Talk:Israel/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Longest military occupation - session 2

The term "Longest military occupation" was added to the article as a result of the previous discussion. However, I happened to have a look in the Western Sahara article. There are claims that this territory belongs to the native Sahrawi people .

"The Polisario Front has won formal recognition for SADR from 53 states, and was extended membership in the African Union. Morocco has won recognition or support for its position from several African governments and from most of the Arab League" (source: Western Sahara ).

Should we accordingly revise the the article text: "Longest military occupation" ? Ykantor (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says Western Sahara has been occupied longer than Palestine? If not, why are you asking? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

According to this fellow in the Independent, the occupation of Western Sahara has been going on since 1975, or forty years. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Adar 5775 14:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting source. If the western Sahara is under Morocan occupation from 1975 and prior to that year it was occupied by Spain for more than a 100 years (?), than it is the longest occupation in modern times. What is your view? Ykantor (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Personally, I think that might be getting into the realm of WP:SYNTH. It's also two separate occupations (Spain: you can have independence now!; Morocco: jk, lol! All ur resource are belong to us!). We could also make the same claim about, say, British rule over India through the East India Company (when they weren't busy chasing Jack Sparrow), and then the Raj which falls within the Modern era and was much longer. All this would be better discussed on the relevant talk page, and after I've had some drinks and hookah as it's been a long day, of course. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Adar 5775 19:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

- It is true that these are 2 separate occupations, but from the POV of the natives, it is a very long continuous occupation, at first Spain and later Morocco.

- Your example of India past rulers differs from this case because the alleged mistaken sentence here is ""Longest military occupation in modern times",". the term "modern time" is rather vague, but the editors here referred to the period starting the 2nd world war, or possibly the 20th century beginning. Will you accept that the Western Shara occupation is the longest in modern times? (comprised of 2 different occupiers.) Ykantor (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ykantor: I agree with you, however we need sources that agree with you. “WarKosign” 15:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't doubt that the Sawarai feel that way with every right, but as WK says, we need sources (sauces would also be nice) that show this is the general view re: occupation of a Western Sahara.

Modern times is rather vague, yes, and anyone looking it up on Wiki will be taken to the article on the modern-era. Everything post-WWII is generally referred to as post-War given that the War itself redirected the course of human history and reshaped many aspects of civlisation. I don't know what you call 20th Century onwards though The occupation of India did continue up into the very start of the the post-War period, but of course that came to an end. One addition that could be made if we go with the idea that it's one continuous occupation is refer to it as the longest ongoing occupation in the Post-War period. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Adar 5775 15:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It begins to sound like an Overly Narrow Superlative. “WarKosign” 16:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

One more candidate for this title is:"Guantanamo Bay has been under United States occupation for over a century". . see also:Raúl Castro demands that US return Guantánamo base to Cuba Ykantor (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That source also says that the situation of Guantanamo has been formalized, and on the other hand it doesn't say that Guantanamo would be the longest occupation in modern times. --Dailycare (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

-@GregKaye, Oncenawhile, WarKosign, Jeppiz, Flinders Petrie, Paul Barlow, and Zero0000: , @Yuvn86 and Gouncbeatduke: : I would like to have your opinion concerning the "the world's longest military occupation in modern times". As said in this section, there are 2 longer occupations:

- Guantanamo Bay from 1898

-A continuous occupation of Western Sahara from the early 20th century, starting with Spain as occupier, and continuing with Morocco as a second occupier .

- In my opinion, those 2 territories are more suitable for the title "The longest occupation...". What is your view? Ykantor (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(1) Western Sahara - as noted above, this is two separate "occupations" - we cannot add Spain and Morocco. Anyway, the Spanish rule was colonial civil rule to my understanding, not technically an occupation. Either way, it would be synth to add them together. (2) See the Cuban–American Treaty. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from Cuban–American Treaty article, the "occupation" of the bay is opinion of the current Cuban government, but not an opinion supported by the UN or the international community. I agree with the editors who already stated that combining the two occupations of Western Sahara into one looks like WP:SYNTH, kind of like tacking on the time the British occupied the West Bank to it's current occupation. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, editors' views on the subject are irrelevant and this talkpage isn't here for a discussion concerning them. This talkpage is here to discuss content of the article, which is based on sources rather than editorial opinion. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion effort

This deletion effort, relating to the Maccabiah Games (open to all qualifying Israelis and all qualifying Jews), may interest some followers of this page. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche. You might want to list the CfD discussion at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC - what should the lead say about the initial borders of Israel

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In an area this contentious, you need a lot more input to constitute a consensus. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Please select which (possibly more than one) of these options (possibly with wording changes) should appear in the lead, or suggest your own:

1. The UN partition plan specified the borders for the new Jewish state. The plan's borders were ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries.
2. The UN partition plan specified the borders for the new Jewish state. The plan was accepted by the Jewish public and by the Jewish Agency but rejected by the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee.
3. Israel's declaration of independence did not specify any borders.
4. The only reference in the text of the declaration of independence to the borders of the new state is the use of the term "Eretz-Israel".

Threaded discussion

Please note that each of these options is sourced and is already mentioned in the body of the article.

