Jump to content

Talk:List of cities in Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of cities in Israel is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 22, 2007Featured list candidateNot promoted
August 29, 2007Featured list candidateNot promoted
April 28, 2008Featured list candidatePromoted
November 12, 2018Featured list removal candidateKept
Current status: Featured list

RFC (again)

[edit]
NO, BUT
I find consensus below that while this article is titled "List of cities in Israel" it should only include settlements that are in Israel, whether controlled by Israel or not. If it were moved to "List of Israeli cities" (or some similar title) then the result would likely have gone the other way, but this was not a move discussion and it would be incorrect to use the comments here as an indication that there is or is not a consensus for or against such a move. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should this article, titled List of cities in Israel, include Israeli settlements not in Israel but designated as city councils by the Israeli Ministry of the Interior? 16:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • No - this has been repeatedly discussed, with there never being a consensus for the inclusion of settlements not in Israel to be within an article explicitly about cities in Israel. There is no dispute among sources or even with Israel itself, nobody claims any of the West Bank settlements to be in Israel. Again, not even Israel claims that any of those places are in Israel. It is not in dispute that they are not in Israel, yet this article contains the basic NPOV violation of claiming they are. We are advancing fringe positions as fact, and it violates several Wikipedia policies, among them NPOV and Verifiability, and the factual accuracy of this article is compromised by those advancing fringe minority political POVs here. nableezy - 16:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Should be speedy closed given the multiple previous iterations here. The better article title would be Israeli cities, as it was during promotion to FL. Arguements based in title are specious given the move from the FL title, and the RfC formulator objecting to a move. These cities are governed and adminstered as any other city in Israel, and are furthermore included in census figures and statistics. Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that an RFC that resulted in "no consensus" precludes a new one is absurd. As is the dishonest claim I object to a move, as I have proposed multiple other titles. That I object to your favored title is not in any way equivalent to the RfC formulator objecting to a move nableezy - 17:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last RFC was in August, and it ended in no consensus, and you literally said 3 weeks ago I do not object to another RfC in a few weeks if its wording will give it a reasonable chance to pass. And later you wrote A new RfC is fully warranted. I am not entirely sure why you've changed your mind between then and now, but regardless, Id ask you to actually address the subject and not pretend that no consensus closures mean no more discussion. For the record, I object to any close of this prior to the normal closure of an RFC. This should be discussed on its merits, until some consensus is established. nableezy - 21:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The previous RfC closed on 19:32, 21 October 2018 - making the August start date rather moot. Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also not a few weeks ago, and either way it ended in no consensus. The number of people claiming the "no consensus" ends a discussion is kind of baffling to me, especially when one of those is arguing against an RFC that ended with a consensus elsewhere. nableezy - 21:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The previous RfC was closed 6.5 weeks ago, which still counts as "a few". (Sorry, the "few" word got lost in the course of editing). My stated support was for a rename RfC, hence my comment about wording; and not for another content RfC like this one. — kashmīrī TALK 22:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the idea that an RFC that ended in "no consensus" precludes a new RFC makes no sense to me. If you support including the content you can say that, but just shutting down discussion on the basis of "no consensus" makes zero sense. The article is titled what it is, and I have made several attempts to change that title with there never being a consensus to do so, and so here we are with this title and this content. As you wrote above Read the current title again. And now read the content. See? The two don't match. I am still trying to resolve that discrepancy, and Id appreciate people addressing the topic instead of what they feel is the deficiencies in the process. Trust me, I find several deficiencies in the process, and yet I am here discussing the content. nableezy - 22:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, because there is clearly and undoubtedly no consensus for changing the content, I support changing the title. As to content, I am realistic and don't want to waste people's time on beating a dead horse. Hence, I am requesting a speedy close per SNOW. — kashmīrī TALK 23:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not going to happen. Either discuss the actual topic of the RFC or dont, but asking that others not discuss it isnt one of the options. nableezy - 23:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 57, not “point scoring”, just recognition of what “in Israel” means. Israeli occupied territories in the West Bank are not recognized in the majority of sources or by the international community as Israel. Claiming they are “in Israel” is inaccurate and extremely POV.