Jump to content

Talk:Israel: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 764467102 by Sehguraby (talk) misuse of talk page
Line 153: Line 153:
:Ted Cruz, a "noted authority"? ROFL —&nbsp;[[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 05:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
:Ted Cruz, a "noted authority"? ROFL —&nbsp;[[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 05:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
:This is fairly well covered already in the article. Israel occupies the Golan and has, in a move condemned internationally and ruled null and void by the UNSC, applied its civil law to that territory. It continues to be considered Syrian territory held under military occupation by Israel by the overwhelming majority of states and sources. If your expectation is that we include as fact minority positions, such as the Golan Heights is Israeli sovereign territory, you will be disappointed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 17:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)</small>
:This is fairly well covered already in the article. Israel occupies the Golan and has, in a move condemned internationally and ruled null and void by the UNSC, applied its civil law to that territory. It continues to be considered Syrian territory held under military occupation by Israel by the overwhelming majority of states and sources. If your expectation is that we include as fact minority positions, such as the Golan Heights is Israeli sovereign territory, you will be disappointed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 17:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)</small>

:It's inconceivable that the Golan Heights will ever be returned to Syria or to anyone else considering its strategic importance to Israel. And I know of no poll taken in Israel that supports returning the Golan Heights to Syria, so when referring to the Golan Heights I have no objection to it being treated as de facto Israeli territory. [[User:Jtpaladin|Jtpaladin]] ([[User talk:Jtpaladin|talk]]) 07:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


== Official website ==
== Official website ==

Revision as of 07:58, 11 February 2017

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleIsrael is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 4, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 30, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
June 23, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
April 20, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article


Toolbox

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2016

41.78.74.19 (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's sovereignty over West Bank/Jerusalem partly recognized internationally

Israel's Prime Minister said that Jerusalem is undivided capital of Israel. He, as well as several other MP's of Israel said most of, and sometimes All of West Bank will be part of Israel forever. For example Naftali Bennett said era of Palestinian State is over.[1]. These should be noted in this article.

Also, this article is not neutral when it says Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem is not internationally recognized. PM Benjamin Netanyahu said he does not care what biased UN says, and similarly, US congress said all of Jerusalem and most of West Bank belongs to Israel, and also disregarded what UN said [2]. So Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem and West Bank is partly recognized internationally.--Trepcost (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, the House of Representatives does not set foreign policy; the president does. Netanyahu can "welcome" a House vote, but the vote doesn't mean diddly-squat. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Malik Shabazz: Well, if that's the case, then the US president-elect Donald Trump, who will take office on Jan.20th, said the same. And he also is in the process of relocating US embassy in Israel, to Jerusalem. Trump: 'Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people.'[3]--Trepcost (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, maybe not. Every U.S. presidential candidate in recent decades has promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but it's still in Tel Aviv. Talk is cheap. When the facts on the ground change, we should update the article to reflect them. Until then, there's no reason to. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that many presidents said it, But if that's the case, then US recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital a decade ago, and therefore Israel's sovereignty over West Bank/Jerusalem PARTLY recognized internationally.--Trepcost (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say presidents, I said presidential candidates. Here's what The Forward said in an editorial last month:
During the campaign, Trump promised to move the United States embassy from ... Tel Aviv to somewhere in West Jerusalem, but so do most candidates. Then they get into office and realize how ridiculously complex the issue is — how such a move would inflame the Arab world by implying that Jerusalem’s status was already settled when it is not; how difficult it would be to secure embassy personnel in a relatively small, contested city; how the new location would reward what many see as an Israeli occupation of Palestinian land soon to enter its 50th year.
The New York Times wrote: "An Embassy in Jerusalem? Trump Promises, but So Did Predecessors". As the Times article points out, every six months over the past decade, the U.S. president has chosen not to move the embassy to Jerusalem. If it ever happens, it will be news. The fact that somebody talks about it isn't. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, now it's different. The elected president Donald Trump said: 'Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people.'[4]--Trepcost (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. He also said he didn't know who David Duke was, and he likes to associate with a man who stomped somebody to death.
As I wrote, talk is cheap, especially with Carrot-Top. When he actually becomes president (on January 20), we'll see whether anything changes. If it does, we should update the article. But don't hold your breath. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Malik is right, there is no international recognition for Jerusalem as Israel's capital. There is, in fact, some recognition (e.g. Russia and China, I think) as East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. If Tramp recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, then still the Palestinian claim would have more recognition since Trump will only set US foreign policy. --Dailycare (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Golan Heights

