Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This Page is an ARCHIVE and appears as only as a matter of record. Please do not edit this page. All issues should be discussed on the main talk page.

Hello Everyone, I found a need (and support) for an Israel WikiProject. There are many pages relating to Israel on WikiPedia, and I think it is important that they are all kept to a high standard. I cannot do this alone, so please join in.

I am apparently not good at the template images thing. Could someone please link the image to an actual image of the flag of Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric1985 (talk • contribs)

Fixed. This template should be added only to talk pages and not to articles themselves. Also please sign your posts at talk pages and fill out edit summaries. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in. Ask me for anything about the Chareidi world. Bnei Brak, Jerusalem etc. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we use this page for project-related discussions. For general ones, there is WP:WNBI that many users already have in their watchlist. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Objects to the idea of creating a virtual Israeli state on Wikipedia that annexes pages - including those for Palestinian towns it ethnically cleansed - to itself, but if such a project is to exist, will monitor its development with the aim of ensuring as much balance as is possible in such a blatantly biased endeavour" (Tiamut)

What is this supposed to mean? Please clarify exactly what contribution you are going to make to Israel-related articles. If your main purpose is complaining about fictional POV issues, I do not understand why you register as a member of this project. --Daniel575 | (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think projects should allow members who are inherently opposed to the subject of the project, anyway. If the user thinks he can balance Arab-Israeli-conflict-related articles (which I doubt, but I will assume good faith), then he can just as easily do it from outside the project. In any case, the Arab-Israeli conflict is only a small part of the scope of this project. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I find Tiamut's remarks very weird and wonder why he wants to join this project (also nothing that he made only a handful of contributions since July). If no explanation will be given, I think we can safely delete his name from the list. Gmar chatima tova! --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, User:Heckhgs may also need to be deleted. His own user page states that he isn't really into editing articles and only placed his name on this project page because he 'hates Israel'.
And, Gmar Hatima Tova, of course. Have an easy fast. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted both and put up some rules. Do you agree with them?

Rules for joining

You must be an active editor, meaning that you are regularly on Wikipedia and not only once every few months. You must also be actively involved in editing Israel-related articles.

Agree? --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these are the rules for several projects I frequent, such as WikiProject Ice Hockey. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I thought this Wiki group was open to anyone who had an interest in editing articles related to Israel in a quality, non-biased fashion. It seems as though you are contradicting yourselves when you purge the only two joiners to your project who obviously don't idolize the Israeli state. Perhaps we might provide some important balance, no? For your information, I'm a citizen of that state and believe that I have a right to participate in both its real and virtual democratic realms. You can't just edit the rules for joining right after I join up just so as to specifically exclude me. Or is your objective not as described? Please respond. Thank you! Tiamut 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've reviewed some of the other project members' histories. User:Gronkmeister only joined Wikipedia in mid-September. If I open a new account and write everyday from the first day forward, can I join too? User:Ilikefood took a three month hiatus from Wikipedia between June and September of this year, about the same amount of time I was out of editing. Additionally, I have edited a number of Israel-related pages. In fact, how I came to know of this project was when I went to page for Tzippori which I have worked on and found it associated with this group, which is why I felt compelled to join. I also edited pages on Nazareth and Arab citizens of Israel. And, I don't edit once every few months. I edit a lot when I do log on and take breaks between logging on. I think your newly formulated "rules" need some reviewing. They are not being applied fairly across the board and without a minimum time being an editor at Wikipedia being stipulated, they don't make much sense. Accordingly, I have re-added my name to your project list. If you want to remove me again, I would appreciate a full and detailed explanation as to why. But I would prefer that we put this matter behind us and get to work. Tiamut 16:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I would support removing any editor who doesn't edit much and just added their name to this project for the sake of adding it, whether pro-Israeli or anti-Israeli. I have not personally reviewed any of the users' editing histories and cannot say which users should be removed, but if someone is willing to do this work, feel free to do so. If Tiamut does start to actively edit Israel-related articles, there is no problem for him being in the project (Tiamut: I will reply to your question on my talk page ASAP). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Tiamut, I was looking at the contributions of Gronkmeister and Ilikefood also. They should, according to the rules which I put up, also be removed. However, you and Heckcgs explicitly stated an objective which is very weird. It is like joining Wikiproject Palestine and saying you support Israel. People would be looking just as weird. I did not know that you are Israeli. If you are Israeli, and you are indeed planning to become a serious participant on Israel-related articles, then please add your name again (but perhaps without a whole megillah behind it). --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any point in knowledgable outsiders (and active editors) putting themselves forwards for membership of the WikiProject Israel? :PalestineRemembered

07:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Of course they are free to join! --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be in favor of anyone joining as long as they are willing to work with mutual respect and positive intentions. I think the participation of now Jews and non Israelis should be encouraged. I also don't think that the view of Israel has to be uniformly good, and if anything Jews as a people and Israel as a nation have/has a track record of accepting and engaging in self-criticism to their own improvement. It is part of our culture and just read the Israeli or diaspora Jewish press any day for numerous examples. I'm going to be honest here, what I do find unproductive and exausting, is working with people who harbor completely negative attitudes and intentions towards Israel, Jews, Judaism and who use the word "Zionism" as if it were a horrible curse and think it is perfectly OK to do this and still be operating within WP:CIVIL. (ie as if there are different civility rules based on who you are interacting with). PalestineRemembered has expressed a lot of open hostility towards Israel on Wikipedia. If she is going to participate in the Israel project in good faith, then sure she should join. If she joins with bad intentions, then the project will just turn into another place in the world to encounter hostility. Elizmr 02:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You were too kind Elizmr. I just noticed that PalestineRemembered has vandaliszed your page [1] in a way worthy of a ban no doubt. It seems PalestineRemembered should recruit to a Hamas/Hizballah project page (if they accept women that is) since it seems she wants Israel to be exterminated. Not a good canditate for the project I would presume. Amoruso 18:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think she meant to edit on my talk page, but didn't know the difference or something. But, yeah, the comments she left about Israel were remarkably vitriolic. Elizmr 19:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have apologised to Elizmr for posting my comment in the wrong place (I should really have realised my error when I found the page blank). He has my permission to delete that entry. If you catch me edit-warring in a POV fashion, I'm sure you'll feel free to make a right song and dance of it - in the meantime, I'd like to point you to WP:BITE, since I detect a concerted attempt to intimidate a newcomer (up to and including threatening them with a ban for a simple error).

I note your concern that the Wikipedia:Israel project be a fact-free zone and persons like myself excluded.

PalestineRemembered 19:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, PalRem, please chill out. "I note your concern that Wikipedia:Israel project be a fact-free zone" is a personal attack. If you are NOT here to disrupt, then this trolling is not a good wait to prove that. Elizmr 20:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You can post on user pages as much as you want, but please don't claim WP:BITE when you comment like this. [2] I really do think, respectfully, that from your comments you might be interested in opening up a wikiproject: Wiping off Zionism or Infidel Burning and discuss anti Israeli issues there. This page is not for you. And yes, it's perfectly ok to "bite at" rude people who have the audacity to wish for your and your nation's horrid death and then wish to participate in that country's "wikiproject". Amoruso 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering about the reasons for the PR's request. Why do you need to be listed as a member of the project? After all, that is the only benefit you get by joining. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa ... c'mon guys, what's with all the hostility here. I read PalestineRemembered comments, and while they may be difficult for some to hear, they do not warrant such miscahracterization, speculation, or vitriol. She does not "wish" that Israel would "die a horrid death," she merely expresses her opinion that that's where its heading if doesn't change the way it interacts with its neighbours. You can disagree with that opinion, you can say she's wrong, but to call the comments "vandalism", make libellous accusations of her being a member of the groups she discusses, or other such nonsense totally violates WP:AGF, WP:Civility and WP:BITE. She spologized for placing comments in the wrong place and she hasn't come close to responding with the same level of hostility towards individual statements here. Having experienced similar levels of hostility for totally benign statements that go against the majority opinion here (see my run-in, thankfully solved quickly with good faith on both our parts, with Lord Ameth below), perhaps it's time to reconsider the general attitude among members of the project towards those whose viewpoints differ from our own. Tiamut 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you support/will support her general support of terrorism/genocide as clearly written on Elizmr's talk page, I think you too should not participate in the project. Cheers. Amoruso 00:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I support her right to an opinion that is unfortunately being consistently attacked and misrepresented by you as support for the groups she discussed (and you're making a logical leap there. Any support is implicit, not explicit and you shouldn't jump to such conclusions. Just as you shouldn't use my defense of her right to an opinion to speculate about my own personal views). As long as her opinion does not impede her ability to abide by WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV in her edits- which in my experience, her actual article edits have generally respected, as a newbie no less! - I don't feel the need to denounce her, or slander her, or otherwise make character judgements unrelated to the task at hand. You have written a lot of bigoted things in talk pages ([3], and [4]), without even being cognizant of how offensive you are being, but I have never let those statements affect how I view the quality of your editing work itself. Sadly however, your editing work too is characterized by repeated and hostile POV pushing, and your interactions with others, particularly on this page, are breaches of WP:CIVILITY and WP:BITE. Tiamut 00:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut, I think your case and PRs are completely different. I looked at your edit history and you are a good editor and stand up for what you believe in. PR's hostile remarks re: Israel on various talk pages notwithstanding, I don't find her editing is expecially exlemplary with regard to WP:V and WP:NPOV, but as you say she is a newbie. I don't see any reason for defending her civility, however. Today, she called me an "infidel" on her talk page. This is about the ultimate in personal attacks. I think she needs to treat her fellow editors with a little more respect. Elizmr 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I respect that that is your take on things (though, the "infidels" reference, while inappropriate, wasn't an explicit personal attack, as in "you are an infidel." Assuming good faith, it could just be a sloppy choice of language; e.g. she might have been trying to say that she is uncomfortable with non-Muslims editing a page about Muslim holy sites in a way that is offensive to her and other Muslims on a page that she feels strongly should not exist. But you are right that she could have avoided that kind of escalation. Upon review of her page, I have to admit that I am largely sympathetic, since she seems to have had a rough introduction from day one, with a lot of harshly worded comments from fellow older and wiser editors that could also had been delivered more gently. Tiamut 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The infidels reference was completely over the top and inappropriate. I am willing to accept a lot of personal attacks, but that particular one (especially in the context of my trying to work with a Muslim editor and fix something that he had complained about to get it to NPOV) is unacceptable. Anyone who doesn't think a non-Muslim should be allowed to edit a Muslim topic page on Wikipedia and who actually calls those who do "infidels" are completely unable to abide by the NPOV policies of Wikipedia and should probably recuse themselves from editing. And to condone kind of WP:NPA doesn't really improve your reputation either. I'm 100% disgusted. PR should apologize to me and all the Jewish editors she called "infidels" Elizmr 20:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, whoa there ... there is no need to "yell" Breathe. :). As I pointed out in two examples above, Amoruso has written bigoted and offensive things as well in the heat of debate. I didn't bother asking for an apology, or making a big to-do about it, knowing I would not get one. I did ask Daniel575 for an apology for this [5] and I was not even answered. But in light of the very serious accusations you are making against my character while I am merely attempting to lower the level of hostility around here, I feel it deserves mention largely to highlight that my general approach to all racist statements is to point them out, ask for clarification or an apology, and usually let it drop while making a mental note in case the same thing becomes an issue in the future. (And by the way, I thought I was a "well-intentioned: and "serious" editor? Now all of a sudden because I disagree with you over the degree of seriousness of PalestineRemembered's statement, my credibility is suddenly in doubt and revealed as not having been great anyway?) . What I see happening to PalestineRemembered here and on his/her talk page is quite franklypsychological harassment. While I understand how the statement could be deeply offensive, it was again implicit, and you (and others) have chosen to take the worst possible interpretation. I might point out that you (and others here, with the exception of Okedem on the talk there) did not, when presented with Amoruso's bigoted statements. And it's fair to assume that I will see no similar bolded indignation after you read Daniel575's post provided as an example here. My point is, the degree of offensiveness is all in the eye of the beholder, and while I respect that you might be personally offended, there are better ways to express your dispproval then this. Tiamut 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think would be an appropriate way to express my disapproval. I left her a note on her talk page which she did not answer and I took exception with your tacit approval of her attacks here. I don't think that's too extreme. OK I used bold, but honestly, calling someone an infidel is nasty and hostile and deeply offensive especially when it is someone who practices one religion saying this about someone who practices another religion. It is just not OK.

I meant what I said about your editing, it is good, but when someone goes around calling another editor an "infidel" and you defend them it is not a good reflection on your integrity. I don't see this in black and white. You might notice that I haven't defended anyone's personal attacks just because I agree with them on broad issues.

Finally, asking someone to be civil to other editors and to follow Wikipedia rules is not psychological harassment. People who behave without civility on Wikipedia get asked to be CIVIL. Respect. Elizmr 23:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not interested in your attempt to protect Palestineremembered's disgusting comments but I am asking you to stop your lies (or innocent mistakes by WP:AGF something you violate all the time) immediately. How is conveying to someone your view of the conflict in light of 80% voting for Hamas, and explaining to him the nature of Hamas (listed as a terrorist organization by the entire western world) and the lynching in Ramalla bigoted ? And even if you do find it is, what does it have to do with calling other WIKIPEDIA USERS infidels, specific other users infidels. Again, you don't seem to understand or you seem to pretend to not understand what's WP:NPA. I ask you to stop your lies/innocent mistakes immediately, to stop trashing this page and trying to attack project users, and to apologise. Claiming that Arab states are not democraic is also a fact, not anything bigoted and I don't see Okedem telling me anything about it, which will seem another lie/innocent mistake by you. Thank you. Amoruso 22:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. I answered your questions in the talk pages where you made the longer comment in question. Read it again. I am trying to lower the resorts to hyperbole and rhetorical accusations, not increase them. You are entitled to your opinion. Peace out. Tiamut 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC) PS: I had meant to write that Okedem had stood up for me against Daniel575's comments, not yours. In my editing of that paragraph before posting, the two thoughts got separated. But because you failed to assume good faith, you immediately seized on the opportunity to once again cast aspersions on my character by jumping to the conclusion that I'm a liar. Thanks for that. Tiamut 23:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I never jumped at that conclusion. Read again. anyway you said "(and others here, with the exception of Okedem on the talk there) did not, when presented with Amoruso's bigoted statements." which is not true, if you made a mistake, you should have apologised, that's all. cheers. Amoruso 00:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tiamut you might want to have a look at WP:NPA and understand the difference between calling other users by name and talking about the conflict in general. I disagree with your assessments on the issue, I think it's based on nothing in reality and a poor accusation also an incivil attempt to change the issue from palestineremembered terrible recent behaviour. While that's her business, she should stay away from here since it's obvious she can't contribute to the project. Amoruso 01:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, I appreciate the more subdued and respectful tone in this latest post of yours. But saying "It seems PalestineRemembered should recruit to a Hamas/Hizballah project page (if they accept women that is) since it seems she wants Israel to be exterminated," is definitely not talking about the conflict in general terms, and seems very much like a personal attack to me. Calling her edit vandalism when she explained that she had posted in the wrong place and the content was a comment for a talk page doesn't seem fair either. Accusing us both of supporting terrorism/genocide, as in "If you support/will support her general support of terrorism/genocide as clearly written on Elizmr's talk page, I think you too should not participate in the project," is definitely a violation of WP:AGF and WP:Civility. It's just not nice and it is a personal attack on both of us. Finally, Wikiprojects should be open to everyone with a genuine editing interest, even if it comes from the total opposite spectrum of opinion. Remember that when I came here, I wrote a description of why I wanted to join the project that some people found offensive and incomprehensible and some tried to disqualify me from participating. Though we gradually worked things out, it would have been better and would be better for people to be a little less suspicious and hostile with one another and I include myself here too. It's a touchy subject for all of us and it doesn't help when we get rude or stubborn about things and breach Wiki guidelines and policies. Respect. Tiamut 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What I wrote about Palestineremembered is an accurate description after reading what she said. It's quite explicit and obvious to any intelligent person and that includes yourself of course. I never accused you of the same and on the contrary hoped you won't support the same horrific notions of palestineremembered which have no place in this wikiproject or any civilized wikiproject for that matter. I'm always abiding by WP:AGF and that includes you. I also abided by this before PR's latest comments as you can see in the history of her talk page when I never "bited" but on the contrary was very polite until it turned out she believes in jihad of infidels etc. Btw, the vandalism is not because it was on the user page but because of the jihadic content. Obviously that's also clear. Cheers. And out, it's really not a blog. Amoruso 02:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I also find PR's comments disgustingly offensive and uncivil. Moreover, I don't see how AGF or civility should apply to the offender. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the question I posted earlier (what's the benefit for someone like PR to be listed as a member of the project?) I think I got it: wasting other members' time. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. Don't engage if you think it's a distraction. All I am asking for is a little self-reflection and a true abidance by WP:AGF. It's not too much. Peace. Tiamut 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Humus, turn the other cheek. After all, after all the appalling things the Jews have done, you really can't expect anyone to pull their punches, can you? Tiamut, realistically, there is a point when one can no longer assume good faith. PR has crossed that line. Elizmr 23:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this list didn't get much attention at WP:WNBI, so I'm copying it here (minus articles already created):

Here's a short list of articles about people which don't exist on EnWiki yet, but do on HeWiki:

• David Bloch-Blumenfeld (or David Bloch) (he:דוד בלוך-בלומנפלד) - politician, former mayor of Tel Aviv
• Azriel Carlebach (he:עזריאל קרליבך) - journalist, founder of Maariv
• David Frishman (he:דוד פרישמן) - journalist, poet, writer
• Chaim Levanon (he:חיים לבנון) - politician, former mayor of Tel Aviv
• Moshe Leib Lilienblum (he:משה לייב לילינבלום) - Zionist, member of Hovevei Zion
• Alexander Marmorek (he:אלכסנדר מרמורק) - doctor, Zionist
• Igal Mosinzon (or Yigal Mosenzon) (he:יגאל מוסינזון) - writer, playwright
• Mordechai Namir (he:מרדכי נמיר) - politician, former mayor of Tel Aviv and head of Histadrut
• David Remez (he:דוד רמז) - politician, head of Histadrut
• Israel Rokach (he:ישראל רוקח) - politician, former mayor of Tel Aviv
• Menahem Sheinkin (he:מנחם שינקין) - Zionist, one of the founders of Tel Aviv
• Yosef Sprinzak (or Yosef Shprintzak) (he:יוסף שפרינצק) - politician, head of Histadrut, head of Knesset

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Law of Return Article

I started editing the Law of Return article. Any feedback on changes I made to the first half of the article are welcome. I could also use some help in locating citations for places that are currently missing some. Thanks! Tiamut 15:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

While there is already the Barnstar of National Merit, I think we should introduce an award that is more relevant to this project and also to similar projects like Judaism, Jewish history, etc. How about something like the WikiStar of David, for all the aforementioned projects? If it gets approved, I will work on an image (and encourage others to do so). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Go ahead. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Amoruso 22:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In Israel, those hanging flaps on a uniform shoulder are a big deal, they show what brigade someone is a part of, maybe a Wiki should flap? --יהושועEric 03:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I made an IDF Barnstar. I am not great with photoshop or any like program, but I did my best. Feel free to make a better version. Here is my original:

--יהושועEric 06:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made another image, see left. I think it is better and have arrogantly replaced the old image :P if you disagree, please say so and we will reach a consensus. As the image description says, blue was used as a background plus the sound emanation image in order to make it look kind of like Dover Zahal, who defends Israel in the media war. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ynhockey, now they're complaining that you used the Wikipedia logo, which is copyright protected. Can you replace it with something else (and by the way, I think it looks wonderful the way it is)? Jeffpw 10:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe just one piece of the puzzle with a language & letter of your choice? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who's 'they' but I thought it was permitted to use the Wikipedia logo inside Wikipedia... in any case, I will attempt to change the image, but don't have any good ideas. Not that great with image editing software either. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"They" are User:Striver &co. at WP:ANI#IDF barnstar?!. Perhaps we could reuse this image: ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have since corrected the image in order not to use the Wikipedia logo. Please comment. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looks beautiful. If anyone complains about it now, they would be doing so solely to be argumentative. Jeffpw 11:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Great! Incidentally, I'd appreciate suggestions or help for improvement of The Bagel of Zion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The article on the Rock of the Dome of the Rock, the Rock on which Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac, is currently listed under Sakhrah, the Arabic term. I personally have never heard of it being called "The Foundation Stone" before, nor am I familiar with the Hebrew word. But if anyone has any suggestions, I would invite you to contribute to a discussion on that article's talk page; we're looking to find a term, preferably in English, which accurately and specifically describes said Rock, and which will be acceptable to editors and readers of both faiths. Thank you. LordAmeth 22:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have heard the term "foundation stone" before, but I am not sure if there is a standard name for it in English. --יהושועEric 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The even ha'shtiyah in Hebrew. Another example of an article about a subject which is both Jewish and Islamic, yet only an 'Islamic' article. Previously I encountered Peace be upon him (alav ha'shalom), which was also an Islam-only article then. I split that up in three articles: one about the expression in Judaism, one about Islam, and one disambig. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, shalom alechem v'alechem shalom! --יהושועEric 03:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a general article about Israeli cuisine. Does one exist? Israeli food is just a redirect to Category:Israeli cuisine. (This question came up because I was trying to figure out what would be considered the typical native alcoholic beverage of Israel.) --Metropolitan90 05:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Typical beverages in Israel:

Beer - (domestic) Goldstar, Maccabbee, (import) Tuborg, Heineken

Liqour - Sabra, Arak (domestic)

General Wines, domestic from the Golan

I am not sure if there are pages for those, or if they are spelled correctly, but that is what Israelis drink.