Comments/!Votes

• Comment Not too keen on the word "vote", but I would favour option 2 though I would definitely say "Israel" rather than "the Jewish public". The "Jewish public" expressed no opinion, most of the "Jewish public" did not live in the area at the time.Jeppiz (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, my grandparents in the US didn't have any say in this. I'm surprised someone said Jewish public rather than Palestinian Jews. Also, yes, vote is a terrible word to use even with exclamation point for negation. People will be more likely to treat it as a vote as a lot of people don't understand how the consensus polling works. Hell, I don't even understand it myself as I don't think that article really defines what a consensus is (always had this vague idea that it's something most people agree on that is in accordance with the rules. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 25 Shevat 5775.

The article body says "The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan". The UN plan's article lead says "The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations". "Israel" won't do since the state of Israel didn't exist at that point of time. Perhaps "The Jewish public/community in Palestine" ?

I think it was either meant to be an obvious reference to the Jewish community in Palestine using poor wording, or the Jewish Agency saying it was the will of all Jews or something and maybe the UN trying to make it look like they solved the age-old problem of no Jewish homeland. I assume the former. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 25 Shevat 5775 14:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

See !vote. "!" is used as a symbol of logical negation in many programming languages. “WarKosign” 14:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but not everyone knows that and given how most of these contentious non-votes turn out, most people, don't know that or make the connection with the idea that it means we're not voting. Many don't base their non-votes on policy, but rather stated reasons that are wholly irrelevant for purposes of helping the article. Also, I didn't know there was a glossary. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 25 Shevat 5775 14:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I assumed it's well known what a !vote is, apparently I was wrong. “WarKosign” 15:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I figured it out after a year or two of editting, but I've seen disastrous move proposals where you would have tons random people coming in who just didn't get how it works. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 25 Shevat 5775 15:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Option 3, as the shortest and most relevant. Per WP:LEADLENGTH the lead should be short and to the point. UN partition plan which was not implemented is less relevant than the declaration of independence which was. If the consensus is to mention the UN partition plan, then Option 2 should be preferred since it is the one that does not WP:CHERRYPICK but describes the reasons for the plan being "ultimately not recognized". “WarKosign” 10:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 or a combination of 1 and 2. Option 2 needs the info added that the plan's borders were ultimately not recognized by Israel. As Jeppiz said above "What the declaration said or not said is of relatively low interest. History is filled with not-yet established states making declarations of independence and claiming territory. ... What is relevant is that all members of UN at the time voted on a plan to establish an Israeli state within defined borders." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't Option 3 when added to 2 say exactly what you want to add, that ultimately Israel was declared without recognizing the plan's borders ? “WarKosign” 11:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not. There could be many reasons a declaration of independence does not include borders. The one for the USA doesn't have them, and it is not because they disagreed with a UN plan. Even it the case of Israel, most historians I have read place the time the Jewish Agency ended it's support for the plan borders at some time after the war began, and it became clear the UN was not going to commit the troops necessary to defend Jerusalem. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We can quote this source which says "the document ... implicitly denies to the UN the right to determine the borders of the Jewish state. Having gotten from the UN a plan whose main accomplishment was the end of the British Mandate, the UN was now removed from the decision making process"“WarKosign” 18:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Option 3 is the better one. If the concensus would like to elaborate, than it should not be in the lead.

One author's view of what is "implicitly" intended in a document, without ever being explicitly stated, is hardly something that belongs in the lead.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think this kind of discussion isn't the right way to address this. What's in the lead is determined by what's in the body, and what's in the body is determined by sources. The second paragraph in the current lead is huge, taking space from other, more central topics that should be covered instead of details of 1948. The first paragraph of the lead already mentions borders and seems to be perfectly adequate concerning borders for the lead. If I have to choose, of the options listed 1 seems best, since the plan recommendation wasn't genuinely accepted by either side. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dailycare: There was a long discussion and yet there is no agreement. The article contains all these statements, the question is what's the best way to represent them in a short form in the lead. Of course "do not mention the borders" or something new entirely are also valid options. “WarKosign” 20:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dailycare, there was already a long discussion in the "UN and Israel views on borders" section, with the majority of editors agreeing the current wording was fine (and one editor who refused to WP:DTS) Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What Gouncbeatduke probably meant is that there was long-standing stable version, and then a couple of editors came along and changed it despite the disagreement of the rest of the editors. Anyway, this RfC should determine what the lead should say. “WarKosign” 22:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• A combination of Option 2 and Option 3 seem to cover all the bases in sufficient clarity and completion. --GHcool (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see any reason why sentences 1–3 should not be included. Sentence 4 could go in the body but I don't feel too strongly about it either way. --Precision123 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

How about: "The UN partition plan prescribed borders for the new Jewish state but neither Israel or neighboring countries chose to accept its prescription". As far as I see it both sides royally fucked up here and I think that it is worth presenting this case as clearly as possible. GregKaye 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Precision123: Do you suggest to include both 1 and 2 ? 2 mostly repeats what 1 says with some elaboration. 3 can work with either. “WarKosign” 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Earthquakes

I think it is good for Wikipedia to have a list of earthquakes in this area, but I don't think it is appropriate for the main article on Israel. For one thing, it makes the article too long. It should become a separate article with no more than a sentence or two here. What should be here is a geological summary, of which earthquakes are but a tiny part. Zero^talk 09:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is too detailed. It could become an own article or perhaps be at Geography of Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What is happening with the maps?

