Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs) Undid revision 378779988 by 174.112.83.21 (talk) bye |
174.112.83.21 (talk) don't delete other people's comments Tag: repeating characters |
||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
[[User:O.Waqfi|O.waqfi]] ([[User talk:O.Waqfi|talk]]) 20:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:O.Waqfi|O.waqfi]] ([[User talk:O.Waqfi|talk]]) 20:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::hahahahahahahahahaha says the guy from jordan. is this meant to be a joke? [[Special:Contributions/174.112.83.21|174.112.83.21]] ([[User talk:174.112.83.21|talk]]) 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:See the [[Israel#Economy|Economy section]] "In 2010, Israel ranked 17th among of the world's most economically developed nations, according to IMD's World Competitiveness Yearbook. The Israeli economy was ranked first as the world's most durable economy in the face of crises, and was also ranked first in the rate of research and development center investments.[249]" based on [http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3891801,00.html this] <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Sean.hoyland|<font color="#000">Sean.hoyland</font>]]''' - '''[[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]'''</small> 20:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
:See the [[Israel#Economy|Economy section]] "In 2010, Israel ranked 17th among of the world's most economically developed nations, according to IMD's World Competitiveness Yearbook. The Israeli economy was ranked first as the world's most durable economy in the face of crises, and was also ranked first in the rate of research and development center investments.[249]" based on [http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3891801,00.html this] <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Sean.hoyland|<font color="#000">Sean.hoyland</font>]]''' - '''[[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]'''</small> 20:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:15, 13 August 2010
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
Israel is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Old archives |
---|
incorrect statement
The sentence here is speaking about the variety of geographic features that Israel is home to, but this area is not in Israel:[1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- well, must be acknowledged here the fact that the Golan Heights as a security measure have been administered under Israeli law since the Yom Kippur war, and that if ever one wants to visit them s/he should better come through Israel; the article is descriptive of a geographical reality, don't consider that sentence as if it were a political declaration issued by the Israeli government, if you want to fight for their reconquest WP is not the right arena, cordially, Hope&Act3! (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly "come through", but that's just it. It is not a part of it. The geography of the occupied territories can be described in their own articles. How is it a geographical reality if a region that is internationally recognized as in Syria is in "Israel is home to a variety of geographic features" That region is not Israel. This article is about Israel, not the Israeli-occupied territories, in the geography section it is describing the geography and climate of Israel, so this region that is not in Israel can not be in it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
the golan heights is controlled by who? -israel. so when we speak about the geography of israel it should be included as it is part of israel according to israeli law. perhaps you dont recognize that but that doesn't matter its still part of israel. so until a peace treaty is signed with syria and israel officially gives back the golan the golan will remain as part of israel.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Uhh, no. The Golan Heights is recognized as Syrian territory held by Israel under military occupation. Countless sources of the highest quality confirm that the Golan is Syrian territory. I am not aware of any state that recognizes the Golan as Israeli territory, excepting of course Israel. It is an extreme minority position that the Golan is "part of [I]srael". nableezy - 03:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- The argument "it should be included as it is part of israel according to israeli law" has no merit whatsoever. The contents of articles aren't decided by Israeli law. That is a notion that flies in the face of policy and the discretionary sanctions. The Golan Heights aren't part of Israel because RS say that the Golan Heights aren't part of Israel. It's really very simple. Editor's inability to see this very obvious policy compliance issue is troubling. The Golan Heights material needs to be moved to its proper policy compliant location. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I said it's simply descriptive. It's the reality on the ground, if you sit in a boat on the lake and look accross towards Syria you won't see any border, anyway one can't both describe it as administered by Israel and say it is in Syria -considering the friendly attitude of Syria towards Israel I'm pretty sure it would never accept that Israel puts up and enforces a lawful system -complete with army and police, etc.