• Thanks for the information. I'm still looking for the general food article, though. --Metropolitan90 05:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

no it doesn't exist yet. I was thinking of writing one. Jewish cuisine exists and Israeli wine, that's it. Amoruso 15:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also Levantine cuisine, but it's not much. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have some drafts on my pc. I hope to write it one day soon, if not written before. Amoruso 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering whether you'd agree we need to change the picture of the template at Yom Kippur War. Israel won the war and that picture may be misleading as it only represents the beginning of the war. I was thinking something could be made like the picture in the template of 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict that shows 3 pictures including bombed areas both in lebanon and haifa making it fair and balanced. Maybe one can add Ariel Sharon's picture with a bandage, famous icon photo of the war or some other photo next to the egyptian soldiers. If people agree, maybe someone with good photo and wiki skills can create that image and use it ? Amoruso 02:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a subcategory "Companies in Israel" or "Companies with facilities in Israel"? This would include Intel, Motorola, IBM, AOL, and a long, long list of other tech companies that have major operations in Israel.

purpose? Elizmr 02:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC) I don't want to be paranoid, but maybe this would just give the boycott movement a helpful list of companies to target. Elizmr 02:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking it could be useful for people who like Israel. They could see the good companies that have operations in Israel. Like Intel, Motorola, AOL, McDonald's, Burger King, Delta Airlines, etc. They are companies that have a significant effect on the Israeli economy. Seeing as they are significant to the economy, they deserve a subcategory. At least I think so. --יהושועEric 02:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You should just go for it. Maybe I was being paranoid :=) Elizmr 02:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See the concerns over Talk:Israel#Permanent semi-protection. I wonder how we can address the issue that Israel's article will be attacked fervently but it seems that nobody is concerned with articles concerning Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran... I would have thought that the same amount of users, non Israelis or Jews or with Israeli past, who are concerned with the article, will also be concerned with other country articles - but it doesn't work that way... those articles are left dignified and under no attacks, no mention of controversies, no WP:POV warring. They are presented as normal country articles where the lead is always very factual and sympahetic. I wonder why and how can wikipedia have a standard format for WP:LEAD in country articles and try to eliminate the prejudice of haters of Israel in the Israel article. The main issue is that Israel is regarded by those users as not a normal country. The user Dainelos who is not an Arab or a hater but proposed many changes also claimed that Israel is a "unique country" etc. I feel that this line of thought is an attack on Israel's sovregnity as state and I just wonder if there can be some perspective or edits by us on other country articles in the region atleast to attempt to balance the heavy and undue bias. Amoruso 07:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the Israel intro keeps getting changed is that it is tends to be formulated in a fashion that is baised and contentious. Instead of merely mentioning that Israel is a parliamentary democracy, some users, like yourself, insist on making unqualified statements that "it is the only democracy in the Middle East". When faced with opposition by netural third parties, like Danielos, who as you point out is neither "Arab or a hater," you refuse to give ground, sticking to your propaganda line. The other articles you mentioned do not seem to be beset by those problems because they are not trying to prove some propaganda point in their intros. Though you are correct in noting that the Israel page will face problems because many people do view it as "unique"; indeed, this is partially because it posits itself as unique (i.e. "only Jewish state", "only democracy", etc.) but also because it continues to illegally occupy land, build walls, refuse to repatriate refugees, etc., etc. gravely offensive actions to people directly affected by those policies. No? Tiamut 11:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Needless to say I disagree with everything you said. In fact, I believe you're disruptive to the project with your extreme bias against Israel and do not belong in it. Amoruso 11:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Tiamut, I have several things to say.

1. The Israel article needs to be semi-protected because of people like you who are extremely biased againt Israel. Articles on Syria, Jordan etc do not need to be protected because most people (including people who support Israel) are not prejudicial or racist vandals, and are the kind of person who sees no need to go out of their way to attack other people's countries or cultures.
2. Accusing Israel of illegally occupying land is like accusing any other country of illegally occupying land. The UK does not illegally occupy Northumbria, the US does not illegally occupy Arizona or Hawaii, China is not illegally occupying Manchuria, and Egypt is not illegally occupying the Sinai. Land gained by purchase, by treaty, or by other agreement is legal land. And building just about anything on that land is therefore legal, including walls meant to protect one's populace from repeated violent terrorist attacks.
3. Surely you won't argue that Israel is not the only Jewish state in the world? Israel is just as unique as any other country, and has a right to that uniqueness. If you claimed that Syria, Jordan, Iraq were all unique in their own ways, I would not argue against that. As for being the only democracy, that too is not a propaganda line. It is a fact. Can you name a single Middle Eastern country other than Israel that has the same degree of free elections, parliamentary procedures, and isn't controlled by a dictator or non-elected theocratic oligarchy? More to the point, can you name a single country whose citizens enjoy the same degree of personal freedoms that Israelis do? Are Jews treated as fairly and kindly in any Arab country as Arabs are in Israel? Muslims are as free as anyone else to practice their religion freely and openly in Israel - I doubt that Jews would enjoy that same freedom in most parts of the world.
4. Please be civil. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Your personal and cultural attacks are not productive in any way. I do believe I have warned you before, but I shall do so again. If you post this sort of biased, intentionally anti-productive comment again, I will take steps towards banning you from editing. Please take care to think about what you are going to write before you write it, and to put aside your own personal bias, for the sake of Wikipedia, which seeks to represent historical and contemporary fact, not bias. LordAmeth 13:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ameth, I fail to see how my comments were "anti-productive". This is a discussion page, not an article, and one's opinion on a matter introduced by others is allowed to be expressed. Amoruso and I have been deeply engaged on the talk pages over the Israel article. He brought the matter to the attention of the members of the Wikiproject:Israel, where I am also a member. He expressed his opinion and I offered my opinion. I did not make any "personal" or "cultural" attacks. Nor do my edits to the Israel article show any evidence of being those of a "prejudicial and racist vandal." I am not attacking "other people's countries"; Israel/Palestine is my country. My family's roots here go back more than 800 years, I am citizen of Israel itself, and I live here. I welcome any and all reviews of my correspondence or editing content. Please do call for an outside mediator should you find it necessary. I believe that any impartial observer will find that I am serious editor, interested in accomodating other points of views and able to reach agreement with others when they are serious about NPOV. Thanks for listening. Tiamut 13:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize... now that I re-read the discussion above, I see that I was jumping to conclusions. You and Amuruso do appear to be having a rather civil discussion, and I should not have leapt down your throat there. I do consider myself a serious editor as well, and try my best to be a non-biased one; I hope I have not made an irrevocably poor first impression. Nevertheless, I think the points I made about the legality of Israel's actions, its unique identity, and the freedoms enjoyed there are important and true. Surely as a citizen of Israel you must appreciate the condition of your own country. LordAmeth 14:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

LordAmeth, thanks for apologizing to Tiamut. You must have had a really bad mood when you wrote that whole attack on Tiamut. You were judging too fast, way too harsh and much too reckless. About the 'Nevertheless' part - that is correct. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem my friend. I understand how touchy this subject can be to all who have emotional investment in the issue. I often have to breathe several times before responding and re-read people's posts to make sure that I am not overreacting. The points you brought up are difficult to address here since my viewpoint is very different than your own, and we are not likely to reach consensus.

But, On the legality of Israel's occupation and the wall, please see:[6].

As for your questions:

1) Can you name a single Middle Eastern country other than Israel that has the same degree of free elections, parliamentary procedures, and isn't controlled by a dictator or non-elected theocratic oligarchy? Answer: Lebanon and Turkey. 2) More to the point, can you name a single country whose citizens enjoy the same degree of personal freedoms that Israelis do? Answer: Lebanon and Turkey. 3) Are Jews treated as fairly and kindly in any Arab country as Arabs are in Israel? Answer: Yes. In Morocco, Jews hold high positions in the current government as ministers and legislators.

Finally, as a non-Jewish citizen of Israel, I do have a pretty good idea of the conditions in this country, and I do not think they are the best that they could be for someone like me. That's a wholly personal opinion, but one forged out of experience. If you want to know more, I would be happy to share. Thanks for listening. Tiamut 15:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that we have enough articles that we should work on a rating system for Israel articles. We should strive to have the best quality articles representing Israel, maybe a few featured articles in there too.

I see no reason why we should not use the assessment scale used by many other WikiProjects and codified over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ. I personally do not have a clue how to implement assessment classes into the project banner, but I'm sure that someone around here who's more skilled and inclined can modify the banner template and organize an Assessment section (or sub-page) on the WikiProject page here. Sorry I'm of not much help :( But it's a great idea, and I'd be happy to start assessing things once the system is in place. LordAmeth 17:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am up for assesing too, but I don't know where to start. --יהושועEric 22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I just started a rating system sub-page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel/Assessment. The template needs to be edited to allow for the relevant changes, and is beyond my Wiki knowledge. Please help edit and complete this page to begin rating articles. We should have a large number of quality articles on Israel, and should work together to achieve more of them. --יהושועEric 03:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We're going to have to put an eye on it... see [7]. Perhaps we can use the maps that Encarta or National Geographic use. See discussion talk. We can't let the map of Israel be an extreme WP:POV version IMO. Amoruso 06:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking, and the Israel portal hasn't been updated in about a month. I think we should put up a new picture and selected article.

We might also post something about rating articles as we had discussed earlier.

Just a thought, --יהושועEric 19:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The portal was half-broken for a while, I just completed the migration to a newer simpler framework, so now it should be a matter of clicking edit. I would appreciate some help there. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering how the total area of Israel was calculated since Israel has no declared borders ?

I spend some time on that crazy stuff at http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category_talk:Israel . Check the bottom of that page. Need others to help me. After I said the guy is an antisemitic bigot who belongs in a psychiatric hospital (read his quotes before condemning me for saying such things), two other administratos immediately attacked me. Note that the antisemitic bigot in question, PVJ, is himself an administrator also. I already have three administrators against me on Wikinews, because I refuse to be polite against someone who calls for the annihalation of every Israeli and denies that it exists in the first place. Moreover, it is simply shocking that a person with such views is an ADMINISTRATOR there. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That was hilarious there. That guy from India cracked me up, I can't believe they kept his bull for so long. Amoruso 22:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 16:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 Jerusalem gay pride parade. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is project worthy, for now. Right now it's just an event (or a planned event, who knows, it might get cancelled) that is happening in Israel. I would include it perhaps in an article on Culture or Gay Culture in Israel. If this event turns out to be an EVENT, then it might warrant a larger article. For now, I think the article is OK as is without getting more involved. Yossiea 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Right now it has involved all politicians, Knesset debates, thousand of police officers have been scheduled to guard it, death threaths are flying around and people are preparing for a war. If this is not an event worthy of an article, nothing is. There are only two options: either the police will forbid the event (perhaps only at the last minute) anyway, or there will be dozens of deaths and hundreds of wounded. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So? The article as it stands now is more than enough for a planned event. Yossiea 18:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. So what's the problem? I just posted it so that anyone who wishes can join in, and to inform others that there is such an article now, so that we won't get a duplicate. What's the problem? --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I thought that you posting it here meant that you want it to become a project. Like the ORBOTW, or something similar. Yossiea 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, no. Just to inform people of the article's existence. Also, I'm not the person to write anything positive about it. I can only write negatively about it. Recognizing that fact, I'm calling on the others here to ensure NPOV. The section on 'Opposition' is entirely factual and full of links. But I'm not the one to write a section called 'Support'. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there is a guideline for Israel-related articles, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Israel-related articles) or something similar. —Viriditas | Talk 00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure if HERE is the right place or WP:WNBI or someplace else, so let me know what you think, for future cases. :)

Recently I checked the article on Karmiel and noticed some info was added to the history section about Karmiel's establishment. This info is from a book by Sabri Jiryis (with a Noam Chomsky foreword), so it seems bias is likely. Can anyone shed more light on this from another perspective?

ehudshapira 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I need some help with the above entry. See the discussion on Talk:Operation Autumn Clouds. Thanks. El_C 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi: See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 23#Category:Anti-Semitic people. Thank you. IZAK 10:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out the list of massacres commited by Israeli forces. Although many of these events can undoubtably be described as massacres, some of them use the term in a highly debatable way. I suggest either changing the name of the article or (preferably) deleting the more debatable "massacres" from the list (Beit Hanoun and 2006 Qana are the ones I am most disturbed by). --GHcool 07:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an effort to turn WP Project Israel into WP Project anti-Israel by POV warriors like this [8]. Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's sad that one cannot have a project focused on Israeli culture or history without this kind of political, ideological battle coming up. I also think it incredibly sad that anyone believes a single word out of Mr. Chomsky's mouth. But then, that's just my own personal opinion. LordAmeth 22:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The stated "Goals" of WikiProject Israel are stated very clearly on the project page. Users who join the project are expected to "[c]reate and maintain fair and unbiased information on Israel, including history, culture, and geography." I interpret this statement to mean that both supporters and critics of the modern State of Israel are welcome to join the project, provided that they keep their opinions to themselves within the articles (what they say on talk pages is a different story). That being said, User:Pco fails this criteria by his/her edit on December 13, 2006 in which he called defined Zionism as "the separation of people by race or religion" and alleged that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's low approval rating within Israel is "due to his strict Zionist policies toward separating all Jews from all Muslims." This is a purposely devious, selective, and twisted perception of the Israel's unilateral disengagement plan that crosses POV and OR lines. By this logic, Likud would have been Pco's party of choice in the 2006 Israeli election because a major part of its platform was against the Gaza disengagement! I hope that as a member of WikiProject Israel, Pco will conduct him/herself more respectfully of in the future. --GHcool 07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is Pco?

Accusations made by Pco

• "To say that [racial discrimination] cannot be connected to the Zionist movement is false. ... By allowing the content in the intro [of the article on Zionism and racism] as it is, you want to have it both ways... first it says that discrimination is okay because the jewish [sic] people have suffered discrimination, then it says that it is not 'the majority view of Zionism.'" - Pco. Talk:Zionism_and_racism#Zionism_and_racism_Intro. December 2006.
• "With Israeli President Olmert's [sic] approval rating below 20% due to his strict Zionist policies toward separating all Jews from all Muslims, one must assume that the majority of Israel's citizens are not Zionist." - Pco. Zionism. 13 December 2006. User:Jpgordon was correct in reverting this edit for "either WP:NPOV or WP:NOR."[9]
• "Similar to George Bush's statement 'You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists', [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert was quoted as saying 'Whoever believes in the right of the Jewish People to have a sovereign Jewish state in any part of the Land of Israel is a Zionist." - Pco. Talk:Zionism#Modern_Zionism_.28in_progress.29. 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
• "While most people have accepted Israel's right to occupy land in Palestine, the most vocal critics of Zionism base their criticism on Israel's failure to comply with the United Nations Resolution 242 ... that was mutually agreed upon in 1968 to divide the land equitably and return land to Palestinians that had been taken during the recent war and was being occupied by the State of Israel at that time." - Pco. Talk:Zionism#Modern_Zionism_.28in_progress.29. 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

The Reality

Like most proponents of the "Zionism is racism" UN resolution, Pco has probably never heard or read an NPOV definition of Zionism so she could decide for herself[10] whether or not Zionism is actually racism. According to Random House Webster's College Dictionary, Zionism is simply "a worldwide Jewish movement for the establishment and development of the State of Israel." Like any political ideology, there is a wide variety of interpretation of this ideology (Christian Zionism, Labor Zionism, etc.), but what they all have in common is exactly what Olmert said: the belief that the Jewish people have a right to a sovereign Jewish state in at least a part of the Land of Israel. It is doubtful that any reasonable, fair-minded person aware of the history of the Jews and of the Middle East would be against the development of a modern nation in the Middle East safe for Jews to live in (assuming that person is not from a nation that is in a state of war with that nation). Furthermore, Zionism is a term that more accurately reflects a pre-Jewish state mentality than for identification with the State of Israel in the 21st century. For a rebuttal to Pco's unreferenced, confused, and misinformed take on Resolution 242, you're welcome to read it here.

Luckily, unlike Pco, most Wikipedians play by the rules of reliable citations, no original research, and (for the most part) NPOV. Pco has also been warned for violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.[11] Although as far as I know, Wikipedia does not have a rule against wacko opinions (provided they are not included into articles as original research), its important to note that Pco has a funny way of defining what is and is not racist. Her defense of the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in Iran in which she wrote, "I think that a holocaust deniers [sic] conference is a good idea" (emphasis added) speaks volumes about where her point of view when it comes to the Jewish state, Jewish history, and perhaps even Judaism in general.[12] For this reason, I urge honest Wikipedians not to take anything that Pco says seriously on any matter pertaining to the Jewish people. Perhaps its time for Pco to resign from WikiProject Israel ... --GHcool 08:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

An Atlas of Israel can now be found at Commons. Electionworld Talk? 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I read this article on the Middle East Forum website and was surprised to find that there is very little on Wikipedia about the issue of hate education in the Palestinian territories. Of course, the title would have to be more NPOV than "Hate education in the Palestinian territories," but the phenomenon is an important factor in the Arab-Israeli conflict. There must be dozens, if not hundreds, of sources on the topic. As far as I know, there is no WikiProject Palestinian Authority, so should we build this page? --GHcool 20:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about a project, but see Palestinian textbooks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's great, but do you think we can expand the article to include the media (such as the childrens' programming mentioned in the article above)? --GHcool 06:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is Category:Education in the Palestinian territories and article Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. I've just written an article on Norihiro Yasue, one of the Japanese army officers involved in formulating the Fugu Plan, which, while quite misguided in the reasoning behind it, did save many Jewish lives during the war. The article on him on the Japanese Wikipedia indicates that he was involved in founding Israel, which is impossible since he was in a Soviet labor camp from 1945 until his death in 1950. However, he did meet with Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion in 1926. Does anyone know anything more about this, and what role he may have had? The Japanese Wikipedia article also indicates that he was inscribed in "The Golden Book" as a person who helped make humanity great or something to that effect. A quick cursory search reveals nothing about this Golden Book at all, on the English Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Thanks. LordAmeth 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, interesting. Just a guess: "The Golden Book" may have some relation to Yad Vashem and Righteous Among the Nations. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I made this template {{World Heritage Sites in Israel}} based on the other World Heritage Sites navigation templates. Could anyone please review and possibly approve before I start adding it to the blue linked articles? Also if anyone would like to help start the two articles that aren't started, that would be great. DVD+ R/W 02:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict has now been reopened. It seems to cover similar ground that our WikiProject covers. Should we join it? --GHcool 07:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a WikiProject Palestine, for those editors who want to work on Palestine-related articles? Should we begin one?