Syria, Lebanon or any other surrounding country of Israel will have a map on the wiki page with the territories clearly defined, Israel does not, even Palestine has a map come up albeit that is (ill try to keep this as neutral as possible) a zionist 'revision' of it. On google too a map for Israel no longer comes up on the right, but for any other country near by it does and again even Palestine has a map come up on the right. What gives? Sellingstuff (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sellingstuff: do you mean a specific map in this article ? Generally Israel annexed Golan and eastern part of Jerusalem, both of which are disputed internationally so they are often displayed on the maps with both possible borders in dashed lines so not to prefer either position. West Bank is not considered a part of Israel but is under Israeli military control and thus is also sometimes displayed within borders controlled by Israel. “WarKosign” 08:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeh nevermind, sometimes when i google Israel a map comes up on the right on google search results sometimes it doesnt, must be my comp. Sellingstuff (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sellingstuff A parallel those maps is File:Israel - Location Map (2012) - ISR - UNOCHA.svg (pictured). I agree that this is would be an informative addition to the article. GregKaye 16:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course it would. Looking at previous discussions/edit summaries, it seems that the addition of a version of that map would have a better chance of surviving if somebody first took ten minutes to PhotoShop out the OCHA "watermark"/logo, which is allowed under their license terms and has been done for many of their other maps available on Commons. 2600:1006:B129:DF07:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it better than this one (which is already in the article) ?“WarKosign” 20:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign, to me it looks less cluttered, it doesn't have detail of a whole range of roads and railway tracks (the use of which would be restricted in some cases due to the placement of barriers and checkpoints). None the less I think both maps are flawed as they both present a clear border even when the Green line was only based on an armistice agreement. The first map is more user friendly. The second provides more information. The first map seems somehow less fuzzy. GregKaye 17:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• One thing that I do think would be useful would be to remove the magnifying effect from the globe map. I think that there is enough practice of unnecessarily putting Israel under the microscope in over inflations of issues including both rights and wrongs. A potential value of the globe image is that it may help people see the Israeli situation in a geographic perspective. I think that this is lost in current presentation. The globe is not centralised and unnecessary shading is placed around the country itself. GregKaye 17:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I think using the green line should be OK for now, as the other option, the Partition Plan borders, isn't used in sources as a map of current Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is the main map not consistent with maps of other countries with occupied territories, such as Morrocco and Russia where Western Sahara and Crimea are shown in light green or with green stripes?--Thorbecke2012 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

nothing like the previous version

@Gouncbeatduke: : what do you mean by " this is nothing like the previous version"? Ykantor (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"The borders of the new state were not specified.", not a NPOV

Changing from "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN" to "The borders of the new state were not specified." is a clear misrepresentation of the truth. The borders of the new state were specified by the UN. The borders specified by the UN were accepted by the Jewish Agency for Israel. To sum all this up in the lead with the statement "The borders of the new state were not specified." is completely dishonest. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

- @Gouncbeatduke, GregKaye, WarKosign, Oncenawhile, Jeppiz, Flinders Petrie, Paul Barlow, and Zero0000::As a compromise, I suggest to write this text which is so important for you, but in the article body and not in the lead. The lead should be short and summarize the important aspects only. BTW we have to discuss this text. we might add Ben Gurion response to the idea of specifying the borders in the declaration: "Since the Arab state are invading and declared the intention to destroy us, we will have to defend ourselves, and if we succeed to occupy areas like Jerusalem and the road to Jerusalem, it will remain ours. (BTW I have to verify his exact text)

- In the lead I suggest to return the sentence that you deleted but to slightly modify it, such as:" The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state." (declaration=> the independence declaration"), in order to clarify the meaning. (BTW it was already clear in my opinion). Ykantor (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ykantor: The article body already contains some detail on the partition plan and the declaration of independence (and it's lack of mentioning borders other than "Eretz Israel"). The dispute was about the lead. The lead in fact does already mention both the UN plan and the declaration of independence. I agree with your proposal to clarify that "the borders were not specified by the declaration" in case someone may not understand it from the context.

GregKaye originally was concerned that this statement did not have a source - here it is:

"The initial draft stated that the boundaries of the state would be those established by the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947. The inclusion of this was rejected by the larger committee charged with approving the draft by a vote of 5-4."

and

"the document ... implicitly denies to the UN the right to determine the borders of the Jewish state"

“WarKosign” 06:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

And of course the declaration itself can be used as a primary source - the text of the declaration is a proof that it does not contain any mention of the UN borders and it would be "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" “WarKosign” 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Images of "specification" as added to previous talk page discussions

Please WarKosign, genuinely please, the source that you present here is exactly the same citation that you added way back in your Revision as of 13:49, 22 January 2015. This content, which by no means justifies the text "The borders of the new state were not specified", relates, as indicated in the title of the source webpage, specifically to "The Israeli Declaration of Independence: ...".

This source, if anything, indicates that there had been, as presented in your above quoted text, "boundaries of the state" namely "those established by the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947."

Please again look at the map. The idea that we can present the negative "The borders of the new state were not specified" remains laughable. GregKaye 07:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: This is the map of the partition plan. Of course the plan specified borders, the borders that it proposed. Now please look at the text of the declaration of independence. Do you see any specification of borders there ? Do you see any reference to any other document that specifies the borders ? The borders were specified by a proposal that was not implemented, they were not specified by the declaration of independence. “WarKosign” 07:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign Again, directly responding to your request, of course I don't see any reference to this specifically in the declaration of independence. Thank you for your comments.