PM Netanyahu said already ANNEXED Golan Heights forever part of Israel. Many noted authority, such as senator Ted Cruz, said the Golan Heights is part of Israel's sovereign territory.[5]. At least some of these should be noted in the article.--Trepcost (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz, a "noted authority"? ROFL — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is fairly well covered already in the article. Israel occupies the Golan and has, in a move condemned internationally and ruled null and void by the UNSC, applied its civil law to that territory. It continues to be considered Syrian territory held under military occupation by Israel by the overwhelming majority of states and sources. If your expectation is that we include as fact minority positions, such as the Golan Heights is Israeli sovereign territory, you will be disappointed. nableezy - 17:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's inconceivable that the Golan Heights will ever be returned to Syria or to anyone else considering its strategic importance to Israel. And I know of no poll taken in Israel that supports returning the Golan Heights to Syria, so when referring to the Golan Heights I have no objection to it being treated as de facto Israeli territory. Jtpaladin (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official website

Recently a link was added to the infobox, saying that http://www.israel.org/ is the official website of Israel. That link redirects indeed to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Still, to say that countries have official websites, sounds strange to me. Opinions, please? Debresser (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit odd, but the WHOIS database says that the domain is registered by "Israel Foreign Ministry". So I guess it is legit. Zerotalk 11:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like MFA got a new catchy domain. However, what makes it "official" site of all of Israel ? “WarKosign” 20:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely my question. I understand it is legit, but so what? Does that now mean Israel has an official website? The idea makes me laugh. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"official_website" is a parameter name in wikicode. It appears in the infobox as "Website", not "Official website" --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikidata:Q801 entry has a similar entry, but uses gov.il Oncenawhile (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
gov.il is e-government website providing public services to Israelis, and it isn't available in English.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier reference to Israel than the Merneptah Stele

