Talk:List of cities in Israel

message: It would appear that there was a mistake in the adding of the 2016 population figures, since Tel Aviv, Petah Tikva cannot have seen more than 90% population decreases since 2008. I've never edited a table on here, so I wouldn't know how to fix it, but I thought it should be brought to attention.
Thank you
129.2.181.184 (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in the Population Table 

message: Has been described in this article and in East Jerusalem and in Jerusalem as occupied territory for years. That is not a contentious issue except in the minds of a few people who apparently happen to edit this website. If you want to include areas outside of Israel's sovereign territory then you have to, per NPOV, include what that area is widely and nearly uniformly recognized as. nableezy - 21:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, that part of this article should be covered under ARBPIA. nableezy - 21:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  EJ 

message: As the requested move has failed I have removed material on places that are not in Israel. And for the record, not even Israel claims any part of the West Bank excepting East Jerusalem as being in Israel. nableezy - 21:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nableezy, if this is not tendentious editing, I don't know what is. Everyone understands the scope of this article, and there was more or less a consensus to return to the previous name. I have reverted your edits and moved the article. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Im sorry, but tendentious editing is forcing a minority POV that even the Israeli government does not support, that colonies in the occupied West Bank are "in Israel". Kindly cease making personal attacks, it is conduct unbecoming an administrator. nableezy - 16:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Also, several users objected to calling Israeli settlements outside of Israel "Israeli cities" as it carries the same implication that they are "in Israel". You seem to have neglected those users in your so-called "rough consensus". nableezy - 16:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The scope of the article is (and probably should be) the 76 Israeli municipalities granted "city" status by the Ministry of the Interior.  That four of these lie outside of Israel is unusual and/or controversial, but so are a lot of other anomalies in this complex world.  Provinces of China lists Taiwan even though Taiwan has never been a part of the PRC.  Including Taiwan on the list does not endorse PRC control of Taiwan; it merely reports what China considers to be a province.  Districts of Cyprus includes Kyrenia District even though none of the territory of that district is controlled by the Republic of Cyprus, once again simply reporting what Cyprus considers to be a district.  —  AjaxSmack  16:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference with Taiwan and the settlements in the West Bank is that Israel itself does not consider those settlements to be in Israel. The previous title specified "in Israel", and Im sorry but I dont feel that Wikipedia should be even more expansionist Zionist than the Israeli government in claiming what is and what is not "in Israel". nableezy - 18:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I think before taking such action we should seriously consider WP:MR, see User talk:AmYisroelChai#Non-admin close. Andrewa (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a separate matter. "Israeli cities" or "cities in Israel" is the same thing, and would not effect the reverts here. The settlements have to be removed. This fails clause 6 of WP:WESTBANK, it is not used by RS, it is not about geography, it is not about the term, and the article is not about the area. It is in violation of fundamental principles and must be removed per NPOV. Seraphim System (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Except clause 6 has nothing to do with this. I oppose the removal. Best not to erase information from an encyclopedia on nationalistic grounds. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

text: That view that the meaning of these two is the same thing has been expressed above, and also explicitly rejected by others. But my point is just that this section was premised As the requested move has failed..., and in view of the prospect of a move review that's an unsafe assumption. Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who said anything about "erasing" information "on nationalistic grounds"? Seraphim System (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Best not to lie in an article about what is "in Israel" on nationalist grounds either dontcha think? nableezy - 15:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "In Israel" is an ill-defined concept with conflicting interpretations. However, "Israeli city" actually has a clear meaning - a city administered by Israel, under Israeli law and funding. All Israeli cities in the West Bank meet this criteria.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite a solid neutral reference for that definition. Otherwise it is just a personal claim. It is not how a native speaker of English would interpret the term. It's an Humpty Dumptyish redefiniton defining a phrase in a way that controverts what normal usage says it means, as has been done in the lead.  Whatever, this needs wider neutral input, because I expect now one will just get the usual predictable  POV lineup, and the farce of the change will turn out to be a numbers racket. It should therefore be reviewed by an independent panel, preferably by people who understand grammar and semantics.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

