This template is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
I would like to propose an edited template I have put together at: User:Goodoldpolonius2/israel. In addition to making it neater and prunning some more obscure subjects, I created a few new articles (especially around the economy) and de-emphasized the security aspect, which took up much of the original template, and listed a lot of small branches of the IDF/Police or small defense companies by name. Comments? --Goodoldpolonius203:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Goodoldpolonius, your version is too thick and wastes space (too much spacing on the sides). The original Template:Israelis is much better (slimmer and more comprehensive), why do you want to tamper with the original? IZAK05:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The "security aspect" is CRUCIAL and must be reflected, it is the means whereby Israel defends itself. Almost ALL Israelis serve in or are served by some aspect of the "security aspect" so why in heaven's name "de-emphasize" it? How else can you understand the methods Israel uses to deal with the violent threats and wars against it? (Unless you want to convey a "Peace Now" POV which is a very minority view at best, and at worst a distortion of Israel's fight for its life!) IZAK05:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey IZAK, I am not trying to "tamper," just edit and refine. First, on the thickness - this is easily editable, just a sign of low wiki design skills - this template can be at least as thin as the current one [nb - I did shrink it a bit]. As to why I edited it:
History section
The original history section was a mess to anyone who did not know Israeli history. How is a non-expert going to understand a non-chronological set of words like: Herzl, Faisal-Weizmann, Sykes-Picot, and San Remo? I made it chronological and edited out some of the short-lived points (like Faisal-Weizmann Agreement) and those that were covered in the main articles (like Herzl). I also made the Zionist/timeline and Aliyah/timeline stuff a little clearer and more attractive.
"Herzl, Faisal-Weizmann, Sykes-Picot, and San Remo" are the PILLARS upon which modern Israel's political and legal foundations were built which is precisely what a "non-expert" needs to understand. IZAK06:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Goodoldpolonious, the less widely-known parts of the history of Zionism are too specialized to go in this kind of a template, perhaps if there would be a {{Zionism}} those links would fit there. E=MC^2T@lk18:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
E, please do not create a Zionism template at this time, I think that Israel and Zionism are connected well enough in this present template, and splitting "Israel" off from "Zionism" is would be like doing surgery on "Siamese twins". IZAK21:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was not proposing to create a Zionism template. I was stating that if there was a template specifically for Zionism, something specific like Faisal-Weizmann would go there. E=MC^2T@lk17:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, templates provide a way of linking important topics together. I agree that Faisal-Weizmann is important in the history of Zionism, but am not convinced it worth having in a template, where it is likely to just cause confusion. Wouldn't non-experts be better off clicking the Zionism or Zionism Timeline links, or event the History link, where they will learn about all of these topics in context? --Goodoldpolonius201:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Goodold, while I do agree with you, there is the OTHER aspect that that readers also want to learn about that which they don't know already, and often this is the information that most people are "missing" and should be enlightened about...but I am flexible here. IZAK21:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Goodold, I don't think that's needed, people will use their eyes and follow what is front of them, I find that size does not matter if I want to click onto a subject that may be of interest to me. IZAK21:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Land of Israel section
Land of Israel. I included the three largest cities and moved Kibbutzim to culture.
I seperated out culture and demographics from economics. Previously there were no economic articles, which seemed like a big gap. Thus, under economics I added a list of Israeli companies and entrepreneurs, as well as a list of universities. I then put some of the orphan articles about culture under, well, culture.
Under Law and Politics, I eliminated "flag" "anthem" and "Hebrew" - they are all covered in the main Template:Israel. (NB from May 11: The Template:Israel template is not currently used. The template on the main Israel page is actually the country infobox, but it still holds the flag, anthem, and Hebrew links)
(inserted here) Yes, but, since that template is not used in multiple places, I think we should still have the flag, anthem, and language links on this template. E=MC^2T@lk17:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about this. They still have seperate articles and they are key parts of any nation or country, which is what this template is about. (By the way, I named this template "Isrealis" because there ALREADY is a Template:Israel which is used for the main article's logo and info box.) IZAK06:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you have a template for one article? It is not going to be used that way anywhere else, so just paste in the wikimarkup and save server space? (More on what we are supposed to be discussing when I have time) E=MC^2T@lk17:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
E=MC^2 the Israel template is the standard country template used for every country. The Israelis template is the specialized one on topics about Israel we are discussing.
