Talk:Israel/Archive 10

message: This article claims Israel is 20km2 and ranked 150th while List of countries and outlying territories by total area claims 22km2 and ranked 149th. Can they be verified? eeemess 13:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The area in List of countries and outlying territories by total area includes East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and also the bodies of water Dead Sea and Kinneret. The figure in this article includes only land and excludes the Golan and East Jerusalem. So, both are accurate. However, I too think that there should be a standard area. --  Ynhockey (Talk) 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that only the areas that are indisputably part of Israel should be included.  I don't know about water vs. land area - that should be determined based on what the criterion for the list is. john k 17:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting numbers 

message: The figures in the infobox and the demographics section don't match. Can we please have the latest data, properly referenced?Nomist 15:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New population figures 

message: I would like to see more on Israeli policy with what it terms as terrorism and its solutions and also what is termed as Israeli state terrorism and the justifications for it. 72.57.230.179 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel and both terrorism and counter-terrorism

message: The article does not metion that the zionist movement was investigating differnet contries to create a homeland for Jews. For example Argentina was seriously considered, however the zionists backed off fearing that an anti-semetic atmosphere has already developed in that country.
Again, the above is facts that you can find off of any book that talks about the creation of israel. You can also find it on the websites of the jewish zionist movements. For example Theodore Hertzl's book "The Jewish State" states (1896)
Is Palestine or Argentina preferable? The Society will take whatever it is given and whatever Jewish public opinion favors.... Argentina is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, is sparsely populated, and has a temperate climate. It would be in its own highest interest for the Republic of Argentina to cede us a portion of its territory.... Palestine is our unforgettable historic homeland. The very name would be a marvelously effective rallying cry
''
Also Grande island New York by Buffalo was proposed as the zionist state. The Isiah 09:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentina or Palestine? 

message: There is little mention of the promised land I would like an Israeli Jew to tell me in their opinion what constitutes the borders of the Jewish promised land? Thank you. Zakaria mohyeldin 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zakaria, please note that this term "Promised Land" is a religious concept, which perhaps would be best discussed with a religious Jew. In effect, this article is about the State of Israel, and the relevant discussion here is of its political borders. Deborahjay 12:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promised Land? 

message: Why are we using the full spelling of G-d rather than G-d? Please explain. Ariel C 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: because it's a word and there are no reasons not to full spell it. -- tasc talkdeeds 09:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an authoritative answer, but this is an interesting question. By way of explanation, I can only offer my subjective impression that Wikipedia style is not bound by halachic rulings or similar religious praxis. Deborahjay 15:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling issue ''(was: Israel)'' 

message: Unless I am reading the article wrong, I don't see any mention of Ethiopian Jews and their coming to Israel. Ariel C 18:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethiopian Jews 

message: While I realize that editing is open to all comers, it stands to reason that not all are professionals with experience writing reportage on current events and human rights issues in Israel for a local and global readership (as I am, and do). A passage I've copyedited in this article (2000s section) may eventually be modified, so I'd just like to elucidate for the benefit of my fellow editors the particular language used: 
I distinguished (without the use of "scare quotes"; emphasis added here) between: suspected terrorists / alleged members of militant organizations / apparently unaffiliated civilians [including] minors. 
(NB: The "affiliated" in the latter expression reflects the prevalent contentions, and actual possibility, that some of these individuals might indeed turn out to belong to the previous category (members of militant organizations), or even be unsuspected terrorists. Otherwise, I'd have used a word such as apparently/ostensibly/purportedly, etc.) 
As it is, I aimed to employ language consistent with the guidelines of responsible reportage, which I believe suitable to Wikipedia.
Deborahjay 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language of neutrality: "suspected" vs. "alleged" vs. other 