text: That comment demonstrates exactly why there is support for "Israeli cities" as the title among the hardcore Israel supporters on Wikipedia. The entire point is to call the settlements, what are colonies according to any dictionary, "Israeli cities" and not "Israeli settlements". That is the entire point of this exercise. nableezy - 13:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would seem to me that the purpose of page is to list municipalities recognized and administered as cities by the Israeli government.Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should have a title that reflect that, not an expansionist Zionist one. nableezy - 14:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  scope 

message: The map used in the lead of the article seemingly shows the Golan Heights as though it were in Israel. That is of course a minority position and using such a map violates NPOV. nableezy - 16:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Golan heights are administered under Israeli law following annexation.Icewhiz (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Golan Heights are internationally recognized as being outside of Israeli territory. Again, this is a NPOV issue in that it presents an extreme minority view, that the Golan is in Israel, as a fact. nableezy - 17:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Ive corrected this issue in the template. nableezy - 17:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map issue 

message: Should this list include Israeli settlements outside of Israel that have been designated as "cities" or "city councils"? --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: comment. I think that makes an exception of Israel, and on Wikipedia the aim is to have a uniform logic behind classifications. North Nicosia is annexed by Tuurkey and serves as the capital of Northern Cyprus but is not recognized as a Turkish city at List of largest cities and towns in Turkey; (2) Crimea was annexed by Russia but at List of cities and towns in Russia by population, cities there are excluded ‘as those were not a part of the 2010 Census, are a subject of an unresolved dispute between Russia and Ukraine, and are considered to be a part of Ukraine by the majority of the international community. The occasionally cited examples of China and Taiwan are useless: in neither case is the disputed territory occupied by the other party.'Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment North Nicosia has not been annexed by Turkey. I would say that settlements in Crimea ought to be included on such lists. If the territories are under the jurisdiction of the state of Israel, they ought to appear here. Endymion.12 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Were your view of unilateral annexation by a single state the qualifier for inclusion, and not international law, then, logically, you would be obliged not to include, as you did above, East Jerusalem, which, as Ian Lustick has shown, has, unlike the Golan Heights, never been formally annexed. There is a real problem here in avoiding making inclusive/exclusive judgements when the legal situations are complex.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

text: There is a “point” actually, that “point” being that those cities are not in Israel. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a rough consensus, as I wrote about, on a solution to this problem. In any case, these cities are administered by Israel in the same way as the other cities on the list, albeit with some minor technical differences. The Ministry of the Interior is still directly responsible for the cities though, and other government agencies provide them with the same services as they provide to the other cities. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Guantanamo is administered by the United States but it is in Cuba and no one pretends that the US's administering a township and base on foreign territory translates into that place being in the United States.Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your own example contradicts what you are saying: List of United States Navy installations includes Guantanamo Bay. The proposal is to call the list List of Israeli cities and include Israeli cities. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No it does not contradict what I wrote. Please parse what I wrote and the page you cite. Having a naval installation in a foreign country does not mean that territory is annexed.Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Corrected - Thanks. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Russia has formally annexed Crimea. Israel does not claim any part of the West Bank excepting East Jerusalem as being in Israel. Again, not even Israel claims any of these settlements as being in Israel. nableezy - 16:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

text:   De iure, Artsakh is part of Azerbaijani territory that is occupied by Armenia and controlled by its military. That's why Stepanakert is NOT included in the Armenia article. See, nobody (hopefully) objects against adding the settlements to the article "List of settlements in Occupied Territories" (which should be created, just like List of cities and towns in Artsakh). But these towns should never be presented as part of the territory of the occupying power (Armenia or Israel). — kashmīrī TALK 10:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what both you and nableezy actually want. You gave two examples of cities that won't be in an article and I've shown that both are indeed in articles that shouldn't be. You say that Artsakh is part of Azerbaijan, but that article leads to Republic of Artsakh, a "de facto independent country". Look at my vote, I said that I support Golan and Jerusalem being included, as both have been de-facto legally annexed by Israel. The West Bank hasn't and should not be in this article.--Gonnym (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "de facto legally annexed"??? See, the international community considers Golan "ILLEGALLY annexed". A minor detail but it is crucial to the discussion here. FYI, Arsakh is illegally controlled by Armenian forces. — kashmīrī TALK 10:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: There certainly is no consensus for the inclusion of the challenged material of settlements outside of Israel's sovereign territory being included, as such, per WP:ONUS, I am removing those settlements. nableezy - 22:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you didn't count well... let me help you: 12 votes for "Yes"; 9 votes for "No". That's called consensus for YES.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh no, that is "no consensus" my revert-warrior friend. nableezy - 20:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