I note this in the "NPOV" section:

"Do not be biased towards Israel, simply state facts. However, protect pages against other biases."

"Other biases"? Erm, hello? You have set up a project whose idea of "NPOV" is to protect pages against other points of view than a pro-Israeli one? Would you find it acceptable were there a statement of intent in another project that said "Do not be biased against Israel. However, protect pages against pro-Israeli bias"? Grace Note 05:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I see there is a WP of that name. A much poorer relative, aptly. Maybe you should merge? Grace Note 05:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever NPOV section was there isn't there now and it doesn't look like they currently have any members. We shall see ... --GHcool 07:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Israel is the same as WikiProject Brazil or any other wikiproject, most countries have one. It has nothing to do with NPOV or POV etc. Amoruso 12:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

While the new layout is pretty, I don't think it is very functional. I think having a one page project page would work better and keep WP Israel closer to other Wikiprojects. Before I do anything to revert it, I think it would be best to have a vote. Please vote affirm to vote for changing to one page or against to leave it the way it is. Sign your posts. --יהושועEric 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (Deadline to vote Wednesday at midnight Israel time.)

Affirm - More efficient, similar to other projects. --יהושועEric 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Affirm - per above. --GHcool 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Affirm. LordAmeth 19:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks unanimous. I will fix it up tonight. --יהושועEric 04:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article is not neutral i have left a point on the discussion board but no-one has replied.Squall1991 09:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping some of you might take a look at a dispute between myself and NYScholar at the bottom of the Palestine Peace not Apartheid discussion page (Section 19: "Criticism vs. Carter's response") and weigh in. To me it seems that the main article is very much not neutral and skewed toward's Carter's POV, but NYScholar is trying to reject my proposed changes. Any input would be appreciated. Gni 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a big addition under the premise that the situation under the british mandate was basically a "binational solution" without a state. I'm guessing it's likely to be challenged. Please check it out, --Urthogie 23:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"I am Israeli so i can get a lot of good info and rid wikipedia of the anti-semitism on it ", " I am definitely a defender of Israel", "Yey for Israel","Israel!!!!!" Pretty much sums up the "No-point of View" Wikipedia Israel project. The article itself talks about anti-semitism but makes no reference to pro-Israel propoganda distortions which appear on pretty much every Wikipedia Israel page. The only balanced positions tend to be found in the discussions - but even those are subject to deletions. Reading those its clear who always has their way - there is in fact a very strong pro-Israeli point of view as expressed in the quotes above pervading just about every Israel page. For those of us with some knowledge - often laughably biased. Anyone looking for balance should look elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.240.24 (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to cite the quotes you supplied? If not, please read WP:SOAPBOX. --GHcool 18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

They are over the page on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel#Members. Number 57 18:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Number 57 can help the unsigned vandal with citing the exact instance that any of the WikiProject Israel members said those quotations. Or perhaps not. --GHcool 20:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you demand such proof (do you really believe that someone else added the comments to make WikiProject Israel members look bad?), but: I am Israeli so i can get a lot of good info and rid wikipedia of the anti-semitism on it, I am definitely a defender of Israel, Yey for Israel, Israel!!!!! Number 57 21:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I haven't looked at the member page in a long time. I stand corrected. However, I still think that the unsigned poster is trying to pick a fight. --GHcool 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not part of the project but while browsing wikipedia I came upon the Israeli Unit 101. The article was strangely worded so i went to the discussion page and to my surprise found it was under the WikiProject Palestine and not WikiProject Israel. I found that odd since it was talking about an Israeli unit. --Hadees 03:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not part of the project but I was looking in Google Earth and see that there is an option to ad links to wikipedia there, and saw that Israel is very underrepresented in this aspect. does someone know more about this? do other people want to participate? it seems that if you put in coordinates in the wikipedia article, google once in a while adds it to the google earth/map. Moblid 09:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I started a rating system sub-page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel/Assessment. The template needs to be edited to allow for the relevant changes, and is beyond my Wiki knowledge. Please help edit and complete this page to begin rating articles. We should have a large number of quality articles on Israel, and should work together to achieve more of them. --יהושועEric 03:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the template to allow for classification. I would like to add one of those grids to the project page saying how many articles we have in each category. If you know how, please go ahead and add it. I do not know how, but will try to research it if no one works on it. --יהושועEric 06:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I figured out all of the technical stuff and the system is working. However, there are more than 525 Israel articles on Wikipedia. Please help tag them all! --יהושועEric 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a big addition under the premise that the situation under the british mandate was basically a "binational solution" without a state. I'm guessing it's likely to be challenged. Please check it out, --Urthogie 14:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a revert war brewing on that page.Bakaman 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In being a frequent editor to the politics section, I am troubled by the amount of links to Arutz Sheva and Israel National News pieces being used as references by a small but persistant group of editors, particularly noticeable in the Israel's unilateral disengagement plan article. My opinion is that they definitely aren't credible sources - they're right wing propaganda tools of the settlers (one article for instance claims 250,000 at a protest march, whilst Ynet puts it at 70,000).

Perhaps we should draw up a list of reliable sources on Israeli affairs. To begin with, I suggest:

• Haaretz
• CNN
• Jerusalem Post
• Ynet
• International Herald Tribune
• Reuters
• Associated Press
• BBC
• Washington Post.

However, there is also a problem with JPost and Haaretz articles that they disappear quite quickly - all the ones I checked from the disengagement article were broken. It's also shame that Ma'ariv don't have an English version. Number 57 12:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer not to arbitrarily list reliable sources because such a list would imply that all sources that are not on the list are unreliable on all aspects of Israeli affairs, which is simply not true. --GHcool 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva is no more biased than Ha'Aretz. I think its safe to say that all media outlets in Israel are biased in one direction or another. And most are government controlled. Therefore the only way to allow ballance is to include them all, including those that function independent of state control.--Divina SJ 09:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Both positions (for and against a reliable list) prove problematic in a vacuum... Having a list of "reliable" sources creates two problems:

1. Reliable sources not on the list become perceived as unreliable due to not appearing on the list, as stated by Divina.

2. Sources on the list may be taken for granted as reliable even though they, too, may err on occassion (e.g. see Photo Fraud in Lebanon).

On the other hand, absent a list of "trusted" sources one can never write any statement as fact because, in most cases, at least two sources not on the "trusted" list will contradict each other (e.g. Arutz-7 and Electronic Intifada).

I propose we adopt a list of "core," "trusted," or "reliable" sources as well as a list of "untrusted," "deceitful," or "unreliable sources, as well as adopt the following rules to govern their use:

1. Any fact agreed upon by at least two of the "trusted" sources and not disputed by the remaining "trusted" sources shall be considered factual and should be stated as fact with citation.

2. Any fact agreed upon by the majority of the "trusted" sources but disputed by one or two sources shall be considered fact and should be stated as fact with citation, but should also contain an acknowledgement of the contradicting statement.

3. Any fact disagreed upon by the majority of the "trusted" sources shall be considerd totally disputed, and all contradicting statements must be listed with explicit attribution and citation.

4. Any fact not contradicted by the "reliable" sources may appear as a statement of fact with citation from a source not on the "unreliable" list.

5. Any fact given in a "trusted" source contradicted by an external source not on the "unreliable" list shall be considered "disputed" only when the contradicting external sources outnumber the "trusted" sources by 3:2.

I propose the the following list of "untrusted" sources (please add):

* Electronic Intifada

* Arutz-7

^^^^ Michael Safyan 04:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I stated that "[r]eliable sources not on the list become perceived as unreliable due to not appearing on the list," not Divina. Secondly, I still strongly believe and support that statement and no matter how many lists or eligibility rules for getting put on each lists we have on WikiProject Israel, it still is problematic. The only kind of list I would accept would be a recommended source list. This list would include all of the publications in the above proposed reliable source list as well as several encyclopedias, history books, commentary books, academic publications, etc. --GHcool 05:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone finds the time, I believe it would be useful to closely review the Contributions of a bot I just blocked for inserting en mass the wikiproject template in what appears to be less than accurate manner. (more details available here). בברכה, El_C 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked the bot owner to insert the template on every page in category Israel and all of the subcategories. There are too many pages to do it manually, and I think it would be easier to remove the bad ones than add them all ourselves. --יהושועEric 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the bot did an excellent job and am puzzled as to why El_C reverted its edits. It probably made some mistakes (even though I haven't personally noticed any), but I agree with Eric that it's much easier to remove a few mistakes than manually adding all the templates to the appropriate pages. I have asked El_C about the reverts, and he has replied with:

Now that I look at it, t'was 35-minutes of non-stop rollbacking. I am so great, G-R-E-T (& S-M-R-T., too). I hope that answers your question! בברכה, El_C 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we will get a more satisfactory answer soon. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I know for definate there was some mis-taggings. Some bad categorisation it seems - ie articles in sub categories of Israel, that shouldnt be there... Hence the bad tagging. El_C's reverts should have removed the bad tags, aswell as some correct ones, i noticed he has left some that must've been obviously correct.

No matter, i am prepared to retag all the necessary pages after someone has checked out the categories for me. I'd rather not do another mass tagging spree to cause loads of problems again. Im proposing, to start with, just doing Category:Israel stubs, i can automatically tag them as a stub, and reduce some of the assessment workload.

If people can post categories they know are ok, i shall get on with tagging them for you. Reedy Boy 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

From the sample I did, about 10-to-20 percent of talkpages were mis-tagged, which out of ~1,500 amounts to ... a lot. I think it made much more sense, then (as I wrote directly above Ynhockey's note — I'm surprised he overlooked it and thought my whimsical comment was the explanation!), to undo everything and let the bot redo it from scratch, with the issues which caused the mis-tagging resolved (I saw a good explanation as to why it happned, but I'm unable to find it now). Basically, doing all of this automatically saves everyone a lot of time and energy. I'm confident that Reedy Boy's ongoing (revised) effort will address the concerns which currently plague both our talk pages. Please be patient and give him and his bot some time; he is re-tagging as we speak. Many thanks. בברכה, El_C 00:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, I was looking at the WP Israel Statistics and noticed that we don't have any articles with a quality higher than B-class. That makes me sad. I was thinking that a collaboration (similar to the Orthodox Rabbi of the Week at WP Judaism) is in order. Do people support this? Would you help? Should it be weekly, biweekly, monthly? Speak your opinion here. I will make a template and subpage for it if that is the consensus.

At the moment I will make a weekly template. After more people chime in I will change it if needed. --יהושועEric 07:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The new article is going to be picked tomorrow. Please add articles and vote! --יהושועEric 17:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

• I support a weekly collaboration picked from a nominations list. --יהושועEric 00:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• I support a monthly collaboration picked from a nominations list. --GHcool 00:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• I support a biweekly collaboration picked from a nominations list. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• I support a biweekly collaboration Derwig 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Elie Yossef (6 hits on google), Karma Feinstein-Cohen (18 hits) and Yehuda HaKohen. The latter is ridiculously overdetailed for such a minor personality, suggesting it is either self-written or produced by an associate. They seem to be springing from overpromotion of the Magshimey Herut and the Zionist Freedom Alliance, two organisations I have never heard of despite a pretty detailed knowledge of the Israeli political scene.

As I have not nominated an article for deletion before, I thought I'd seek some opinions whether it's an appropriate course for these. Number 57 14:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Some input from members of WikiProject Israel is requested in regards to a peer review for the Jerusalem article:

Jerusalem

I have been working on this article for the past three months and I'm hoping to put this up for featured article status sometime in the near future. Essentially, I'm looking for a critique of the article and suggestions for things that might need to be rectified prior to submitting it for a featured article candidacy.

• I was a bit worried about the length of the article, but I personally feel it is okay since much of the kilobyte-age comes from the large number of sources rather than from over-the-top text. However, if you disagree, please do offer up suggestions for shortening the article.
• Because I know the Jerusalem article is (somewhat) controversial, I want to make sure any issues with neutrality (especially in regards to the capital issue) are squared away before making a final submittal. I believe I did a good job, but perhaps something is subtly biased that I did not notice.
• A good look at the prose would be great. I just finished writing the last section, so I haven't gotten the chance to do a thorough proofread; I'll proceed to do that this week while this peer review takes place, but by all means chip in.
• I want to ensure the facts are correct. I have never been to Jerusalem, so my writing comes exclusively from extensive research. If something looks factually incorrect, please fix it or make a note of it (although please use caution if the change will conflict with a source). If a source was misinterpreted, please please fix it or make a note of it.
• I want to ensure foreign-language words are used and/or translated properly, since I'm not knowledgeable in Hebrew or Arabic.
• I'm not sure what to say about local, city, or municipal government in Jerusalem. I may have to keep it short, but if anyone can think of any ideas, that would be great.

You are, of course, welcome to assist in other areas as well. Thanks in advance for any help you may provide. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of more citations from the Holy Scriptures? WikiNew 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you believe additional citations from religious texts would be useful? -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks great overall; I have a few POV issues, but I'm sure these are just oversights, and I certainly do not make any accusations as to your opinions or anything like that; we must work together to make these sorts of things as objective as possible, and it's a tough business. I just have a few minor stylistic questions. Rather than go in and mess with your wording myself, I thought I should let you work on your own project.
  1. "and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre among different sects of Christians." -- different from what? would this be better as "some sects" or "various sects"?
  2. "while majority Palestinian areas dominate the north, east and south of the Old City" I think I get what you mean - "areas where there is a Palestinian majority" rather than "the majority of areas which are Palestinian/ majority of Palestinian areas" - but this is a bit ambiguous as it reads now.
  3. The section on The Temple Periods ends by saying that for over 18 centuries Jerusalem was not the capital of any independent state; I like this. It's accurate, it's dramatic, and it's an interesting historical fact. But I think that as this could be taken as a political (i.e. POV biased) statement, it should perhaps be balanced by a brief description of the fact that no independent state called Palestine has ever existed and/or of the Greco-Roman origins of the word.
  4. The last few sentences of the State of Israel section in the history also seems to be a bit tilted. Perhaps a slight expansion would be pertinent on the problems with the city being split, and the causes of the Six-Day War. As it stands right now, I feel it reads as though Israel's capture of East Jerusalem was entirely selfish and vicious, and that its rule/sovereignty over the united city is somehow unfair or unjust.
  5. A more explicit mention of the Three Hills (Mount of Olives, Mount Zion, and Temple Mount) and Three Valleys might be good in the geography section.
  6. In the Capital section, "only two members of the United Nations — Costa Rica and El Salvador — have their embassies located within the city limits of Jerusalem...and several consulates within the city itself." Are these consulates of Costa Rica and Ecuador, or consulates of other nations? Seems unclear from the wording.

Thanks for your hard work. I truly do apologize for introducing POV issues into this, but I think a few minor changes here and there would be good to ensure the objectivity of the article's message. LordAmeth 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll get back to you on a couple of these points, but it may be best for you to address a few yourself because I don't see the ambiguity with some of them, particularly with your second point. I added the number of consulates in regards to your second point, but I didn't specifically mention that those consulates did not include Costa Rica and El Salvador (since it wouldn't make sense for a country to have an embassy and a consulate in the same city). I fixed the first point, but take issue with doing something about the third point (because mentioning Palestine rather superfluously might sound like a subtle desire for a nation-state by the name of Palestine). -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've eliminated the ambiguity I had perceived in the "majority areas" phrase. As for the thing about Jerusalem not being the capital for 18 centuries, all I'm saying is that inclusion of this fact could be interpreted as an argument against the legitimacy of Jewish/Israeli claims on it as their capital. By explaining that there has never been an independent state called Palestine, you discount their claims on it as well, balancing the POV. That's my thought. LordAmeth 12:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would shorten the religious significance section. The sub pages should be sufficient for most of what is there. That would help with the length issue. I might also link to category: neighborhoods of Jerusalem somewhere. --יהושועEric 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree on the point regarding shortening the Religious Significance section. In comparison to the five articles on the religious significance of Jerusalem, the section is quite short, only touching upon the most basic facts about the significance of the city in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I'm thinking that perhaps the History section could be cut down, but Jerusalem does indeed have a very long history; the summary in the Jerusalem article is much shorter than the full piece at History of Jerusalem. However, I encourage you to make whatever changes you feel are necessary to cut down on the length. At some later date, I'll calculate how much readable prose is in the article (so we can compare the article with WP:LENGTH), but I'm rather confident there won't be a tremendous issues since there are a heck of a lot of sources that do not count toward the readable prose total. For comparison, this is 63kB of prose. As long as this article is less than 50-55kB of prose (WP:LENGTH actually says less than 60kB), any objection based on length alone would not be warranted. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I determined that the article in its current state is 34 kB of readable prose, well within the limits of WP:LENGTH. See User:Tariqabjotu/Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 04:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)\

It is important to distingush between the Old City and the New or West and East Jerusalem. Fbc215 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem is currently undergoing a featured article candidacy. The FAC page is transcluded below (feel free to remove it from this page if the FAC gets too long):

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem/archive1

Why has Jerusalem not been added to the category of FA status Israel articles? I suspect it's a problem with the template. nadav 04:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about how all the Category:Israeli people by occupation subcategories are also contained in Category:Jews by occupation. What of the many non-Jews living in Israel. This is an incrorrect and unfair classification. nadav 02:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Should a template be created for members of Knesset (like the one in the hebrew Wikipedia)?Chocom 10:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the MK infobox? If so, it would be a good idea, though I would get rid of the "Governments" section, and just have a list of Knessets (for which we have almost a complete article set). Perhaps the Government number could be appended to positions in the section for major roles? Number 57 10:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll get something started. Stay tuned. Chocom 10:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Shimon Peres article is currently undergoing a peer review at Wikiproject Biography and is also a good article candidate. I have personally stated that although the article is well written, it suffers from recentism and is not ready for GA status yet.--Oneworld25 05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I feel that this article is worthy of a medium rating. It is an admirable and concrete expression of Israel's independence from the rest of the world as well as demonstrating the ingenuity and perseverance of the Israeli state. I think that an article about a piece of technology that managed to demonstrate Israel's capabilities to the Western world is kind of important, so I ask that anyone tasked with rating importance consider reviewing and reconsidering its importance to Israel's image abroad. // 3R1C 16:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been writing some articles related to terrorism and Israel. I would appreciate any help you guys can offer. The articles (so far) are:

• Mehola Junction bombing
• Afula Bus massacre
• Hadera central station massacre
• Tel Aviv bus 5 massacre
• House demolition

In the near future, look for:

