state church and they are still liberal democracies. 2. Legal is almost always within the context of a specific country. The few exceptions are Genocide, crimes against humanity, etc which the attack wasn't. These are dealt in the various international courts in Hague. More to the point, the Israeli media is rife with coverage of the air attack.Military censorship prevents releasing official responses and information. Anything coming from media or sources abroad is fine. Searching for 'Syria' on the English version of ynet.co.il news site returns numerous references to the attack. 3. HDI does not measure these things. "The Human Development Index (HDI) is the measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare." (from the HDI article). 4. Israel has recognized the Palestinian right to a homeland numerous times. See for example the 'Road map for peace'. 5. Non-Jewish Israelis serve as cabinet ministers, supreme court justice and generals in the police and army. You'll have to be more specific. 6. I'm not familiar with different levels of citizenship. You can however be a resident without being a citizen. See PR in Singapore and green card in the US for some comparable cases. 7. Minister Ze'evi was never a representative of the average Israeli or the Israeli government. 8. As for the rest, you'll have to be more specific if you want answers. While the talk page isn't a forum, I have taken the time to answer most claims as they tend to surface every now and then. Royfalk 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to waste my time answering every single false claim, or discussing very faulty reasoning. Everything on the article is sourced, using good sources, and that's enough. The original poster's knowledge on the issue seems very patchy and partial, and I'm not here to educate anyone. okedem 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And I don't even know what you want by this: "I can't find any actual listing of human rights, but surely that must be breaking some?". okedem 01:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * Palestinians within the borders of Israel are Israeli citizens and as such are included in all official Israeli publications. I assume the UN report got the figure from the Israeli bureau of statistics. Israeli Palestinians are sometimes known as Israeli Arabs and should be distinguished from Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza. * Your statistics regarding Palestinian fatalities are correct though outdated somewhat.B'tselem list 4204 dead overall, of which 858 were minors.However, this is spread over 8 years of low intensity conflict with Israeli casualties on the same order of magnitude. I don't have a histogram of fatalities but Palestinian casualties are predominantly male between the ages of 15 and 25 or so. Considering the intensity of the conflict, overall and minor fatalities are nowhere near a crime against humanity. Compare this with a 1000 a week in Dharfur. * Citizens from Gaza are generally not allowed to enter Israel. They have the alternative of leaving via Egypt which borders Gaza to the south. This is no different from any border control. * All agricultural claims concerning Israel/Palestine are rubbish. Israel is a semi-arid land. The fertile land is now almost completely suburbs. More specifically, Gaza is a desert beach and the west bank is combination desert/mountain. If you're European or American consider your own farmers. They require heavy subsidy's despite growing on extremely fertile land. Now apply this to the high population density and low rainfall figures and you'll understand why I wrote the rubbish comment. * Hope this answers some of your questions/claims. All of it is easily verifiable via CIA as well as wikipedia. 82.166.206.218 11:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answers to questions about HDI are obtainable from http://78.136.31.142/en/statistics/indices/hdi/.  Interestingly, Algeria, Egypt and Syria have lower HDI's then the occupied territories. I assume this is because health care and education standards under Israeli rule have not been too bad, Israel generally ensured everyone had electricity, running water and schools.  I think most of the problems are because of settlers and anti-terrorist measures.
I have seen attempts by Israeli Arabs to derive seperate HDI figures.  Technically it should be possible.  I didn't trust the results because they seemed too low.  Standards of living in the Galillee seem fairly high, and while there is massive poverty amnong the Bedouin in the Negev it is highly unlikely HDI figures for Israeli Arabs would be lower then for the occupied territories. See also Arab-Israeli_conflict_facts,_figures,_and_statistics 
Perhaps we should mention this in the occupied territories section?
Telaviv1 08:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification?

message: I just noticed List of newspapers in Israel and wondered if we shouldn't have a prominent link to it somewhere.  Any thoughts on the subject?
Telaviv1 09:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be a subsection about media in general - TV, newspapers, etc., but I'm not willing to write it at the moment. Maybe you can? I think it would be a great contribution. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Missing references to economic papers (Globes, TheMarker), English language newspapers (Haaretz English Edition & Jerusalem Post), papers with a religious orientation (Makor Rishon, Hamodia), local city papers (Kol Ha'ir, Zman Tel Aviv). Too much on censorship. Nothing on the critical importance of radio news broadcasts, which Israelis listen to every hour of the day, and the evening news, watched by almost everyone (these are important cultural features of Israel.--Gilabrand 10:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I tried to accomodate some of your criticisms but I can't list all the papers... there is a site for that List of newspapers in Israel which might be worth editing. I linked to it. I think some mention of censorship is necessary because of all the people who assume our news is heavily censored, its also interesting in its own right.  
Do you think I should put it into the Israel page?
Telaviv1 14:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe the article needs a Media section. I see many featured country articles do just fine without one and there is nothing particularly unique about Israeli media that warrants a whole section. As a result, the proposed section just appears to list major news sources in the country (with words in between to develop the list into a couple short paragraphs). If one were to add a Media section to this article, I would not want it to be the one proposed above. It doesn't live up to the quality standards demanded by a featured article. -- tariqabjotu 14:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Telaviv, this is definitely better and you have brought in some interesting material (althought it could use some copyediting). I don't object to having a media section if others think it is warranted, because I do think that keeping close watch on the news is much  more significant in Israeli culture than it is in some other countries. But if others think it doesn't belong, please add this information to "culture of Israel" or whatever subarticle you think it fits in with.--Gilabrand 15:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli Media