text:  As this is long standing content - well over a decade (including promotion to FL), WP:ONUS is on those who want to change the stable version.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read WP:ONUS:  The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Are you of the view there is consensus for this contested content? nableezy - 16:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

text: You're putting the horse before the cart. The RfC is still open. Consequently, it's premature to be talking about results. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It was closed on the 3rd and re-opened later. nableezy - 16:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  rfc result 

message: Can somebody please provide a list of reliable sources for the idea that Ariel (city), Beitar Illit,  Ma'ale Adumim, or Modi'in Illit are "in Israel"? nableezy - 20:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As several RfC participants (as well as the former FL promotion, and this was the longstanding name of the article) opinied, the possible inconsistency in the article title would be resolved by moving this back to List of Israeli Cities.Icewhiz (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest that you start a new Requested Move, outlining the points you make here. I think it could be argued that the RM above showed consensus to move to List of Israeli cities, and there was some debate here about whether the close was proper, but ultimately that's in the past now, and this is best addressed through a fresh RM. We would probably stipulate that an uninvolved admin close the RM to bring some closure to this question, which has led to repeated move-warring over the past month or two. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

text: And as many users have said such a move would be improper in that it doesnt actually address the problem with conflating places in Israel and its colonies outside of Israel. I repeat my request, can anybody provide reliable sources for Ariel (city), Beitar Illit,  Ma'ale Adumim, or Modi'in Illit being "in Israel"? nableezy - 16:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy 

message: At the very least I think everyone can acknowledge that there is no consensus for the inclusion of the settlements outside of Israel in this list. Accordingly, per WP:ONUS, I am removing them. And to make this point crystal clear, WP:ONUS specifically says The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. nableezy - 14:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC result 

message: This is not an article List of places designated as city councils by the Israeli Ministry of the Interior. This is a list of cities in a defined geographical region, a place known as Israel. Nobody, not even the government of Israel, claims that the West Bank settlements are in that defined geographical region. You can call them a lot of things, ranging from housing development to war crime, but you cannot call them "cities in Israel". Does anybody actually disagree with any part of that? nableezy - 06:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nableezy, isn't the discussion in the section above enough? You need yet another section to vent your opinions? Debresser (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The above section is not meant for threaded discussion, this is. nableezy - 06:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