The template is not even used for Israel's article! The only place which links to it is this one. Does that not waste server space? What is the point? E=MC^2T@lk17:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Goodold, I agree with you 100% here, it seems that E=MC^2 is not aware of the subject we are discussing. He is confused between two different templates: (1) Template:Israel (Israel) is just the standard country template (linked to one article) , BUT (2) Template:Israelis (Israelis) that we are discussing here has links to MANY articles. IZAK
I know perfectly well what I am talking about. The Template:Israel does not even link to Israel[2], only to this talk page, and its existence does not seem to be justified. Template:Israelis is needed, and we are discussing here how to make it better. I do not like being patronized, and I am not confused!E=MC^2T@lk17:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
E=MC is right, the Israel template is oddly redudant, it is basically the country infobox redone as a seperate template. Sorry about the confusion, E=MC, but no one was trying to partronize you, it just appeared, logically that the Template:Israel template was the one used on the page since it looked identical. You were right and IZAK and I were wrong about the Israel template. --Goodoldpolonius219:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, no problem. I think though that the Israel template is fine for just that one main Israel article, for which it was meant, no? Obviously the Israelis template serves a far wider function to help readers of other Israel-related articles click onto some of the most important articles relating to Israel on Wikipedia. What don't I get? IZAK08:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was what is so weird - the "Israel" template isn't used anywhere. The template on the main Israel article is actually just the standard country infobox. We could delete the Israel template (or move the Israelis template there) and it wouldn't affect anything. --Goodoldpolonius220:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I was trying to say in the beginning. I'm sorry about my vehemence, I get, shall we say, emotional when I am criticized wrongly. E=MC^2T@lk17:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
E=MC, actually they are covered by an existing template -- the country infobox template as it currently exists in the Israel article. Check the article, and you will see anthem, flag, and languages all listed in the giant infobox at the top. --Goodoldpolonius201:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Security Forces section
I wasn't trying to reflect any POV, but the truth is that Security Forces was way, way too long. Especially with economics missing, it looked like Israel was nothing but an military-industrial complex - yes, everyone serves, but it is not the only aspect to Israeli life. The largest links are preserved, and the sections following are entirely conflict-related anyway, so the point is made about the role of the military. As to the particulars of the cut: Some of the units listed are pretty minor in terms of staff and role, such as YAMAM, MAGAV, and MASHAZ -- and they are not generally recognizable to non-Israelis anyway, and are accessible from the Police or IDF links in context. The companies you listed, IAI IMI, Rafael, are not the most significant in the country nor are they the big drivers of the economy (IAI is the largest of the bunch, but is still smaller than Teva, BAZAN, Elco, etc.). They are not even the primary source of military equipment for Israel. As for Magen David and ZAKA, well, I can see a Medical Service link that talks about this stuff in context of them, Haddassah, health care, etc., but these are really specific - can you imagine listing the Red Cross in a country template? Not including every security service does not de-emphasize the importance of security, it does make the template more readable. Goodoldpolonius205:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This last point is based on the assumption that Israel IS a "country in a state of conflict" and is reflective of its condition at this time. Teva and others (which are part of Israel's general economy in any case) and are not part of the military aspect so they are not relevant to this segment of the discussion. But I did not add all of them and we could add others instead such on the Israeli Air Force or the Israel Navy if you like instead. IZAK06:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happier putting in the IAF and Navy than YAMAM, MAGAV, and MASHAZ (though the Navy really doesn't need to be added). I do not think that it worth including IMI, IAI, and Rafael because they are (1) not the most important companies in Israel, so should not be the only ones mentioned by name in a national template (2) not critical to Israel's military efforts. If you want, we can create a new link "Defense Industry" which we use to create an article that covers the defense industry, technology, and programs like the Arrow, Lavi, and Merkava. Would that work for you? And how do you feel about cutting MDA and ZAKA for the reasons above? --Goodoldpolonius201:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there's been an "(N)" link after the Defence Forces link, and it leads to "Israel and Weapons of Mass Destruction". OK, so this is something that some would perceive as important, but perhaps we can agree that it is not appropriate for the more general tone of this template? -Joshuapaquin 04:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