The text of the second paragraph (sans refs earlier in the text) begins: "On 29 November 1947, the [[United Nations General Assembly]] recommended the adoption and implementation of the [[United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine|Partition Plan]] for [[Mandatory Palestine]]. The end of the [[British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)|British Mandate for Palestine]] was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, [[David Ben-Gurion]], the Executive Head of the [[World Zionist Organization|Zionist Organization]] and president of the [[Jewish Agency for Israel|Jewish Agency for Palestine]], [[Israeli Declaration of Independence|declared]] "the establishment of a [[Jewish state]] in [[Eretz Israel]], to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate. The borders of the new state were not specified. ..."

In this text the "the United Nations General Assembly ... Partition Plan" gets full and direct mention while reference to the "Israeli Declaration of Independence" is only "declared" within the context of a piped link. In such context an unqualified presentation of "The borders of the new state were not specified" demonstrates a flagrant misrepresentation of the content. I had personally completely missed that the declaration was even mentioned. GregKaye 07:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: What if it's changed to "... by the declaration" or even "The Declaration of Independence did not specify the borders of the state", would it address this concern of yours ?“WarKosign” 08:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

One way to do things might involve adding a statement regarding the UN specifying borders and the declaration not specifying borders. Otherwise all that is being presented is a statement about a negative. GregKaye 08:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be too detailed for the lead. We could add it in the article's body, it does not say explicitly that the partition plan specified borders and what kind of borders it was. It seems to me quite obvious that a partition plan would specify partition, i.e border. It seems non-obvious that a state is declared without specifying where it is to exist (except a non-specific "Eretz-Israel"), so in my opinion it warrants inclusion in the lead. “WarKosign” 08:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A content on the Partition plan would positively comment on a content that was there. I believe that it has already been discussed that declarations of independence do not regularly or notably specify borders and the information on an absence of information in the declaration agreement gives no significant contribution to the article. GregKaye 17:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Indeed, sigh, here we go again. I replaced the with references we discussed here and tried to clarify that the statement refers to the declaration. If you disagree with the version, let's go back to the stable version until we can agree on something on the talk page to avoid any edit warring.

Can you point to historical precedents where the declaration did not mention borders *while it was not otherwise obvious what the borders are*? One such example is State of Palestine and the article contains the phrase "The borders of the declared State of Palestine were not specified.". “WarKosign” 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign Can I please once again ask you a straight yes or no question. In the time that you had your RfC running, were you aware that, if the RfC did not come to consensus, that this would mean a return to the text "The borders of the new state were not specified", a text that you did not mention as an option in the RfC? GregKaye 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Yes, I was aware of the WP:NOCONSENSUS policy and assumed how it would be applied in such case. Option #3 in the RfC was in fact a variation of the same statement, except in my opinion it's better because it makes it 100% clear what did not specify the borders. I believed that the RfC would end with mention of both the UN partition plan and the declaration's lack of borders, that is 1+3 or 2+3.

WarKosign it is a significant departure from the earlier statement in that is takes a general comment and then gives all of its attention to one document. It lessens balance in the text by giving more attention to just one document and what it doesn't say. GregKaye 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I always try to understand the rules of a system that I operate within and I recommend you do the same. Here is a useful page for that. “WarKosign” 19:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I should explain that I reverted Gouncbeatduke in respect of Wikipedia's policies, not out of any personal preference. We should always avoid edit warring and we should respect consensuses. My reversion was not about taking sides. As a matter of fact, I agree with Gouncbeatduke (and some others) that the sentence makes little sense and should be removed, but it should be removed in accordance with policies to avoid any edit warring.Jeppiz (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate it, and you are very welcome to express your opinion.“WarKosign” 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

- I would like to propose the additional text, as said previously.

- In the lead, I propose to adapt GregKaye text: "the borders were not specified by the declaration", or similar.

- In the article: The Yishuv accepted the U.N partition resolution, with the mentioned borders. (and paraphrase Morris's text:)"The Zionist leadership initially was chary about violating the UN partition borders, lest this bolster the Arabs’ more general desire to overturn the resolution or give offense to the international community. The Zionist shift from unreserved adherence to the UN borders to expansionism was slow and hesitant. The pan-Arab invasion of mid-May ended the hesitancy: if the Arabs were defying the United Nations and were bent on destroying the Jewish state, the Jews would take what was needed for survival, and perhaps a little more. ". Ykantor (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. In fact, I just implemented the first part (except I wrote "in the declaration").“WarKosign” 18:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I object to this. Ykantor can you specify what you mean "GregKaye text" The previous text solely mentioned a lack of specification of borders. It wasn't there to devote additional attention on one document. GregKaye 19:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This phrase could be read in two ways: either as referring only to the declaration (which is mentioned in the previous sentence) or as referring to the whole history of the Jewish state. In the first case it's factually correct and easily supported by sources, but arguably undue. In the second case it's gross misrepresentation of facts. I personally have no doubt that the first case was the intended one, but apparently not everybody thinks so. With the clarification we can be certain that nobody will assume it's the second option. “WarKosign” 20:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This article has turned into a anti-Arab tirade that in no way represents the truth. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

As a potential balance to the content I have added this edit to follow information on the partition plan and to present, "This UN plan specified borders for new Arab and Jewish states and also specified an area of [[Corpus separatum (Jerusalem)|Jerusalem and its environs]] which was to be administered by the UN under an international regime." GregKaye 19:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

What you just added is factually correct and neutral albeit too detailed for the lead in my opinion. Per WP:LEAD "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.", which is currently not the case with the description of the UN partition plan. “WarKosign” 19:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

- @GregKaye:: I am very sorry about my mistake, and I have just sriked it through. What is the meaning of yours:" It wasn't there to devote additional attention on one document".? Apologies.