- on its territory! So even Syria acknowledges that this territory is not as for today in Syria, follow her example, wp is not dedicated to fantasies, sorry.... if ever any change occurs during your life time you will then make the relevant contribution, Hope&Act3! (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing in what you said that has anything to do with policy based article content decisions. You might as well delete it. This is simply about compliance with mandatory Wiki policies. That's all. Wiki article content isn't based on 'the reality on the ground'. Yes, it is simply descriptive but it discribes a state of affairs that is inconsistent with state of affairs represented by reliable sources. It is therefore inconsistent with mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- well, I guess that you wd have it that the State of Israel doesn't exist, it's really Palestine, or maybe southern Syria or a province of greater Syria, since "its existence is iconsistent with the state of affairs represented by some reliable sources", Syria lost twice and presently is not ready to try again or even to negociate, so it seems that you are on your own in this fight and that's probably why you feel so frustrated but as I already said wp is not the right arena for war, it's a collaborative entreprise, not confrontational, 'Israel' has been written with the necessary concensus and recently declared a featured article for its fine quality, don't try to spoil it, there exist lots of article where you can contribute constructively and peacefully, Hope&Act3! (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Supreme Deliciousness you can yell how much you want "Golan is not in Israel" but the reality is, that Israel is the administrative country of the golan (as well as Jerusalem is the capital although it is not recognized as such). You have nothing to seek here, stop to corrupt the article by you're political points of view. --Sipio (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- well, I guess that you wd have it that the State of Israel doesn't exist, it's really Palestine, or maybe southern Syria or a province of greater Syria, since "its existence is iconsistent with the state of affairs represented by some reliable sources", Syria lost twice and presently is not ready to try again or even to negociate, so it seems that you are on your own in this fight and that's probably why you feel so frustrated but as I already said wp is not the right arena for war, it's a collaborative entreprise, not confrontational, 'Israel' has been written with the necessary concensus and recently declared a featured article for its fine quality, don't try to spoil it, there exist lots of article where you can contribute constructively and peacefully, Hope&Act3! (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing in what you said that has anything to do with policy based article content decisions. You might as well delete it. This is simply about compliance with mandatory Wiki policies. That's all. Wiki article content isn't based on 'the reality on the ground'. Yes, it is simply descriptive but it discribes a state of affairs that is inconsistent with state of affairs represented by reliable sources. It is therefore inconsistent with mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I said it's simply descriptive. It's the reality on the ground, if you sit in a boat on the lake and look accross towards Syria you won't see any border, anyway one can't both describe it as administered by Israel and say it is in Syria -considering the friendly attitude of Syria towards Israel I'm pretty sure it would never accept that Israel puts up and enforces a lawful system -complete with army and police, etc.- on its territory! So even Syria acknowledges that this territory is not as for today in Syria, follow her example, wp is not dedicated to fantasies, sorry.... if ever any change occurs during your life time you will then make the relevant contribution, Hope&Act3! (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that all reliable sources and all countries in the world say it is in Syria. No country except Israel say its in Israel, so according to Wikipedia rules undue weight, we must follow the vast majority viewpoint and not the extreme minority. The same way the vast majority of people say the earth is round, so we do not say it is flat, see: Due and undue weight. And please also see this discussion:[2] So we can not say that the region is in Israel because that's not the truth, only an Israeli-occupied territory. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that: Wikipedia cannot apply just for "claims", but for the reality as well. Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel capital, but, does it makes the reality changes? no! Jerusalem is still the capital, the seat of the government. The Golan Height is administrative by Israel, and it is part of Israel, unlike West Bank and Gaza Strip. Many sources does refer to the territory of Israel as 22.072 including the Golan Heights, like "Factbook" which is highly used by wikipedia as believable source. It's funny you know, just on Israel article people let themselves the permission to edit by their own PoV's. For example, chaina article, although it has some dispute areas, they are still mentions in the articla as part of the country. You can't just come here and edit it by your're PoV's, you've got no permission for that. Do not edit again, and again, stop corrupt the article. --Sipio (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- The comparison with the issue of Jerusalem as capital is misleading. International recognition does not hold the same weight for capitals as it does for international borders. This was discussed extensively in the Jerusalem as Capital discussions. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Professor Ian Lustick (an expert on Middle East History and Politics) Has made a detailed study of East Jerusalem's status. I think it is safe to assume beyond reasonable doubt that he has studied all of the significant official documents relating to Israels claims over E Jerusalem. In the conclusion to an essay on this subject he made the following observation: "There has never been an official act that has declared expanded East Jerusalem as having been annexed by the State of Israel. Though politicians have referred to it as part of the territory over which Israel is sovereign, there has in fact never been an official declaration of Israel's sovereignty over this area." [1] Prunesqualer (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
With the revelation that Sipio who added the text into the article is a sock of a topic banned user. I think it is time we follow the rules of Wikipedia and remove the pov statement in the article presenting Golan as a region in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Biased Passage
The sentence "efforts to resolve conflict with the Palestinians have so far only met with limited success and some of Israel's international borders remain in dispute" suggests that it is only the Israelis that have sought diplomacy, which is incorrect. I have corrected the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.77.246 (talk • contribs)
Overgeneralization?