I actually expanded it back again -- originally it was a full link, and should still be (who knows intuitively what "N" means?). The template is designed to guide people to topics of interest on Israel, and to not include the nuclear program (with all of its oddities) seems strange. Especially since we are including organizations like Ma'shaz, which is far less likely to be of interest to any reader of the template. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I replaced the MASHAZ link with a link to Israeli police, which is far more important and which Mashaz is only a small unit of. Actually the same holds also for YAMAM and Magav and all three of these units are mentioned in the police article anyway. Yamam and Magav might have special interest to readers (I don't see Mashaz having the same). But if people disagree, then let's remove the Magav and Yamam links too. --altmany 07:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Other additions
Three comments: (1) I think centering looks better. (2) I agree that the current template has a lot of security things that simply won't be known to non-Israelis, but have no particular opinion on how much they should be edited down. (3) Shouldn't there be at least one link related to the peace movement in Israel, given so many to the military? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
None of those relate to the peace movement. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't? Peace treaties with former enemies is not part of Israel's "peace movement" or "movement towards peace"? Or by "peace movement" do you mean those who would want to "dismantle" Israel entirely by giving all of it away "piece by piece" to all its enemies? C'mon now Joe, be real, Peace Now should get equal footing with the historic Camp David peace negotiations between the Israeli and Egyptian governments??? But there are still several links to articles about the so-called peace-movement when you click on the template's Politics link or on the Parties link. They are not ignored. IZAK07:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a misspelling...I believe Jmabel is referring to the piece movement. I.e., "One piece at a time." TomerTALK 07:25, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
With reference to the last two remarks (well they are no longer the last two because more got interposed): I have consistently shown a lot more respect for what you say than you than you are showing me here. You are being dismissive when you know perfectly well what I am saying, and you are acting as if a quite significant percentage of the Israeli population does not exist. I will stop trying to work with you on this template, and you (IZAK) might want to stop your habit of frequently turning coming to my talk page to ask me for my views if you are going to be this dismissive of them. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Joe, the reason I give you notice is that I do value your input, and my responses are meant by way of debate as you well-know by now I fully respect your learned input. As you can see above, User:MathKnight has come up with the perfect solution of inserting a link to Israeli peace camp (which I have now done, see [4] .) And, the way it looks now, is that some of the "military" links will be cut, see my discussions with User:Goodoldpolonius above. I do not agree to User:Tomer's dismissive tone to you, and I think he made a genuine mistake because he does not know you well enough. IZAK21:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My tone was nonexistent since this is entirely a text-based communication medium. That said, if you disapproved of what you interpreted as a tone, an article's talk page is probably not the most appropriate place to discuss it. If possible, I'd like to see the discussion move forward, now that the appropriate apologies have been made. All in favor say aye. TomerTALK 22:04, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Israeli peace camp would be an entirely appropriate inclusion, exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