• Ramat Gan bus 20 bombing
• Jerusalem bus 26 bombing
• Beit Lid massacre

The common thread is that they are all linked from Yahya Ayyash, an article I'm looking to get up to FA status (I've been doing some big expansion here recently). Raul654 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ding - check off one (Beit Lid). Raul654 03:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, but when you apply for FA, who closes the FAC? nadav 03:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I do. The last time I did, there were complaints of conflict-of-interest, but I generally tend to ignore those. Nobody has yet found any substantive issue with any decision for me to promote an article of mine. (Usually they are pretty cut and dry) Raul654 03:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

DING! -> Egged bus 36 bombing Raul654 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Strike off another one - Ramat Gan bus 20 bombing.This one's pretty small but the book I'm using didn't have much on it. Raul654 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

DING! The 2 million article was calling, so I created the last one - Jerusalem bus 26 bombing. Raul654 08:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone plese fix the first map on the Hizbollah page. It calls the Golan Heights part of Syria, which is disputed and untrue. Could someone fix it to take that line out? --יהושועEric 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The image is at this location: Image:BlueLine.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eric1985 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

The map is based on a UN map which says the area is Syrian, not even mentioning that it is Israeli-occupied. Anyway, what is the problem with the labelling of "Syria (Golan Heights, occupied by Israel)"? Arguably it is no different to the CIA Map of Syria which denotes the Golan Heights as part of the country. Claims that the map is disputed/untrue are wrong; the only country that disputes the Golan's status is Israel (thus making it POV), whilst the rest of the world recognises them as legally being part of Syria. Number 57 21:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right of course. However, for the purposes of illustrating that page, I do think the map should emphasize more that the whole area where the label appears is being held by Israel. The current design might be confusing to someone unfamiliar with the Golan Heights. nadav 22:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded my version, Image:BlueLine2.jpg, which I think clarifies the Golan's status better. I also used the same font Blomberg chose for the Shebaa Farms. nadav 23:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#A_quick_straw_poll for a present initiative to rename the page.--Urthogie 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi WikiProject Israelers, I noticed that some users are inactive, such as the second user on the list who claims to be retired on his user page. Is there support to remove such users? --יהושועEric 01:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason to do that. Just leave em be, or at most add (retired) next to their names. nadav 02:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some WikiProjects sort of categorize their users with headings (e.g. ==Active== *user1 *user2). I don't think it would hurt to do the same here. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One "member" with the name of Pco has been working against all that this WikiProject stands for. Click here for more information. I don't see any reason why not to delete her name. --GHcool 05:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion over the naming of "Israeli lira" or "Israeli pound". See Talk:Israeli lira#Requested move. -Will Beback · † · 05:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

...one giant leap for Jewish domination of media. Anyone know if there is a WikiProject USSR dedicated to fair treatment of information pertaining to the USSR or Stalin?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.137.228 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 May 2007

As a matter of fact there is: WP:USSR. There's also one for China, Japan, Iraq, and the United States, along with a great many other countries (and former countries) of the world. There's even a WikiProject for Palestine. If there are any others in particular you're looking for, they're all listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject. LordAmeth 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Shalom guys, How about some updates for the Winograd Commission? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the old layout better. It had everything you needed on one organized page, which was not overly long. nadav 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Me too --Cramer 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What about all of the other info, such as To Do, Assessment Statistics, etc. You should probably have taken a vote before doing this. And you removed a lot of hard work. --יהושועEric 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Very true. I am reverting for now, and also suggest a vote here. nadav 19:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please support Ben Gurion International Airport's Featured Article Candidacy Here! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eric1985 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Shalom YaIsraelis. I have been watching the Israeli students strike over the last few weeks. When Israelis start getting the same brutal treatment from the Magav usually reserved for Arabs, then something important is happening in Israeli society. There is a fair amount of material in the Israeli media: eg. [13] [14] [15] (unfortunately I can not read well enough to make sense of the hebrew). Amazingly there is absolutely nothing about this on Wikipedia. Is there anyone who reads hebrew (or even participates in the demonstrations) who is prepared to write something here? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been on the front pages for a while I guess, but this is the kind of topic which I think would more appropriatly appear as part of something larger, eg Higher education in Israel, say. That kind of article would be able to give all the context about financial cutbacks in universities and the gradual decline in quality which if left to itself will most certainly bring ruin upon our country. Or at least that's what I hear. nadav 06:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And after that maybe we could work on Education in Israel, which has a lot of room for expansion. nadav 06:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created a stub 2007 Israeli student strike. I some of you guys will take a break from telling us how well we are treated, or arguing about Deir Yassin, and help write about what is really going on in the streets of Israel right now. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already seen several anti-Israel and seemingly anti-Semetic edits come about from the new WP Palestine group. Keep your eyes open. --יהושועEric 04:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind wikirivalry we should avoid on Wikipedia. I much prefer Timeshifter, GHcool, and Tiamut's (and others) approach instead. Both projects have a shared goal; both avowedly embrace NPOV etc. Instead of unfairly speaking out against the whole group, you could just cite specific edits and articles you don't like. nadav 06:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nadav. I was going to ask for the same thing myself. I am a member of all three projects because the subject matter they deal with often overlaps (one day it might be nice to change the name of Arab-Israeli conflict WikiProject to the Palestinian-Israeli common ground forum and coordinate activities there between the two, where there is overlap). Are there any examples that Eric can provide for these quite serious allegations? (I take charges of anti-Semitism very seriously being a die-hard anti-racist myself.)Tiamut 08:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I also was thinking that the name "Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict" needed to be changed. The name is a kind of self-fulfilling prediction. How about this instead: "Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli relationship." --Timeshifter 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Nadav and Tiamut and urge people to join both projects. The most deficient articles in Wikipedia tend to be those with fewer editors. --Ian Pitchford 11:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

One example I noticed last night was an AWB changing pre-state Israel to Palestine. Seeing as Palestine was not a country, I see that as POV pushing. British Mandate of Palestine is not POV, just calling it Palestine is POV. --יהושועEric 17:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Or just simpler. But how is that anti-Semitic or anti-Israel exactly? Tiamut 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That one is anti-Israel POV. Calling it "Palestine" is misinforming, and creating a false pretense that Palestine was a country and delegitimizing Israel to those not familiar with the matter. By creating an anti-Israel sentimate, though false information, those edits remove the Jewish claim to Israel, hence anti-Semetic. --יהושועEric 17:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Eric. But I think you've gone a little overboard. Besides the logical leaps of judgement, you are failing to WP:AGF. When Palestine was under the British Mandate, a lot of people called it simply Palestine. This is a historical fact and it doesn't have anything to do with Israel or any anti-Israel agenda per se. The term and its use stand on their own. With respect. Tiamut 17:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't think this is a case of anti-Semitism or even anti-Zionism, I agree with Eric that "British Mandate of Palestine" is the best name for the article for the same reason that "British Mandate of Mesopotamia" is not listed as "Mesopotamia" or "British India" is not listed as "India." --GHcool 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with changing it to British Mandate of Palestine for clarity. However, among historians (including Jewish and Israeli ones) Palestine has long been an accepted label for referring to the land of Israel without the transjordan. nadav 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, Palestine (meaning the Land of Israel) is not the same as British Mandate of Palestine (meaning the 1920-1948 British rule of modern day Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Territories). Similarly, Mesopotamia (meaning the geographic area now known as Iraq and parts of its surrounding countries) is not the same as British Mandate of Mesopotamia (meaning the 1920s British rule of modern day Iraq). --GHcool 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are repeating this? Obviously I agree with you. nadav 21:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry Nadav. I misunderstood and thought you were disagreeing. --GHcool 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Anti-semitism is a magic wand, and it is used against the Christians. We should not refer to anti-semitism, but as an insult as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.92.39 (talk • contribs)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex - A request for comment about the Template:Palestinian ethnicity's picture has been filed. Your collective comments are solicted and would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Avi 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all. Two problems someone can help with:

1. I was just working on the Pioneer disambig page. One of the meanings listed is a Jew in Israel in 1881-1947. I need a good page for this to link to, but I can't find one. In particular, the term "pioneer" gets very little mention in any page I've seen on the history of Israel, Zionism, etc. The previous version of Pioneer linked to "Halutz", which doesn't sound too bad, except that is actually a redirect to Dan Halutz, which is hardly what we want. Any suggestions?
2. Why "1881"? Something important happened then, but Wikipedia doesn't say what it is. The various pages on the history of Israel say nothing about 1881. The Zionism article mentions "the chain of events between 1881 and 1945", but it doesn't say what happened in 1881. The 1881 article says nothing about Israel, Zionism, or Jews. The same goes for 1880, except that it mentions the death of Joseph Trumpeldor. Whatever happened in 1881 needs to be in Wikipedia. Can someone work on this (not me, I'm afraid; I'm seriously non-expert in these matters)?

--Tugbug 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

On the top of my head this comes to mind. Rishon LeZion was established in 1881. Petach Tikvah was already established in 1879. So Rishon LeZion is probably what they have in mind. Anyway a lot of pioneering activity took place in those years. Itzse 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

More info: This page says, "The Jews began to return to Israel in 1881 ...." --Tugbug 20:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an important topic that doesn't currently have Wikipedia coverage. Halutzim is a red link at the Aliyah article, and there doesn't seem to be a general article on the pioneering agriculture, swamp drainage etc. I guess Aliyah would do for now though if you need a link. nadav 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Jews began to return to Israel in 1881 in great numbers. Until then there was quite a sizable amount of Jews who lived in the holyland; but due to many factors including the pogroms in Zarist Russia that started in 1881; a great wave of Russian Jews emigrated to the United States and to Israel, they were mostly the Chalutzim. Itzse 21:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If any editors who are good with their history and have a lot of time on their hands for editing could please take a look at the lopsided POV in the high-importance Six-Day War article. Their's been a lot of discussion on the talk page there but little action. In honor of the war's 40th anniversary this week (on the Jewish calender), I am adding the task of NPOV balancing to the project to-do list.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I just created this navigation box, since someone requested Template:IsraeliNobelPrizeWinners on the to-do list. If anyone wants to comment on this template, it's very basic and I haven't put it anywhere yet. And if we do use it, Israel will be the first counrty to have a navbox for its laureates.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the addition of the Israeli flag might be a good idea. Also, for such a small box, perhaps having the show/hide option isn't really worthwhile, so the v-d-e could be moved to the top right corner. Good work anyway, Number 57 16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to remove the hide option, it comes standard. Anyway, the other Nobel templates have the standard v-d-e in the left corner and show/hide in the right corner, so this format would look more consistent next to them.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, before I add the template to the articles, now is a good time to discuss inconsistency with "Prize Winner"/"Laureate".  —Rafi Neal |T/C 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime I have redirected the template to Template:Israeli Nobel Laureates and categorized the template under Category:Awards navigational boxes. I'm also considering reordering the laureates by date, not name. Agnon wouldn't be offended, he's still first :)  —Rafi Neal |T/C 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just got news back - we seem to have loads of articles around a high - b class so i think its a priority to get these promoted. Flymeoutofhere 08:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just embarked on a major rewrite of the category Music of Israel. This article is rated as Start, and rightly so - it's pretty superficial.

It will take me a few weeks to finish it and post it to the pedia. If anyone else is working on this, I would like to know. If anyone wants to see what I have done so far, you can read it on my page, User:Ravpapa/My Drafts --Ravpapa 16:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am proposing a mass-move of many Israel Defense Forces-related articles and therefore felt that the discussion should be posted here (and in other major pages) instead of the individual article pages. Basically IDF section articles are all titled Israel ___________ (e.g. Israeli Military Police, Israeli Armored Corps). I think this is contrary to Wiipedia's naming conventions and isn't factually accurate because the official names for these things do not have an 'Israeli' prefix. Also they shouldn't be capitalized. An existing article name which I almost support is Aman (IDF) (still, should be renamed to Intelligence directorate (IDF) IMO). I think all relevant articles should be named in such a way: Armored corps (IDF), Military police (IDF), Artillery corps (IDF), Infantry corps (IDF) etc. Please state your opinions. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak to what the official names are in Hebrew or in English, but I think that this type of format does in fact go along with Wikipedia naming conventions, and with more general terms used. United States Air Force, Japan Self-Defense Forces, British Army, Royal Thai Air Force, and Indian Navy all use the national descriptor in front of the name of the branch of service. I think that some standard form should be kept, such as "Israeli Armored Corps" or "Armored Corps of Israel". The Hebrew names for the organizations would at least be accurate, but the form you suggest just doesn't sit with me. It sounds less formal, less official, to say "Military police (IDF)" than "Israeli Defense Force Military Police" or "Military Police of Israel", and also comes across to me more as a sort of general definition of the term 'military police' within the IDF context, rather than describing a formal organization. LordAmeth 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically what Shuki said in the comment below summarized my thoughts. The Japan Self-Defense Forces, USAF, and IDF for that matter, are all full names of what they represent. Probably IAF too. Not so less known corps which are never called 'Israeli Human Resources Directorate', etc. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, virtually on all counts. Please see Category:Corps of the United States Army, Category:British field corps, Category:Corps of France for accepted convention. The way I see it is that examples above by LordAmeth are more 'branding' - USAF, FDNY, NYPD, LAPD, and larger units encompassing many smaller corps. 'Israel Air Force' might pass though, maybe the navy too, but not the seperate units. --Shuki 22:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I misunderstood what we were talking about. Yes, for smaller corps, it's obvious the standard format is what was suggested - e.g. XVIII Airborne Corps (United States). Should not the titles still be capitalised, though? "Armored Corps", not "Armored corps"? LordAmeth 07:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As the author of virtually every single one of these, I don't really care either way, but you only renamed some, so that (inconsistency) is a problem. El_C 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst trawling around the politics categories, I came across Security minister of Israel. I have requested that it be moved to Defense Minister of Israel. Please add your comments here. Also, if it is moved I may merge the List of Defense Ministers of Israel article into it, as it is not too long at present (and can be done with split columns). Thanks, Number 57 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The El Al article is a FA candidate and in order to fulful the neccessary tasks to bring it up to this standard there are a number of tasks outlined on the talk page which need the attention of a hebrew speaking editor. Any help would be much appreciated. -- Flymeoutofhere 09:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything more to be done? nadav (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Just one thing - does this link [16] have the shareholder breakdown of El Al, and if so, what is it? Thanks.-- Flymeoutofhere 18:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They're the latest reports to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. El_C 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In the article on Tzippori, the statement that it is "the site of one of the oldest Jewish communities to be uncovered by archaeologists, and one of the richest in what has been found there" was first tagged and then removed as an uncited statement some time ago. I have been told something to this effect multiple times, on guided tours to the site. I am not surprised to be unable to find a source for such a statement in the scholarly record, as I get the impression that formal historians and archaeologists rarely make such broad-ranging statements, choosing instead a somewhat less impressive, but perhaps more professional tack, and writing something such as "It is the site of a rich and diverse historical and architectural legacy..."

I am positive that Tzippori is not simply yet another archaeological site in Israel, but has some truly major significance. Is there anyone out there who can help me find a source for its unique importance, please? LordAmeth 15:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any sforim with me but this is what I remember. Here are a few bits of information from the Talmud.

The Talmud in Shabbos 33 tells us the story of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochoi and Rebbi Yehuda bar Iloyi and Rebbi Yossi ben Rebbi Chalafta where Reebi Shimon went into hiding Rebbi Yehuda bar Iloyi became Rosh hamadabrim (first to speak) and Rebbi Yossi was banished to Tzipori.

The Talmud enumerates which are the best Beth Dins to go; and says "after Rebbi Yossi to Tzipori" so it must have been an important place.

The Talmud tells us that Rebbi lived in Beth She'orim but his burial was in Tzipori (Ketubeth).

Tzipori is mentioned a lot in the Talmud and the Talmud says it is named Tzipori "Sh'oimed berosh hohor ketzipor" (that it is situated on the top of a hill (mountain) like a tzipor a bird). Itzse 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea the location was important in the Talmud; thanks for pointing that out. I was really looking for archaeological importance, though. Is this the oldest Jewish community ever uncovered? The most intact/complete? The oldest post-70AD synagogue? LordAmeth 05:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely not the oldest uncovered. The city became a major Jewish center after the destruction of Jerusalem when the Galilee became the main Jewish area in Palestine. Some of the most intact mosaics in Israel were found there, including the remains of an ancient synagogue. The Sanhedrin is known to have settled there for a while under the leadership of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasih. There were was also a large non-Jewish community that eventually settled there and the two mixed. All this is from the top of my head from my visit there a couple summers ago. I am sure you can also find stuff on the Internet somewhere. nadav (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please offer views regarding my dispute with Malik Shabazz concerning the quoting of Ilan Pappe as a neutral reliable source on the article Israeli-Palestinian history denial. I feel that his view should be preceded by a slight note on his background (as an extreme anti-Zionist, member of the 'Communisty Party of Israel', who said that he supported Hamas), or it should be deleted altogether. This is like calling Daniel Pipes a reliable, neutral source on Islam. Ridiculus. Your views are appreciated. --Rabbeinu 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, the question isn't whether Pappe is a neutral reliable source. The article is full of POV: Palestinian POV about Israelis, and Israeli POV about Palestinians. None of the quotes are intended to be NPOV or reliable sources — they all deny one another's history.

The real issue is that you want to identify Pappe with this POV introduction, which you wrote and does not belong in the article:

Highly controversial historian Ilan Pappe, who affiliates with the Communist Party of Israel and has said that he 'supports Hamas in its resistance against the Israeli occupation, though I disagree with their political ideology.' He has also supported boycotts of Israel and has called for unconditionally granting Palestinian refugees the right of return to what is now Israel.

That's not a "slight note" (as you call it), that's POV-pushing. If you want to identify him as a professor, do so. You don't need to write about his political views, his support of Hamas, his association with the Communist Party, or your POV label "highly controversial". His name is Wikilinked and readers can read his biography for themselves. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, but it seems logical that without any introduction, readers may assume his quote is representative of mainstream Israeli public opinion. While the article should present the POV of both sides, it should be careful to note to what degree each of expressed opinions is representative. nadav (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if we consider Pappe to be a reliable source (an one could reasonably argue that he is), the Pappe quote does not support the conclusion that "Nakba denial" is a belief that exists in Israeli society (at least not in the same sense that Holocaust denial exists in Palestinian society). At best, it supports a kind of "Nakba amnesia" or "Nakba ignorance." Even the most die hard hawks would not deny that such an event ever took place in the same way that Hamas denies that the Holocaust exists. My feeling is that unless a reliable source can be found that states that a promiment group of Israelis believe that the Palestinian exodus did not occur in the way that mainstream historians describe it, then I would propose that the entire subsection be deleted on grounds of WP:OR. --GHcool 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that Ilan Pappe claims that Israel commits "symbolic genocide" -- whatever that means -- against the Palestinians, I see no problem with introducing it in this way. ← Michael Safyan 03:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Such an article really ought to be Israeli-Palestinian history controversy not denial, since both sides dispute the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. ← Michael Safyan 03:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That title is too ambiguous to be useful. Everything about the topic is controversial. nadav (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nadav. Although much of the article seems grounded in fact, the way it stands now, I would probably support its deletion if it were ever put up to a vote. There's some pretty heavy OR in the article that drowns out the nuggets of usefulness and objectivity. --GHcool 05:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm somewhat worried by the number of antizionists supposedly supporting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel. it's quite obvious that antizionists' main goal is to destroy israel, so i'm curious to the thoughts of the community about such blatent interventions. Jaakobou 12:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly? Almost all the bias I have seen written in the Israel-related articles I deal with is from pro-settler right-wingers - these people are much more of a concern. Number 57 12:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

obviously it would be improper to name names, regardless of "settler bias", i don't see them joining the 'wikipedia palestine' project and trying to make destructive contributions to "palestine". Jaakobou 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are not fan clubs; they are merely meant to coordinate tasks among people that contribute a lot to a certain topic. All wikipedia editors may join as long as they agree to contribute in an NPOV fashion. nadav (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is the reason for my concern. surely an article about "house demolishion" would not be about israel... but oops, there it is House demolition... and here's a ridiculous conversation relating to it.

another thing is what i've said about people with the goal to destroy israel "contributing" to israel related articles, i'd name a few, but i think it would be improper. Jaakobou 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is improper. Everyone is allowed to contribute unless they are currently blocked for disruption or have an arbcom ruling preventing them from doing so. nadav (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is wrong with having a House demolition article? As far as I'm aware Israel is the only country that repeatedly demolishes homes as a punishment. Likewise, there is an article on Operation Murambatsvina, the Zimbabwean home demolition drive so its hardly picking on Israel. Number 57 19:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Number 57, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an article dedicated to the usage of house demolition by israel in the battle against "resistance jihad"... there's also nothing wrong with similar articles about "resistance jihad" and "indoctrinations" and "suicide bombers" in the arab battle against Israel and non muslims... we'll make sure to call these articles by the names i gave and make sure to link them also to every "Palestine" related article by following the wikiproject palestine... get my point? Jaakobou 19:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I would remind you to be civil and assume good faith. First, anti-Zionists aren't necessarily intent on the destruction of the State of Israel. Second, unless somebody has stated that he or she is an anti-Zionist, or that her or his goal is the demise of the State, the fact is that you don't know what that person's motives are. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) Your reminder for me is somewhat uncivil considering i do keep it civil.