Under the section 'Antiquity', it is stated that the first historical reference to the nation of Israel comes from the Merneptah Stele from 1209 BC. However, recently, there has been a new finding published by Peter van der Veen, Christoffer Theis and Manfred Görg into the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections that showed a probable reference to Israel dating back from 1400 - 1350 BC. Here is a link to the actual publication for anyone wanting to read it -- https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jaei/article/viewFile/83/87 -- this finding has been welcomed and accepted by many scholars. I propose adding a reference to this as a possible earlier reference to Israel in the Wikipedia page with a brief mention. Any objections? Korvex (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a new claim. It was proposed in 2001 and largely ignored. This 2010 paper was an attempt to resurrect the claim but it has also been largely ignored. In fact it is hard to find any articles by notable experts that discuss it. There is also severe disagreement on the date of the inscription. Zerotalk 03:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:UNDUE seems to apply here. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:UNDUE applies here it does discussed in scholarly literature for example [6],[7] --Shrike (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: I don't see real discussion but a brief mention in both suggesting that it's still to be confirmed, right? The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible[8] says "possible...still under study" and The World around the Old Testament: The People and Places of the Ancient[9] says "may" and "whether or not this particular claim holds up". Both are referring to the 2010 paper. That's not real discussion, that's "for the sake of completeness we'll put in a sentence mentioning it" while being dubious about it at the same time. Korvex is saying this has been accepted by many scholars. I'd like him to name any scholars, preferably ignoring those that are biblical literalists because that gets us nowhere. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be not accepted by scholars but it does discussed it scholarly literature so we may mention it too that is still under discussion though I am not sure this is a right place.--Shrike (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike::As I said, I don't see that as discussion, as discussion means to me some analysis of the arguments. It wouldn't belong here anyway. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And nothing on Google Scholar, which is telling. All I can find in academic sources is a handful of brief mentions without real discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar finds 17 citations of the paper. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1073426990922503261 212.177.1.242 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
17 citations is pretty good and definitely qualifies as scholarly discussion. Doug, your definition of 'scholarly discussion' does not matter, it's what academia defines as scholarly discussion, and academia deems scholarly discussion is based on citations. This is definitely under scholarly discussion and sources that you even list show it is a possible reference to Israel. That's exactly my point, we will add a reference to the Wiki page mentioning this as a possible reference to Israel predating the Merneptah Stele, we will not put any certainty on it. This seems to clearly qualify Wiki's necessities to getting added to any page.Korvex (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong, but you haven't shown discussion and iff you really are arguing that three links to Olsen Park Church of Christ counts as scholarly discussion, or a citation in Focus Magazinesample articles is scholarly.... We need real scholarly sources presenting their viewpoint. A citation isn't enough. Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 06:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at WP:FTN#Fringe archaeology in biblical related articles. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:Here is another source [10].So we have scholarly article in peer reviewed journal and another 3 sources that mention it.I think its more then enough to warrant one liner that there is a still ongoing discussion if there are earlier mention of Israel are valid.What do you think? --Shrike (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: Sadly we can't see how the citation is being used, ie there's no context to it. Your guess may be correct, but I'd prefer to see the context. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: Not clear what do you mean.You don't see the context in google books.Its closed for you?--Shrike (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: I can only see the footnote, not what it's used for. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the right first step is to start an article called Berlin Statue Pedestal Relief. All relevant sources can be brought there to build a balanced picture. To my read scholars view this as an unprovenanced item with a stretch interpretation. But we should discuss in the context of the new article first. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it warrant its own article but one liner here is WP:DUE--Shrike (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a one-liner here if we can find a high quality source that discusses it. Merely citing a paper with a "may" or "maybe" is not discussion. I saw those citations before I wrote that it has been essentially ignored and so far I don't see reason to change that assessment. If this claim was taken seriously it would be all over the place with heated arguments for and against. Zerotalk 10:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now I can see the text from the book Shrike found. Here it is (no page numbers show in Google):
"Thus far, there have been no references to Israel discovered in Egyptian texts dating from the fifteenth to the fourteenth centuries B.C.E. In 2001, Manfred Görg claimed that he may have found one included in a partially preserved list of names inscribed on a column base fragment, now stored in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. The surviving names are Ashkelon, Canaan, and a third name that is incompletely preserved, but which Görg interprets as “Israel.”61 Bryant Wood has pointed to this translation as possible evidence that Israel was in Canaan already in the fifteenth-century B.C.E.62 Hoffmeier, however, has argued that Görg’s reading “is plagued by serious linguistic and orthographic problems that preclude it from being Israel.”63 If Hoffmeier’s criticisms hold, then the Merneptah Stele remains as the sole reference to Israel from ancient Egypt."