- @Gouncbeatduke:: Yours: "no way represents the truth". Why do you think so?

Concerning the tirade, I am Israeli, but it is not my duty to push for anti-something. I would rather achieve hopefully a consensus. Ykantor (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign Similar thoughts have been on my mind I think for much of the time since I first added the {{cn}} tag to the text. Since I did this has anyone got around to just deleting the text? I think that two valid routes forward my be to keep all or delete all. GregKaye 21:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Question I'm not very involved by a genuinely do not understand the need to add the sentence about "no defined borders" to the lead, not in any form. We don't have similar sentences for other states (none that I've seen - if there is any, it's the exception) so I'd say the onus is on those who want to add it to explain why we should bring it up at all. I can see no compelling reason, but of course willing to listen to any argument for or against.Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I think the point is how obvious the borders are. If the borders are already obvious, there is little point in defining them in the declaration.

Initial drafts of Israel's declaration of independence contained reference to the UN partition plan's borders, but it was intentionally decided to omit this reference. Not mentioning the lack of borders especially after the UN partition plan is mentioned creates the false picture that the state was declared within the plan's borders (or on all of Mandatory Palestine). The first actual borders were set by the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, a.k.a "1967 borders".

The article on State of Palestine says "The borders of the declared State of Palestine were not specified.", and the statement there is needed for exactly the same reasons as here, because the article mentions West bank and Gaza as well as the UN partition plan, and the reader might assume some specific borders while in fact no specific borders were claimed, only the general territory.

USA for example did not define the borders, but it was declared by the Thirteen Colonies which had well-defined borders at that point in time.

During the Dissolution of the Soviet Union many states declared independence and as far as I can tell none of them defined borders, but Republics of the Soviet Union had well-defined borders that the independent states inherited.

I can't think of other recent examples of declaration of independence with non-obvious borders. It would be interesting to see what their articles say about the borders. “WarKosign” 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Images of "specification" as added to previous talk page discussions

WarKosign You say "If the borders are already obvious, there is little point in defining them in the declaration." and this is fair enough. The borders were obvious and, if there is any relevant content that should go in the lead, surely this should be it. Surely there would be no balance if we just stated the negative without presenting the positive. My suggestion towards the end of the RfC, which I really should have followed up on, was "The UN partition plan prescribed borders for the new Jewish state but neither Israel or neighboring countries chose to accept its prescription". From this point on there was wrong on all sides. GregKaye 15:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In order to achieve a consensus, I am prepared to withdraw my proposal (of 18:26, 26 April 2015) and accept user:Jeppiz proposal not to mention the " not defined borders" in the lead. Moreover, in my opinion the sentence "The only reference in the text of the Declaration to the borders of the new state is the use of the term, Eretz-Israel" might be deleted as well. Ykantor (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We already have a consensus, the silent consensus that existed until January 22. If we agree on a new version it has to be at least as good and in some regards better, otherwise there is no point in making any change. “WarKosign” 19:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The borders of the newly declared state of Israel are not at all obvious. The declaration mentions Eretz Yisrael, which could be understood as anything from the UN plan, to the Mandatory Palestine to Greater Israel. We know for certain that it did not mean the UN plan because the authors intentionally did not mention it, but if we don't write this explicitly the reader won't know that. We have a source saying that the authors of the declaration denied the UN the right to determine the borders. The positive describes a plan that remained on the paper and was never implemented. The negative is far more important because it describes something that actually happened, that is the establishment of the state of Israel. “WarKosign” 20:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank-you Ykantor and Jeppiz. Gouncbeatduke is right to indicate that a presentation of "The borders of the new state were not specified" is "not a NPOV" content.

The UN partion plan is by far the most significant document as it has content that actually had substance to contribute. Reference to what another document does not say is relatively inconsequential. I still recommend my text, "The UN partition plan prescribed borders for the new Jewish state but neither Israel or neighboring countries chose to accept its prescription". Either that or keep both references. GregKaye 20:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with Greg's suggestion.Jeppiz (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not object (too strongly) to including this statement as long as the statement that the declaration of independence did not specify the borders is kept.“WarKosign” 14:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I already agreed to include a similar statement 4 months ago. “WarKosign” 14:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what there is to object about. Placing both contents shows both sides of a story. This is fine. The content of borders not being specified only really gains its significance in the context of knowing that borders were specified. GregKaye 14:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

- It is difficult (may be impossible) to summarize the borders issue in one sentence. e.g. This proposed text:"The UN partition plan prescribed borders for the new Jewish state but neither Israel or neighboring countries chose to accept its prescription". While this sentence is correct and balanced, it does not expose the sides main issue. For both sides the borders were a part of a package deal and they referred to the whole deal and not to the sub issue of the borders. The Arabs wanted one Arab state in all of Palestine so they had no issue with borders. The Yishuv main desire was a Jewish state, which meant a partition. They stuck with the whole package, including the borders as the only practical path for a Jewish state. Later both sides priorities were changed.