(2) I'd appreciate you explaining how anti-Zionists don't necessarily intent on the destruction of the State of Israel.

(3) oh, some of these "contributors" have stated it explicitly... so that their motives would be unambiguous. Jaakobou 19:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I, might be your answer. I'm not a Zionist but I do not want G-d forbid the destruction of Israel by the hands of the Arabs. I am hoping and waiting for the Messiah to bring in the era of peace; as history has proven that people or countries cannot guarantee peace; only G-d can. Nevertheless some of my contributions might be considered pro-Zionist, because when they are right, not on the dogma but on a particular historical fact, I will not shy away from it. I take the truth where I find it. Itzse 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I should add that anti-Zionists like the Neturei Karte similar to those Arabs who are anti-Zionists have no problem with slanting the truth; and some do try to taint the articles to their POV. So your concern is well founded. The answer to the problem is more of us, within the rules of WP should incorporate another POV if it's missing. Itzse 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing "civil" about referring to "contributors" and their "contributions" with "quotes" around "them." — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get into a political debate on Zionism and the meaning of the word "Zionist." That's surely a dead end. nadav (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm sorry I raised the subject. I've removed my comments on the issue. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Guideline on red lines

The only benefit of being a member of this project is just that, being a member. I suggest that we come up with a clear guidelines defining an unacceptable behavior for a member of this project, and then publish it at the project's main page. As a first iteration, let me propose that promotion of the destruction of Israel as a Jewish nation-state is incompatible with this project. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no ideological criteria for making contributions to Wikipedia. WikiProjects have no special status and should have no special rules. WikiProjects are designed to focus editors' attention in order to improve the quality of a specific set of articles; nothing more. In my view it will be very disruptive to encourage editors to talk about their ideological predispositions and/or policy views. --Ian Pitchford 11:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the project's members should be limited ideologically, however, IMO there should be another limit, namely, making it clear that every project member who joined for political reasons only will not be allowed. There's really more to Israel than the Arab-Israeli conflict, and those who wish to only participate in those article are welcome to start a new WikiProject (doesn't it already exist?). I think it's harmful for the project if half its members will never edit pages like Rabin Medical Center, ZAKA or F.C. Ashdod. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ian Pitchord here. Imagine if there was a WikiProject Turkey that said that members are only welcome that support a secular Turkey. I imagine many potentially good members would be turned away unfairly. Although I strongly disagree with the opinions of Tony Judt, I imagine he would be a very good member of WikiProject Israel because he is a competant writer and researcher.

On the other hand, there should be general guidelines for membership in WikiProject Israel and that is agreement with the stated "Goals" on the project's page. I have seen a handful of Wikipedia editors join WikiProject Israel and then create and unsuccessfully maintain unfair, biased, and even false information on Israel's history, culture, and geography. Such members are usually bad at researching and break Wikipedia's general rules such as NPOV, OR, and RS. Because they clearly join as wolves in sheeps' clothing ready to pick a fight, I would recommend that these members that don't take this project or Wikipedia in general seriously should be erased from the membership list. --GHcool 16:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to any proposal to limit membership either to people who share a particular ideology or have no political views at all. In any event, if such a proposal were adopted I wonder how it would be enforced. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal politics should be kept strictly separated from editing. Everyone who is in good standing in terms of blocks, arbcom rulings, etc. should be allowed to edit any article they choose. The goal of the wikiproject should be kept to the minimum of coordinating tasks among editors that happen to edit the same group of articles. There are no entry exams or background checks. nadav (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above two statements, but I would like to see editors that join this project take the stated goal of creating and maintaining "fair and unbiased information on Israel, including history, culture, and geography" seriously. Abiding by this goal has nothing to do with political ideology because no matter which direction one leans on any particular issue, they should be able to make a good faith effort to abide by this goal if they are willing to add themselves to the members list. To put it another way, would anyone accept a member of this project that actively and continually creates and maintains unfair and biased "information on Israel, including history, culture, and geography" with no regard for WP:RS, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR? --GHcool 18:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is more or less what I was trying to say in my comment, sorry if it didn't come out that way. The only difference is that I do support removing users who do not abide by this stated goal. Basically I think everyone in this project should be serious about the goal, not only be a member wishing to delegitimize Israel's existence at every turn. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously members are supposed to abide by Wikipedia policies. My assumption is that if they don't, then they will face sanctions elsewhere. We're not going to set up our own little court system to decide who is and isn't making good faith efforts to abide by policies. If someone has been banned, then obviously we can cross him off the list, but there's not much more we can do besides that. nadav (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Fair and unbiased" should mean exactly what it says - writing without undue bias towards Israel as well as against it. People often make the mistake of thinking that NPOV means eliminating biased viewpoints completely, or (even worse) eliminating viewpoints that don't agree with your own. That's not how it works; to quote WP:NPOV, the goal is to "represent fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)". Concerns about "legitimising" or "delegitimising" a particular POV are pretty much irrelevant. You don't have to like the point of view being documented, but you do have to make sure that you treat it fairly. (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Writing for the "enemy".) That's really all that's required. -- ChrisO 01:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How can it be expected to treat fairly, Holocaust denial, Ancient Israel denial? Denial that Jews are descendants of the original Jews with an uninterrupted history, and made instead to descend from the Khazars? How do you treat such nonsense that there was a Palestinian people and the Jews came from Poland and stole "their" land? (See the famous interview Arafat gave claiming that the Jews never had any connection to the Holyland)

All of these Pov's if you can call it so, are actually published in books by so called scholars. Yes, they might be scholars, but even scholars can deliberately turn fiction into fact, if they have a need for it. It even has the backing of the Arab countries who with a straight face say so (for blood libel, see the interview given in Egypt regarding Toaf's blunder). Holocaust denial even has the backing of a country, Iran.

So the question is how do you treat these and many others? How can you treat it fairly? I typically leave the falsehoods in, but add the correct facts hoping that at least the truth and fiction should be side by side. What should be the right approach? Is there at all a right approach? Itzse 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line, how do we treat nonsense? Do we just play along? Itzse 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As many of you already know, I deal with bad faith, deliberate fiction and nonsense head on in my user page. Luckily, most Wikipedia editors play by the rules, or at least make an attempt to. As for the specific issues Itzse raises:

• I have never seen a Wikipedia editor try to directly deny the Holocaust. However, I have gotten into arguments with people that present Holocaust denial as a legitimate form of research. I can't remember a time when I haven't eventually won this kind of argument.
• I am currently somewhat involved with an issue of ancient Israel denial, but as of this writing, I am winning that argument as well.
• I haven't gotten into any arguments regarding Jewish history and geneology, but I imagine this would be a more difficult argument to win decisively than the above two because of Khazar conversions, Cossak rapes, and the who is a Jew issue. Of course, this is neither here nor there when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict and it is an established fact that a large majority of Jews are decendents of the ancient Israelites.
• Most Middle Eastern scholars seem to agree that the Palestinian national identity is a recent phenomenon which became defined as such roughly around 1964, when the PLO was established. To win an argument with someone who disagrees, all one has to do is ask for reliable sources stating an opposing view. Even if such a source exists (and I haven't heard of many), it will probably be drowned out by the avalanche of evidence to the contrary.
• The claim that Zionists came from eastern Europe and stole land away from Palestinians is a true claim from a very superficial point of view, so one must be careful how one proceeds with this line of reasoning. Instead of disagreeing with this statement (i.e. go about proving the opposite), I would clarify and refine the statement. Yes, Zionists came from eastern Europe and eventually gained control of the land, but did they steal the land? Much of the land was bought fairly from absentee Turkish landlords and when tensions rose between the Arab and Jewish populations, the Jews agreed twice to two partition plans, while the Arabs rejected them and called for violence. Furthermore, the Jews did not "conquer Palestine from the Palestinians" as the United State conquered California from the Mexicans. Rather, Israel declared independence after the British controlled Mandate for Palestine fell.

In short, false claims should be treated like the charlatan acts that they are. They should be exposed, debunked, and corrected at every turn. No need to get emotionally involved with charlatans, just calmly and carefully make them eat crow. You'd be amazed at how often arguments from history and by analogy works. --GHcool 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, Nadav, Jayjg and other participants; you deserve a thanks for your tremendous work. But to do all that GHcool has outlined above requires a constant vigilance. Do we have an endless supply of guys like you, and do you guys have an endless amount of time?

Who is to guarantee that after all the effort, someone in the future armed with truckloads of books and sources with enough time on his hands will claim that his sources are reliable and make us sweat it out to restore balance here, or worse actually carry the day, and all our work will go down the drain.

GHcool seems to have an optimistic view, and he might very well be right, but I don't have much faith in mankind and who knows who will pull the strings here in the future as more articles are created and more articles are developed.

I'm bringing this up because this boggles my mind and sometimes I wonder if I'm not wasting precious time here. As this is the WikiProject Israel page, I think that these and similar concerns need to be aired and discussed here to allay the fears of its participants. Itzse 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

On this topic, I'm somewhat shocked to see bad-faith allegations from one member of this Wikiproject against other members Leifern, Ynhockey, and Nadav1 (It seems that many of the editors who have commented so far are some of the more POV-oriented ones from Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel. I consider myself a WP:NPOV member of that project.). Tewfik^Talk 16:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing new. I am a member of this project, and have suffered bad faith allegations from other members on many occasions. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In the History of EVER.

--AceMyth 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just finished a complete rewrite of the Music of Israel. For user msh210: it includes a section on Hassidic rock, which I think is what you mean by Shiny Shoe Music. Everyone is invited to review, correct, add salient info, and in general behave in the wiki spirit.

In particular, those of you who are Israeli rock afficionados might have what to add on that subject. I also think the category needs sections on The Music of Israeli Arabs and Other Minorities, and perhaps on Children's Songs.

I think we need to go for reassessment of this article. I am aiming for FA, and one of those ridiculous corps tags.

Tnx for your cooperation,

--Ravpapa 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Great effort. The article has definite potential, but it seems to be currently sufferring from a significant lack of references and seems quite OR. --Shuki 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to create one or more navigation boxes for Israeli political parties (there are now articles on most parties, thanks for Number 57). However, there's a structural problem: if there's just one navigation box for all parties, past and present, then it will be huge and difficult to read. However, if there is a separate box for each election, it will create unnecessary clutter and a lot of very similar templates. Any suggestions? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it's needed - all political articles have the Politics of Israel box, which links to an article on political parties, plus they are all in the Category:Political parties in Israel. Plus, as you say, so many parties would make it difficult to make a decent sized box. Number 57 12:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As I use Wikipedia more and more, I come to expect relevant navigation boxes in almost every article. They are certainly useful, and I daresay loads more useful than the huge right-aligned general topic boxes, such as Politics of Israel (which doesn't directly link to any useful articles). This is also a good supplement (and sometimes alternative) to a See also section. I think it would be useful to be able to go straight from Kadima to Ale Yarok to Ra'am-Ta'al, and see no major reason why such a navigation box should not be created. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think it would be possible to create a decent sized template for this, especially if you want to include those that didn't make it into the Knesset. The whole point of categories is for navigation such as this. Number 57 10:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, how about a category for parties which made it to the Knesset? Or the opposite, parties which did not make it? I think a division needs to made because the category is large and not easy to navigate. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories should probably be employed either way, but it would be possible to make a template with collapsing fields and very small text, though I question the utility of the setup. Tewfik^Talk 01:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think categorising parties that didn't make it into the Knesset would not be a great idea, as there have been many tiny parties that were in the Knesset (due to breakaways from large parties) but relatively large parties (e.g. The Greens or Ale Yarok) that have never made it. I think the navigation is fine as it is - people can go through the elections to see what parties were in the Knesset (which is also shown in the List of political parties in Israel page). Number 57 15:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've copied a message and my response from my Talk to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel to get greater input Tewfik^Talk 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've readded all the settlements in the subcats back to the top one too - I think it's important to have them all listed in one place too.

Also, I have been removing them from the ... in Israel categories as they are not in Israel. Number 57 10:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation is just that, a method of organisation, and it shouldn't be confused with content. All of the Israeli settlements are labelled as such in their leads, and are already in subcategories of Category:Israeli settlements. Furthermore, removing them all from Israeli local government hierarchy is quite unhelpful, as regardless of their international status, they are officially and practically part of Israeli local government, and not some fictional West Bank or Golan Heights local government. Again, this is a matter of organisation, and not content, and so I've reverted the changes until further discussion (the changes have in the past also been contested by Eliyak and DLand). Tewfik^Talk 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, in the light of this reasoning, perhaps you will reverse your longstanding and in my view quite unreasonable objection to the inclusion of East Jerusalem settlements in Category:Israeli settlements (as a result of which, incidentally, your contention here that "All of the Israeli settlements are labelled as such in their leads, and are already in subcategories of Category:Israeli settlements" is incorrect)? That, too, would seem to be a pretty straightforward question of "organization, not content". Palmiro | Talk 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see your point, as I've consistently said this is about the practical organisation: Israel officially and practically administers Israeli settlements within its local government, and Israel officially and practically administers the areas variously defined as East Jerusalem as part of its Jerusalem municipality, and not as Israeli settlements. Tewfik^Talk 18:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet User:Number 57 is correctly pointing out that these are not, in fact, in Israel. You are saying that despite that, they should be included in the "villages" category for consistency in categorization. Fair enough, but then that argument applies a fortiori to settlements in East Jerusalem which are generally agreed to be, indeed, settlements - while the West Bank settlements are certainly not generally agreed to be in Israel. Palmiro | Talk 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated previously, I think it's helpful to have all Israeli settlements listed in the top category as well as their subcategories so you can see a list of all the settlements in one place. It is confusing to have to go down 2 more subcategories to get to more lists of settlements (which is the case for those in Gush Etzion).

The "Villages in Israel" etc categories really don't apply to them - they are not in Israel (I left the Golan Heights out of it as those settlements are at least in territory which Israel regards as part of itself even if no-one else does), which is why they are in the Israeli settlement category in the first place.

As for the "Religious villages in Israel" category, I suggest creating a new category "Religious Israeli settlements" for them. Number 57 17:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the crux of Tewfik's argument - they are officially part of Israel, bottom line. It smacks very strongly of a politically charged WP:POINT to de-categorize them as such.--DLand^TALK 17:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is you who has misunderstood - they are not part of Israel (they have never been annexed!), though they are part of the local government system. To say that Betar Illit is a "City in Israel" is much more politicised than saying it is an Israeli settlement. Number 57 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They are however administered as Israeli cities, councils, etc. That they are settlements is prominently relayed in the lead, and they are all in the Category:Israeli settlements hierarchy. Tewfik^Talk 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, how do you expect anyone to take these arguments seriously when at the same time you are willing to make this sort of edit? Palmiro | Talk 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't appreciate your mischaracterising my edit. It was a reversion of your edit of less than two hours previous, on a subject which had been discussed previously. Making it look like I was sneaking in some POV edit is absolutely uncalled for and unprofessional. Tewfik^Talk 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how I mischaracterized your edit. You made a revert which was totally inconsistent with the argument you are making here. The subject had indeed been discussed previously and there had been no consensus whatsoever in favour of the removal of the category. I and other users had just got tired of edit-warring over it. However, seeing your stance here, I had hoped that you had changed your view on how such issues should be approached. Palmiro | Talk 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take you at your word, but I suggest you phrase them more clearly in the future. Tewfik^Talk 03:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect to list these places as "in Israel". We can't have this kind of thing in a reliable encyclopedia. Number 57 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'in Israel' is problematic. Aren't there other examples in the world where a country administers territory but that territory is not 'in ____'? Maybe 'villages of Israel' is better because they are nonetheless adminstered by Israel and I don't know how that can be denied? I can't stand when people think that Israel is 'special' for everything. W/R to the category issue, redundant categorising is just messy. I don't like it when it's about companies or other entities, why should Israel settlements be different? 57, I understand your opinion, but your blanket 'boldness' has merely increased antagonism on the discussion. Palmiro, there is no contradiction in Tewfik's edit. Har Homa is not a seperate settlement enitity, though 'settlement' might also be viewed as any residence in post67 territory. Anyway, a standard consensus should be discussed rather than these piecemeal discussions that repeat themselves every few months. --Shuki 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In an ideal world they would be "Israeli cities" instead of "Cities of Israel", but like Shuki said, there is no reason for us to start creating a unique categorisation system for just one topic in Wikipedia. They are all linked in the lead to Israeli settlement, and it is entirely reasonable to expect that anyone interested in the complicated legal and other issues will click on it. Tewfik^Talk 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why they need to be in "Village in Israel" if they are also under "Israeli settlement" - the two are self-contradictory. Why shouldn't there be a unique categorisation for this - it is a unique situation in the world.

Also, I stick by my guns about all settlements going in the top level category as well as sub cats for clarity purposes. Number 57 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction; a settlement can be a village or even a city if it grows sufficiently large. Technically, the word "settlement" merely denotes the fact that the community is located on the land administered, but not annexed by Israel. Beit Or 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a contradiction. A "Village in Israel" is by definition in Israel. An "Israeli settlement" is by definition not in Israel. Number 57 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My view is that the entire category is near worthless due to the ideological determination which results in a few users insisting that one of its most important sub-elements, the East Jerusalem settlements, cannot be included in it. A category which leaves out such an enormous proportion of what belongs in it, for political reasons, and without any explicit statement of what is being done, is unhelpful to users and indeed potentially highly misleading. Palmiro | Talk 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest the following solution:

• All settlements in the West Bank go into Category:Israeli settlements and a relevant sub-category (e.g. Shomron/Gush Etzion Regional Council). They do not go into any "in Israel" category.
• All settlements in Gaza and Sinai and evacuated West Bank settlements go into Category:Former Israeli settlements (a sub cat of Israeli settlements). They do not go into any "in Israel" category.
• Religious settlements from both the West Bank and Gaza go into Category:Religious Israeli settlements (a sub cat of Israeli settlements).
• Settlements in annexed areas, i.e. the Golan and East Jerusalem, go into both Category:Israeli settlements and the relevant "in Israel" category as they can be considered both settlements and in Israel.
• Category:Local councils in Israel and Category:Regional councils in Israel get renamed Category:Israeli local councils and Category:Israeli regional councils as they are unique cases of not all being in the country.