text: There are indeed presently no designated cities in the Golan (not big enough - Katzrin and Majdal Shams are the largest IIRC) - if and when there will be such cities, Israel would consider them in Israel. As for the Israeli status of the West Bank - it is not as simple as Nableezy states - the Israeli position on the status of the West Bank is ambiguous (probably purposefully so). Regardless - all these cities are recognized as Israeli cities by Israel and included in statistics by various bodies (e.g. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics which release most of the statistics used elsewhere by sources). Rather than arguing inclusion/exclusion based on the current title, modifying the title would be more constructive. Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is that simple. Israel has never once claimed any portion of the West Bank to be in Israel excepting East Jerusalem. This is not an article title List of cities that Israel tracks in its census. In Israel or not in Israel is a pretty basic thing, especially when Israel does not even say "in Israel" for these places. nableezy - 22:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Did any of those end with a consensus? And no, "List of Israeli cities" does not resolve the accuracy issues. And no, delisting Ariel does not leave a "knowledge gap". There is List of Israeli settlements, there is List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank. Finally, whether you agree to it or not, attempting to shut down discussions on the basis of "no consensus" closes is an abuse of process, and should be stopped. That the body of editors thar insist that this article contain a blatantly false set of material (that Israel's colonies outside its borders are "in Israel") then further demand that nobody attempt to correct that issue and have the audacity to demand that discussions be shut down is not entirely surprising, but based on zero Wikipedia policy. No consensus does not mean an issue is closed, and yall can continue braying about how this should be speedy closed, all it says to me is you lack any substantive argument. nableezy - 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, including two identical RfCs opened by you on 11 July and 22 October. Another RfC, that ran from 3 August to 21 October and involved 27 editors, failed to reach consensus and changed nothing. It's a dead horse if I ever saw one, and considering how many times you've beaten it you can hardly claim you were "shut down". Neither can you claim anyone on the other side is "insisting" on anything: You've been offered several compromises that would've resulted in both factual accuracy and accessibility, but you refused to budge. Enough is enough. François Robere (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, both of those are move requests. Neither of them is an RFC. And they arent identical. And neither of them established any consensus on including places not in Israel in a list of place in Israel. So, again, did any of the RFCs end in a consensus? You, and the other editors insisting on including the fringe POV that Israel's colonies outside of Israel are actually in Israel, a view that not even Israel holds, demanding that discussion be halted because of "no consensus" closures of previous RFCs are basing that entirely on their hope that their fringe POV is maintained through filibustering instead of actually addressing the issues raised and have no policy basis for such a demand. Im sorry you are unable to distinguish between "not moved" and consensus for this material. But that really seems like a personal problem, not a basis for shutting down a discussion about a NPOV violation in a Wikipedia article. Your claim that I am who refused to compromise is as false as the rest of your comment. You fault me for opposing List of Israeli cities? Should I fault you for opposing List of Israeli cities in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories? Seems a bit hypocritical to make the arguments youve made, but hey thats just me. nableezy - 23:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  , including the two move requests from July and October (which are one word apart), the RfC that ran from August to October, and this one. That's four attempts in less than six months to change the titling or the scope of the article: you couldn't change the title, so you tried to change the content; you couldn't change the content, so you tried to change the title... etc. etc. You're gaming the system, and you have the audacity to claim you're being "filibustered" despite the fact the article has already been modified to address your concerns. Enough is enough. François Robere (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus Christ, how do you not get that the number of discussions does not matter if there has been no consensus established? And yes, filibustering. Ive raised very specific NPOV and V issues. What sources support that any of the West Bank settlements are "in Israel"? How is it due weight to say that they are "in Israel" when no serious source does that? Do you, or does anybody else, address those issues? No, they type forcefully and with green font about the number of discussions about the matter, as though that indicates that their favored position, included only by default for some odd reason, is the binding one. Guess what buddy, no consensus emphatically does not mean consensus. And absent a consensus on the topic I, and anybody else, am perfectly entitled to seek wider community input, in the hopes that those filibustering editors are not able to once again prevail through "no consensus". nableezy - 05:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Doing anything on wikipedia in regards to Israel/Palestine conflict is plain frustrating. From any side of the debate. Making accusations of bad faith here really won't help anything. Nableezy, reviewing the above RFC that ran for 2.5 months Amakuru's close actually leaves something to consider. The result of the discussion resulted in no consensus for the established question of the RFC. There was actually already a consensus that the cities in West Bank should remain in the article, a consensus made thru editing (see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The discussion did establish a consensus to keep them in separate tables. I ask you to consider this. While I support the removal, If the consensus is no should it result in removal? In the face of the other recent discussion with a fairly large participation, I'm not sure the consensus would be for the contents removal. That of course is for an univolved closer to establish. Where is this going seems a reasonable question. I agree that you have taken a proper course of action, attempting to use a dispute resolution process to resolve this, but I really can't see this actually resolving much as presented.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as I am the one who separated it, I can assure you that it did not imply any consensus to retain them in the article. I separated them as before there was no explanation that despite the dishonest title of the article that it included a set of things very much not in Israel. That does not however resolve the root issue here. nableezy - 05:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about the close above by Amakuru. They call it a compromise however the way they discuss it, pretty it's seems to me that they are saying its a consensus. Their language also seems to suggest that the content should stay per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. I agree with your position but again I question if this RFC is even set up to accomplish anything. If successful it may just have the action of pushing another rename discussion. Disengaging and putting the issue on ice for a while so the frustration can die down is something you may consider.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The only reason the material is in the article is because of "no consensus". There is not now, nor has there ever been, a consensus, implicit or otherwise, about the inclusion of the material. I really dont care if anybody thinks the RFC will not accomplish anything. We will see in a month. And if it again ends in no consensus, guess what, there may well be another one after that. And if the RFC closes with a consensus that the settlements not be included they will be removed. nableezy - 16:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  I will note that the "other side" here was willing to compromise on the separation in the article. They are separated. They are designated. There is a big dab of boiler plate text on the international community's opinion - it is all there. Now, if we could see a little bit of compromise on the title - we could just close this on-going mess. Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Compromise? What is the compromise here? Maintaining that places not in Israel are in Israel? That remains the issue here. You refused to include the West Bank or the occupied territories in the title. That compromising? Please, get off it. Ive offered multiple titles that resolve this, you and the others that insist on maintaining a fringe political POV as fact have refused to compromise. nableezy - 16:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: This is the seventh discussion on the titling and scope of the article since February 2015. Nableezy has at times supported, or implied support for renaming the article; splitting it; and deleting parts of it. The moment this RfC is concluded one of two things will happen: either another RfC is opened on "what to do with the parts we removed", or another RfC is opened on "what to do with parts we kept". Either way I doubt it will end with this RfC.