- I am still for adding few sentences to clarify the issue, or alternatively avoid mentioning the borders at all. Having said that, achieving a consensus is more important, so if everyone accept this sentence (or another one) , I'll accept it too. Ykantor (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ykantor: We could have this (or similar) sentence in the lead and an expanded explanation in the body. Even in the body we should be brief since it's not the main subject of the article. “WarKosign” 06:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Restoring stable version of the lead regarding borders of Israel

An RfC closed without consensus, which according to the policy means that that the last stable version should be used. Before the discussion (and the accompanying edit warring) began, the stable version at least 500 edits back did not say that the borders were specified by the UN proposal, it said that the borders were not specified at all. This is the version that should be restored according to the wikipedia policy. If you see a policy reason to do otherwise, please say so. Please do not begin discussing the content again, this is exactly what the RfC was for and it is clear there is no consensus.“WarKosign” 19:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign The RfC was closed by Guy with the comment "In an area this contentious, you need a lot more input to constitute a consensus". In what way does this justify your objection to a continuation of discussion? Did not hear what? Please can you specify which topics or areas of discussion you now view as taboo. Can you cite the WP:PG reference related to the above.

You advocate reverting to a version of text "The borders of the new state were not specified" that was not even included in the options of the RfC. How is this justified? GregKaye 19:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Please read WP:NOCONSENSUS, specifically "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". The issue of the borders in the lead was stable until you added a {{cn}} tag and there began discussion + edit warring. Since a consensus was not be reached this way I began an RfC. JzG closed the RfC with the comment "In an area this contentious, you need a lot more input to constitute a consensus", which I understand as "there was no consensus reached". In such cases the policy requires us to restore the last stable version that existed before any contested changes, and this is what Plot Spoiler and Ykantor did. Please disregard my own attempt to do so, I should not have done it. What is your concern, that a different procedure should be followed or that this is not the stable version prior to any changes that should be restored ? “WarKosign” 20:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"The borders of the new state were not specified" was added on 17 September and was not disputed for over 4 months and therefore gained consensus via WP:SILENCE. Another part that was restored was "which was, however, neither a binding resolution nor subsequently implemented". It was originally added in the same edit but was soon removed. I was under the impression that it existed for a long time but I can't find it in the history now so apparently I was wrong, I'm fine with removing it. “WarKosign” 21:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You'd be much better off trying the question at a venue that will gain more input. I am astonished it got so little here, maybe we're making progress and this article is no longer a battleground. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign: When you presented your unsigned/undated RfC, as of 13:26, 14 February 2015, you presented options as:

Please select which (possibly more than one) of these options (possibly with wording changes) should appear in the lead, or suggest your own:

1. The UN partition plan specified the borders for the new Jewish state. The plan's borders were ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries.
2. The UN partition plan specified the borders for the new Jewish state. The plan was accepted by the Jewish public and by the Jewish Agency but rejected by the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee.
3. Israel's declaration of independence did not specify any borders.
4. The only reference in the text of the declaration of independence to the borders of the new state is the use of the term "Eretz-Israel".

You did not even mention the option of the text "The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration"

At the time of the opening of the RfC the text read: "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries" which also was not amongst the options that you presented.

This text had been in the article since 19:20, 29 January 2015 with the content having been widely discussed in threads Talk:Israel/Archive_47#UN and Israel views on borders which was initiated by Gouncbeatduke as of 18:40, 22 January 2015, Gouncbeatduke cannot now respond to this situation due to an iban that has been placed between the two of you. The text was again discussed at Talk:Israel/Archive 47#The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state. in a thread started 23:19, 13 February 2015 to discuss your edit to the thread title text. My response with the same, I think, justifiable indignation that I again feel was: "For fucks sake WarKosign, this has been extensively discussed at Talk:Israel#UN and Israel (now in archive as mentioned) views on borders with the title of that thread having been unilaterally changed by me from Talk:Israel#Edit Warring by User:WarKosign. I don't want to regret having been bothered with having made this change. The added text is clearly gratuitous POV in the context of existing text in the lead and with a lack of immediate reference in the lead to the image that I have again placed here to the right. Please stop edit warring or first bring your thoughts here for discussion." You then responded with unjustified accusation which following challenge you thankfully struck.

Now you have had, I think, the temerity to have gone back to a previously discussed and discarded text that you did not even deem to mention as a serious proposal in the RfC. No. GregKaye 22:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Temerity is to insist to keep your changes that you support, even though there is no consensus, no matter how long you dragged the discussion went on, and not even on an RfC.