Thoughts? Number 57 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems very reasonable. However, with regard to the first point, maybe it would address some of the points raised by other people to adopt the logic of the last point so that e.g. Ariel or Ma'ale Adumim could go into an "Israeli cities" category or suchlike. I appreciate the remarks made by Shuki further up. In my view, we shouldn't impose a general method of naming categories where it doesn't fit the particular circumstances that are of relevance, and I made the same point in relation to categories such as "Political parties in Palestine" which Tewfik quite rightly suggested some time ago could be better named. Palmiro | Talk 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Any renaming of the existing categories will disrupt the existing "xxx by country" categorization and is thus unlikely to gain consensus. Beit Or

I think if it was put across that Israel is a special case where the categories do not fit then it would be possible. In fact I shall ask a categories expert to come and give an opinion. Number 57 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(in reply to Beit Or, after edit conflict)Not necessarily. Some Palestinian categories were successfully moved for similar reasons. Palmiro | Talk 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that there is no such country as Palestine. Since there seems to be an agreement that settlements may also be included in categories mentioning both Israel and village/town, it's better to keep current category names, but add appropriate clarifications on the category pages. Beit Or 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that this might be a direction: All current settlements divided into either *Category:Religious Israeli settlements *Category:Non-Religious Israeli settlements or Category:Mixed Israeli settlements (all sub cats of Israeli settlements, not in both the super and sub cats) and other cats like regional council).

The local government cats seem to stray away from the wp consensus 'in ___', but it might avoid any POV claims.

Thanks 57 for the beginning of a 'standard'. In any case, I would hope to get more input from more editors over more time, not just a couple of us. --Shuki 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's one case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_9#Category:Political_parties_in_Palestine . Tewfik proposed quite a few other changes around the same time; AFAIR some were agreed and others weren't, but there seemed to be consensus that it was not necessary to maintain absolute consistency with category naming conventions that didn't work in the case in point. I can't immedistely find the other discussions. Palmiro | Talk 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: [[17]] is another, larger Palestinian category discussion. Palmiro | Talk 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not AFAICT enact any changes to the naming conventions. The issue, which is not parallel to this one, is that things were being mislabeled as "x of Palestine", when they in fact referred to "x of the Palestinian territories" or "x of the Palestinian Authority", and in any event, I modified my position in later naming schemes as I became more aware of the conventions. Regardless, the entries being categorised as part of Israel's local government are in fact part of Israel's local government. I'll clarify what I said above, which is that in theory, changing "x in Israel" to "Israeli x" would make the issue moot, but I don't believe that creating alternate hierarchies just for this topic is appropriate, especially as the 'status' issues are prominently mentioned on the lead of every entry in question. Tewfik^Talk 03:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like the political parties one at any rate is a clear parallel, insofar as these exist both in and outside Palestine and indeed have in some cases been most active in the diaspora; and the renaming (which you proposed) reflects that by departing from the convention for "Political parties in X". Palmiro | Talk 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But the settlements operate within the "Israel" system, not an external government etc. (imagine Nazareth was administered by the Palestinian Authority, assuming their institutions were administrated in the same way as those in Jenin, I would imagine those institutions would be categorised in a similar manner). Tewfik^Talk 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but within the Israeli system is not the same as "in Israel" - it's a fundamental difference and a good reason to rename the categories. Number 57 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the renaming the the local/regional council cats. Standard wp convention is 'XXX in country. The settlement local/regional councils are a tiny majority in each list, and as tewfik is arguing, part of local government in Israel. --Shuki 20:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But, as has happened with Palestinian article, categories can deviate from the standard if there is a need. Here there is clearly a need as including a settlement in an "in Israel" category is a very clear violation of NPOV as only a supporter of "Greater Israel" would say they are. Number 57 21:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice way to take this discussion, delegitimize editors who disagree with you as 'Greater Israel' supporters. Relax, take it easy and leave your assumptions somewhere else. I already said that it is problematic to describe a geographical as in 'Israel', but political entity/organization that works under the framework of 'regular' Israeli local government is another issue. --Shuki 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not delegitimising anyone; to my knowledge no-one in this discussion has tried to claim the settlements are in Israel. I am just pointing out that to put them in the "in Israel" categories is leaning towards this POV. Number 57 21:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So, back to the question, do people agree or disagree with the proposal mentioned above? Number 57 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree on the condition that all "X in Palestine" categories are moved to the appropriate "in the Palestinian territories" or "of the Palestinian Authority" categories. The idea that the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan are not "in Israel" is just pandering to political correctness and leftwing sensibilities. Until the day that "Palestine" becomes a full-fledged and widely recognized country (a situation which, for the record, I am not at all opposed to), these are all "in Israel". That's the geographic and political fact of the matter. LordAmeth 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They already have been (see Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories). So I take it that it's now a yes? :) Number 57 16:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. This is not my chief field of contributions, so I apologize for not being fully informed on the category structures, etc. (And just to be clear, I am being genuine, not sarcastic in saying this.) Thank you. LordAmeth 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have created Category:Religious Israeli settlements and populated it with religious settlements from the Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel. The new category is a sub-cat of Category:Israeli settlements, but not of Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel (as they are not in Israel), but it is there as a "See also". Number 57 09:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If they're not in Israel, where are they? Are we talking about settlements in the US and UK? Or settlements in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, or Jordan? LordAmeth 12:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They are in the Palestinian territories. Number 57 12:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

57, there is not one Israeli settlement in the 'Palestinian Territories'. You seem to be either uninformed or very biased toward NPOV. Please read up on the Oslo process and how the West Bank and Gaza had been divided up into Area A B C. --Shuki 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? The last time I looked there were plenty of settlements in the West Bank. You must be referring to the minority POV that only PNA-controlled areas are part of the territories. Your repeated accusations of POV against anyone who dares disagree with you are becoming very tiresome. Number 57 07:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] At least you concede that your view is also only a POV, not the objective truth. Please consider that when you discuss these issues and certainly when you edit.--DLand^TALK 13:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly everything related to Israel is seemingly POV as there is generally a very vocal minority that claims anything that goes against their pro-Israel mentality is POV. I pride myself on being objective on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but sadly I feel that there are a significant number of members of WikiProject Israel who are not. Some are more subtle than others, but it generally takes the form of removing facts that portray Israel in a bad light citing POV or OR, or by obsessively editing and expanding articles that portray the Palestinians in a bad light. Those people would do well to remember that this is not "WikiProject Defend Israel". I'm sorry if some of you are offended by that as there are some genuinely excellent project members, but this has been bugging me for a while and I feel it is necessary to get it off my chest. Number 57 13:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I mostly support the proposal. Just one point bothers me, about the religious settlements - there's no such thing as a religious settlement and the only religious municipality in Israel is El'ad, which is not a settlement. Sure, some settlements are religious in nature, like Immanuel, but they are no:t officially religious, therefore calling them religious would not be fit for an encyclopedia. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that, factually? I am certain that many settlements are 100% dati in population, and I was under the impression that, for these places, religious observance (at least an affirmation of such) is a prerequisite for joining the community.--DLand^TALK 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard claims that you need to be religious to join certain communities (yishuv kehilati) in Israel, but haven't found any basis for them. For example, if you want to purchase a home and/or live in Immanuel, you may do so freely - there are no checks whatsoever whether you're religious. For all I know, you don't even have to be Jewish. Even so, Immanuel has a 100% religious population, by far most of which is Haredi. I think the burden of proof about religious settlements lies with those who claim that they exist, because it's easier to find proof for one settlement being religious than it is to prove that all of them have no religion-based prerequisite. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of seconds of googling turned up this page, where it talks about the religious strictures in Matityahu.--DLand^TALK 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting, although it still does not imply that you must be religious in order to live in Matityahu (legally, that is). On the other hand, I'd like to know how they enforce the no TV/video rule. Maybe they don't have the necessarly infrastructure for cable/satellite TV? What about computers? Strange. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

57, please drop that baseless claim that I make 'repeated accusations of POV' because it simply ain't true. I very rarely accuse editors of POV, if you have time, see for yourself.

As for 'religious settlements', I agree with what Ynhockey says, but most villages are homogeneous and can be in fact classified either way (non-religious) as well. There are 'welcoming committees' for most of them to ensure many things, not only that 'like-people' move in but part of the consideration is that families will contribute to the community. Many communities need to be cohesive units in order to get past the beginning stage in a healthy way. After a few hundred families reside in a place, then it's harder to implement anyway. Even Ariel had a non-religious 'welcoming committee' at the beginning, but it was to filter out people who would not be able to stand the very hard conditions when they first placed tents on a barren hilltop in the middle of nowhere. As for assuring a no tv policy, it is a simple lifestyle choice not dependant on inadequate infrastructure. Most people who would want to move to a place like that don't have a tv in the first place and after living without one for a while, many people don't miss it either. --Shuki 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion reopened

Tewfik has now taken it upon himself to remove all the articles from Category:Religious Israeli settlements and put them into various Religious XXX in Israel categories, despite the fact that they have also been removed from Category:Israeli settlements. Do we have to start this discussion from the start again? Number 57 09:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that consensus on this discussion came out against your categorisation, the burden is on you, not me, with all due respect. I'll be glad to continue discussion with you, but I don't appreciate your framing this in a way that looks like I was sneaking some POV in, when this was all clearly explained above as doubly categorising the entries (and I see now that the new scheme has also sacrificed some detail), and I am thus returning everything to the position supported by that discussion until a new consensus arises. Tewfik^Talk 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you read the comments above, the majority (5-3) was for the creation of the Religious Settlements category; it was supported by myself, Shuki, Palmiro, Ynhockey and LordAmeth. You, Beit Or and DLand are the only ones who objected. And how on earth am I framing you for POV? Number 57 12:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay in responding, but as I said previously, I have read the comments above and don't believe that there was consensus for that change (Ynhockey, for example, opposed it on factual grounds), but that isn't really important. The problem is still that besides doubly categorising the members of Category:Israeli settlements, the hierarchy overcategorises by non-defining characteristics. That is, while it may be possible to have an article about the concept of a religious Israeli community (Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel), there is no unique concept that would warrant religious Israeli city (Category:Religious cities in Israel - speedy deleted CSD:C1), religious Israeli town (Category:Religious towns in Israel), religious Israeli village (Category:Religious villages in Israel), or religious Israeli settlement (Category:religious Israeli settlements), non-religious Israeli settlement (Category:non-religious Israeli settlements), and mixed Israeli settlement (Category:mixed Israeli settlements), the last three of which are further problematic since Israeli settlements are also cities, towns, or villages. Since your objection seems to be the phrasing as "in Israel", I don't see any problem changing Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel, which should be renamed in any event, to something like Category:religious Israeli city Category:religious Israeli communities or Category:religious Israeli localities, as there is no preexisting convention being violated here. Tewfik^Talk 10:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by doubly-categorising Israeli settlements - almost all are now only in the three subcats Category:Mixed Israeli settlements, Category:Non-religious Israeli settlements or Category:Religious Israeli settlements - there are less than 10 left in the top level category. Although I can see what you mean about the settlements now being unclassified as cities, towns or villages, is there actually a strict classification of which settlements are cities, towns and villages? If not, it might be difficult to fit them into a Religious cities/towns/villages hierachy. Number 57 10:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

57 brings up a good point. There does not seem to be a difference between village and town per se, and I think that even us deciding that local councils are towns but smaller settlements 'villages' might seem OR as well. Please correct me if I am wrong. I'd like to blame this mess on the general refusal to properly define a 'disputed locality' by anything other than the vague term 'settlement'. For instance, it is still required to argue that Ariel is a city because many refuse to accept this and want to keep calling it only a settlement as if it was a derogatory definition, among other reasons. In hindsight, I don't know if grouping localities based only on religious observance is ok, though I do not know if this exists anywhere else in the world. Are there religious hindu cities, or religious Catholic villages? --Shuki 12:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally I don't think there are and the premise is unique to Israel, though I have read about at least one evangelical christian town being built in Florida. Number 57 13:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Judging from your responses I'm not sure if I got my point across, which was that there is no such thing as a religious Israeli settlement, or a religious Israeli city for that matter, only (at best) a religious Israeli community or religious Israeli locality or whatever phrasing we decide to employ, which can apply equally regardless of the locality's nature. We don't have Category:Cities in the Haifa district, rather Umm al-Fahm is in both cities and district categories, just as El'ad should be in Category:Local councils in Israel and Category:religious Israeli locality or Category:religious Israeli community or whatever phrasing we choose to employ. I assure you that this is a straightforward case of overcategorisation by non-defining characteristic. I corrected an error of mine above - perhaps that threw everyone. My proposal then, is that since Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel needs renaming in any event, it be moved to one of the titles that avoids Number 57's problem with "in Israel".

As far as double categorisation, they are categorised under Category:Judea and Samaria Area as well as this whole "religious" hierarchy, but that is of secondary importance. Regarding towns and villages, I've tried to equate the former to local council's and the latter to kibbutz, moshav, communal settlement and the less-defined mukhtar system in Arab villages, but this is also an unrelated point [which can be standardised in Israel MoS or not]. Tewfik^Talk 02:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy with Category:Religious Israeli communities sitting alongside Category:Israeli settlements. However, that leaves the question about what to do with Category:Secular Israeli settlements. Is this category worthwhile (i.e. is a settlement being secular noteworthy enough to merit a new category Category:Secular Israeli communities? Number 57 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As I keep saying, that is double-categorisation. We don't double-categorise in order to "label" the entries, which is entirely unnecessary being that they all have that fact prominently displayed in their lead. Tewfik^Talk 08:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - categories are useful tools for (a) grouping articles and (b) navigating between them when there are too many for a template. It is even more important, as there is no List of Israeli settlements (the one for population stats does not include outposts), so without the category, there is no one place where all of them can be found together. Number 57 08:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But they all are already in Category:Israeli settlements' hierarchy - if the reason for the religious categories was just to get to this overcategorisation another way, then that is yet another way it violates policy... Tewfik^Talk 09:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

?? I've lost you. I'm not saying that Category:Religious Israeli communities would be a sub cat of Israeli settlements, because we could use it for places in Israel proper too (and scrap the Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel categories). And thus because it won't be a sub cat of Israeli settlements, they'll need to go in there too. Number 57 09:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand you either :-), but this seems like a straightforward point of categorisation policy to me. Perhaps more knowledgeable editors at the CfD will be better able to make sense of all this. Tewfik^Talk 08:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with Category:Religious Israeli localities, as long as all the articles in Category:Religious Israeli settlements are put in both the new category and Category:Israeli settlements. Number 57 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just come across this article (Al-Karamah Battle), and find its contents quite hard to believe. Even if the core facts are true, they are surely represented in a highly biased fashion. I am no expert on such matters, but I hope that someone here who is can take the necessary steps to rectify this situation and rewrite this article to better reflect the truth. Todah rabah. LordAmeth 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No need. It's already covered at Karameh; the new article should be has been redirected there. Palmiro | Talk 23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks. LordAmeth 23:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I created an article for Kibbutz Gal On. Since it is in the scope of your Wikiproject, I added your template to it. Hope you like it, and hopefully I will be able to create articles for more kibbutzim in the future. Notecardforfree 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, please add new articles here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/New articles --Shuki 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. Notecardforfree 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Suicup is trying to push some of his/her own POV on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page by claiming that "Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are a key obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict" (emphasis added). All fair-minded Wikipedia editors with a working knowledge of WP:NPOV have agreed that a more neutral word (such as "a factor" rather than "a key obstacle") would be more appropriate. Suicup claims to be unbiased in this matter, and yet in the debate, he/she accused those that challenged him to be "a clique of pro-Israeli contributors," implying that (1) Suicup is anti-Israel and therefore the lone voice of reason and (2) that there is a Jewish conspiracy on Wikipedia. Any help in this matter would be appreciated. Thanks. --GHcool 06:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with him. Places like Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim are indeed a key obstacle to a peace agreement as if they are left it damages a Palestinian state's territorial contiguity, whilst removing them is very difficult given their size. Number 57 10:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And as I have written on that discussion page, there are reliable sources which state the same (this Haaretz editorial actually calls them the main obstacle). Number 57 10:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As written, the statement appears to be an opinion of the author. Why not rewrite it something like this: "Many analysts—including many Israelis—consider the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem 'a key obstacle'<ref>whoever is quoted (the Haaretz article, eg)</ref> to a peaceful resolution of the conflict."

Put the controversy in someone else's mouth, giving at least the pleasant disguise of NPOV.

--Ravpapa 14:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well how about this Jerusalem Post article which states "The US and other foreign governments do not recognize the settlements, and consider settlement construction an obstacle to Mideast peace." (and the post is right wing!) Number 57 18:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but how about this and this and what Alan Dershowitz wrote in The Case for Israel? If we say "many analysts ... consider Israeli settlements to be a key obstacle," we must also say that "many analystst do not consider Israeli settlements to be a key obstacle!" Why don't we just avoid the POV all together and write in neutral terms? --GHcool 19:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"US and other governments" are not analysts. They are officially recognised international bodies. Hardly POV! I guess you could say "Every country in the world considers them a key obstacle, apart from Israel" but it seems a bit silly when it's put like that, doesn't it? Number 57 19:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you apply the same logic and standards to Hezbollah's status as a "terrorist" or "resistance" organization? --GHcool 19:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. However, only six countries recognise it as such (as opposed to almost all countries with the settlement thing) so it's difficult to get it listed as its main characteristic, especially as the case is complicated by the fact that they are also a legal political party (unlike, say, the IRA, who were solely a terrorist organisation). If you want a mirror for this situation, see Kach and Kahane Chai (an article I totally rewrote); both are now listed as terrorist organisations, but again by only a few countries. Number 57 20:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Countries have no friends’ only interests" is a famous saying attributed to Benjamin Disraeli. Therefore what difference does it make what countries think. Whatever position they take on Israeli settlements is only based on their interests not on anything even close to the truth. Anyhow do you really think that removing Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim will solve the problem? Leaving Lebanon and Gaza should at least throw into question the assumption that leaving the territories would solve the problem. Even those that thought that Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim was the obstacle now don't believe so anymore. I think Wikipedia should reflect the newspaper analysis of today not the wishful thinking of ten years ago by countries with interests. Itzse 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are misrepresenting the facts; the Haaretz and Jerusalem Post articles saying the settlements are obstacles were both written within the last year, so it's not exactly "wishful thinking of ten years ago". And yes, I really think that removing all the settlements, including Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim would go someway to improving relations, especially if they were left standing for Palestinians to move into. Number 57 08:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Itzse's comment epitomizes the problem with this article. The article throughout - not just the section on settlements - tries to describe what the dispute is about, instead of saying what people say the dispute is about. "Israel says" is a fundamentally wrong thing to say: countries can't talk, only people can talk. Israeli government positions (of today - they change, you know) should be presented as direct quotes from position papers or from government spokesmen. Opposing views should also be direct quotes.

I wonder, for example, what the official Israeli position is on the question of settlements as an obstacle to peace. Off the top of my head, I cannot recall an Israeli spokesman saying "Israeli settlements are not an obstacle to peace," in so many words. Foreign ministers are wily, cagey, and mendastic, and they don't like to make clear statements of policy. Unofficially, both views have been stated clearly and emphatically by people of importance, and they should be directly quoted.