This might sound paradoxical, considering my push for Template:Judaism and several other template proposals, but "I don't want to see the template fixation getting out of hand." That said, and even more paradoxically, would it perhaps be possible to pull some of these things out into separate templates where they can be given more depth? I.e., if you want a military-heavy template, why not make Template:Israeli_military? If you want history-heavy or whatever-else-heavy templates, why not make the whatever-else template instead of quibbling over how much space to devote to which subjects within large difficult to manage (and in this case, badly named) templates? That said, I agree 62% with Yitzḥaq and 31% with thepoorguybehindthecurtain. TomerTALK 07:21, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it's time to start a wikipedia project parallel to project:jew or project:judaism or whatever it is: project:jewish-related-templates (I propose jtemplates for short :-)) TomerTALK 07:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Er, Tomer, if you haven't noticed , you have already started this process, see Template talk:Judaism...but seriously, as I say over there, we cannot and should not aim to "squeeze everything" onto one template like some kind of Microdot and conversely we should NOT try to break everything down so that any topic gets its own template for the heck of it. You seem to swing between two poles all the time: Either all subjects con-joined on one template OR one template for each set of related subjects. It can be very challenging tracking your NAVIGATIONAL and DIRECTIONAL objectives for Wikipedia's Israel and Judaism oriented articles...IZAK07:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This vacillation to which you refer has consistently been a figment of your imagination. In fact, every time you try to paste this "one huge overriding monster template" position on me, I tell you this has never been what I was proposing. For whatever reason, however, you persist in trying to attach this nonsense to me. Fortunately, I have a magic shield that keeps your glue from sticking. :-p TomerTALK 09:26, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Tomer, I am still waiting to see what you are talking about in "real time" over at the Template talk:Judaism page, and when you will show us where else on Wikipedia there are templates like you describe, then I will have a better idea of what you mean and getting at, until that time, you can count on my being in the "baffled" (and sceptical) column. IZAK21:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have cleared up everything here, on this template, so why are we arguing about what is nonexistent at this time. If there are issues that still need to be cleared up on Template_talk:Judaism (and there seem to be a great many issues), then let the discussion proceed over there. E=MC^2T@lk17:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Split the template
Wouldn't be better if this template is split into different other templates (History of Israel, Land of Israel...). This template is just too big and heavy, and dividing it into several templates (like every other coutry had) could leave space for more links to be listed. CG 19:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Probably a good idea. On the model of how we broke out Template:French Revolution from Template:History of France, we could keep the major headings in all templates, but break out detail only within the relevant heading. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely not! Israel is a small country, and this template reflects that as well. The template is perfect and has been trimmed by consensus since its inception to function well on almost all the pages it appears on. Any efforts to split this template will be vigorously opposed! IZAK00:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, You should specify better arguments than "Israel is a small country" and "the template is perfect". My point is that this template is sometimes found in numerous article that no only concerns Israel, but only other countries (especially Arab countries), and a such big template could not be as well regarded as a smaller one concerning specific issues. For example, in the Arab-Israeli conflict article, the template links to economy of Israel or Geography of Israel aren't relevant, the Arab-Israeli section should only be included.
Another thing, IZAK, you don't have to be so frustrated, splitting this template is only a proposal and nothing has happened yet. CG 08:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
"Land of Israel"
The article "Land of Israel" is about the ancient Jewish Kingdom, not about the modern State.
No, it's about the land and its history. By your twisted logic, why don't we remove Jerusalem from the template also? There is a continuity of Jewish presence in the Land of Israel, and there is a reason the modern State of Israel was established there, not in Uganda or Madagascar. May I suggest you apply your skills in Portal:Palestine whose authors can't decide what is it about: the region or the state. Good luck. ←Humus sapiens←ну?10:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er, if we can calm down for a moment, I think that the anonymous user has a semantic point. The heading "Land of Israel" in the template is a wikilink, but the article it points to uses the phrase in a different way than the template does.