I think it is marginal, but I won't object to one well-crafted sentence based on that. Zerotalk 12:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hoffmeier's article is here. I am unimpressed by the apparent fact that the only discussion of the inscription seems to have been between theological types. Zerotalk 12:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a one-liner is definitely warranted. Hoffmeir has definitely engaged in scholarly discussion with this 'finding' if I may, albeit he was against it. 17 citations that say it "might" reference Israel and a paper published to the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections is more then enough to add a one-liner that says it "might" reference Israel. Just to note, those 17 citations do not just randomly give supposed findings like this credibility, they would have researched the paper in the first place and have come to the conclusion that it was in fact a possibility if they were going to add a quick citation and reference saying the reference may be valid. Any thoughts? I honestly don't see a problem here. Wikipedia's guidelines sure do not invalidate a one-liner on this. Should I go ahead and add it?Korvex (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If there isn't enough scholarly discussion for an article on the artifact (per Shrike's comment), then it isn't due here. If we care about the scholarly nuances here, let's do this properly and try to write an article on the topic. Otherwise this just smacks of a cheap and lazy attempt to drive an ideological position. Wikipedia is better than that. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you define as 'scholarly discussion'? This is problematic. 17 citations that mostly acknowledge the possibility of the possibility of it mentioning Israel is surely more than enough to warrant the existence of 'scholarly discussion'. The majority of archaeological papers don't even get 17 citations!Korvex (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown that your 17 citations claim includes non-scholarly sources, including 3 to s church's website,please stop suhhesting your figure means anything. Can you back up your claim about archaeological papers? Doug Weller talk 06:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hold up Doug, you're taking too much of a leap. I went through the citations and at least 10 are scholarly. James Hoffmeir and Bryant Wood have both discussed it (one accepting it, one rejecting it). Not only that, I think a mistake has been made... The 2010 paper we're talking about is the second publication, we must remember the original publication was only made by Manfred Gorg and was published in 2001, and this paper, according to Google Scholar, has 14 citations, and I can confirm at least 7 citations are scholarly. So if we take into account both papers on the same subject, the one published in 2001 and the one published in 2010, we have a total of at least 17 scholarly citations together, putting us back where we were. Anyways, any quick glance off of Google Scholar or any non-populist paper shows that in archaeology, most publications do not receive 17 citations. Seriously, go to academia.edu, find your average archaeologist, and see how many citations his/her paper gets... Probably most of them will not get 17 scholarly citations or close. So I think we have enough discussion here to warrant a well written one-liner, merely mentioning it as possibly valid, not at all certainly. If you go to Google Scholar and search up the Merneptah Stele, which is definitely in this Wiki page, you'll see as you go through the pages of Google Scholar that very few of the papers at hand actually accumulate 17 citations, and the consensus of archaeologists is that it authentically mentions Israel. So I don't see how the papers at discussion do not warrant a one-liner. Korvex (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have we yet come to consensus about adding a one-liner about this pre-Merneptah reference? We've got two published papers that have been cited many times and discussed in scholarly material. Korvex (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus yet. Citations aren't enough. It depends on how they are used. I haven't looked at them all yet. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, then why do you not just look at them? In our discussion on Ai, I was given this source of a critical review of Ai -- http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.361.0099.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents -- aside from the fact that I rebutted this by showing that there is much more support that can be found in the scholarly literature for Khirbet el-Maqatir as Ai then against it, there was something interesting I noticed in this paper -- and that was that it cites Gorg's identification of Israel appearing in this early tablet and assigns credibility to the identification, and Aren Maier (author of the paper) even acts in confusion as to why the paper being reviewed by Maier does not speak or discuss Gorg's identification. The identification is cited here [1], it is cited as a very considerable possibility to mentioning Israel here [2], and several other sources that you've seen. The fact that all of these sources have in common is that they recognize that this identification has a real probability of being valid, which is the current state of scholarship on the issue. So, if all these academics and papers say that this is a possible reference to Israel predating Merneptah, it cleaaarly qualifies for a Wikipedia page to say the exact same thing in a single brief sentence. Korvex (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where does 'real probability' come from? What I meant is that I don't see consensus here. Your probability claim confuses me, we can't say that. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you didn't understand what I was saying when I used the word "real probability". What I meant was that the mention of Israel at around 1350 - 1400 BC has a valid chance at being valid. As we've both seen from the countless peer-reviewed papers discussed in this section, ALL of them say "yep, this might be legit", and if ALL of numerous publications on a small area of academia conform to the same opinion, that's a practical consensus. I'm only aware of 1 actual publication by James Hoffmeir that says this DOESN'T actually mention Israel, but it seems to me that Hoffmeir has a sort of an agenda here, because Hoffmeir has invested a lot of time & money into dating the exodus to the 13th century BC, which would be crushed if this identification is legit. Aside from there only being 1 paper against this identification, we've seen 2 papers for it -- the initial paper I mentioned in this section from 2010, and Manfred Gorg's paper from 2001. So we have 2 papers saying it's legit (the 2010 one actually rebuts Hoffmeir), 1 paper saying it isn't, and all the countless others saying "possibly". Therefore, the scholarly opinion seems really well balanced out -- the scholarly opinion seems to clearly say this has a good probability at being valid. You ask me where the "probability" on the validity of identification comes from Doug -- it comes from the 2001 and 2010 papers showing the evidence for the identification as Israel. But we've seen the scholarly opinion clearly says that this possibly mentions Israel, and therefore I'm going to ask you to make the edit (I don't have 500 edits yet, so I can't edit this page) that says "archaeologists may have identified an inscription with the name 'Israel' that goes back as early as 1350 - 1400 BC" -- or perhaps slightly reword it if you please (although that's what I would incite).Korvex (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Korvex, this article isn't about the ancient country, but the modern country that was established in 1948. The correct place, if anywhere, for that material would be the article for the ancient state. The Mernepthah stele is briefly mentioned in this article since most experts (although not all experts) believe the test mentions the term "Israel". Overall, this article is way, way too long and over half of the text now in should be removed, rather than new text added. --Dailycare (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dailycare. I think you are wrong, the origins of the country of Israel are perhaps one of the most important thing in this page, and adding a brief sentence to mention a possible earlier date is very important. I'm still trying to amass those 500 edits. If you think there is too much text here, I encourage you to start a new section to delete some of it.Korvex (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krav Maga

