→RFC result: new section |
→RFC: close. Result is "no consensus", so we retain the long-term stable situation, which is to include the disputed cities |
||
Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
== RFC == |
== RFC == |
||
{{atop|This RFC has run for about 2.5 months now, and has had quite a bit of participation, but arguments and !votes are evenly split, making this a clear '''no consensus''' close. As such, the text of the article relating to this question should remain at its to the long-term stable version. The present dispute first arose following [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cities_in_Israel&diff=851218840&oldid=851027973 this edit on 20 July], and prior to that the cities had been consistently included in the article. Hence the decision here is that per the long-term version, '''the disputed West Bank cities should be included on the page'''. However, the solution of listing them in a separate table, which emerged during this dispute, seems a reasonable compromised accepted by everyone, so it seems sensible to keep it that way rather than re-integrating them into the principal table. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 19:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
Should this list include Israeli settlements outside of Israel that have been designated as "cities" or "city councils"? <small>--'''''Relisting.''''' — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 22:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)</small> [[User talk:Nableezy|Nableezy]] 18:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC) |
Should this list include Israeli settlements outside of Israel that have been designated as "cities" or "city councils"? <small>--'''''Relisting.''''' — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 22:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)</small> [[User talk:Nableezy|Nableezy]] 18:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
Line 263: | Line 263: | ||
*{{sbb}} '''Yes''' due to their significant importance. Otherwise you would be required to move the article back to [[List of Israeli cities]]. [[User:Rzvas|Rzvas]] ([[User talk:Rzvas|talk]]) 03:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC) |
*{{sbb}} '''Yes''' due to their significant importance. Otherwise you would be required to move the article back to [[List of Israeli cities]]. [[User:Rzvas|Rzvas]] ([[User talk:Rzvas|talk]]) 03:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''No'''. I agree with Kashmiri: The entire "List of cities" series is about settlements located within ''internationally recognised state borders'' and not about those in colonies or areas controlled in violation of international law. (OR Change the name of the article if you want to include those other cities not IN Israel.) [[User:Peter K Burian|Peter K Burian]] ([[User talk:Peter K Burian|talk]]) 13:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC) |
*'''No'''. I agree with Kashmiri: The entire "List of cities" series is about settlements located within ''internationally recognised state borders'' and not about those in colonies or areas controlled in violation of international law. (OR Change the name of the article if you want to include those other cities not IN Israel.) [[User:Peter K Burian|Peter K Burian]] ([[User talk:Peter K Burian|talk]]) 13:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|||
== rfc result == |
== rfc result == |
Revision as of 19:32, 21 October 2018
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
List of cities in Israel is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 6 February 2015
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved. I don't see any opposition here. Note: the move will require admin assistance, which I will request. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
List of Israeli cities → List of cities in Israel – The move would bring the title into the same format as the other articles in Category:Lists of cities by country. The issue of contention here is what to do with reference to Israeli settlements. I think that the most logical thing to do is to list have a listing of Cities in Israel in relation to Cities in Israel and to list Israeli settlements in the article on Israeli Settlements. The West Bank is not considered to be a part of Israel. Israel only claims/designates East Jerusalem as being annexed as Israel - but even here such claim is internationally disputed. There is no claim that the settlements are an annexed part of Israel and the West Bank (along with Gaza} has recently been internationally accredited as constituting the State of Palestine. A Cities in Israel article could easily provide links to the Israeli settlements article to enable cross referencing of content. GregKaye 16:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- I know about the subtleties with "Israeli cities" and "cities in Israel". And reading the ratio, I can understand the proposal. But GregKaye, do you know of other discussions about this same issue? It pops up in various talkpages and times I recall. So, if this is a once-and-for-all proposal, that would be great. But I don't want to be surprised afterwards by another, overlapping discussion outcome. (my !vote is: of course, "Cities in X" is the general pattern and it resolves the occupational claims). Al Encyclopedia! -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support - This is a valid RM as a quick search on Wikipedia showed that, the common format is "List of...". These all follow the same format as USA, UK, Germany, Canada, Australia etc. Mbcap (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
RfC. To what extent should the article present the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area
I would mainly like to ask about the presentation in the article about the possible presentation of content as in the article Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area.
I have recently submitted an RM from the title List of Israeli cities to List of cities in Israel contains with the suggestion that reference to East Jerusalem be removed from the article and that reference to Cities in the West Bank that were developed as Israeli settlements should be accounted for in the article with that name.
At present, despite a recent history in which East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem have been separated by clear national border, the article presents Jerusalem as a single unit while the areas in the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area are presented as a large number of conjoined cities.
At present the article presents a template image as shown on the right named "Israel cities labled map" and, although the settlements are not included on the map, I think it violates NPOV as it presents an indication of East Jerusalem as Israeli territory. It also gives some indication of the close relationship between the areas surrounding the centre of Tel Aviv which are otherwise well illustrated by google maps which seems to also be well illustrated when clicking to "earth" view. I am curious to know whether an influence in the subdivisions has been to present Jerusalem as being the largest "urban location" in Israel while it seems to me that this situation does not directly reflect either political or geographic realities. Israel has not chosen to present the Jaffa area, which was described as part of the proposed "Arab State" in the UN partition plan, as a separate entity but has chosen to declare areas such as Holon, where I used to live, as being cities.
Given the above, to what extent can / should the article reflect the size of the whole Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area in its article content?