I don't have an easy answer to this minor consistency issue. In my experience, the phrase Eretz Yisrael (Hebrew for "Land of Israel") refers to the geographic area, not the ancient kingdom. Eretz Yisrael yafah v'porachat, for example? [5] So maybe someone can figure out how to rectify this, or maybe it's just not worth the bother. -Joshuapaquin 14:09, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
The Land of Israel is as ancietn as it is modern. I understand some partisans itch to deny the connection between the Israelis and their Land but there is no reason to allow them do it. BTW, I suggest you read the article and see that it does mention the State of Israel and includes this template. ←Humus sapiens←ну?09:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't live in <Land of Israel = the ancient Jewish Kingdom>, because it doesn't exist anymore. The template is about the state. And the article "Land of Israel" is about the ancient Jewish Kingdom. It can't be used as a heading in the template. Why don't you propose a compromise ?--193.56.241.6715:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I already pointed out to you that the article Land of Israel mentions the State of Israel and includes this template. The land is as ancient as it is modern. Note that this Template is Israelis not Palestinians. Speaking of which, why don't you try your skills at Portal:Palestine whose authors can't decide whether it's the state or the region. ←Humus sapiens←ну?19:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This Template is Israelis, as a citizenship, with jewich and arab people. The article Land of Israel mentions the State of Israel, but it is about the ancient Jewish Kingdom. The headings of the template are : History of Israel (Israel as the State), Economy of Israel (Israel as the State), Demographics of Israel (Israel as the State), etc.... About geography, the logical heading is Geography of Israel (Israel as a State), not Land of Israel which is the ancient Jewish Kingdom. --193.56.241.6715:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating the same argument that has been already refuted. If you have nothing new to say, don't waste time. The Land of Israel article mentions the State of Israel and the British Mandate and includes a 1844 map. Perhaps the article needs to include more material. But the Land itself didn't drift anywhere and definitely belongs to the template. Geography of Israel belongs there too, but it doesn't replace the Land of Israel. ←Humus sapiens←ну?20:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
H.S., you also keep just repeating the same argument. Surely this is a somewhat marginal inclusion in the template, and its inclusion or exclusion is more a political question (is there relevant continuity between Ancient and Modern Israel) than an intellectual one. As for the fact that Land of Israelmentions the modern state, that is not sufficient reason to include the article. Plenty of articles mention Israel.
I don't care which way this goes: I think there is a roughly equal case for inclusion and exclusion. But let's all not pretend this is an apolitical question. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
The link between "Land of Israel" and "State of Israel" is a link for some jews, not all Israelis, like arab people.
There is no reason to move "Geography" to the same level as the "Land..." in the template. I don't attempt to blot out the link between the Land and the State, I just desagree with its level in the template. --193.56.241.6712:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The standard practice in Wikipedia is to have a template in all the articles it consists of. If you insist on having Palestine (region) here (which I do not necessarly object), please complete the job and add the template to that article. ←Humus sapiens←ну?10:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Split the template
This template is now even bigger than the the Infobox country. I'll say it again: this template should be split into smaller templates (History of Israel, Geography...). All countries have different topical templates. (Please, if you oppose this proposal, state clearly your reasons.) CG 09:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see it split up, as a means of tightening it up. It's not sensible to have such a large and diverse set of articles in a template-linking clique; it would be much less intrusive and detail-ridden to to have one overall navigation template (roughly speaking, the "blue" bits of the current template); and a set of smaller ones, which the typical article would only need to include one of. There's really no need why YAMAM and Haifa need to be on the same template, as it's hardly going to be the common case where a user wants, out of any context related to the article text, to go straight from one to the other: hierarchical linking and navigation would be a lot more logical, readable, and usable. Alai07:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nope Alai, I do NOT agree with you. What does need to happen is that people should use this template judiciously and apply it only to long(ish) articles where it provides a good "overview". This template should not be placed into articles that are merely stubs, and whoever does so is being reckless. So the template is fine, it just needs to be placed on Israel-realted articles that have lots of information and could use this kind of very helpful cross-linked sources of references. IZAK17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this big box (and it's going to get bigger with the number Peace treaties, etc) doesn't belong in some articles. For example, some might find it offensive in Palestine (region). How about an alternative: we can create 1) a compact template, 2) a few subtemplates, and 3) a full template transcluding all of the above. ←Humus sapiens←ну?21:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree, the "template of templates" is an excellent model. It wouldn't strictly need to be coded that way, so long as people don't mind maintaining different "flattened" versions of the reduced-size templates, but it may be the best way. IZAK, you imply the problem is people using it "incorrectly" on short articles, but the template actually links to articles like Sayeret (which therefore by convention have to include it) that fall well short of the "lots of information" test. That one's even tagged as a stub, though strictly it may be a tad longer that that would normally imply. Furthermore, several of the defence-related bodies link to are actually part of other such bodies, also linked to on the same template, which is surely highly redundant for inclusion in anything other than specifically defence-related articles, or extremely broad articles like Israel. Alai07:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alai: Merely because the template links to a stub does not mean it should be split. The stub may be a critical article relevant to the over-all subject of modern Israel, (and there is no "law" on Wikipedia that says that the template that links to it "must" be there for now...it can be inserted when the article has more information added to it.) Furthermore, because Israel is such a highly-militarized nation it is therefore accurate that the template reflect Israel's high involvement with defense matters and articles pertaining thereto. So your reasoning here would appear to be based on lack of knowledge concerning this complex subject about such a small nation, which the present template admirably reflects. IZAK08:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have introduced level 2 headers to reconcile history & conflicts, and moved geography up so the reader doesn't get immersed into the maze of history & conflicts right from the start. ←Humus sapiens←ну?05:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PT is a POV expression. We should use geographical terms instead. What makes a territory Palestinian? There has never been a Palestinian state. After the borders (subject to negotiation) are permanently established, the PT term will have some NPOV meaning. Still, it doesn't and won't belong to this template. ←Humus sapiens←ну?22:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So would you prefer "Israeli-Occupied Territories"? Or "Judea and Samaria"? "Palestinian territories" is a roughly middle-of-the-road compromise among the many terms that different people would choose. -- Jmabel | Talk07:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, are you accusing me of sharing the politics of Al-Manar? Mind you manners.
"Middle-of-the-road" in a perspective that does not include only Israelis. The territories are certainly part of historic Palestine (heck, I keep hearing people insist that Trans-Jordan is part of historic Palestine, which I think is pushing it), so "Palestinian" is by no means an ahistorical name for them. "Judea and Samaria" is clearly a name associated with a Jewish claim to the territories, so it is certainly not neutral. "Occupied Territories" indicates a status that the Israeli government does not consider accurate, so it is certainly not neutral.
Another perfectly acceptable term, at least from my point of view, would be "West Bank and Gaza", or, separately, "West Bank" and "Gaza". -- Jmabel | Talk20:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After the disengagement, what's the point of including Gaza?
"Judea and Samaria" is clearly a name associated with a Jewish claim, but "Palestinian territories" is a roughly middle-of-the-road compromise. Where's the logic? And for the 3rd time, what makes a territory Palestinian?
As I said earlier, we should use geographical terms instead. I don't see any problem with ancient and neutral names Judea and Samaria. The name West Bank was invented by Jordan after 1949 in order to reconfirm that Jordan owns both banks of the Jordan river. However if the consensus here is to use WB, I'll compromise. ←Humus sapiens←ну?23:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"After the disengagement, what's the point of including Gaza?" How about 38 years of history, easily the majority of Israel's existence? -- Jmabel | Talk07:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are here to work on an article, and since it appears that "West Bank" is non-controversial, let's use it instead of wasting more time on why we don't like each other's other choices. -- Jmabel | Talk07:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The geography of Israel article seems to proceed from the assumption that Gaza is part of that scope. Some consisently one way or t'other would be good. Alai04:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thameen says: Judea and Samaria are names that far outlive the term "Palestine" or "West Bank." Since the template is on the State of Israel, a Jewish state existing in the ancient Land of Israel, we should use the Jewish--and historical, mind you--names. Aiden02:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judia and Samaria, or The West Bank, or The Palestinian terrotories, or whatever you call them, are not part of the State of Israel. They are according to UN resolutions occupied lands whose status is disputed. So they should not be a part of the state of Israel. They are a separate Entity. They may be included as "Occupied territories" and not in any way that may indicate that they are "part" of the State of Israel. --Thameen17:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ascribe any political meaning to my removal of Negev, Judea and Samaria from this template. We don't list all the districts here, they are one click away. ←Humus sapiensну?10:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geography
I looked at this template for a while and there is something I do not think is a clear or NPOV.