In this article it listed Krav Maga as a martial art while practitioners and the founder identify it as a self-defense system. It has no relation to sport nor art as is the case with martial arts. It is purely a method for fighting with priority on surviving and crippling your opponent. It also does not rely on specific techniques as is the case with most martial arts yet trains people to rely on their natural movements in accordance with their instincts in a dangerous situation to perform effective combat maneuvers. So in respect to the origin and the country's relation to the topic, please change Krav Maga to be labeled as a self-defense system and not as a martial art.

"Krav Maga, a martial art developed by Jewish ghetto defenders during the struggle against fascism in Europe, is used by the Israeli security forces and police. Its effectiveness and practical approach to self-defense, have won it widespread admiration and adherence around the world."

On the wikipedia page for Krav Maga, the opening is "Krav Maga (/krɑːv məˈɡɑː/; Hebrew: קְרַב מַגָּע‎ [ˈkʁav maˈɡa], lit. "contact-combat") is a self-defense system developed for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that consists of a wide combination of techniques sourced from aikido, judo, boxing and wrestling, along with realistic fight training." I made this account just to fix this, I do not know the proper writing methods for this talk section but please make the necessary edits. Thank you.Soulsearchhk (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At Krav Maga it is described mostly as self-defence system, but there are many sources that call it a martial art, including IDF blog and Krav Maga federation. Martial arts says that "a number of martial arts were adapted for self-defense purposes", including Krav Maga. “WarKosign” 08:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction between "self-defence" and "martial art" according to the common usage of those phrases. Actually the practitioners of most martial arts will tell you they are for self-defence. Zerotalk 08:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zero. In general, I think "martial art" is the fuller description. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser edit warring

User:Debresser, the article already has information about Israel's ranking in the Global Competitiveness Report. World Competitiveness Yearbook has the same scope, result, is redundant and less notable. Stop adding it back. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already warned you on your talkpage. That is another report and another result, 21st instead of 24th. Ergo, we must have both. Now please stop edit warring, and per WP:BRD discuss first! Debresser (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
21st and 24th is the same. Regardless, it's not a lists collection. The sentence you add back doesn't add anything in this article which is already too big. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Triggerhippie4 and Debresser: you are both over 3RR for this article. Is it so hard to just stop reverting when there's a dispute? clpo13(talk) 22:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why you point me to WP:BRD when you broke WP:3RR and I'm the one who took it to the talk page? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See my post in the section below.
As to the edit itself, I maintain my position that there were two rankings in the article that are independent and reached different results, both sourced, and that Triggerhippie4's removal of one of them is simply removal of relevant and sourced information, and that in such cases Wikipedia rules say we should have both. I therefore ask to revert Triggerhippie4's last removal. Debresser (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the latest update to WP:ARBPIA specifically enforces WP:BRD (a reverted edit may not be repeated without prior discussion and consensus) and therefore User:WNYY98 was right in undoing Triggerhippie4's edit. Debresser (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected indefinitely

Per Requests for page protection, I have changed the indefinite protection on this article to Admin access only. This is a high profile article, with an ongoing edit war. The indefinite Extended Confirmed Protection was having no effect on the continual edit war here. All future edits will require a request here for Admin assistance. Editors are welcome to request a change in this protection at any time on the above link. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, User:Debresser. You are here only once in a while making silly reverts out of spite resulted in editor who actually improve the article can't do it now. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that almost all of Debresser's edits here are reverts of my edits. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came to Wikipedia this morning before work to undo my last edit, as I suddenly remembered that this page is under WP:ARBPIA (even though the specific edit has nothing to do with that). I appreciate the decision by EdJohnston to protect rather than block us. I will not continue the edit war, and as far as I am concerned, the protection can be lifted. Debresser (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding here to a request on my talk page from Triggerhippie4 that I lift the indefinite full protection, based on the above comment from Debresser to stop edit warring. The protection level has now been returned to indefinite Extended Confirmed level. — Maile (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maile66, You should fully protect it from move, how it was. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Maile (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 It takes two to edit war. If your lifting of the full protection was only because of my comment to refrain from edit warring, what about the edit warring done by Triggerhippie4? Debresser (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took into consideration the block histories of both of you, and restored he ECP on good faith. I am not assuming either of you was correct or incorrect about the individual edits that led to this. The protection history is there to show the length of the full protection, and the next admin who gives it full protection will most likely make it a longer duration. In this specific case, both the request for protection and the edit warring report were filed by editors other than either of you. Should this situation erupt again and is unresolved on this talk page, I would suggest that you both ask for Arbitration before the article gets full protection again. — Maile (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

In accordance with a template merge request, please replace the single instance of {{wayback}} in the article to the following:

{{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509230619/http://www.nyjtimes.com/Heritage/News/2003/Aug/InvestinginIsrael.htm |date=9 May 2013}}

Or optionally replace the whole ref with a {{cite web}} using |archiveurl=, |archivedate=, |deadurl=.

-- GreenC 04:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request concerning additions regarding human rights violations

The below is a discussion I started when the page was still protected (which it should never have been btw). --Fixuture (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have this added to the 2nd paragraph of section #Israeli-occupied territories (probably as a separate paragraph below it):

Systematic violations of human rights in the occupied territories were claimed by observers such as "widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights perpetrated by the Israeli occupying power, in particular mass killings and collective punishments, such as demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories, measures which constitute war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity" during the Second Intifada by the UN Commission on Human Rights[3] and "excessive use of force by Israeli Security Forces in a number of their interactions with Palestinian civilians, and arbitrary arrest and associated torture and abuse, often with impunity by multiple actors in the region" with local residents having "limited ability to hold governing authorities accountable for such abuses" by the U.S. State Department[4][5] and a denial of the right to Palestinian self-determination.[6][7][8][9][10]