"Jews living in the Diaspora have long aspired to return to Zion and the Land of Israel". Maybe some Jews? RomaC TALK 08:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- This recent report by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research has 22% of surveyed British Jews being very or fairly likey to live in Israel in future and 70% being not very likely or unlikely at all to do so.
- Incidently, on another on the appropriateness of whose coverage I've disagreed with Jaakobou on occasion, the majority of the survey group tend to agree or strongly agree that both non-Jewish and Jewish minority groups suffer discrimination in Israel with higher educated respondents being more likely to believe so.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Source cohen? I know discrimination exists in Israel but I have yet to see any empirical data that demonstrates the racial inequalities to an extent greater than the inequalities in the USA/Europe. The sentence Roma's list is not an over-generalization, it is a lie. I don't know how it got into the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you find some normalized minority discrimination metrics with global coverage I would be interested in seeing them. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Source cohen? I know discrimination exists in Israel but I have yet to see any empirical data that demonstrates the racial inequalities to an extent greater than the inequalities in the USA/Europe. The sentence Roma's list is not an over-generalization, it is a lie. I don't know how it got into the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
"Return" ? "return to Zion and the Land of Israel"? Where is the evidence that all Jews who came from many different places all over the world previously lived in: "Zion and the Land of Israel"? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Uhh...cause Jews come from "Zion?" "Return" as in return from when they were kicked out during the roman wars. But it's just an expression. We all come from Africa in the end. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've understood that recent research has cast a bit of doubt on the idea that Jews would have been "kicked out" by the Romans. They largely stayed put, and eventually most converted to Islam so saying "return" may be a bit misleading if most of the people aren't descended from anyone living in the area. --Dailycare (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've understood that recent genetic studies put your wishful thinking in its proper place. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've understood that recent research has cast a bit of doubt on the idea that Jews would have been "kicked out" by the Romans. They largely stayed put, and eventually most converted to Islam so saying "return" may be a bit misleading if most of the people aren't descended from anyone living in the area. --Dailycare (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Uhh...cause Jews come from "Zion?" "Return" as in return from when they were kicked out during the roman wars. But it's just an expression. We all come from Africa in the end. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Etymology
In my opinion there are also some other etymologies of the name Israel which must be included.193.92.181.203 (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, and these other etymologies are...? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Capital According To Whom?
To be accurate and fair this article must clearly state... Capital: Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its capital city, a claim not recognised by the international community.
- A capital is a 'designation', not a 'claim'. I can't see how a "designation" can be "not recognized". Do you have reliable citations that verify your proposal? Marokwitz (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
template group
Does anyone know what is going on with the template groups at the bottom of the page ? They don't appear to be displaying although the code looks okay e.g. if you copy/paste it to a tmp page it works fine. It looks like something broke it a while back. Not sure what or when. It looks like it's related to the size of the article in some way i.e. remove some text, it doesn't seem to matter what it is and the problem goes away. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:TLIMIT - there are too many templates in the article, meaning that the last ones aren't expanded. Some template substitution is in order. Rami R 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- ah..yes, that's it.
- NewPP limit report
- Preprocessor node count: 197453/1000000
- Post-expand include size: 2001706/2048000 bytes
- Template argument size: 791296/2048000 bytes
- Expensive parser function count: 9/500
- Sean.hoyland - talk 17:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Developed country
Israel is a developed country as written in the third paragraph. What makes israel a developed country? I think the proper term to describe it is developing.
O.waqfi (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- hahahahahahahahahaha says the guy from jordan. is this meant to be a joke? 174.112.83.21 (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- See the Economy section "In 2010, Israel ranked 17th among of the world's most economically developed nations, according to IMD's World Competitiveness Yearbook. The Israeli economy was ranked first as the world's most durable economy in the face of crises, and was also ranked first in the rate of research and development center investments.[249]" based on this Sean.hoyland - talk 20:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- ^ Ian Lustick (1997). "Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?". Middle East Policy. V (1). Retrieved 2007-07-08.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)