Talk:Israel/Archive 4

message: What's written here and what's written at Geography of Israel is inconsistent. Perhaps someone could resolve this problem? Martin 22:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. CIA info was outdated. --Cantus 23:03, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, I didn't change the figures, I just reworded the paragraph. --Cantus 19:22, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, I never said you changed the figures. What you changed was the description of what these figures signified. Originally, the article said that the figure includes the Golan and parts of Jerusalem (i.e. areas annexed by Israel). You removed that, and wrote that it includes all areas "occupied" by Israel in 1967. So you see - the same figure can be correct when it's used to describe one thing, but incorrect when applied to a different thing. Get it? -- uriber 21:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Why don't you just calm down and fix whatever is wrong with the article yourself? It's Wikipedia, you can edit it you know? You don't have to growl at us. --Cantus 00:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Calming down is exactly what I was doing. I didn't want to get into a revert war over the article itself (after all, the correct version was already up there, until people decided it needs "improvement". I had all reasons to believe that if I reinstate that version, the same people will feel the need to "improve" it again). So instead I pointed out the silliness of the situation, in hope that those who did wrong would come to recognize their wrongness, and fix it themselves. -- uriber 09:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land area 

message: Facts: Jerusalem, consisting of more than 760,000 pop., is the largest city in Israel, by far from any other city.
The second-largest city is Tel-Aviv, with more than 360,000 pop.
Now for the recognition technical part:
Jerusalem, or at least most of it (excluding the old-city and a few small neightbourhoods) or what known as west-Jerusalem pre-67 is recognized world-wide as under full Israeli sovereignty, or in the worst case de-facto Israeli sovereignty. (not taking the the Arab countries of course)
Either way, there is a recognision of Israel's control of this part. This part of Jerusalem alone (saying west is a bit mistaken, since it is not a western half) is far greater than Tel-Aviv..
So there's no dispute wether Jerusalem is the largest city..
Looking at the bigger picture, 'disputed' just doesn't belong to a "Largest City" category..
And for you spectacles - disputed doesn't belong- at least when not specifying WHICH part of Jerusalem. (i.e. could be any part, or whole, a diplomatic approach.. and we didn't specify how large the city is!) -Victor 21:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. See Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for example. (However, during the Mandate period, English was official along with Hebrew and Arabic.) --Zero 17:42, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: English is not an official language of Israel. It's extended use in Israel is only an "inheritance" from the British mandate on Palestine/Eretz Israel during the years 1920-1948. The Manadate recognized 3 official lanaguages- English, Hebrew Arabic. However, the English language had a superior status as in ambiguaty of the law when presented in the different languages, where English was the followed script. Israeli law, which largely inherited most of the Manadate regulatinos (changing them, and adding its own legislation) changed the status - Hebrew is the official language and arabic is an additional official language. English was cancelled. -Victor 12:10, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest city in Israel - Jerusalem 

message: I'm aware that Sauid Arabia financed wars against Israel, but did it actually militarily attack Israel? Jayjg 21:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saudi Arabia attacked Israel? 

message: The word "belligerent" is used in the subsection "wars" as an adjective in referring to some of Israel's neighbours. I believe this implies an opinion and thus may reduce the credibilty of the section. I think the belligerence of any group of modern people should be on a discussion page and not a main page. I'd like to remove it.
:"Belligerent" is an accurate technical term used to refer to a neighbour who is technically (and sometimes actually) at war with Israel. Lebanon and Syria fit that description. Jayjg 00:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word "belligerent". 

message: Why do we need the Hebrew names of the wars? It is just unfriendly to people who don't read Hebrew. People who can read Hebrew can just breeze over to the Hebrew wikipedia. --Zero 22:34, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  inline Hebrew 

message: In the politics section, changed parliamentary system with proportional representation. The hitherto sentence was simply not correct: the parliamentary system would not involve as many parties (and entail such shaky, ala Italy, coalitions) if the electoral system was first-past-the-post. That it is a parliamentary system is far less (though, of course, not entirely) relevant for the purposes of the aforementioned point. El_C
:El C, I can't see any of your edits. From the date on your previous comment, you appear to be a visitor from the future; perhaps that is the problem. Jayjg 22:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed 'parliamemtary system' to 'proportional representation' 