GregKaye 17:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- As for Jerusalem, the City Line (Jerusalem) existed for only 19 years, from 1948 to 1967, and that "national border" ceased to exist nearly 48 years ago. Jerusalem is a de facto united city and people travel pretty much freely about the city without the impediments of old fences and border crossings. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
RfC best resolution of title and content
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A recent RM has brought the title to List of cities in Israel rather than the, I think, more subjectively defined List of Israeli cities. This leads to the problem that areas such as East Jerusalem and West bank settlement cities lie outside the area, even within Wikipedia's definitions, defined as the area of Israel.
Two possible ways to resolve this situation would involve either
- Cutting content so as to fit in with some agreed limit on an agreed limit of legitimate Israeli territory.
- Again moving the article to a new title such as List of cities administered by Israel which could act as a parallel article which, for some reason, is still called List of cities administered by the Palestinian National Authority.
I personally favour the second option as it would allow a broader inclusion of information while still presenting an encyclopaedic content which would not require editors to make decisions which might better be made in the sphere of international politics.
I also think it would be worth developing an extra column to the tabulated content so as to indicate whether a city is in full or part in various areas associated with Israel: the area marked as being intended for a Jewish State in the original UN partition plan, the Jewish side of the Green line or the West Bank or the Golan Heights. However, while comments would be appreciated, this might be an issue for another time.
GregKaye 16:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Second Option - And I think I'd look to the text for the title. Try List of cities in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This seems like a pretty bulky title, but I think it should be one on which most people can agree on which geographic area we're referring to. These topic could quickly descend into bickering if we don't find an inclusive title. NickCT (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- NickCT I think that it would be positive if there was a move to List of cities in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (if that title is OK). This could provide further comparative encyclopaedic content inclusive of Palestinian cities such as:
- Gaza City pop.949,221
- Hebron pop.563,146
- Nablus pop.426,132
- These would be added to a listing content including:
- Jerusalem 815,300
- Tel Aviv 414,600
- Haifa 272,200
- Given that more content would be added to the article, perhaps an extra column could be added to the table to indicate comparative location. A simple division to Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza Strip might provide a potential reference but I personally think that the important context that no agreement has yet been reached should somehow be made clear. Further distinctions are that many terrtories were neither intended as being either in a Jewish or Arab state in the original UN partition plan as shown in File:UN Palestine Partition Versions 1947.jpg. I think note references would be benefically added to say if locations were originally intended, as in the case of Jerusalem, to be in a Corpus separatum (Jerusalem)/international administration or if, in the case of various territories that Israel has taken by force, they were originally planned to be in an Arab State. What do you think? GregKaye 09:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- NickCT I think that it would be positive if there was a move to List of cities in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (if that title is OK). This could provide further comparative encyclopaedic content inclusive of Palestinian cities such as:
- Support - I think I support dividing it into two different articles, simply because the fact there are cities managed by palestinians inside Israel as a geographic entity at the very least. That said, NickCT's idea for making an admittedly bulky title would boil two lobsters in one pot, although again, bulky title. Either option would show respect to both parties in question, as the more I think about it I don't like how it stands as of this moment. Rotund but Reasonable (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- What would be your favoured title for the exclusively Israeli title, List of cities administered by Israel or List of urban areas in Israel (as mentioned below) or List of cities in Israel both of which, I think, would at least require the removal of East Jerusalem and the settlements. GregKaye 09:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I won't even pretend to understand all the history and political ramifications involved with an article like this, but since I received a request to comment, here's my 2 cents... First, I would leave the name as is List of cities in Israel simply for the reason that it provides a finite and geographic based parameter for the core of the subject matter. Second, I think it is entirely acceptable for this article to then have sections which are devoted to "Israeli run or administered cities" (WITH ample respective redirects pointing to the appropriate section) until such time that that the size of the article dictates that it be split off per WP:SPLIT. Third, I think this article could be simplified with the expansion of the existing tables to include some of the specialized information such as the size and increase/decrease in city populations. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Scalhotrod One way in which something like this might practically work would be to give the article a name such as List of urban areas in Israel. This title would use wording similar to that found in the Israeli source document for the information from the Israeli Central bureau of Statistic and linked here. The documents wording is "Urban localities" and this type of reference might lend to mention of (still disputed) West Jerusalem as being "in Israel". Another way of doing it would be to present West Jerusalem as a city in Israel although I think there is limited substantiation for regarding West Jerusalem, inclusively, as being a city.
- "city of west jerusalem" only gets "About 59 results" in books and "3 reults" in scholar. Which of these do you think would suit best?