As long as we try to describe what the conflict is about, rather than what people say about the conflict, we will be caught in the kind of endless polemic that our friend Itzse presents. --Ravpapa 04:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Put the controversy in someone else's mouth, giving at least the pleasant disguise of NPOV. writes --Ravpapa 14:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC) in this section. Well, thank you for improving Wikipedia, and the minds of the wikipedians. -DePiep 17:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While it's quite understandable why "Number 57" thinks that Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim is a key obstacle to peace, and maybe if I were living in Israel and in your shoes, I would want to believe so too. It is no more then another opinion. Therefore to use the word "factor" is more then enough as many people are of the opinion that it isn't even a factor; the problem lies elsewhere. Itzse 17:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi.. does anyone know what is the correct way to alphabetise Israeli last names.. Do David ben Gurion and Simon bar Kochba go under 'B' or under 'G' and 'K' respectively? What about arabic names e.g. 'Osama bin Laden'? Zargulon 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just asked the librarian at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, the Jewish synagogue famous for having David Wolpe as its head rabbi. She says that American English library standards, David Ben Gurion, Simon Bar Kochba, and Osama Bin Laden would all be alphabetized under the letter B. She did not know if Hebrew, Arabic, or British English cataloging protocol is different. --GHcool 00:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble! I'm glad to know the answer. Zargulon 00:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe British English also sorts them under B. I would be interested to know if Arabic sorts names such as el Sana under E or S though! Number 57 07:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In Hebrew, they would also be alphabetized under "B" (well, Bet, actually), so English is consistent with the Hebrew practice. --Ravpapa 05:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Stand up and be counted. Following is the reasoning that I gave for the article name change, and waited for any objections. When none were forthcoming I made the name change.

But as you can expect those wishing to have the old name because it pushes their POV, reverted my change. Let's do it the right way, and for that I need your help. Itzse 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the explanation given in that talk page:

---Let's rename the article before we discuss the introduction---

Tiamat has suggested that we discuss the intro which has been a bone of contention.

Before we discuss what the content of the intro should be, we need to first go to the root of the problem; then I think everything will fall into place.

The problem is that the name of the article in and of itself is patently wrong, misleading and POV; which forces us to craft the intro to correct what it wrongly insinuates; otherwise the reader of the article will walk away thinking that a "Palestinian people" is a fact and there are no other opinions on the matter.

Let me explain if it still needs explaining. There is an article called Palestine which refers to the region called Palestine. Rightly or wrongly, it’s a fact. Then we have an article Palestinian Jews which talks about the Jews living in Palestine. Now for the Arabs living in Palestine we should have an article called Palestinian Arabs; instead, lo and behold "Palestinian Arabs" gets redirected to "Palestinian people"; which means that Wikipedia becomes an accomplice to pushing a one-sided POV and de-facto creating a "Palestinian people" which never existed. This is totally unfair to say the least.

Yes, there were Arabs living in Palestine just as there were Jews living there who were identified together as “Palestinians”, or as "Palestinian Arabs" and "Palestinian Jews" when identified individually. But after the establishment of the State of Israel, those Arabs who didn't want to be called "Israeli Arabs" were left without an identity, so by default they were called "Palestinians”. But that's a far cry from calling them "Palestinian People" which is a brand new creation for a political agenda.

At its best even if you don't agree with me; "Palestinian People" as it stands is POV, and it should be renamed to "Palestinian Arabs" which will automatically link directly numerous redirects. Itzse 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your request, but the article name policy is to generally stick with the most common English name, which I think you will agree is "Palestinians" in this case. Indeed, I propose renaming this article to "Palestinians." nadav (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Palestinians" is a great improvement over "Palestinian people" as far as POV is concerned and would rectify most of the POV injustice, but it will still leave some vagueness; as the Neturei Karta consider themselves "Palestinians" and for the rights to Palestine the Israelis haven't relinquished their claim as Palestinians. So by renaming this article to "Palestinians" we would still need some clarification in the intro to explain the nuances.

Therefore I propose to rename the article to "Palestinian Arabs" with "Palestinians" redirected to it, so that when "Palestinian" is mentioned in the context of Arabs it will rightly link to "Palestinian Arabs" and when "Palestinian" refers to "Palestinian Jews" it will link to "Palestinian Jew" as it actually does in some articles. As to "Palestinian people" it should become a paragraph name in the "Palestinian Arabs" article, explaining the term, usage and history and all opinions about it.

As far as the most common English name; "Palestinians" is commonly used as short for "Palestinian Arabs" and both are equally commonly used. So in our case where the term "Palestinians" has a POV innuendo and needs clarification, it's better to use the unvague and precise term "Palestinian Arabs" which leaves no question as to what is talked about. Itzse 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I did some research and found that the article was renamed on January 5, 2006 from "Palestinian" to "Palestinian people" by Khoikhoi; and for a reason he gives: "Moved Palestinian to Palestinian people to avoid confusion"^[1]. Little did he know that he would create more confusion. On July 29, 2006 Khoikhoi finished off the cycle by redirecting "Palestinian Arabs" to "Palestinian people"^[2].

So here you have it; we can either go on the old tracks that didn't work or we can go on new tracks which are accurate. Itzse 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell: "Palestinian People" is POV, "Palestinian" was tried and found to be ambiguous and confusing. Therefore its time to try the correct term which is "Palestinian Arab".

As there are no objections, “Palestinian People” is being renamed to “Palestinian Arab” as per WP:Article naming policy, specifically WP:Precise. I hope that this will clear up any confusion.

As I don’t have much technical experience; if I botch up, please fix whatever needs to be fixed. Thanks everybody. Itzse 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Its been about a month now and there hasn't been much progress. It appears that a majority of editors feel that "Palestinians" is the better article title, but whenever we have come close to a consensus on this, someone scuttles the debate by asserting that Palestinians are a people by using the logic that "group of people" and "people" mean the same thing. I'm having trouble finding the will to continue the debate dispite how many times I've previously won it. I'm asking for some help and if I do not get it, I fear I will have to quit. If this happens, this will be the first Wikipedia debate I ever lost or come to no consensus on. --GHcool 20:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a disagreement here over whether the first sentence of Nuclear weapons and Israel should be "Israel was the sixth country in the world to develop nuclear weapons..." I would appreciate any input. -- Joshdboz 11:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on User:Number 57's moving of Yom Ha'atzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim to their respective English translations. The user has done so without consensus and subsequently undid my reverts - and I'm not prepared to get into a move war. Thank you, DLand^TALK 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Add Yom Hazikaron to that list.--DLand^TALK 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not support these unilteral moves by 57. At least this one is going through properly Yom HaShoah. Please comment either way here, but preferably on each page. --Shuki 17:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia...ابو علي (Abu Ali) 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that changing these to the English name subtracts from their cultural context. These holidays are unique entities unto themselves, and not simply the Israeli version of an independence day, memorial day, etc. Or should we start renaming the religious holidays too, to English equivalents? LordAmeth 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope Number 57 doesn't move Yom HaShoah to "Holocaust Day!" I suppose he/she would move Cinco de Mayo to "Fifth of May" as well? --GHcool 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali wrote:"This is English Wikipedia". Yes it is, Father of Ali. :-) Despite it being English Wikipedia, we have articles about Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, not "Jewish New Year" and "Jewish Day of Atonement". On the other hand, we do have Passover, which is a very widely-used English name for Pesach. "Independence Day" and "Jerusalem Day" may be used in the English-language Israeli media, but the names "Yom Ha'atzmaut" and "Yom Yerushalayim" are much more common — even among English-speakers who may not know much Hebrew (in the United States, for example). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then - preliminary consensus established. Let's move them back.--DLand^TALK 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, we do not call Bastille Day "Fête Nationale" so why should it be different for these holidays? No-one ever used the Hebrew words for these events when speaking to me in English, and the evidence from the English language press in Israel is overwhelmingly in favour of the English use (I believe the only hits for Yom HaShoah on the Haaretz website were actually on the talkback). It is a Wikipedia policy to use both the common name and the English name. Number 57 08:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that we can find examples that go both ways - true, some things like Bastille Day and Chinese New Years' are known by an English name. But many other holidays are not - Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur have already been mentioned, and the same goes for pretty much every other Jewish holiday - just look at Template:Jewish holidays and you'll see that most are titled by their Hebrew names here on Wikipedia. You make a very good point that WP:COMMONNAME dictates that we use the most common name for things - it just so happens that for most if not all Jewish holidays with the exception of Passover, the Hebrew name (or Yiddish, I suppose) is the most common. I find it very interesting that you say that, living in Israel, you've always heard these terms in English when being spoken to in English; I would not have expected that. Still, in my experience, living in New York (the second-largest Jewish community outside of Israel), it is very uncommon for people in everyday reallife conversation to use the English names for these things. LordAmeth 08:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that Yom Kippur and Rosh HaShanah are religious holidays, and English tends to retain the "native" word for religious events. However, the ones we are dealing with now are secular Israeli holidays which were invented in the last 60 years. Number 57 08:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

57, as posted on a few other talk pages, there is no consensus. FWIW, by your logic, all the Israeli national days you refered to are celebrated on the Hebrew date and they all have a semi-religious status in Israel and in Jewish communities. For Orhtodox Jews, Yom Haatzmaut is a special religous day. Also, ignorance is not an excuse and neither is being embarrassed about one's ethnicity (not accusing you, but rather the Israeli English media). If a non-Jew learns that Jews call the day commemorating the independance of Israel as Yom Haatzmaut, then they will respect that. There's no reason to water down the culture. --Shuki 16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But as I have pointed out, no Jew I have spoken to has ever referred to these holidays by their Hebrew names when speaking in English. In addition to the Israeli media, all the foreign media (BBC etc.) use the English names too. Using English language on Wikipedia is why we have an article on Labor Party (Israel) rather than Avoda, Jerusalem rather than Yerushalayim (if you insist Yom Yerushalayim is correct, shouldn't you be enforcing this change too?) and Israel national football team rather than Nivheret Yisrael. Why should holidays be any different? Number 57 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Number 57, it should be pointed out that your personal experience ("no Jew I have spoken to...") has no bearing in this discussion. My personal experience is just the opposite.--DLand^TALK 17:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Having lived in Israel, I would say my experience is important in determining how Israeli holidays are rendered in English. Number 57 07:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I once heard a story that either a Danish fishing boat or a monument resembling such a boat is located near the Yad Vashem. If anybody has a picture of it, it would be a great addition to the rescue of the Danish Jews article. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two editors currently trying to keep the status quo of violating WP:Undue weight in the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. I first tried asking them to cut their criticisms of the endorsemnt to flight theory down and when they refused, I told them I would add whatever I could find to make the claims section as long as the criticisms section. Now they're trying to censor the new stuff I added, mostly with flimsy excuses such as that The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East doesn't exist. I'd appreciate some help. The most relevent section of the talk page is here. --GHcool 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion at

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Edit warring and POV pushing Category:Jerusalem. --Timeshifter 11:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is now archived here: [18]. --Timeshifter 17:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I spotted a doublet: Mitzpe Ramon Airfield (formerly referenced as an 'airfield' without mention of the fact that it is an airbase, not an airport) and Ramon Airbase. One should be deleted and the other cleaned up (please, see Ramon Airbase talk page), but I sure won't take the risk to be called a vandal and, then, won't do anything. Sorry for that, but I'm fed up with quick accusations and snipers… — Іван Коренюк ψ Ivan Korenyuk 14:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected Mitzpe Ramon Airfield to Ramon Airbase as that is how it's better known. Number 57 15:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually they are different air bases if you read this article. Number 57 15:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Category:Palestinian territories and:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7. --Timeshifter 00:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have put forth a peer review for the Israel article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Israel/archive1. Comments are welcome there (and on Talk:Israel, if you prefer). -- tariqabjotu 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

At this moment, a significant case is occurring at the page for arbitration proceedings, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop, a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Allegations_of_apartheid.

A group of editors has been developing an article entitled "Allegations of Israeli apartheid." In response, a group of editors attempted to build a set of articles detailing allegations of "apartheid" in other countries.

In response some editors of the Israel-apartheid article allege that editors who worked on articles about other countries have violated WP:POINT. However editors of articles on other countries say that they were trying to foster some objectivity.

Currently, the ArbCom case has shown somewhat of a pattern of conflicting allegations about various users' conduct, related to both sides in the discpute. This was inevitable, since ArbCom's primary focus is user conduct, not content disputes.

Your help might be useful. Please go to this proceeding and insert your comments on what you feel are the best ways to achieve fairness and balance, in accordance with Wikipedia principles.

If you wish, you may also weigh in at WP:VPP, on the question of whether ArbCom or some other body should address content disputes, in order to somewhat reduce the cycle of accuations and allegations.

Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been reported for WP:CANVASsing. Number 57 08:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion on whether to rename this category Category:Religious Kibbutz Movement as the main article has been moved to Religious Kibbutz Movement. Number 57 08:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone created an AfD for the List of attacks committed during the Second Intifada article. Please vote your conscience here. --GHcool 06:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The article Shlomi Bar'el has been nominated for deletion. Sources have been provided in the AfD discussion but are still not actually used in the article. Input, particularly from editors who are familiar with the Hebrew alphabet, would be most appreciated. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a Qxz ad! It's here. Sahmsidea Tel Aviv 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Beit She'an is currently a good article, but may lose that status if deficiencies are not corrected. We need help from somebody knowledgeable about this city and its history, or somebody who has access to reliable sources of information about the city. Online sources are not particularly comprehensive, so a trip to the library may be required. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What do people think about using Template:MKs rather than Template:Infobox Prime Minister for Prime Minister of Israel (see David Ben-Gurion vs Haim-Moshe Shapira)? Personally I would prefer it, as it can show multiple previous parties (more common to Israel :) ), multiple previous cabinet posts (both of which Infobox politician can do, but making it horrendously big) and year of Aliyah. It is also used for PMs over on the he.wikipedia in place of the more general PM infobox. Thoughts? Number 57 14:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hebrew language at WP:GAR; could lose GA status. --Ling.Nut 08:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A handful of editors are trying to put the references to the work of Norman Finkelstein in the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Comments are welcome here. --GHcool 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether M. Seligman & Co. is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I recently changed the wikiproject page's interface to an older one that was existent for back this year. I think its simpler, cleaner and better for the PR of this project. Everything about the project is linked to from within it so no data is being mispresented. Please discuss... in the meantime i will revert. - ephix —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Don't like - The original layout is like a dashboard with everything on the same page for easy access. The 'new' version forces the user to go to other links (a tried and true tool to basically eliminate them from being viewed which is usually not the expected outcome) and emphasizes the project logo that really does not mean too much by itself anyway. --Shuki 22:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, I don't like it either for the same reasons. --GHcool 23:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• I prefer the old interface, with all necessary links in one page. I still dont see features like to do list, or new articles page in the new interface. -- Derwig 20:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely go for the old one - ease of use in this case is much more important than aesthetics. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not many supporters for the new interface. I will revert to the old one. - Derwig 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

According to many authors, including Israeli once, the Israel youth groups aren't informed about Jewish history in Poland, they visit only Holocaust places, don't meet young Poles. The article doesn't mention any problem, so it's biased.Xx236 07:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? If you have something to add, find references and improve the article. I don't think that this is the place to criticize specific articles for being imcomplete. What I remember about young Poles is having them throw coins at us while walking in the streets. --Shuki 18:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem was specified in July: Talk:March of the Living, no comments yet. I (or we) prefer to discuss the problem before editing the article. Xx236 09:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As a monolinguist, I am finding myself inadequate to properly expand the article on journalist Israel Segal. :) It needs details on his date of birth as well as more information about his career. There are relatively few articles in English about this man, who seems by the accounts I've found to be notable. I'd appreciate any assistance that anyone can offer. :) --Moonriddengirl 01:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an update that date of birth & Hebrew name have been added by User:Number 57 (thanks again!). I imagine there's still plenty of room for expansion from Hebrew sources. --Moonriddengirl 12:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see this [19] Zeq 21:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=567234 I'm not sure how and where this problem started to arrise, but please make sure that such a problem does not exist. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely hilarious! I've never been accused of being a member of a fanatic and fascist organisation or of standing on the side of oppression, falsehood, rumors, conspiracy and disinformation before. To be honest, I wouldn't think a site which describes the UK as a fascist/terrorist state entirely reliable... пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I also find this hilarious, I also find this highly offensive. I don't hesitate to call this article anti-Semitic even though I'm sure the writer of the article would criticize me for doing so. Somebody is trying to shut us up. It won't work. --GHcool 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The news article is over-the-top, but some of its points are valid. Why does Israel-Venezuela relations, which is about relations between two countries, discuss internal incidents in Venezuela that have nothing to do with Israel (such as the raid at a Jewish school)?

Anti-Israel activities are within the scope of the article, and to the extent that they include antisemtitic imagery and language that should be discussed, but why does the article seem to include all antisemitic incidents in Venezuela? Why does an article about international relations have a section called "Accusations of anti-Semitism"?

Unless one believes that Israel is the state of all the world's Jews or that every Jew is an emissary of the State of Israel, the article's focus should be limited to its subject: Israel-Venezuela relations. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - The same problem exists at Criticism of Hugo Chávez, where "Accusations of Chávez anti-Semitism" — an entirely appropriate section — is a subsection of "Venezuelan-Israeli relations". While there may be some overlap, the two sections really should be separate from one another. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No. All that proves is that the Israel-Venezuela relations article is not a very good article or that it is incorrectly named. The Venezuelan article linked to above alleges more than that. --GHcool 00:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There are some points to the webarticle. I would advise to retool this information. Instead of making this about "Chávez is anti-semitic" (as one could read the article now), you should make it about how Venezuala/Chávez likes to "taunt" other countries. Make Venezuela the subject, and Israel "one of the victims". Give equal weight to all those "victims" and less people will complain. That works much better to prevent reactions like the one above I think. WP:Israel sometimes writes a bit too much from the Israeli viewpoint, that is something that I do agree with. I know it's not really your "responsibility", but Israel is a delicate subject, so some BLP-like carefulness can never hurt. One of the BLP rules: If the subject is only notable trough this one event, then write about the event and include the subject, instead of writing a biography of the subject. So make it about "taunting others, incl israel" instead of "attacking israel". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Help is needed to sort out the Deputy leaders of Israel article. There's confusion of the following titles Acting Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Vice Prime Minister and who holds those titles. GoodDay 14:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No confusion with who is what, but just doesn't translate well into English. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to me requesting that MiszaBot II automatically archive this page? If not, I'll request that it archive any discussion more than 20 days old. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, as there was no opposition, I have set this up. Hopefully it should start work soon. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you should pay attention to this article, for mi it's just a hoax. --Kimdime69 23:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does look rather suspicious. Searches on Google yield a lot of articles from Jew Watch. Does anybody have any suggestions about what should be done about this page? --GHcool 05:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ringworm is a name for Tinea capitis, a fungal infection, and not really a worm. See the entry in Hebrew wiki for history of radiation for Tinea capitis in Israel (he:גזזת), it is well sourced. I could not find evidence to the number of children treated being 100,000. -- Derwig 08:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As the article is mostly just the movie's description [20], and lacks any independent reliable sources (the 2 references are actually 2 releases of the same movie, and the single inline citation links to a blog), the article can probably be deleted as mere spam. Rami R 09:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the references of the Hebrew article (for instance the one in the Ministry of Health web site)? the English article definitely needs improvement, but deleting it as spam is ridiculous. -- Derwig 09:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim that this isn't a serious and notable issue, but rather that in its current form the article is little more than an advertisement for the film, and that if the article is not significantly improved, it should be deleted. Rami R 11:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I agree. The issue is notable (and not a hoax as suggested above), but the current article should probably be speedy-deleted per copyvio. Another title should be used for an article on the subject, if ever created. -- Derwig 12:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't read hebrew, anyone have an english source, medical source for exemple, stating that "approximately 100,000 Sephardi Jews were irradiated" and that it caused "high rates of infertility, cancer and death." ? There should be something no? Is there any big newspaper wich made an article about the film? If not well it's just a hoax. I also have to say that the author of this thing is using sock puppetry in french encyclopedia so please check all his editions.--Kimdime69 13:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Try google search for "ringworm radiation Israel", some of the results you get are from credible sites. Look here [21] for a BMJ article on compensation for victims, and here [22] for epidemiology data. A pubmed (www.pubmed.com) search yields many papers on risks of radiation for Tinea capitis, examples for papers from Israel - [23], [24] (Medscape & Reuters coverage of previous article), [25]. The subject is not a hoax, but the current text is a copyvio (see link to amazon provided by Rami R), and the number of affected individuals is unsourced. Again, I suggest nomination for speedy deletion for copyvio -- Derwig 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the links, so there should be an article about this thing but a serious one, I agree with your conclusions. If anybody is interested here is the link to the french delation page --Kimdime69 15:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As many of you may have noticed, User:MJCdetroit converted many Israeli municipality infoboxes into global city infoboxes. There are several problems with this:

• No place to put alternate transliterations and other nuances special to Israel (and Palestinian towns if we're at it)
• There was a discussion where consensus was reached that settlements was too strong a word in the case of Israel and should only be used in the cases of West Bank settlements (therefore the name, infobox settlement, is incompatible)
• There's just no good reason to use the global template (it's more difficult to use, more limited for Israel's specific needs, and has absolutely no visible benefits)

What are your opinions? I personally suggest to revert all the changes and keep using the Israeli template (Infobox Israel muni).