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know what "in Israel" means, as many years ago I removed all Israeli settlements from "in Israel" categories (which resulted in several pro-Israel editors voting against me at my RfA). However, with a list we have the ability to be more nuanced, and as these cities can be clearly identified as being settlements outside of the Green Line (something not possible in categories), I don't see there to be anything for the reader to be gained from excluding them. With clear identification that they are not in Israel, there is no POV issue. Number 57 17:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No —what Zero said: this title clearly implies something which it is not...as long as this deception continues, we will never have "peace" over this article title. Huldra (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes , and this should be speedy closed, this borders on the disruptive to have this RFC yet again. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes If the status of such cities is clearly indicated. There already is a section for cities in the West Bank, and I'd recommend one for cities in the Golan Heights as well. I find the attempts to be overly precise in the title, like "List of cities in Israel according to the Israeli government but not necessarily so by the international community although they are 100% Israeli ruled", which is what the title should be, disruptive and urge editors to leave their POVs out of encyclopedia making. Debresser (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and speedy close. Enough is enough, everyone's time has been wasted thoroughly in this exercise. —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and speedy close. Three previous RfCs addressed this, and Nableezy has objected a move to "List of Israeli cities", which would've solved this issue to everyone's content. Opening a third RfC on the matter in such a short period of time is an abuse of the process, and shouldn't be allowed. François Robere (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - as per past discussions. GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Even Israel itself isn't saying these cities are literally in Israel. As mentioned, clear NPOV violations. This is dumb. ModerateMike729 (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No These cities are not in Israel. The article goes out of it's way to state these cities aren't in Israel. Israel doesn't claim these cities are in Israel. The criteria of the list, if nothing else, is that these cities be in Israel.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the other discussions I question, If the consensus is no should it result in removal?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to violate WP:POVTITLE. It doesn't seem to be a Non-neutral but common name.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is presented that there is no where else to put these, there actually is such as a list of cities in the West Bank. The argument is based on the premise that they are governed by Israel. While true it's not as a simple. The Laws in the West Bank settlements are applied thru Israeli Military Orders. The Laws of Israel apply and some extra rules layed out by the Israel military. This argument fails as a justification for inclusion. The laws apply as a matter of the occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The legal situation in the settlements is a bit different. The law itself is often called informally "enclave law" - as much of Israeli law does apply. The Israeli police is the law enforcement agency (and not the military) in the settlements. The interior ministry governs the municipal authorities. So no - inside the recognized (as opposed to outposts) settlement areas, the legal regime is mostly civilian. Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Civilian authority laid out by and beholden to military authority in occupied territory that this state has zero claim to. Essentially all you've said was twisting the semantics of what I said to to highlight the civilian authority of the illegal settlements. Placing emphasis on the civil administration of the illegal settlements doesn't change the "enclave law" and further doesn't change the fact that they are completely and utterly outside of Israel. It also fails as a justification for inclusion. The argument amounts to a simple "I just like that argument".
Another thing that has been discussed in regards to NPOV is irredentist movement in Israel claiming the West Bank as it's own. The question here is how much weight the actions by editors here give to those claims. None should be given as this is a fringe position. While as I pointed out, there's a rather good faith effort to make it clear that these cities are not in Israel, There's also an issue with clarity. Point and counter points. It's not in Israel but the settlements are not considered illegal in Israel. The West Bank's formal name (in Israel as I understand) is Judea and Samaria. There's are some things that take away from the clarity that these cities are not in Israel. Zero of these cities are in Israel but our actions actually give weight to Israeli Irredentism.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR was mentioned along with WP:CCC. The justification essentially can be summed up as a democracy argument. However this is not a democracy per WP:DEMOCRACY. This is not a vote. WP:IAR can be summed up in two parts. One, WP:bebold because new people need to be able to edit and not every new person walks out of the gate knowing the rules. Two, WP:COMMONSENSE, because sometimes the rules do not apply, not because there's a popularity contest going on between partisan factions, but because the application of the rules in some situations defies common sense. Consensus can change but the question here is has it changed? Viva la democracy arguments don't offer anything to show that there has been a change.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jonney2000 no one is disputing that these places exist. They just exist outside of Israel—even Israel itself recognizes that. How can you support including these places in a list of cities “in Israel” when secondary sources, Israel, and the international community say otherwise?