- Otherwise I think that an proposal such as List of cities in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories might work. GregKaye 09:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- GregKaye, I agree with your suggestions and would suggest that for any new articles and their respective names to be keep in mind that not everyone reading this article or searching WP will necessarily speak English as a first language. "Localities", "urban centers", and such are great vocabulary, but may make it harder to find the article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Scalhotrod TY. i THINK that article finding problems would be minimal on condition that the "List of cities in Israel" article acts as a redirect to a "List of urban areas title". Things might be easier to manage if there was just one "List of cities in Israel and Palestinian Territories" article but a two article plan can certainly work. An urban areas article may also need explanation but that is fair enough. GregKaye 19:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- GregKaye, I agree with your suggestions and would suggest that for any new articles and their respective names to be keep in mind that not everyone reading this article or searching WP will necessarily speak English as a first language. "Localities", "urban centers", and such are great vocabulary, but may make it harder to find the article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support change to List of cities in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories with location and note content added as presented above. GregKaye 09:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- The title List of cities in Israel and Palestinian Territories would be more succinct. I don't think that we can yet specify what the Palestinian Territories are. GregKaye 09:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Since the above rfc was approved by most, can now something be done about the article content? The basic problem with the article, that the name is "cities in X" and it lists cities outside the boundary of X, remains... ImTheIP (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Inconsistency in the Population Table
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)Sean
EJ
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)
- Also, that part of this article should be covered under ARBPIA. nableezy - 21:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 11 July 2018
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No Move. עם ישראל חי (talk) (non-admin closure)15:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
List of cities in Israel → List of cities in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories – This article used to be called List of Israeli cities, a formulation that got around saying that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and in the Golan Heights are "in Israel" when they are very much not "in Israel". However, this article now is titled List of cities in Israel and a large portion of the material in the article discusses territory that is not in Israel. If this article is to maintain the current title then material on East Jerusalem and any other territory not "in Israel" would need to be excised. nableezy - 21:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 21:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support: More accurate scope. List of cities in Israel should continue to redirect to the article, since it's a subset. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:CONCISE. I suggest List of cities in Israel and Palestine. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Problem there is this includes places in the Golan Heights. nableezy - 00:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – at some point some years ago there was a spate of complaints about naming things as in Israel, while they included some things in one of the disputed territories. The simple solution was to name this article "List of Israeli cities". This was applied to some similar cases as well. At some point, editors (mostly outside of the I–P conflict area, which is good) felt that such a solution was inconsistent with similar Wikipedia articles, the distinction in the title was unnecessary, and that it could be covered in the lead, which it is. The proposed title makes very little sense according to many guidelines on Wikipedia, but I am not personally strongly opposed to going back to List of Israeli cities. Just don't feel it's very important. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have no problem with an article titled List of cities in Israel. It will however have to be limited to what is in Israel of course. nableezy - 23:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Let's go back to List of Israeli cities, which was a much better title. The current proposal opens it up for inclusion of cities like Ramallah or Nablus. Number 57 19:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- It would indeed, but I think the old title would need to be modified to say List of Israeli cities and Israeli settlements if you are only trying to include the Jewish localities in the occupied territories. And then I dont know what you would do with Arab cities in the Golan like Majdal Shams. I think the best course would be in Israel and the occupied territories and have a list that segregates within it but includes everything. nableezy - 00:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. The proposal expands the scope of the list. The text currently reads: "The list includes four Israeli settlements in the West Bank, an area outside of sovereign Israeli territory." This makes the current title also inaccurate by the reckoning of many. The best title for this current list, the "76 Israeli municipalities granted 'city' status" by Israel, is the List of Israeli cities, which though slightly vague, is accurate. — AjaxSmack 01:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- List of Israeli cities implies that the cities are in Israel, just like eg List of Scottish cities implies that those cities are in Scotland. However, not all the cities are in what is recognised as Israel. I would suggest List of Israeli cities in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories Either that, or a List of Israeli cities, limited only to cities in Israel proper. Huldra (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Huldra, a list article is not the right place for this and these entries should be removed. Seraphim System (talk)
- Disagree... they are in a general sense Israeli cities. But it's difficult... the best test of NPOV in cases like this is that if we hit the balance, neither side will like it! Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: I don't understand how an NPOV justification can be made here — the current state of the article goes against the formal consensus in WP:WESTBANK by identifying the settlements as located in Judea and Samaria. The format of the article doesn't really allow for the type of qualification required by that consensus. List articles should be used for simple things - there shouldn't be a list of "Israeli cities" only cities in Israel (the area that is widely and non-controversially recognized as the State of Israel) - Israeli cities isn't an appropriate subject for a list-style article because the inclusion criteria is inherently unclear. There is no way for it be NPOV, which would require a balance of majority/minority views based on WP:RS.Seraphim System (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Move back to List of Israeli cities, overwriting and reversing 17:42, 3 March 2015 TexasAndroid (talk | contribs | block) . . (54 bytes) (+54) . . (TexasAndroid moved page List of Israeli cities to List of cities in Israel: Move article as requested.). It might have seemed a good idea at the time, but...!!! Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose and move back to List of Israeli cities. The lead section is enough for clarifying the scope of the list article. feminist (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
scope
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Brewcrewer: Who said anything about "erasing" information "on nationalistic grounds"? Seraphim System (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
Move review
I have taken step one of the move review process, see User talk:AmYisroelChai#Non-admin close if you have not already done so for my reasons. Comments welcome here. Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Closer has addressed my procedural concern by adding the required non-admin closure notification [1], and has replied suggesting a new RM. [2]
That is certainly one way to approach it. But IMO the better way would be to reopen the previous one, and provide a rationale for why the several !votes for a move to List of Israeli cities were not seen as a rough consensus.
But it continues to get more complicated... 12:58, 21 July 2018 Ynhockey (talk | contribs | block) m . . (30,779 bytes) (0) . . (Ynhockey moved page List of cities in Israel to List of Israeli cities over redirect: There is an apparent consensus on the talk page). That seems to make MR moot. I note that Ynhockey is an experienced admin of more than ten years' standing. Andrewa (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't think it's really complicated. Most editors commenting in the original move request said that they could live with the title List of Israeli cities. There is no unanimous consensus, but there isn't much to discuss because no reasonable alternative has been proposed—this is enough to say that there is a general consensus for this title. I don't mind more editors chiming in of course. Here is a summary of the options so far, with my opinion added:
- List of cities in Israel – opposed by several editors on the basis that some of the cities are located on disputed territory. My opinion: the title is fine, because the article makes a clarification, but in light of countless past discussions I can see why it might be opposed.