Please tell me which of these points you do not understand or dispute:

1. The description of the (lack of) definition of borders in the article's lead was stable for 4 months prior to January 22.
2. On January 22 a series of edits and discussions began
3. After several rounds of discussions it was clear that it is not going anywhere and I opened an RfC
4. The RfC concluded with "no consensus"
5. It does not matter what were the options in the RfC since none of them was accepted
6. The policy in such cases is to go back to the last stable version before the dispute
7. The stable version is the one that existed before January 22, namely "The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration"

Please say on which of these procedural points we disagree so I can focus there and perhaps explain it better. I asked for assistance at Wikipedia:Editor assistance to help us resolve this issue. “WarKosign” 14:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign:

1. The changes were made by Gouncbeatduke and not me. Please strike your comment "your changes"

2. Where have I insisted on keeping any particular change? There is a clear problem with the previous text as is very well presented below and there may be various solutions to reconciling these issues. Please strike "insist to keep".

3. Where did I drag the discussion. Again please strike.

Despite your repeated behaviour in similar situations I will directly answer your questions.

1. I agree that an undiscussed edit occurred four months prior to it being challenged on January 22 with my addition of a {{cn}} tag. Please note that this does not constitute any start or "edit warring" as you have labelled it above.

2. I do not have a record of the edit history of that content. I only know of the widely discussed edit as mentioned.

3. After some time of editing in previous discussion you also had the option of opening a sub heading within the existing thread so as to keep the relevant information in context.

4. The RfC was closed, perhaps without reference being made to the large amount of content in the previous discussions and which were not cited in the opening post with which you started the RfC or anywhere at a later point in that relatively short discussion.

5. Of course it matters. If the text: "The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration" had been presented then very strong and clear objections would have been presented against this content.

6. As I have already quoted, the WP:PG at WP:NOCONSENSUS says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". Your RfC was not written to call into question any particular edit and, as mentioned, neither mentioned an earlier or a present form of the text. Given that the RfC had a focus on the future development of the wording then a clear solution would be in favour of "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal". However there is a discussion below within a non problematic or a non problematic removal of text can be addressed.

7. A text that was, as far as I am aware, previously undiscussed read: "The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration" Four months is a short space of time and, I consider that there is weak claim for stability as based on an edit made as recently as 17 September, with no edit summary.

GregKaye 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

We got an answer: "This means that the change for which there currently is no consensus should be reverted in favor of the version for which there was a long-standing silent consensus, and a new RfC should be opened". GregKaye, if you wish please create a new RfC so anyone can respond, worded as you choose. Meanwhile I'll remove "which was, however, neither a binding resolution nor subsequently implemented" which was not in the long-standing stable version. “WarKosign” 05:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign I am pleased that your comment: "Please do not begin [[WP:IDHT|discussing the content again]], this is exactly what the RfC was for and it is clear there is no consensus." has not carried.

Perhaps we will need to develop options for an RfC. GregKaye 06:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I meant - please do not begin discussing the content again *before we have a stable version*. What are your concerns with the current version that you would like to address ? My main concern with the attempted changes was the mix-up between the UN partition plan and the declaration of independence. The way I see it - the partition plan proposed/specified borders, but since it was not fully approved nor implemented, these proposed borders were never a base of the declared state, and the actual State of Israel was declared without specific borders. In my opinion the lead says it adequately at the moment (once we add the clarification + citation as proposed two sections down).“WarKosign” 07:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign You stated policy demand that the text be returned to say "The borders of the new state were not specified" and said: "Please do not begin [[WP:IDHT|discussing the content again]], this is exactly what the RfC was for and it is clear there is no consensus.". I asked, "In what way does this justify your objection to a continuation of discussion? Did not hear what?" My main concern is a tendentious and partisan practice, consciously driven or not, amongst editors here. Again and again it just creates this huge waste of time trying to deal with editors who, for instance, say one thing and then say that they meant another. Please note the appreciated response of Ykantor below, "I am very sorry about my mistake". I recently did similar here. I said, "I really goofed there and am extremely sorry for any possible offence taken. You don't need me to say this but what you said was quite fair." Obviously there does not need to be any requirement of any level of response but at least some form of acknowledgement in future situations would be good. Honestly, please, this should be basic stuff. We all need to be accountable for our actions. We are all, IMO, better off if we deal with each other in direct ways with consideration for the situations of our fellow editors. GregKaye 15:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: My objection was to continue the discussion *before* establishing a stable baseline. This is a version that describes both points in question in the lead (UN parition plan and the lack of borders definition in the declaration) in a manner identical to the last stable version prior to January 22. If we can't agree on that, there is no point discussing - we need someone external to determine the baseline.

Now, let's follow WP:BRD. I assumed that it's better to clarify that the lack of definitions was in the declaration of independence and boldly added it. If you do not agree, you are fully within your right to revert it (or ask me to do it), and then we will discuss this change until we seem to agree on something, and then either of us can re-try applying the edit. It is important not to skip the discussion because otherwise it becomes edit warring that can't end well.

I am not very good at apologizing, sorry about that. When I make mistakes (and I certainly do), I try to admit them as soon as possible and correct them - hence my self-reverts and striking the contested bits in my texts.

WP:IDHT is 'Failure or refusal to "get the point"', that is repeating the same question over in over in different forms or making the same argument over and over. Once we had several iterations and it's clear that I can not change your mind any more than you can change mine, there is no point to continue discussing. If you want to gain consensus for any change that you propose, go ahead and start an RfC, hopefully one worded better than my last attempt and promoted at more forums.

