Talk:Israel/Archive 25

message: Hi there,
I am wondering why the Al-Aqsa Mosque was omitted as one of the buildings of religious significance in Jerusalem under the Religion heading?
Thanks very much
--Columbe 04:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... because there's no reason to. "Such as" tells the reader that those are not all the religiously significant buildings in Jerusalem. There are obviously others. -- tariqabjotu 04:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission? 

message: Since there has recently been a campaign to qualify the idea that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and I see there were a few changes to the infobox to reflect this, let me say this:
Yes, I understand many may come to this article (or the Jerusalem article) shocked, saying wait, what? I thought Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel. An explanatory note on Jerusalem – and perhaps even here – might be okay, but let's stick to the facts. Anyone who arrives here thinking Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel is not "right" or "kind of right" or "right if you think about it this way". No, he or she is wrong. UN Resolution 478, which was (erroneously) quoted as the source of the idea that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, does not say Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. It condemns one of Israel's basic laws (known as the Jerusalem Law) in strong terms, but it does not in any way, shape, or form say Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. So, if you want to put an explanatory note that says many (or most?) countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, that certainly is on the table. However, if you want to go farther and say Tel Aviv is the capital, that's not correct; Israel can choose its capital and it has chosen Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 05:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hardly call a couple of edits by two editors a "campaign", but I certainly have no problem with the issue being taken to another section instead of the info box.  The only purpose of my edit was to bring a little sense to the original editor's message. Newtman (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; let me clarify: the same thing has been going on at Template:Asian capitals. -- tariqabjotu 05:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I just noticed the fun that's been happening over at the Asian capitals page. I can see why you were calling it a campaign. BTW, given your comment on Resolution 478, it might be good to clarify the content of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 page, so as to provide less ammo for trolls and good faith misunderstandings. Newtman (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, how about you take your bias and anger somewhere else, it has no place on Wikipedia.  Come back when you've matured and can participate in a reasonable discussion. Newtman (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the impression that Tel-Aviv is the capital is partly based on most countries maintaining their embassies there rather than Jerusalem. Green Giant (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that being the case, but that doesn't mean Jerusalem isn't the capital.  Even the US, which has it's embassy in Tel Aviv, publicly (Congress and the President) acknowledges Jerusalem as the true Capital of Israel, through the Jerusalem Embassy Act.  Giving the standards of national sovereignty, nations generally get to define their own capital. Newtman (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got all redundant on you and said the same thing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There already is a footnote regarding the controversy over Jerusalem. I don't understand the issue. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem as Israel's capital 

message: How the hell is this an FA article?did ya buy the administrators or what?this article is sad!it to biased in most of the senteced i read!its like propagandaEdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to see you have a positive attitude, assume good faith, and clearly detail your claims. okedem (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: am sorry

message: it just strikes me as odd how the "economy" and "education" section of this article are entirely ranking statements, that is saying how well Israel compares to other nations, how innovative they are, how wonderfully they are developing etc. it seems very un-professional to turn these fact-based sections into a series of praise statements. comparable sections in other country articles blandly state: "This country 's economy is based on X, they do Y amount of trade mostly with these nations..." Whereas this article, if you'll read it closely, says things like: "Israel, despite its tremendous obstacles, has leaped to forefront of X and is doing the world's most innovative Y, etc. This doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry, it reads like a travel-book or a country advertisement. We need to tone down the language in these sections and remember that they are supposed to provide a neutral summary of the information, not a cheering section.
(standard disclaimer about being neither Arab nor Jewish, nor invested in the conflict in any way)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.252.127 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the tone of the economics/education section 

message: okedom, you said and i quote "Since no one claims Israel is the "only developed/democratic country in the middle east", I'll ignore that whole section", i agree no one claims that, but was not what i was talking about. if you read the article it said and i quote "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" this is inaccurate as it suggests most countries are not ecomic competitors, (which according to your sources is not correct, and several arab countries are ranked little below israel). and as for the comment about most progressive in terms of human development, that is also an inaccuracy, as the soucre gives a list of countries and there human devleopement status, not how progreesive there human devleopment has been. further more, if you decide the source for that claim is credible, then from the same source you will be able to identify that israels neighbours (UAE KSA) are not that far of the list. over all your agrument is very light wieght,,please discuss thank you 86.163.1.210 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've all grown tired of your unintelligible diatribes. No one is attacking to you, we're simply responding to your comments at face value.  As for your arguments, I think it might be helpful for you to look up the meaning of "progressive", as you appear to be misunderstanding its use.  Unless you actually have something positive to contribute, you might as well run along, as I doubt anyone else is interested in responding to your baseless accusations. Ta-ta. Newtman (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "Good faith" dictates that we give people the benefit of the doubt if they appear to be behaving in a reasonable manner.  It does not mean tolerating the behavior of someone who is being deliberately antagonistic, biased, rude, and disruptive. Newtman (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL once again you prove our point about you making baseless accusations.  I didn't delete my comment, I moved it up.  Newtman (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You are not one to talk about personal attacks; it seems every one of your comments here has been full of them. The formulation of the sentences in the intro have been the subject of a great deal of discussion here, and there is no way someone coming here attacking editors left and right is going to unilaterally usurp the prior consensus. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: unlike other countries israel is a democracy