- List of Israeli cities – generally supported, opposed by two editors because the title might imply that all the cities on the list are in Israel. My opinion: this makes the most sense, and the title does not imply anything, plus there is a clear clarification in the article.
- List of cities in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories – generally opposed on multiple bases. My opinion: doesn't make sense because a) uses a loaded term that's not clearly defined. Is Gaza part of this? Area A? and b) because it would inevitably include Palestinian cities. Violates WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE (part of a policy), and IMO also WP:NPOV.
- List of cities in Israel and Palestine – not discussed in-depth, opposed by one editor. My opinion: doesn't make sense as above, more specifically, there is no reason to have a list with cities in two separate political entities.
- List of Israeli cities and Israeli settlements – not discussed in-depth. My opinion: doesn't make sense, as the vast majority of Israeli settlements are not cities. This list is about cities.
- This leaves just one option that's both supported by multiple editors. Again, I am open to more discussion on the subject, but frankly don't see what more can be added.
- —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with all of that (but I am of course involved). Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody said might imply, please do not be so dishonest in representing others positions. Their view was that it does imply that the cities are "in Israel". And nobody besides you has used the phrasing "disputed territory". Again, not even Israel claims the West Bank as being "in Israel", you are seeking to make Wikipedia more right-wing Zionist than even the most right-wing Zionist Israeli government in history. And you are claiming to do it in order to comply with NPOV. That is absurd. nableezy - 15:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- And Andrewa, the fact that Ynhockey is an admin has absolutely nothing to do with this. He is an involved editor in the Arab-Israeli topic area, and the fact that he made an undiscussed move that had multiple explicit objections to it without making an RM honestly says to me more that he should not be an admin than all is well because he is one (Open to recall however does not appear anywhere on his page). nableezy - 15:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- If you feel that either or both of us have shown poor judgement in this sufficient to warrant de-sysopping, then there are channels for this, and I'm happy to help you to follow them. Discuss on my talk page please.
- In the case of Ynhockey of course the first step is to discuss their actions on their talk page. I see there's already discussion there, but not on this particular issue. Andrewa (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- This must rank as one of the grossest violations of Wikipedia policy by an admin I've witnessed in 12 years. Changing 'cities in Israel' to 'Israeli cities' conserves by a grammatical dodge the meaning of the first title while disguising the geopolitiocal violation of commonsense patent in the other title. It's rather unbelievable that supportive editors cannot see this. It hasn't received anything like the discussion such an expropriative or appropriate piece of political mangling this equivocation deserves. I didn't even notice the semantic scam, and scam it is, until I noted mention of it on Nableezy's page just now. Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- There's no "geopolitical violation" here - these cities are recognized, admistered, and funded as Israeli city by the Israeli government. the reality on the ground (recognized by multiple reliable outlets referring to Israeli settlements in the West Bank) is that these settlements (including the ones with Israeli city status) are administered as Israeli cities.Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- The point is, identifying 'settlement cities' (the proper term) as just 'Israeli cities' is an in-your-face violation of NPOV, because it makes out that the descriptor is neutral. 'City' status, per sources, has been pursued for a declared motive, to ensure that in any future discussions the 'Israeli city' will be exempted from any territorial discussion. Hockey has effectively framed this political position as neutral, when it is nothing more than the annexationist perspective of one party to the conflict, and it's beyond me how one can get away with such an abusive move. It incorporates as one article the material appropriately accorded a properly titled article, namely List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank, and therefore is cannibalizing a neutral article for political ends of redefining parts of the West Bank so that they become part of Israel, anticipating history (WP:Crystal). Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- There's no "geopolitical violation" here - these cities are recognized, admistered, and funded as Israeli city by the Israeli government. the reality on the ground (recognized by multiple reliable outlets referring to Israeli settlements in the West Bank) is that these settlements (including the ones with Israeli city status) are administered as Israeli cities.Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- This must rank as one of the grossest violations of Wikipedia policy by an admin I've witnessed in 12 years. Changing 'cities in Israel' to 'Israeli cities' conserves by a grammatical dodge the meaning of the first title while disguising the geopolitiocal violation of commonsense patent in the other title. It's rather unbelievable that supportive editors cannot see this. It hasn't received anything like the discussion such an expropriative or appropriate piece of political mangling this equivocation deserves. I didn't even notice the semantic scam, and scam it is, until I noted mention of it on Nableezy's page just now. Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
To everyone upset about my move: I did not say I was not involved, and did not take any administrative action on the article. A reminder how WP:RM works: 1. someone requests a move, 2. there is a discussion, 3. if no consensus is reached, the article is not moved. This is exactly what happened here, so according to the move discussion, the article should stay at List of cities in Israel. Because I noticed that several editors supported a title that takes into account some of the concerns that were raised about the original title, I took the initiative and moved the article there: List of Israeli cities. I see that many people are upset by this move, and I can certainly move the article back. Not sure that's desirable though, I'm not here to make a point. In my opinion however, removing some cities from the list or opening an FLR based on the title alone—are indeed WP:POINT actions. Again, I am not speaking as someone who is uninvolved, but as someone who (hopefully) understands Wikipedia policies, both in letter and in spirit. Finally: if there is another title that anyone believe there is a greater consensus for, they should feel free to open another move request. —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- So, in sum, those who have differing views than you are violating WP:POINT, but you however are not, when you are the only person here who seems to have ignored Wikipedia policy in making a move without discussion that had explicit opposition. I was fine with this article remaining at List of cities in Israel, but that did in fact necessitate removing anything not in Israel. That is not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and if you are going to continue making such false accusations Id ask that you do it an appropriate forum. The current title is misleading in that it conflates two things, cities in Israel and settlements that even Israel does not claim to be in Israel that Israel has designated as cities. nableezy - 09:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Israel claims these cities are Israeli. The Palestinians claim they are Israeli and demand their removal. The entire world community recognizes settlements in the West Bank as "Israeli settlements" - as do RSes reporting on the matter - one would be hard pressed to find any source not referring to these settlements as Israeli. The title Ynhockey moved to was the title of this article for many years, including when it reached FL status.