You are talking about "tendentious and partisan practice", and I assume it implies promoting pro- or anti-Israeli views. I do not think it applies. According to the version that you promote Israel was established within the UN borders and yet it was invaded by the Arab states, and then in self defence it captured additional territories. Another version (which I believe to be factually correct) is that Israel leaders wanted to keep the option of having legal claim to more territory than the UN partition plan allowed, so they kept the borders intentionally vague in the declaration. One could even say that these intentions to expand could be the trigger to the 1948 war. I do not see how this version which I hold correct shows Israel in a better light, so I do not understand how supporting it can be considered pro-Israeli bias. “WarKosign” 20:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign your objection was against discussion as in "Please do not begin discussing the content again". GregKaye 20:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Indeed it was, and the title of the section was (and still is) "Restoring stable version of the lead regarding borders of Israel". We should not be discussing new content before we are done discussing the restoration of the stable version. Please answer - yes or no, as you like the answers to go - whether you consider this version to be a good approximation of the content we had on January 22. “WarKosign” 20:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes - and then we would need to add a citation needed tag. GregKaye 20:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be going in circles, but at least the circles are getting quicker. There is no need to add the CN tag if we have two citations at hand. Yes or no - do you agree that the statement "the borders were not specified" appearing immediately after mentioning the declaration of independence refers to the declaration ? If the answer is yes - do you agree that it's better to add "by the declaration" or something like it to make sure everybody understands that ? If the answer was no, what do you think this statement means ? “WarKosign” 20:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

yes yet this does nothing to resolve the problem of the text.

Let's stick to what it says. It doesn't make an iota of difference what I think it means or you think it means or what anyone else here, after checking the references etc., thinks it means. We are an encyclopedia that caters for readers and we have to deal with what things say.

As mentioned below, if the lead is to contain content relating to provisions within documentation, it should positively comment on the relevant content within the foundational UN partition plan and not a comparatively irrelevant late edit omission of a content from the declaration. You are the one who has been pulling things round in circles.

I started with the justified addition of the {{cn}} tag in regard to a very one sided and non neutral content of text. GregKaye 04:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's stick to what the statement says. It says that the declaration of independence did not reference specific borders, and you already agreed that it is factually correct. There are sources (including the declaration itself) that easily prove this point, so there is no need whatsoever for a CN tag, we can just cite the source. You may say that the statement is ambiguous in whether it refers to the declaration (in which case we agreed that it's correct) or to something else (in which case we agreed that it's incorrect), therefore we can quite easily append it to remove any possibility of misunderstanding.

It is very important what we think the statements in the article say. We can never be certain what a readers will understand from the content we write, so the best approximation we have is what we understand ourselves; the goal is to write content that is as unlikely to be misinterpreted as possible.

You are calling the UN partition plan "foundational" and insist that the declaration of independence is irrelevant compared to that. In my opinion it contradicts the sources. You may be confusing the partition plan with Resolution 181(II). The partition plan specified borders that were never agreed upon nor implemented. The resolution resulted in termination of the British mandate and establishment of the State of Israel, which did happen.

I tried to settle it via an RfC, it was the question: which has to be mentioned in the lead - UN partition plan, the declaration, both or neither - and how. Wikipedia:Consensus says that RfC is supposed to be the last stop to build a consensus. Maybe I did not word it properly, and we certainly did not advertise it enough to attract a significant number of opinions. I would much rather somebody other than me would create a new RfC, so I could not be accused of manipulating the result by using some wording, nor of preventing anyone from participating. “WarKosign” 06:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You keep calling this statement "non neutral content", can you please explain what it means ? I understand how it may be considered wrong (if applied to more than the declaration) or undue (if one believes that the declaration of independence is not an important part of establishment of a state), but what can be non-neutral about a factual statement ? “WarKosign” 07:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Before you go running ahead, what did the, as its been called, stable version of the text say? What was that content? grief. really, I said that adding citations "does nothing to resolve the problem of the text." and "Let's stick to what it says." the text, following talk of the UN partition plan and passing reference to the declaration of independence said "The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration"

We have made genuine progress below and I have no idea why we are still discussing these things here.

I had expressed my view that the late edit omission of a content from the declaration of independence was comparatively irrelevant in relation to the UN plan.

To present information to state that borders were not specified without stating that they had previously been specified -- well I'll let you think through the, I think, obvious issues of neutrality in this regard yourself.

You have presented the case that we should go back to a January version of the text and then have purely debating the point of a development of text in association to the declaration. GregKaye 23:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You talk of a new RfC. What changes if any from the current text are on your mind? GregKaye 23:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Israel was ranked the 11th-happiest country in the world (2015 report)

Hi guys.

I found the level of "happines" in Israel, and it's strong contrast to neighboring countries interesting. Should one consider to mention this in the main article?

• 11: Israel

• 82: Jordan
• 103: Lebanon
• 108: Palestinian Territories
• 135: Egypt
• 156: Syria

• 158: (Togo came on last place)

The summary in The Algemeiner seems to match the numbers in the World Happines Report 2015, but I have no idea if the publisher is credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleckwise (talk • contribs) 07:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is another source. “WarKosign” 07:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If used , in English Wikipedia perhaps the most relevant comparisons might be to English speaking nations. GregKaye 20:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Beware of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. “WarKosign” 07:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I always do. GregKaye 10:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)