Please discuss. --Fixuture (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Sorry no changes can be made without discussion and agreement with other editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: Alright then, sorry for using the edit-template before discussing this. I just converted this talk page entry into a general discussion of this and hope that other editors weigh in. --Fixuture (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me Fixuture, why did you inserted this controversial paragraph without consensus? In any case, it belongs to this article or this one. Adding those accusations here without counterbalance seems a little bit POV and undue. Don't you think?--Yschilov (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yschilov: I only made this talk page entry in an attempt to gain consensus for a protected-edit-request. I don't think that page-protection was needed in the first place. Anyways, it got removed by now so my edit-request wasn't necessary anymore. Yes this content also belongs to these articles. Maybe I'll add it there later in the case that it's missing there. I think it would be very undue to not have at least some info on this featured in the article. It's pretty much biased and not WP:NPOV to omit such. If you think that it's not counterbalanced enough you could add some sourced content on responses to such accusations next to it. --Fixuture (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter why, it has been reverted. Indeed proper procedure would be to reach consensus here before adding such controversial and POV-prone content. “WarKosign” 08:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign: I do not agree. And this isn't "POV-prone" but simply gives an account of widespread and notable criticism by high-level societal and international bodies. And this naturally being controversial just means that the page (section) needs to include information about this controversy. (You could have argued that it was POV-prone if I added content on all the many notable bodies that criticized Israel for human rights violations - that would be undue coverage/length; instead I just covered very few.) As stated above if you find one side of the controversy neglected you may add some sourced content on their responses to such accusations. --Fixuture (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is WP:UNDUE. And you must abide by WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ARBPIA, which says that any reverted edit must first be discussed and lead to consensus and may not be restored otherwise. Please be aware that WP:ARBPIA violations lead to immediate sanctions. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, wasn't aware of ARBPIA until now. So let's discuss now. As said, the content additions are very much due and do not in conflict with WP:UNDUE − see the points I made above. --Fixuture (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WarKosign, the problem is that content was restored again by MShabazz because the user who removed it wasn't allowed to edit in ARBPIA. Would you mind removing the POV paragraph until further consensus is reached?--Yschilov (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the content magically sneaked into the article despite clearly not having consensus. I removed it for now, it's up to those who want to have this content in to prove that it's NPOV and DUE here. “WarKosign” 15:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the removal. The content did not "magically sneak into the article" and it's up to you to gain consensus on specific reasons for why this content should be removed despite its notability, relevance and its WP:RS. --Fixuture (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see Not done, so where was the consensus for this to be added? Also, with wars in, say, Syria and South Sudan as counterexamples, can the term mass killings be justified here without any qualifications? El_C 19:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: This was a response to my protected edit request which as said wasn't needed anymore. Where's the consensus on what reason to have this legitimate (notable, reliably sourced, relevant, due) material removed? --Fixuture (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixuture: You violated WP:BRD. Please do not edit-war, this content should not be added unless there is clear consensus to add it. “WarKosign” 21:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign: I'm not edit-warring and I'm not sure if I went beyond the optional method of WP:BRD. This content should not be ommitted unless there is clear consensus on particular well-founded reasons to exclude it. --Fixuture (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary please read notice in in the top of the page.Don't reinstate the material till you reach a consensus for it--Shrike (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Onus is on you to build consensus, because it's your addition, seems to be the general sentiment. El_C 23:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then why should this (notable, reliably sourced, relevant, due) content be excluded from the article? A few people objecting because they'd like to have the article biased towards their POV is not a valid rationale for omission. --Fixuture (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because the onus is on you to prove that this is so, first. El_C 23:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is undue, for two reasons: that section of the article is about the status of the area, not about the whole sociology of it, but also and notably because the source and the statement address only a limited timeperiod of the Intifada, which in addition was a very specific time period. Debresser (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser:
that section of the article is about the status of the area, not about the whole sociology of it
Who says that? It's not called "Status of the Israeli-occupied territories". Furthermore such high-class allegations of major human rights violations are not just "sociology" but also matter of international law, morality, politics (superordinate header) etc.
the source and the statement address only a limited timeperiod of the Intifada, which in addition was a very specific time period
That's false. Only one of those is referring to a specific time-period. That it's just referring to that particular time-period / event is made clear in the text and also doesn't make it less notable. We could argue whether or not it should be replaced with an allegation that's not specific to a time period. (As noted earlier, there are too many such notable allegations to list all of them here and remain due weight but one of them could easily replace this one.) I don't think that this would be useful though and can't see why that one statement should be replaced. --Fixuture (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I came to my conclusion about the content of the section, after reading it, not on basis of the section header.
This discussion is not about notable, but about undue and out of place. Debresser (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WEIGHT. “WarKosign” 08:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: This didn't address any of my points.
I came to my conclusion about the content of the section, after reading it, not on basis of the section header.
But well then probably other content is missing as well. This is the bias or missing content that I'm speaking of. (Note that I'm not sure about that but if you came to that conclusion by the section's content that would mean that.)
This discussion is not about notable, but about undue and out of place.
I wasn't saying that I'm assuming this to be about whether or not it's notable. It is very due and essential to this article. These might be an out-of-place comparisons but an article about Nazi Germany shouldn't miss content about the holocaust and an article about China shouldn't miss allegations of its restrictions and violations of citizen rights. Israel won't be an exception. This is highly essential to be included for many reasons including the public perception of this country.
@WarKosign:
I know about it and already read it. It is very due here. I won't go through the whole thing but I'll put the start of it in context here:
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
This is a point for why this content needs to be included. This is a significant viewpoint of this country and has reliable sources. As stated earlier if you find a viewpoint missing you may add notable responses to these allegations with due weight.
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.
This is not a minority view or aspect or a view of a tiny minority - it's also not very detailed.
So per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:DUE this content should be readded asap. --Fixuture (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position. No need to repeat it. However, consensus seems to be otherwise. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:LISTEN to other editors.--Shrike (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's just natural that people here would attempt to prevent such content to be added to have the article fit their POV / bias even though it fits all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and should be added. I listened to other editors and addressed each and every point made by while mine were ignored. If you still prevent the inclusion of this due and essential content I'll move this to WP:DR or an alike place. --Fixuture (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the inclusion of such paragraph, but I think this one is really bad and does constitues as WP:DUE and WP:POV. The quote about the Second Intifada, refers to the Second Intifada, it has no place in the article on Israel. The paragraph should be rebuilt with concrete sources, such as the UN, US State Department or EU etc. and include a general claim and not a spesific one, and should also include Israel's response for such claims. For example, Israel maintains that the collective punishment is meant to deter terrorists, especially when most of them are willing to die, and the claim of rejection of Palestinian self-determination seems broken in my eyes but there are enough sources to include it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