# I previously supported title the article "List of Israeli cities", which would resolve any accuracy issues some of you have raised.
# Deleting WP:DUE content from an article without suggesting an alternative is unacceptable. We don't just throw stuff away when we don't like it. Delisting eg. Ariel will leave us with facts - the existence of a city - that are unaccounted for in Wikipedia - a knowledge gap. A lesser Wikipedia is not a satisfactory result of any single RfC.
# Finally, whether you agree with the result or not, repeatedly opening RfCs with a similar scope when the evidence hasn't changed is an abuse of the process, and should be stopped.
So where is this headed? A knowledge gap? More RfCs? François Robere (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Did any of those end with a consensus? And no, "List of Israeli cities" does not resolve the accuracy issues. And no, delisting Ariel does not leave a "knowledge gap". There is List of Israeli settlements, there is List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank. Finally, whether you agree to it or not, attempting to shut down discussions on the basis of "no consensus" closes is an abuse of process, and should be stopped. That the body of editors thar insist that this article contain a blatantly false set of material (that Israel's colonies outside its borders are "in Israel") then further demand that nobody attempt to correct that issue and have the audacity to demand that discussions be shut down is not entirely surprising, but based on zero Wikipedia policy. No consensus does not mean an issue is closed, and yall can continue braying about how this should be speedy closed, all it says to me is you lack any substantive argument. nableezy - 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, including two identical RfCs opened by you on 11 July and 22 October. Another RfC, that ran from 3 August to 21 October and involved 27 editors, failed to reach consensus and changed nothing. It's a dead horse if I ever saw one, and considering how many times you've beaten it you can hardly claim you were "shut down". Neither can you claim anyone on the other side is "insisting" on anything: You've been offered several compromises that would've resulted in both factual accuracy and accessibility, but you refused to budge. Enough is enough. François Robere (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, both of those are move requests. Neither of them is an RFC. And they arent identical. And neither of them established any consensus on including places not in Israel in a list of place in Israel. So, again, did any of the RFCs end in a consensus? You, and the other editors insisting on including the fringe POV that Israel's colonies outside of Israel are actually in Israel, a view that not even Israel holds, demanding that discussion be halted because of "no consensus" closures of previous RFCs are basing that entirely on their hope that their fringe POV is maintained through filibustering instead of actually addressing the issues raised and have no policy basis for such a demand. Im sorry you are unable to distinguish between "not moved" and consensus for this material. But that really seems like a personal problem, not a basis for shutting down a discussion about a NPOV violation in a Wikipedia article. Your claim that I am who refused to compromise is as false as the rest of your comment. You fault me for opposing List of Israeli cities? Should I fault you for opposing List of Israeli cities in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories? Seems a bit hypocritical to make the arguments youve made, but hey thats just me. nableezy - 23:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  , including the two move requests from July and October (which are one word apart), the RfC that ran from August to October, and this one. That's four attempts in less than six months to change the titling or the scope of the article: you couldn't change the title, so you tried to change the content; you couldn't change the content, so you tried to change the title... etc. etc. You're gaming the system, and you have the audacity to claim you're being "filibustered" despite the fact the article has already been modified to address your concerns. Enough is enough. François Robere (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus Christ, how do you not get that the number of discussions does not matter if there has been no consensus established? And yes, filibustering. Ive raised very specific NPOV and V issues. What sources support that any of the West Bank settlements are "in Israel"? How is it due weight to say that they are "in Israel" when no serious source does that? Do you, or does anybody else, address those issues? No, they type forcefully and with green font about the number of discussions about the matter, as though that indicates that their favored position, included only by default for some odd reason, is the binding one. Guess what buddy, no consensus emphatically does not mean consensus. And absent a consensus on the topic I, and anybody else, am perfectly entitled to seek wider community input, in the hopes that those filibustering editors are not able to once again prevail through "no consensus". nableezy - 05:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Doing anything on wikipedia in regards to Israel/Palestine conflict is plain frustrating. From any side of the debate. Making accusations of bad faith here really won't help anything. Nableezy, reviewing the above RFC that ran for 2.5 months Amakuru's close actually leaves something to consider. The result of the discussion resulted in no consensus for the established question of the RFC. There was actually already a consensus that the cities in West Bank should remain in the article, a consensus made thru editing (see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The discussion did establish a consensus to keep them in separate tables. I ask you to consider this. While I support the removal, If the consensus is no should it result in removal? In the face of the other recent discussion with a fairly large participation, I'm not sure the consensus would be for the contents removal. That of course is for an univolved closer to establish. Where is this going seems a reasonable question. I agree that you have taken a proper course of action, attempting to use a dispute resolution process to resolve this, but I really can't see this actually resolving much as presented.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as I am the one who separated it, I can assure you that it did not imply any consensus to retain them in the article. I separated them as before there was no explanation that despite the dishonest title of the article that it included a set of things very much not in Israel. That does not however resolve the root issue here. nableezy - 05:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about the close above by Amakuru. They call it a compromise however the way they discuss it, pretty it's seems to me that they are saying its a consensus. Their language also seems to suggest that the content should stay per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. I agree with your position but again I question if this RFC is even set up to accomplish anything. If successful it may just have the action of pushing another rename discussion. Disengaging and putting the issue on ice for a while so the frustration can die down is something you may consider.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The only reason the material is in the article is because of "no consensus". There is not now, nor has there ever been, a consensus, implicit or otherwise, about the inclusion of the material. I really dont care if anybody thinks the RFC will not accomplish anything. We will see in a month. And if it again ends in no consensus, guess what, there may well be another one after that. And if the RFC closes with a consensus that the settlements not be included they will be removed. nableezy - 16:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  I will note that the "other side" here was willing to compromise on the separation in the article. They are separated. They are designated. There is a big dab of boiler plate text on the international community's opinion - it is all there. Now, if we could see a little bit of compromise on the title - we could just close this on-going mess. Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Compromise? What is the compromise here? Maintaining that places not in Israel are in Israel? That remains the issue here. You refused to include the West Bank or the occupied territories in the title. That compromising? Please, get off it. Ive offered multiple titles that resolve this, you and the others that insist on maintaining a fringe political POV as fact have refused to compromise. nableezy - 16:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is this going? 