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, the Palestinians and the wider international community say that they are colonies in occupied territory. Not that they are "Israeli cities". Kindly stop distorting your interlocutors arguments, it is quite unbecoming. nableezy - 22:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Most RSes use settlement, not colonies. However, even those that say colonies - say Israeli colonies. The Israeli nature of these urban settlements is not disputed by any side or serious source.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- I dont honestly see what you are arguing here. You seem to be arguing that if a source calls this place an Israeli settlement then that means you can apply "Israeli" as an adjective to any other noun. Israeli settlement is a noun phrase, meaning a settlement established by Israel outside of Israel and in the occupied territories. The conflation of places in Israel and places not in Israel violates NPOV. nableezy - 16:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Most RSes use settlement, not colonies. However, even those that say colonies - say Israeli colonies. The Israeli nature of these urban settlements is not disputed by any side or serious source.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Even though there is a technical difference between "cities in Israel" and "Israeli cities", we are obliged to consider what the casual visitor reads into the title. (Wikipedia is for the readers, not for the editors.) In my opinion, a typical casual visitor will not understand the difference so the title is misleading. Failing to internally separate the different categories serves to cement the misunderstanding. I can't help but think that it is deliberate. Zerotalk 09:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well the technical difference that gets the crystal clear 'cities in Israel' to extend into settlements in the West Bank by a rename 'Israeli cities' is a piece of Orwellian language manipulation that unambiguously implies annexation, anticipating the future, and therefore pure POV pushing of a rather patent political kind. But the problem with 'Israeli cities' is not only there. 'Israeli cities', as opposed to villages, towns, kibbutzs and moshavim, have mixed populations reflecting a the 20/80 divide between Jews and Arabs. This is not true of the 'Israeli cities' in the West Bank which, despite some minor presence, are designed to established Jewish citizens of Israel within the West Bank. In that sense, there is an additional distortion, implying somehow that settlement cities are open to free movement of all Israelis, and have a notable Palestinin Israeli presence. So it is doubly deceptive in its POV gamesmanship.Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- The lead needs therefore rewriting to reflect the title, and the matter regarding these settlement cities should be excerpted and relocated on the proper wiki page, List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Israeli Arabs can live in settlements, and indeed - some do according to Reuters. There may be acceptance committees for some small communal settlements (less than 500 households or people, don't remember which) - however any large settlement - in pre-1967 Israel or in the West Bank is open to all Israeli citizens - this is particularly true for the Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank.Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, the Palestinians and the wider international community say that they are colonies in occupied territory. Not that they are "Israeli cities". Kindly stop distorting your interlocutors arguments, it is quite unbecoming. nableezy - 22:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Israel claims these cities are Israeli. The Palestinians claim they are Israeli and demand their removal. The entire world community recognizes settlements in the West Bank as "Israeli settlements" - as do RSes reporting on the matter - one would be hard pressed to find any source not referring to these settlements as Israeli. The title Ynhockey moved to was the title of this article for many years, including when it reached FL status.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Tag
Icewhiz You are well-aware there is an ongoing dispute about the neutrality of the title. Explain your removal here. nableezy - 13:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- And as youve apparently seen fit to disallow even notifying readers of the issue of the title, Ive tagged the article. nableezy - 13:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- You haven't established consensus for your view here on the talk page - placing a tag after not managing to carry the discussion is not an accepted course of action. Note these might be a 1RR issue - [3][4].Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Where on earth are you getting the idea that a consensus is needed for a tag? The purpose of a tag is to show that there is no consensus about a discussion and invite others to engage in the discussion. Perhaps if you read the linked instructions you might find your belief to be entirely fiction. Note under when to remove it says When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue. That sort of kind of gives proof to the lie that tags require consensus for them to be placed and that adding a tag when there is not consensus for a position is not an accepted course of action. As far as your last bit, I am unaware of what I am supposedly reverting. There is a new tag on the article, as you disruptively removed the more specific one. That isnt a revert, sorry. nableezy - 14:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- While the consensus requirements for a tag (or any edit) are softer than say for a move, it is widely understood that tags should not be applied lightly, and that they should not be applied when they are not expected to go away given the article's content. Tags are meant both to notify readers of a problem in the article, and also to notify editors, who can then fix the problem. The latter does not apply here, as the editors have already spoken, and the discussion can continue. In general, if any edit is disputed (and this one is), the correct step is to open an RfC on the subject. I'm not sure what the point is though, you have already started two different processes—WP:RM and WP:FLRC—and did not get consensus for your suggestions in either case. It might be time to give it a rest.