My main objection even if the paragraph will be more balanced that it doesn't exist in other countries articles.I looked Russia,Jordan and Palestine.Why Israel should be different?--Shrike (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support the inclusion of such material, I just don't oppose it, as long as it is neutral and not WP:DUE and therefore WP:POV.

The Fatah–Hamas conflict has further limited the freedom of the press in the PA territories and the distribution of opposing voices in Hamas-controlled Gaza and the West Bank where Fatah still has more influence. According to the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms, in 2011, there were more assaults on Palestinian press freedom from the PA than from Israel. In July 2010, with the easing of the blockade of the Gaza Strip, Israel allowed the distribution of the pro-Fatah newspapers al-Quds, al-Ayyam and al-Hayat al-Jadida to Gaza, but Hamas prevented Gazan distributors from retrieving the shipment. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) condemned the Hamas restrictions of distribution of the West Bank newspapers in Gaza, and also condemned the Fatah-led government in the West Bank for restricting publication and distribution of the Gazan newspapers al-Resala and Falastin.

Selling land or housing to Jews is punishable by death, some high-profile cases got high media coverage.

In June 2011, the Independent Commission for Human Rights published a report whose findings included that the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were subjected in 2010 to an "almost systematic campaign" of human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, as well as by Israeli authorities, with the security forces belonging to the PA and Hamas being responsible for torture, arrests and arbitrary detentions.

— Palestinian Authority's Human rights section

Violence against Christians was recorded. The owner of a Christian bookshop was abducted and murdered and, on 15 February 2008, the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) library in Gaza City was bombed.

— Gaza Strip's article

Falun Gong was first taught publicly in 1992. In 1999, when there were 70 million practitioners, the persecution of Falun Gong began, resulting in mass arrests, extralegal detention, and reports of torture and deaths in custody. The Chinese state is regularly accused of large-scale repression and human rights abuses in Tibet and Xinjiang, including violent police crackdowns and religious suppression.

— China's article

A letter dated 14 August 2006, from the executive director of Human Rights Watch found that the Sudanese government is both incapable of protecting its own citizens in Darfur and unwilling to do so, and that its militias are guilty of crimes against humanity. The letter added that these human-rights abuses have existed since 2004. Some reports attribute part of the violations to the rebels as well as the government and the Janjaweed. The U.S. State Department's human-rights report issued in March 2007 claims that "[a]ll parties to the conflagration committed serious abuses, including widespread killing of civilians, rape as a tool of war, systematic torture, robbery and recruitment of child soldiers."