message: El_C, as Jayjg mentioned above, something is going wrong here. You mention various edits on this page but they do not appear in the article itself. For example, there are no recent edits regarding the Peel Commission or the Kahan Commission. --Zero 02:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  To El_C 

message: How is it decided what it fit to be mentioned, and what is not.
Since I do not know, maybe there is a legitamite reason nowhere is there even an inkling of a few historical issues pertaining to Israel.
No one relates to the US military aircraft that was shot down, or the US navy ship far off the coast that was sunk.
No one thinks of the Israeli nuclear program.
Note, the aircraft and ship were destroyed because Israel though they were spying on their nuclear facilities, which they were.
I remember when military aircraft were spotted within Chinese terratory, the Chinese complained, so the US treatened war. Luckly, no one bought it.
Then again, there is a good reason it cannot be mentioned, US policy forbids foreign aid to any rouge state that has nuclear capabilities.
And the US sends up to $10,000,000 in foreign aid, a third of total US aid to foreign countries.
A country that has no reason to need it (it has a great economy, the palistinians need it), and only spends it on strengthing its military and terrerizing palastinians (I'm not even mentioning the wall they built on top of innocent people's houses).
One that is smaller in population and land than Hong Kong.
:First of all, provide sources for everything you allege. Secondly, diatribes are not considered good form on talk pages. Thirdly, it's pretty much necessary to sign up for an account and thereafter sign all comments from oneself using your username before anybody takes you seriously. Impi 15:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was not mentioned... 

message: Some bright intellectual has inserted numerous swastikas throughout this article, turning a forum for knowledge into another stage for hate mongering. These antisemitic symbold do not appear in the "edit this page" text, and cannot be easily removed. This illustrates the urgent need for some sort of overall editorial control.
:The swastikas were entered as so-called HTML "character entities", and in the edit page they look like "卐". These entities can easily be removed, and indeed they were removed 36 minutes after they were first entered. I can't see how this case illustrates a need for some "overall editorial control", more than the kind of "control" we already have. Nyh 07:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swastikas 

message: Who do you think you are to repeatedly revert my edits without any reason?
And why did you remove the NPOV notice?
If you have issues discuss them here; and keep your bullying tactics for extremists like yourself. HistoryBuffEr 03:50, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
:I'm an editor who objects to major edits on controversial pages without discussion first. And from what I can tell, this is the first time you've deigned to actually discuss any of your POV edits on the relevant talk: pages. Well, to be more accurate you haven't actually tried to discuss your edits yet, you've merely made ad hominem comments about me (yet again). If you want to change something on the page, please bring your proposed edits here first. Jayjg 04:05, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone thinks he is defending Israel by distorting history and/or he thinks his virulent Zionist POV is God's truth and objectivity is a threat to the Jewish state. I support HistoryBuffER. This article needs a big POV warning. I can't believe someone has the gall to insert completely biased and inflammatory language and then remove the POV warning. Such chutzpah! Alberuni 04:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, HistoryBuffER deleted large parts of the text; I merely restored them. The language and text is not particularly mine. The npov notice was a minor thing, lost during the revert; I have no objection to it. Regardless, let's try to keep the discussion here about the article, not about me. Jayjg 04:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Linking to the more NPOV History of Israel page was better than the POV fairy tale that is being shoveled under the History section now. Alberuni 04:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are significant differences between the two articles they need to be reconciled, rather than deleting one version in favour of the other. Jayjg 04:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The History of Israel page has already been reconciled. There is no need to duplicate it or try to reconcile it with this highly POV page. Just link to it. Alberuni 05:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Israel#History section was also reconciled. Obviously the editors of both pages felt the final versions were NPOV. If they differ, they need to be reconciled with each other, rather than deleting the one you dislike and linking to the one you favour. Jayjg 06:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jayjg": Who are you? 

message: According to some people, the creation of Israel was the fulfillment of a noble dream, a passive act of redemption to an original state of grace. The victims of Israel simply "fled". None were killed or terrorized. They simply left of their own volition to become refugees by choice. The evil Arab armies hoping to crush the innocent baby state of Israel rushed in to annihilate the innocent Zionists.......etc etc etc.Alberuni 04:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As opposed to the "evil Zionist armies hoping to kill innocent Arab babies" version that HistoryBuffER is trying to promote? Jayjg 04:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm sure I'll support some of them too. However, they need to come here first, so they can be NPOVd by all parties. Jayjg 04:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV on history and creation of State of Israel