- About the tag itself: at the very least, it should be used when there is, as you said, "an ongoing dispute about the neutrality". There is an ongoing dispute about something, but I'm not really sure what, or why it's relevant—the procedures for changing an article's title are clear. As I wrote in the previous section, if you feel that the title does not reflect the content of the article (or violates NPOV), please open another WP:RM, to a title that you believe addresses these concerns. I'm not sure it should be done so soon after the previous WP:RM (up to you really). Until then, there is no justification for this tag, which is a form of poisoning the well.
- —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the requirements for a move are in fact clear. Requirements you ignored and continue to pontificate over. And the idea that your undiscussed and challenged move is what should be the basis for any further moves, which apparently now require RM discussions and your move does not, is incredibly hypocritical. I feel that the article content violates NPOV. The title was fine before your undiscussed move, it however requires culling the article of material on place not in Israel. Did you get consensus for your change? Get off it Ynhockey, this game of claiming your edits are pure and wholesome and others are POINTy or whatever other buzzword you want throw at me without even the slightest bit of self-awareness is getting old. nableezy - 22:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- And to be perfectly clear, if you have any real interest in actually abiding by the policies you claim to understand both in letter and in spirit then you will reverse your move. You should also reverse your revert to include the propaganda that Israeli settlements in occupied territory are "in Israel". But I dont expect you to actually follow the policies that you claim to understand, only to continue to use them as talking points. nableezy - 22:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Where on earth are you getting the idea that a consensus is needed for a tag? The purpose of a tag is to show that there is no consensus about a discussion and invite others to engage in the discussion. Perhaps if you read the linked instructions you might find your belief to be entirely fiction. Note under when to remove it says When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue. That sort of kind of gives proof to the lie that tags require consensus for them to be placed and that adding a tag when there is not consensus for a position is not an accepted course of action. As far as your last bit, I am unaware of what I am supposedly reverting. There is a new tag on the article, as you disruptively removed the more specific one. That isnt a revert, sorry. nableezy - 14:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- You haven't established consensus for your view here on the talk page - placing a tag after not managing to carry the discussion is not an accepted course of action. Note these might be a 1RR issue - [3][4].Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
As Ynhockey has declined to revert his contested move, I will do it for him. nableezy - 16:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Map issue
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)
- The Golan heights are administered under Israeli law following annexation.Icewhiz (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- Ive corrected this issue in the template. nableezy - 17:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
RFC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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) Nableezy 18:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- No - and before this gets dragged into an argument of what is in Israel and what is not, I want to be emphatic about this point. Not even Israel claims any settlement outside of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is in Israel. Israel does not consider Ariel to be in Israel. Israel does not consider Beitar Illit to be in Israel. Israel does not consider Modi'in Illit to be in Israel. There is zero basis for including places in territory that even Israel does not claim as Israeli in a list of cities in Israel, or a list of Israeli cities as if that syntax game changes the fundamental NPOV issue here. By including settlements in occupied territory as though they were in Israel or that they are "Israeli cities" Wikipedia effectively advances an extreme minority political position, that the West Bank is not occupied territory and that it is indeed in Israel. That is Wikipedia would be taking a position on the borders of Israel so extreme that not even Israel advances it. nableezy - 18:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes Whether Israel considers locations in the West Bank in Israel or not is immaterial (nor is it obvious in any direction - Israeli maintains ambiguity). I will note that the Golan is not ambiguous - as it has been annexed and laws of Israel fully apply. What is however obvious is that Israeli cities in the West Bank are fully recognized as Israeli cities, funded as Israeli cities (the central government provides quite a bit of the funds), have the local government structure (elections, reporting to the Israeli Interior Ministry), and are.... recognized as Israeli cities - by Israel, and I would add any RS that covers them. Even the Palestinians view these locations as Israeli cities (or settlements) - which they demand to be removed. In any Israeli CBS release, any compendium of statistics on Israeli cities - these cities are included. Furthermore, we should not engage in OR in regards to which cities are in Israel or not, but should rely on a list of such cities - as released for instance by the Israeli Interior ministry (and, I shall note, that in some cases some cities straddle the Green line - making this ORish indeed to determine what portion is where). The article should be move back to List of Israeli cities - which is more NPOV and is the title this article was with when it achieved FL status.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- No There is no argument logically feasible for including cities not in Israel as being in Israel. It is a manifest contradiction, and has only one purpose: controverting Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality by finangling to make out cities inhabited by Israelis ipso facto are in Israel, a form of discursive annexation per WP:Crystal.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment This RfC is malformed. It isn't clear what "Israel" implies. This list should include cities in Israel, including those in areas annexed by Israel, which includes East Jerusalem and the Israeli portion of the Golan Heights, but not any settlements in the West Bank, which has not been annexed by Israel. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yes, for those who aren't in the loop, I suggest reading the above discussions, especially the move discussion. There is a general understanding that the scope should include all Israeli cities, and the article title that got rough consensus was List of Israeli cities, to get around the problem that some cities are not de jure in Israel. There is really no point excluding cities in this list that get their services and budget from the same government institutions, inhabited by citizens of the same country, based on political disputes. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- There is a “point” actually, that “point” being that those cities are not in Israel. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- There is a “point” actually, that “point” being that those cities are not in Israel. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- No per Nableezy, it's extraterritorial jurisdiction - extraterritorial is self-explanatory, I think.Seraphim System (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes otherwise it's an incomplete list. The article also needs to be moved back to List of Israeli cities. Number 57 08:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- No per nominator, and pr international consensus, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- No unless the title is changed to make it clear that we are not only listing cities in Israel. I can't think of such a title that will satisfy everyone and also be clear as to its meaning. As I argued before, "List of Israeli cities" will just serve to mislead many readers into thinking that they are looking at a list of cities in Israel, so it is not an acceptable solution. Also, any list under any title that includes places outside as well as inside the internationally recogized borders should be divided into sublists labeled accordingly. Zerotalk 02:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- No The four cites in the West Bank / Judea and Samaria Area have not been annexed. You can link to a separate list.Jonney2000 (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Among Israelis, cities in the so-called West Bank are still in Israel/Palestine proper.Davidbena (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Solution: The article name is tricky. It says "cities in Israel", but the international community views the West Bank as being a separate territory from Israel, while Israel keep its status vague. It never implemented the Israeli law there, but acts as if it did. If the article was called "List of Israeli cities" it would have been easier. Therefore I propose to keep Israeli settlements in a separate section under the name "Israeli cities outside the green line" or any other title.