message: :Moved from User talk:Jkelly
Dear JKelly
I'm sure you are not Israeli, but let me assure you, I am. The data in the article is wrong, because the Golan Heights, Judas and Samaria, Gaza Strip and Eastern Jerusalem are Israeli territories, and so the data about the 20,700 square killometers is wrong - plus 365 km2 for Gaza, 5,523 km2 for Judas and Samarias and 1,190 km2 for the Golan Heights, we have 27,848 km2. This is a currect information and I'm truly surprised that in Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia I cannot edit currectly an article.
--AmadeusW 18:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that we are using the maps and population numbers that you argue are "wrong" because they come from a reliable source (the CIA world factbook, I believe).  You need to provide some verifiable reference to support your argument that this is incorrect.  Jkelly 18:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well now let me see... you will probably agree with me that the European courntries and many others around the world do not agree with Israel about its borders; despite the Golan Heights law, the Jerusalem Law and the fact that Israel conquered Judas and Samarias and Gaza strip in the Six-Day war after Jordan had conquered them. These lands are Israel's terrotories and have never been other's.
--AmadeusW 19:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just re-asserting that you know the truth.  Do you have any reliable source for your maps and figures or not?  Jkelly 19:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I believe I have just demonstrated it... Jerusalem Law, Golan Height Law, conquering at six-day war. --AmadeusW 19:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia, sources are external publications (or websites) that assert a certain fact. Resliable sources are sources which are considered reliable according to WP:RS (please read that page). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, let's ignore the fact that I live in Israel and know what's happening around me... enter the following links: The Golan Heights Law from the Jewish Virtual Library, The Golan Heights Law from Answers - Judaism.com; The Jerusalem Law from the Jewish Virtual Library] - please pay attention to the saying Jerusalem - complete and united, The Jerusalem Law from Reference.com - again, complete and united, that means including eastern Jerusalem; Information about conquering and occupation of the West Bank; now, I guess you can believe an Israeli. --AmadeusW 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New maps, population figures 

message: User:66.69.219.9 inserted this: 
The Gematria (Hebrew numerology) of the word Israel equals One or Unity, numerically "1", represented in ancient Hebrew as an Aleph"
I'm not sure this is either relevant or correct. The letters do add up to 541, which can be re-summed to 1, but so what? (Of course, one can ask "so what" about Gematria in general...) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i've removed it. seems like complete non-sense to me. Why not to insert gematria clause to each and every article, somehow related to jews or judaism, or israel? -- tasc talkdeeds 11:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gematria 

message: This article has been removed from the GA list due to NPOV statements as said in the following which is on the GA disputes page. Tarret 21:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's you who thinks that those are the problem. imo, your comments shows that you sought for own action justification, rather than articles' mistakes. -- tasc talkdeeds 11:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, thanks for that.  Instead of explaining why you disagree some comments I made to help imrpove your article back to GA, or maybe to FA stage, you go down to the very low level of ad hominems.  I won't be here to respond to any futher concerns, I have no personal interest in this article.--Konstable 11:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: I just got a note on my Talk page about my removal of a link to scripture4all.org.  I looked at the website.  It doesn't seem to me to be offering anything encyclopedic that we don't offer at either :he:%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA or at the Hebrew Wikisource Genesis page.  If it is for some reason important to link to a searchable Hebrew text for Genesis from this article, there is really no reason not to link to our own resources.  Jkelly 17:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the link was replaced, so I have instead created a proper web reference to he Wikisource.  Jkelly 17:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL -- The link you insist on deleting *is* the cited source document -- a free, original language (Hebrew) version of the Bible with accompanying interlinear translation -- as has been stated several times!  But in all seriousness, tell me how could this be made more clear, as you and others clearly are struggling with it? Are you asking for a concordant reference to "Ishr" being translated as "upright"...?  I truly don't understand why you are at such a loss for this source doc, as the Wikisource Genesis doc does *not* have an interlinear translation tool.  --8.2.208.4 19:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources -- who are we quoting here?  Who is doing the translating?  How does this "clearly illustrate" the argument you want the article to make?  If we're quoting the Hebrew text, we should cite it.  If we are quoting a translation, we should cite the translator.  Why use some random website for that?  If we are going to argue that the translation means something important, we need to cite an expert who makes that assertion.  Jkelly 19:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "no original research" wiki-rule is designed to stop mad scientists and such from their unsupported theories...it is certainly not designed to stop the truth, and especially not to stop literal, direct translations.  I HAVE cited a source, and you chose to delete it.  So YOU go find the source doc/reference...I've already done so. --8.2.208.4 19:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a single thing in http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen32.pdf that backs the statement This first reference to the word Israel clearly implies that one literal translation of "Israel" is "Upright (with) God" (Ishr-al). Am I missing something? Where does it say it's a literal translation, as opposed to one of Biblical metaphors and outright puns on names? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  scripture4all link