Over 2.8 million civilians have been displaced and the death toll is estimated at 300,000 killed. Both government forces and militias allied with the government are known to attack not only civilians in Darfur, but also humanitarian workers. Sympathizers of rebel groups are arbitrarily detained, as are foreign journalists, human-rights defenders, student activists and displaced people in and around Khartoum, some of whom face torture. The rebel groups have also been accused in a report issued by the U.S. government of attacking humanitarian workers and of killing innocent civilians. According to UNICEF, in 2008, there were as many as 6,000 child soldiers in Darfur.

— Sudan's Human rights section

The Rohingya people have consistently faced human rights abuses by the Burmese regime that has refused to acknowledge them as Burmese citizens (despite some of them having lived in Burma for over three generations)—the Rohingya have been denied Burmese citizenship since the enactment of a 1982 citizenship law...The Burmese regime has attempted to forcibly expel Rohingya and bring in non-Rohingyas to replace them—this policy has resulted in the expulsion of approximately half of the 800,000 Rohingya from Burma, while the Rohingya people have been described as "among the world's least wanted" and "one of the world's most persecuted minorities."

— Myanmar's very long Human rights and internal conflicts section

Human rights in Turkey have been the subject of some controversy and international condemnation. Between 1998 and 2008 the European Court of Human Rights made more than 1,600 judgements against Turkey for human rights violations, particularly regarding the right to life, and freedom from torture. Other issues, such as Kurdish rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, and press freedom, have also attracted controversy. Turkey's human rights record continues to be a significant obstacle to future membership of the EU.

— Turkey's Human rights section
Either you or your check wasn't honest. Human rights are covered in many states' articles. Sadly Russia's article is being quite empty from actual criticism, but it is a common thing in articles concerning Russia. Either way, your argument of "why should Israel be different" is invalid. I will accept an inclusion of human rights material, as long as it is well sourced and neutral.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said I checked those 3 countries by searching "human rights".--Shrike (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are 193 countries in the world, and we also have to include the two regimes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and there are more unrecognized micro-states such as Abkhazia or Nagorno Karabach. Jordan is not known for human rights' abuse, other than being a not free state. Your argument is still invalid.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-04768-3_22
  2. ^ http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1476993X14534792
  3. ^ See UN Document E/CN.4/RES/S-5/1 19 October 2000
  4. ^ Norton, Ben. "U.S. acknowledges Israel's unlawful killings, excessive force, torture, discrimination against Palestinians". Salon. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
  5. ^ "Israel and The Occupied Territories - The Occupied Territories". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
  6. ^ Dorfman, Zach. "George Mitchell wrote 'A Path to Peace' about Israel and Palestine. Is there one?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
  7. ^ "Outrage over Maimane's visit to Israel". Retrieved 1 February 2017.
  8. ^ "The subordination of Palestinian rights must stop | The National". Retrieved 1 February 2017.
  9. ^ "Palestine-Israel Journal: Settlements and the Palestinian Right to Self-Determination". www.pij.org. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
  10. ^ Hammond, Jeremy R. "The Rejection of Palestinian Self Determination" (PDF). Retrieved 1 February 2017.

Missing sources

Hi. Could an administrator put the following sources next to the sentence "In May 1967, Egypt massed its army near the border with Israel, expelled UN peacekeepers, stationed in the Sinai Peninsula since 1957, and blocked Israel's access to the Red Sea[citation needed]"? (in the "Early years of the State of Israel" section):

[1][2][3]

And also this source next to "Israeli tennis champion Shahar Pe'er ranked 11th in the world on 31 January 2011.[citation needed]":

[4]

Thanks--Yschilov (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gat, Moshe (2003). Britain and the Conflict in the Middle East, 1964-1967: The Coming of the Six-Day War. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 202. ISBN 0275975142.
  2. ^ John Quigley, The Six-Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p. 32.
  3. ^ Samir A. Mutawi (18 July 2002). Jordan in the 1967 War. Cambridge University Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-521-52858-0. Although Eshkol denounced the Egyptians, his response to this development was a model of moderation. His speech on 21 May demanded that Nasser withdraw his forces from Sinai but made no mention of the removal of UNEF from the Straits nor of what Israel would do if they were closed to Israeli shipping. The next day Nasser announced to an astonished world that henceforth the Straits were, indeed, closed to all Israeli ships
  4. ^ "The Best Tennis Players from Israel". Ranker.
Done. El_C 09:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&oldid=764847221"