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Israel includes these cities in its population statistics etc. In any peace deal they would become part of Israel. They are close to 100% Jewish.Jonney2000 (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any peace deal? You mean WP:CRYSTALBALL? We don't know at all what they will do in an eventual peace deal. In Gaza they abandoned the settlements built there. We don't even know that there will be an eventual peace deal. We don't know that there will be a 1 state, 2 state, or even 3 state solution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - it is fairly obvious (see for instance - [1] which mentions Abbas's agreement to this - and any other piece that analyzes this (there's a multitude of such pieces)) that Modi'in Illit and Beitar Illit (the Western most bit of Gush Etzion) would be in Israeli jurisdiction - they both almost straddle the border (possibly actually spilling a bit into pre-1967 Israel / NML - not sure of the edge of the city line) with no Palestinian settlements between them and the border, and have rather sizeable (and rapidly growing) populations (~124,000 Jews - contrast that to 8,600 in all of Gaza (and there - most of the settlements were away from the border)). Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No that's still WP:CRYSTALBALL. It's fairly obvious that posting WP:CRYSTALBALL completely obliterates your argument because your argument is about possible future events. You can speculate all day and provide sources to justify your speculation but as a matter of fact we simply do not know what will happen. The eventually peace in itself could possibly never happen. The actual possibilities are unlimited. Qatar[1] is apparently involved in some Zionist conspiracy to separate Gaza from Palastine so Israel can annex the West Bank or some bullshit. You could claim alot is obvious but as it pertains to future events it's a pure bullshit argument for inclusion of even mustard on a hotdog until it happens.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza has been a separate issue (actual government, warfare) from the West Bank for quite some time - Qatar is merely the latest spin. However - I merely wanted to point out that Jonney2000's assertion above is well supported by literature in the field. I will note that that Beitar Illit's "English Forest" (היער האנגלי) industrial zone (under construction) seems to straddle the green line per what I see on a map - so a small bit of this is possibly in pre-1967 Israel.[2] Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Jonney's chosen speculation is supported by sources as a probability for the future. A WP:CRYSTALBALL situation and such is not a justification for inclusion, exclusion, or anything else related to this article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. To restate the glaringly obvious, (1) Set A (Cities in Israel) and Set B (Cities outside of Israel (in the West Bank)) are by definition mutually excluding. What is in Set B cannot be defined as a constituent of Set A, nor vice versa. (2) It is impossible in English to use in in the sense of outside of but administered, settled exclusively by. (3) It is a monstrous violation of WP:NPOV, a fundamental pillar of the encyclopedia. Yes votes are political acts consisting of an ill-disguised annexationist claim, an ex ante case of WP:Crystal.Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Monstrous would be Israel ethnically cleansing 1/8 of its own Jewish population. Normally states do the opposite. Anyway the annexation is considered null and void so how are those four cites any different from Jerusalem?Jonney2000 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as per prior RfCs. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • No - Seems like it might confuse folks. NickCT (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - mismatch between title and content. One or another needs to be adjusted.--Staberinde (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - WP:CRYSTALBALL at best. Anyhow this reflects the (right-wing/government) Israeli view but not the view of most of the rest of the world, and indeed not the view of considerable parts of the opposition in Israel itself.--Calthinus (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the definition of the list is clear from the name (and consensus has rejected renaming it or changing that definition.) Only cities inside Israel itself should be listed. --Aquillion (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes as I explained in previous RfC, it belongs here, there is no other place to mention these. They are govern by Israel. Sokuya (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes for convenience and because the article already contains the relevant political caveats. By the way, it would have been helpful to link to the previous RfCs at the top for reference. OtterAM (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I support a move to Israeli cities, per Icewhiz. As Icewhiz states, these cities are likely to remain part of Israel in any future peace deal and are included in Israel's official vital statistics; I understand the WP:CRYSTAL objection but a page move to a more formally correct title combined with the lengthy explanatory text in the "West Bank" section of the article strikes me as a better way of covering this nuanced and controversial topic area than simply deleting the entire "West Bank" section. I would counter the CRYSTAL invocation with ignore all rules in service to the reader. Finally, it strikes me that while consensus can change, there must have been at least some implicit consensus in favor of this content's inclusion at the time that this article was promoted to a Featured List.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes All the reasons are already stated by others. Also urgently some limitations on constantly repeating same RfC has to be introduced.Tritomex (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Palestinians-Qatar-seeking-to-establish-Palestinian-state-in-Gaza-574086