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 03:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes and agree with bolter and Ynhockey that it should be moved to list of List of Israeli cities to solve any POV problem --Shrike (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes - Cities like Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim, whose inhabitants are Israeli and remain under Israeli control, can't be excluded from the list. I agree that it would be better to rename the article "List of Israeli cities" instead of "List of cities in Israel" which could imply the West Bank is part of Israel's sovereign territory.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes per Ynhockey and Bolter21. The legal situation is problematic to say the least, but Wikipedia should focus on the reader. If we're faced with two equally viable alternatives, only one of which would make intuitive sense to the reader, then we should choose that alternative. In this case the reader would expect a list that includes all cities that are generally considered Israeli, regardless of how the list is named. We can then make whatever geographic and legal distinctions we wish within that list. François Robere (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes and rename to List of Israeli Cities, to avoid the issue of territory. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it should include settelments and cties under Israel administrative divisions, we can put a footnote in the District column that mention that the city is located inside Area C for example. Where else would we list these cities? There are under Israeli sovereignty. Maybe we should change the name of the article as sugessted. Sokuya (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- No - Jewish hamlets in occupied zones outside Israel are not "Israeli cities". Also heading of the article itself ("List of Israeli cities") is problematic. If sites such as Ariel are on the list, then that is misleading. I'm not sure what would be the best headline, but the renaming of the article should be considered.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes All the reasons are already stated above.Tritomex (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes per Sokuya. They are Israeli cities governed by Israel and accessible from Israel. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- No. Although the wording of the RFC leaves open the question of what's defined as "in Israel", cities that are unambiguously outside of Israel do not fit the topic even if they're administrated by it, have populations of Israeli origin, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes I'm not interested in political discussions - I visited this page because I wanted to find out information about relative population density in Israeli cities. These cities are Israeli. If you want to change the title back to "List of Israeli Cities", by all means - but removing content on Israeli cities is not an acceptable resolution simply because some people disagree with the politics involved. This page is meant to be a useful list, not a political battleground. Let's keep it that way. 193.104.77.4 (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- No Very simply, a list called "cities in Israel" should contain, just that, cities in Israel. There is absolutely no reason it should contain cities outside of Israel. That is disingenuous at best and certainly misleading WP:WESTBANK. Cities in occupied Palestine or Israeli colonies must appear in their own list in an article appropriately titled, not here as an addendum. Wikipedia is not a trailblazer setting precedents, nor is it a tool to politicize. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Veritycheck: you have voted twice in this RFC. — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Corrected - Thanks. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- No per international consensus. As far as clarity for readers is concerned, this can easily be amended by including a hatnote disambiguation to a list of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank. Suggestions to move back to "Israeli cities" are not a solution as that just hides the issue behind a term whose definition is vague (Israeli by population? By law? Whose law?). signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Partially - Yes for Golan and Jerusalem, as those have been officially claimed by Israel and no for the West Bank. --Gonnym (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- No. The entire "List of cities" series is about settlements located within internationally recognised state borders and not about those in colonies or areas controlled in violation of international law. Otherwise please add Sevastopol to List of cities in Russia and move Stepanakert to List of cities in Armenia. Anyone willing? Also, this RfC should ideally be moved to WP:CITIES. — kashmīrī TALK 20:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Could you point me to the guideline that says that? I checked your two examples that would never happen and lo and behold - Sevastopol is included in the image gallery at List of cities in Russia and Stepanakert does indeed appear in List of cities and towns in Artsakh (no reason for it to appear in Armenia). --Gonnym (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Gonnym: 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)
- 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)
- (Summoned by bot) Yes due to their significant importance. Otherwise you would be required to move the article back to List of Israeli cities. Rzvas (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- No. I agree with Kashmiri: The entire "List of cities" series is about settlements located within internationally recognised state borders and not about those in colonies or areas controlled in violation of international law. (OR Change the name of the article if you want to include those other cities not IN Israel.) Peter K Burian (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
rfc result
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- It was closed on the 3rd and re-opened later. nableezy - 16:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Factual accuracy
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)
- 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)
- @Icewhiz: 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)
- 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)
Requested move 8 September 2018
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. The general consensus is that the proposed title does not adequately solve the issue of NPOV and creates an unnecessary inconsistency. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
List of cities in Israel → List of Israeli cities – Was promoted to FL with this name [5], and was in fact renamed during the FL nom. "In Israel" poses NPOV questions regarding cities in annexed areas (Golan), and occupied and as of yet unannexed areas (West Bank) - as well as issues with cities that straddle tue green line (or passs over by a bit). Israeli, on the other hand, is a factual description of all these cities - which regardless of location are adminstered by the same process under the Israeli Interior mjnistry. Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - the West Bank is administered by Israel Defense Forces Central Command as can be seen Judea and Samaria Area#Status and here from 2012 article. That said the title proposed isn't that bad, but my issue with it is that it breaks WP:CONSISTENCY with every other Category:Lists of cities by country article. If "In Israel" poses NPOV questions, a better solution would be "List of cities in Israel and in Israeli settlements" (which follows the first lead sentence), or "List of cities and settlements in Israel". I'd also like to point out that the article does not mention the Golan as a controversial claim, only the West Bank and East Jerusalem. --Gonnym (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- The in Israel in the second title would still be an issue, and the Golan is only not listed as an issue as there are no cities as classified by Israel in the Golan. nableezy - 16:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. Firstly, Wikipedia’s role is to inform, not obfuscate, or politicise. Gonnym accurately points to WP:CONSISTENCY here and there is no reason to break from it. The proposed change to “Israeli cities” is both argumentative and subjective creating more of the same issues we already face with the current title. It’s not a solution if it carries the same baggage. A name change must improve the article moving forward, not sideways.