This template is about the State of Israel. So the Geography section is about the Geography of the state of Israel. Putting the heading "Land Of Israel" is misleading.
What are we talking about here. The geography of the State of Israel or the Historical Land of Israel? As this template is about the modern state of Israel, then I understand that the geography section is about the modern State of Israel. If you want to talk about the acient land of israel then that should be not under geography but under history and it should be called "ANCIENT Land of Israel" not "Land of Israel".
Putting the "Land of Israel" in this template is, to the skiptical me, a way to incorporate Judia and Samaria and East Jerusalem as parts of the current State of Israel, or at least to give an illusion to the not very familiar reader of this.
As I said else where, Judia and Samaria and East Jerusalem are not part of the current state of Israel according to the UN. Their are Occupied lands. their final status will be, hopefully, one day determined.
So I suggest a change that Does not indicate or give the illusion that Judia and Samaria and East Jerusalem are parts of the Geography of the state of Israel , the current one. --Thameen18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will not change the template now, I hope some neutrally minded person of those who made the template reads my input change accordingly. --Thameen18:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Land of Israel is a religious/historical/cultural concept that predates the State of Israel, the PLO, the UN, the League of Nations, the British Mandate, the Ottomans, the Caliphate, and the ancient Roman Empire. Please assume good faith, this is not about the PLO's territorial claims after the 1967 defeat of Jordan. ←Humus sapiensну?22:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The rights of the non-jewish natives in the land of cannaan goes back to thousands of years before Abraham came to the Land of Cannaan. Our story did not start by the PLO, our story in this land dates back before the start of docummented history. I'm writing to you from a village in Jenin in which archeaological findings date from early stone age to our present day. We Palestinians do not associate ourselves with the political entities that occupied the Land of Cannaan over the times. We live in this land, our land, and we adopt cultures and languages and we mix with people.
It is wrong to look at the now called Palestinians as only Arabs. Yes we have mixed with Arabs after the Muslim invasion. But we are formed of all the elements that contributed to our nation.
The nationalistic claims of the Palestinians do not start with the PLO. You need to read history. After the dissolution of the Ottoman empire the Palestinians started their nationalistic movement and since the early years of last century they behaved as such.
when talking about the Palestinians, many Israelis tend to "project" their history or their nationalistic experience on the Palestinian Experience and thus look at the Palestinians through a distorted mirror. When studying the Palestinians you need to know their own history and their own special evolution as a national entity within the context of a history that stretches for thpousands of years and within the context of the Eastern Christian, Muslim and Arabic atmosphere. --Thameen17:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the recommended reading that proves the ancestry of the modern Palestinian Arabs (or what do you call them now, non-Arabs?) and the ancient Canaanites? ←Humus sapiensну?05:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take a look in the next day or so... Meanwhile, the information you're after is given within the style= statements in this template's code, e.g. style="background:#1e90ff;" for the main heading's background; style="background:#eef0ff;" for the subheadings' background; etc. Maybe this is all you need...? Regards, David Kernow(talk)09:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is it!?
I thought that I can fix is template but it have so many problems that I don't know where start. After first reading the main problems are:
Geography without Dead Sea but with Red Sea?
History is stopped at Austerity!?
Jewish exodus under Arab-Israeli conflict!?
Wine at main template of Israel!?
Israeli-Palestinian conflict without Fedayeen!?
Law of Return under Laws & Politics and in first place!?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict section haven't any order