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. The Israel muni template is much more flexible. nadav (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the Israeli one. Global ones are not so flexible. Number 57 08:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Standard/Global templates are almost always preferred over topic-specific infoboxes. Having the standard infobox would give Israeli municipalities a similar look and function as infoboxes used by many other countries.

I am going through and replacing the word "Settlement" with "Municipality" to eliminate any confusion/incompatibility.

The new infobox incorporates an automatic location map of Israel, which I would consider a big visible benefit. If needed we can see about adding additional other name fields to the template to be able add alternate transliterations (which are now separated by a </br> in the other_name field).

Please compare Majda Shams THEN and NOW. —MJCdetroit 16:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was you who decided that global templates were preferred over local. I have never heard of such a decision from anyone else and you have so far failed to point it out.

On the issue of the automatic map and some of the other changes, I like them - and this means that it can easily be transferred to the local Israeli template. In fact, I will attempt to do this now.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I would also like to point out that many of your changes are incorrect, for example, Majdal Shams is in the North(ern) District. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I got Golan from the article itself, it is/was easily corrected.—MJCdetroit 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the new map feature is nice, but in every other way the previous revision of Majdal Shams was better. Look how many important fields were dropped. nadav (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to undo the changes? I am not happy with them. Number 57 08:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that MJCdetroit already tried to delete the Palestinian template, which was relisted due to none of the numerous objectors having been notified. The TfD is located here, which I fear risks a similar precedent for the sister template at this WikiProject. Tewfik^Talk 08:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So, what is going to be done? More municipalities are being changed to the new infobox, while many others are left with the old, creating an annoying inconsistency. I have been unable to transfer the dynamic map to the local Israeli template, and therefore this is now the immediate benefit of the global template. Also it no longer uses 'settlement', which means that 2 of the major disadvantages have been removed - leaving only the fact that it's difficult to add alternative transliterations and names. So, do we keep converting to the new template, or revert all the changes and use the old one? I propose a combination, but for that someone would need to be able to move the dynamic map to the Israeli template. If no one is able to do this, we will probably have to move to the global template. Please comment. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we should reverse the changes. Since the map is just code, someone should be able to solve the problem, no? Tewfik^Talk 01:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that many of the military entries' new and improved titles used (IDF) as a disambiguation term. I'm not sure that this is a good idea, as both the Iceland Defense Forces and Irish Defence Forces use that acronym. While "Paratroopers Brigade (IDF)" may not be confused, it seems the likelihood exists, and so perhaps you should use something like (Israel) instead? Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 01:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Since those working on the Towns Info box did such a good job of enhancing the new info box, I would ask that they do the same to the Info Box for kibbutzim. It would greatly enhance the infobox to have items such as the pushpin map and longtitud/latitude of the kibbutz displayed.

As moshavim are similar to kibbutzim in many ways (and with the moves by Kibbutz Degania and Ayalelet Hashahar to privatize - convert to moshavim), though, as far as I know, they lack an affliliation to an organization as is part of the kibbutz profile, I would also suggest using the kibbutz infobox for moshavim as well. Talk 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the article about Latrun refers to 2 battles : operation Bin Nun and Bin Nun Bet.
Anita Shapira talks about 6 assaults during the 1948 War.
I identified 5 :

• Bin Nun (25 mai)
• Bin Nun Bet (30 mai)
• Operation Yoram (8 june)
• second phase of Operation Larlar (16 july)
• other attemps during Operation Larlar (18 july)

What would be the 6th one ?
Thank you, Alithien 11:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this article is ready for GA nomination? --Ravpapa 09:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have been watching your progress with this article. It is comprehensive & well written, IMO ready for GA nomination. Derwig 10:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me. --GHcool 17:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The GA has been put on hold by reviewer Blnguyen. I found this review pretty unsatisfactory. I wrote my comments on my user page, at User talk:Ravpapa#My comments on GA review of Music of Israel. I welcome comments on whether I am being hypersensitive, or whether this is worth pursuing. --Ravpapa 08:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ravpapa- As you noted yourself, some of the comments are actionable and would improve the article. There are a number of comments which are too general, and the reviewer would need to specify exactly what needs fixing. Your replies to comments regarding style and wikipolicies sound reasonable to me, and you may be able to convince the reviewer. I would urge you to remember that this is a long article, and the reviewer has made an effort to review it. I suggest you post your replies on the article talk page (although some of them could use a rephrasing to take the "edge" off...). Derwig 08:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

At the top it says:

“

Note that none of these articles mention if the Kibbutzim are also illegal settlements under international law established in occupied territories (Golan Heights or West Bank).

”

Can someone explain if this is correct or not? Govvy 14:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There are probably some kibbutzim in the West Bank, but whether the statement is correct is not relevant to the article, therefore I'm going to remove it. Thanks for the heads up. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No matter what, it's a dumb sentence to add to that list page. OR, not specific, not explained on the discussion page, and really is not relevant to a list page anyway. --Shuki 21:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

kk, cheers, Govvy 10:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

While this does not concern Israel or WP:ISRAEL as a whole, I'd like to point out an article, Tel Arad, which does not have any references even though it's probably very easy to find them considering it's an article about the history of a fairly well-known site. Can anyone find some references please? After that we can start trying to turn this into a good article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this image a bit too "suggestive" to be used as the image for the project? Why not the Israeli flag, like on every other national project? It pretty much gives the impression that Wikipedia is controlled by Jews! Funkynusayri (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If somebody is looking for that interpretation, they will find it no matter what, but I agree that the Israeli flag is more appropriate because the current graphic looks like it is WikiProject Judaism or something. --GHcool (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[[:Image:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 2005 Syria al-Awael.jpg|thumb|This 2005 Syrian edition includes an "historical and contemporary investigative study" that repeats the blood libel among other antisemitic accusations, and argues that the Torah and Talmud encourage Jews "to commit treason and to conspire, dominate, be arrogant and exploit other countries". ^{ITC CSS}]] I don't mean that it would look like that, as if it was true, but it would look like anti-Jewish propaganda which aimed to prove it, like those old Protocols of Zion book covers of a Jew holding the world and similar. Maybe I'm too suspicious, but I'd imagine the same if I it was a crescent moon with a Wikipedia logo in it, I'd think the creators were trying to show that Wikipedia was run by Muslims. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this field, just a bypasser, but for me the logo looks ok and does not make me suspicious. As a kind of an artist I see this kind of mixing of symbols as creative and free minded, and not a sign of control. For me the logo gives the impression that people involved it are not fanatic; fanatics could not modify their important symbols in such way. You should not be too worried about possible mis-interpretations, because if somebody wants to think that Wikipedia is controlled by jews, any logo can not change that. Tuohirulla puhu 15:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have recently expanded the Shaghur article by adding statistics provided by the ICBS via Ynhockey and merging the Majd al-Krum, Bi'ina and Deir al-Asad articles into Shaghur as done in the Hebrew wikipedia. The article is currently rated a Start article but I think now since the city's demographics, economy, education, politics, sports and history sectors have been created and the article hits all major points it deserves B-class status. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine

Hi all,

Wikinews reporter User:David Shankbone is going on a trip to Israel and will be gathering materials for Wikipedia, Commons and Wikinews: see announcement here on wikinews.

This would "including guided tours of the tunnels under the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, and Tel Aviv (for photos all), in addition to the pre-arranged schedule" and interviews.

I'd like to ask anyone here to go to the discussion page on Wikinews and give suggestions or requests, as well as to come to Wikinews to edit the articles resulting from this excursion.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These articles are written in a very one sided and anti-Israeli point of view. It really needss attention. Best Regards --Kaaveh (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Golan Heights, an ip editor appears to be POV pushing. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've found a historic photo that might be feature-worthy but the caption from the century-old stereoscope looks politically loaded by today's standards (Mideast issues). So I'm seeking feedback on how to craft NPOV language and move forward with a nomination. The discussion is located here. Input would be much appreciated.

I contacted a couple of users individually, but I guess the best thing to do here is to contact both the Israel and the Palestine WikiProjects. It's a fine historic image of two Arab women grinding coffee, basially apolitical, but the original description doesn't look NPOV by today's standards. I'd just like to move toward WP:FPC without accidentally stepping on anybody's toes. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 23:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall from a course at uni that Ashdod, Ashkelon and Be'er Sheva were all originally classed as development towns - can anyone confirm this before I add them to the article? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For the Israel stamp collectors and lovers, there is no article yet for Postage stamps and postal history of Israel (part of Category:Postal history by country) that would have so many Jewish themes. Feel free to go ahead and start it. (See the other country's in Category:Postage stamps by country that have theirs.) Nothing for Israel on Category:Postage stamps by country neither on List of country articles containing postal sections nor on List of philatelic bureaus. (but just a teeny note on Israel at Compendium of postage stamp issuers (Io - Iz).) This is truly a great shame and pity because Israel, and before that when it was the British Mandate produced and continues to issue the most beautiful and extensive stamps by any country. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think the COTW feature is currently way underused and was wondering if there is any way to send a message to members of the Wikiproject each week with the new article in it? At the moment it isnt being updated, I think in part, because the articles arent really acted on when they are COTW. --Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An Israeli company Emblaze LD listed on the UK stock exchange LSE: BLZ has taken over a Korean company with notability issues called Innostream. If anyone on this project would like to effect a merge write on the new parent company, their input would be very welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Should really this portal deal with items, people or sites in occupied areas? Ofeig (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i am an ex-mossad man. i was in mossad from 1983 till 1987 and i am wanting to become a member of this great project. is that perhaps possible? can i join the wikiproject israel? how do you become a member. how do you join? Shojaijekhi (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just add your name to the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel#Members, and watch this page (click watch on the top right); any updates or issues will appear in your watchlist. If you create any new articles, add them to WP:Israel/New. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That is just great. Tanks. Tanks a lot. Shojaijekhi (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As above visitor noted, The way to join is not obvious at all. Main page should have a JOIN link. Mewnews (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, does anyone here have a reference on the general Israel opinion on Khalil al-Wazir? I assume most Israelis view him as a terrorist but think a source would be approprate. More importantly, does anyone have a much-needed source on al-Wazir's role in the Coastal Road massacre and whether or not he was granted any special status by the Israeli government i.e No. 1, 2 3 terrorist? Any help in finding these sources would be much appreciated. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this help: "As with all Palestinian nationalist leaders during his lifetime, he was viewed by Israel as a terrorist."[26] --GHcool (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am new to editing and seek guidance but it strikes me that MANY of the "palestine"-related articles here are full of lies, propaganda, and designs made to encourage people to hate Israel and Jews. Is there not a way to counter this? Thanks, No Oven For Me —Preceding unsigned comment added by No Oven For Me (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on verifiable reliable sources. Many articles related to Israel and Palestine are the object of edit-warring between editors with different points of view, including different opinions about which sources are credible and reliable. Welcome. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my user page:

I find that Wikipedia editors are a largely moderate bunch trying to find and publicize verifiable truth. However, there are some bad apples in every bunch who are trying to disseminate disinformation about Israel on talk pages and within articles. Rather than stand idlely by or commit the same straw man, ad hominem, or post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacies committed by the people who are abusing this website, I prefer systematically debunking disinformation inspired by two popular books on the subject: Alan M. Dershowitz's The Case for Israel and Mitchell G. Bard's Myths and Facts.

One way that fair-minded Wikipedia editors could help is by not getting emotionally involved in an argument with an anti-Semitic, anti-verifiability, or intellectually dishonest Wikipedia editor. Do not not stoop to their level. As calmly as you can, disect their accusations without resorting to their straw man, ad hominem, and post hoc ergo propter hoc tactics. Lastly, remember that not all criticisms of Israeli policy are anti-Semetic or necessarily wrong. Have enough courage to treat a true claim with respect, even if you do not agree with the claimer's conclusion. And keep informed on Israel and read about her history. --GHcool (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. For a brief shining moment, you'll see the new Postage stamps and postal history of Israel‎ as a Did you know... on the Main Page, with a picture. Feel free to contribute to the article. L'hitraot, HG | Talk 11:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just spread the content of the project page and saw that there were already some subpages which are orphaned, - does anyone know what the deal is here?--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you've made some changes to the project page. They're generally OK by me, but maybe we should discuss them with other members first. -- Nudve (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK - Im happy to revert it in the mean time -Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

While it's definitely not a reliable source for disputed material, palestinremembered dot com has been used dozens of times as a source for seemingly neutral 'factual' material, like the dates of Israeli operations against Arab villages. However, a recent find by the Kiryat Yam municipality showed that palestineremembered is wrong even in its basic information. A quick check on this page (click 'View in Google Earth') is proving Kiryat Yam right, that the source didn't come from Google but from palestineremembered (K. Yam is actually suing Google for not replying to requests to remove the false information). I think in light of this information, a major re-examination of this source needs to take place, and each and every Wikipedia page with it as a source should be verified against another source, and if this is not possible, then all info taking data from PR.com should be removed ASAP. Thoughts? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it had already been discredited, and am surprised that any articles were still using it. Also, I updated the Kiryat Yam article regarding the Google controversy earlier today. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there was an attempt by someone a while back to write the narrative of Kiryat Gat according to palestineremembered dot com's unverified version of history. This was shot down at the time. Palestineremembered dot com is a blatant propaganda site with reckless disregard for verifiability. It is not a reliable source in any sense of the word. --GHcool (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the information taken from the Palestine Remembered website can be verified since most of it comes from the sources they list here. The problem for most editors (myself included) is that we don't have access to these books. I relied heavily on the site to start draft articles for destroyed Palestinian villages because of the easy access to information and the detailed references and bibliography section of the site that cites the different types of data to reliable sources. I would be pretty pissed off if editors went around to those articles and deleted the sources and information without asking for new sources first and placing fact tags. I tried to avoid using the site for details beyond straight statistics, looking to other sources for explanations of the reasons for the depopulation of the village, since I found the information on that to be sparse and questionable. I guess what I'm saying is that I would appreciate it if editors would be patient since many of the destroyed villages articles would be deleted outright if the info and sources from PR were automatically deleted. I think too it would be imprudent to proceed that way, since most of the information is not all that controversial, and largely focused on the town's location, size, population, etc. While the original sources would be preferable, it will take time to replace the PR ones with those. I ask that editors show a little patience and understanding when it comes to those articles, in particular. Fact tags and requests for sources should be the first step, and not outright deletion. Tiamut^talk 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't suggested the automatic deletion of all PR.com-based content, but deletion after examination via other sources. I'm sure there are enough people on Wikipedia who have the Benny Morris books, and many sources can be found online. The reason for the suggestion, as outlined above, was the fact that PR.com even got something as simple as the location of a village completely wrong (namely, 'Arab Ghawarina), therefore we don't know how many other very basic things are wrong as well. Also there was evidence of several villages which were not actually depopulated but PR.com claimed that they were (e.g. Sha'ab). With that in mind, I don't see how it's possible to rely on PR.com for anything at all.

Moreover, there is the problem of village populations - the last census was taken in British Palestine in 1931, as was clearly stated on a page/source on PR.com itself. They are posting population figured from 1944 (or 1948) with exact precision (to the last man), which is dubious at best, and ridiculous at worst. I realize that the estimates were contemporary and British, not made up by PR.com, however, especially with the hostilities of 1936-39, I don't see how any population figure after 1936 has any value at all. By comparison, today, the Israeli CBS also estimates population figures for 12 years each time, although the estimate is to the nearest 100 (which is much more believable), and any page which actually has a CBS footnote/ref on Wikipedia, it clearly states that it's an estimate, not a census datum.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are fair points Ynhockey. I will try to make sure that census figures are from 1931 in the articles in question and as I said, will try to find the original sources from which Palestine Remembered claims to take its material. I'm glad you agree that material attributed to them should not be deleted outright. I'd hate to see tens of destroyed village articles go up in smoke. Thanks for your input. Tiamut^talk 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask: why does user Tiamut want articles on fake villages to remain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by No Oven For Me (talk • contribs) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments and then read WP:AGF. Your conclusion is unwarranted. Tiamut^talk 15:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestine Remembered is not always wrong, but it is better not to rely on him exclusively. It is one guy doing the whole thing and it is definitely not neutral POV. Palestine remembered.com had things like this: 1- Picture of Zeev Jabotinsky in a uniform of the WW I Zion Mule corps or Jewish Legion labelled "Jabotinsky in his Fascist Uniform" 2- Picture of a building that he claimed is the house of a Sheikh that was taken over by the Weizmann Institute in 1948. I live next door to the Weizmann Institute and I worked in it. Nobody ever saw such a house and Weizmann Institute never took any land in 1948. All the land in Rehovot was bought long before then. I don't know if they are still there. There are other examples. Many of the massacre claims are disputed as well.

The detailed Palestine population estimate figures were given in the HM Mandate Blue Books (VilStat) issued every year. The UN has posted detailed population figures from 1945 vilstat. I think that Palestine remembered figures ultimately come from that source - via books that were out before the UN posted the figures: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/3822b5e39951876a85256b6e0058a478/5fbced3943293bbd0525656900654aa6!OpenDocument and also at http://www.mideastweb.org/palestine_population_un_2.htm These go down to villages that had 20 people or even -- which means no data I guess. Everything should be there.

There were important discrepancies between the numbers presented by the anglo-American survey and the last vilstat, not systematic ones that could be explained by population increase or any systematic error. Regarding location of villages there is a problem illustrated by the Kiryat Yam issue. I suggest that you use the British Survey map that is at palestineremembered somewhere in a huge file. It is also at Mideastweb in 3 parts - http://www.mideastweb.org/northernisraelmap1949.htm and you can get to the others from there - if the village is not on that map and you can't find it in any reliable source that fact should be noted in any article about it and maybe it is best not to write about those - there are plenty that are documented. Many villages were really tiny or had been abandoned. Admittedly that map probably didn't mark every village. However I am not sure that such villages are part of the Israel project and not part of the Palestine project. Does it matter? Mewnews (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)