- Both of Gonnym’s suggested titles above are NPOV, unambiguous and not controversial. I support them. They would be an improvement to what must be an encyclopaedic article. By the same token, Wikipedia must not be used as a tool for propaganda by some to flagrantly go against the international community to misinform which the proposed title, through design or accident, would do. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - quoting Zero0000 above: Even though there is a technical difference between "cities in Israel" and "Israeli cities", we are obliged to consider what the casual visitor reads into the title. (Wikipedia is for the readers, not for the editors.) In my opinion, a typical casual visitor will not understand the difference so the title is misleading. Failing to internally separate the different categories serves to cement the misunderstanding. I can't help but think that it is deliberate. nableezy - 16:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - to this deeply misleading name switch - it is practically the same thing. So again - “no". GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support Would go some way to resolving the NPOV issues with including Israeli cities in the occupied territories. Excluding them from the list and insititing on a title that definitively excludes them just seems to be WP:disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Can't see how this could be considered misleading at all – places like Ariel and Beitar Illit are clearly Israeli cities, but not located in Israel. Number 57 18:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Whereas insisting on keeping them in when the title definitively excludes them is somehow not disrupting Wikipedia? Hmmm, wonder why that is. nableezy - 15:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- If you're trying to infer that my POV is that the West Bank is part of Israel, then I'd suggest you have a look at my editing history. Start with my RfA, where you'll see that several members of WP:Israel !voted against (following a canvassing campaign) because I'd been removing Israeli settlements from "in Israel" categories.
- Back to the subject in question, my viewpoint is that any list of Israeli municipalities should include those in the occupied territories – not because they're legitimate, but because they are Israeli municipalities that function like any other in most respects. What does Wikipedia gain from omitting Ariel, Beitar Illit etc from this list entirely? Nothing as far as I can see, and the attempts to remove then seem to be more about winning some imaginary battle about the legality of the settlements than providing comprehensive information for the reader. The proper way to do this would be to have them in the list with it clearly marked that they are settlements in the West Bank. Personally I don't see how any reasonable editor could object to that solution. Number 57 21:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, the proper way to do that would be to have a title that does not obfuscate the issue. I proposed one earlier, it was shot down. But just playing these little word games like "Israeli city" does not mean what any reader would presume what it means, that is a city in Israel, because for this one specific country the normal rules of grammar and physics cease to apply is what is the problem here. Have West Bank in the title if you want to include the West Bank. nableezy - 05:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Whereas insisting on keeping them in when the title definitively excludes them is somehow not disrupting Wikipedia? Hmmm, wonder why that is. nableezy - 15:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support, but only if the West Bank cities are separated into their own list similarly to this version. Both the split lists and the name change are required as the minimal acceptable combination. Zerotalk 01:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support per RfC above. Consensus doesn't equal unanimity.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- The full quote from WP:CONSENSUS is "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable) nor is the result of a vote." but a minor majority in the vote is the only reason you have provided for your interpretation of the RfC outcome. It is quite obvious that the RfC did not provide a consensus. Zerotalk 05:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why don't you count the RFC? 12 votes against 9. You are the minority supporting the removal.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- The full quote from WP:CONSENSUS is "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable) nor is the result of a vote." but a minor majority in the vote is the only reason you have provided for your interpretation of the RfC outcome. It is quite obvious that the RfC did not provide a consensus. Zerotalk 05:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY with Category:Lists of cities by country entries. I don't see this rename solving any of the NPOV issues; how to deal with cities in the Golan Heights, etc. can be better handled in prose or by linking to other pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support, but only if the West Bank cities are separated into their own list. Per Zero. That seems like the right idea. NickCT (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose: The entire List of cities in X series is built around geographical location, not around the cities' ethnic composition. — kashmīrī TALK 01:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom. NB my previous comments on the topic. — AjaxSmack 01:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
RFC result
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)