message: Beit Shemesh existed with the same name and location from the Bronze Age. See its Wikipedia page. It was indeed re-founded in 1950, but if we are dating each city from its modern incarnation, then many cities in this list need their dates changed, for example, Eilat. Historically, cities have been destroyed and rebuilt many times (resulting in a "Tell", a hill of layers), so re-building of an ancient city is common.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua fox (talk • contribs) 08:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: It's not clear what kind of change you are proposing and given the nature of this topic establishing consensus for change will be essential. It's possible what you are suggesting could be achieved with a note (as in note 1 which appears in the Beersheba row next to 1900). However, making a proposal an ensuring there is consensus would be the first essential step before reactivating an edit request for this. Regards,  Goldsztajn (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beit Shemesh founding date 

message: Hello, the name of the city of Tel Aviv-Yafo needs to be changed to Tel Aviv, as the name of the city in the English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by מחסל האגדות (talk • contribs) 
: Please sign your posts. This question has arisen before, and you can see that even though the article is Tel Aviv the first sentence starts with Tel Aviv-Yafo. The infobox too. Also see Talk:Tel_Aviv/Archive_4#RFC_Tel_Aviv/Yafo/Jaffa. Zerotalk 14:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tel Aviv-Yafo 

message: Be'er ya'akov is officially now a city. It should be added to the list. The ultimate editorxyzyazz (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add be'er ya'akov 

message: Some transcriptions are wrong, for example, Bnei Brak and Petah Tikva.
The proper transcriptions are Bne Brak and Petaẖ Tikva (yes, the line under the h is necessary!)
https://hebrew-academy.org.il/2022/06/27/%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C/ מושא עקיף (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcription Change