Discussion

[edit]

This is not an article List of places designated as city councils by the Israeli Ministry of the Interior. This is a list of cities in a defined geographical region, a place known as Israel. Nobody, not even the government of Israel, claims that the West Bank settlements are in that defined geographical region. You can call them a lot of things, ranging from housing development to war crime, but you cannot call them "cities in Israel". Does anybody actually disagree with any part of that? nableezy - 06:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, isn't the discussion in the section above enough? You need yet another section to vent your opinions? Debresser (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above section is not meant for threaded discussion, this is. nableezy - 06:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Debresser, regarding your comment, no the Israeli government does not consider any of the West Bank settlements to be cities in Israel. There are no cities, as designated by Israel, in the Golan. Your comment is factually wrong. Even Israel does not consider the West Bank settlements to be in Israel. nableezy - 06:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed presently no designated cities in the Golan (not big enough - Katzrin and Majdal Shams are the largest IIRC) - if and when there will be such cities, Israel would consider them in Israel. As for the Israeli status of the West Bank - it is not as simple as Nableezy states - the Israeli position on the status of the West Bank is ambiguous (probably purposefully so). Regardless - all these cities are recognized as Israeli cities by Israel and included in statistics by various bodies (e.g. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics which release most of the statistics used elsewhere by sources). Rather than arguing inclusion/exclusion based on the current title, modifying the title would be more constructive. Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is that simple. Israel has never once claimed any portion of the West Bank to be in Israel excepting East Jerusalem. This is not an article title List of cities that Israel tracks in its census. In Israel or not in Israel is a pretty basic thing, especially when Israel does not even say "in Israel" for these places. nableezy - 22:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this going?

[edit]

This is the seventh discussion on the titling and scope of the article since February 2015. Nableezy has at times supported, or implied support for renaming the article; splitting it; and deleting parts of it. The moment this RfC is concluded one of two things will happen: either another RfC is opened on "what to do with the parts we removed", or another RfC is opened on "what to do with parts we kept". Either way I doubt it will end with this RfC.

  1. I previously supported title the article "List of Israeli cities", which would resolve any accuracy issues some of you have raised.
  2. Deleting WP:DUE content from an article without suggesting an alternative is unacceptable. We don't just throw stuff away when we don't like it. Delisting eg. Ariel will leave us with facts - the existence of a city - that are unaccounted for in Wikipedia - a knowledge gap. A lesser Wikipedia is not a satisfactory result of any single RfC.
  3. Finally, whether you agree with the result or not, repeatedly opening RfCs with a similar scope when the evidence hasn't changed is an abuse of the process, and should be stopped.

So where is this headed? A knowledge gap? More RfCs? François Robere (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did any of those end with a consensus? And no, "List of Israeli cities" does not resolve the accuracy issues. And no, delisting Ariel does not leave a "knowledge gap". There is List of Israeli settlements, there is List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank. Finally, whether you agree to it or not, attempting to shut down discussions on the basis of "no consensus" closes is an abuse of process, and should be stopped. That the body of editors thar insist that this article contain a blatantly false set of material (that Israel's colonies outside its borders are "in Israel") then further demand that nobody attempt to correct that issue and have the audacity to demand that discussions be shut down is not entirely surprising, but based on zero Wikipedia policy. No consensus does not mean an issue is closed, and yall can continue braying about how this should be speedy closed, all it says to me is you lack any substantive argument. nableezy - 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, including two identical RfCs opened by you on 11 July and 22 October. Another RfC, that ran from 3 August to 21 October and involved 27 editors, failed to reach consensus and changed nothing. It's a dead horse if I ever saw one, and considering how many times you've beaten it you can hardly claim you were "shut down". Neither can you claim anyone on the other side is "insisting" on anything: You've been offered several compromises that would've resulted in both factual accuracy and accessibility, but you refused to budge. Enough is enough. François Robere (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, both of those are move requests. Neither of them is an RFC. And they arent identical. And neither of them established any consensus on including places not in Israel in a list of place in Israel. So, again, did any of the RFCs end in a consensus? You, and the other editors insisting on including the fringe POV that Israel's colonies outside of Israel are actually in Israel, a view that not even Israel holds, demanding that discussion be halted because of "no consensus" closures of previous RFCs are basing that entirely on their hope that their fringe POV is maintained through filibustering instead of actually addressing the issues raised and have no policy basis for such a demand. Im sorry you are unable to distinguish between "not moved" and consensus for this material. But that really seems like a personal problem, not a basis for shutting down a discussion about a NPOV violation in a Wikipedia article. Your claim that I am who refused to compromise is as false as the rest of your comment. You fault me for opposing List of Israeli cities? Should I fault you for opposing List of Israeli cities in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories? Seems a bit hypocritical to make the arguments youve made, but hey thats just me. nableezy - 23:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the seventh discussion on the titling and scope of the article since February 2015, including the two move requests from July and October (which are one word apart), the RfC that ran from August to October, and this one. That's four attempts in less than six months to change the titling or the scope of the article: you couldn't change the title, so you tried to change the content; you couldn't change the content, so you tried to change the title... etc. etc. You're gaming the system, and you have the audacity to claim you're being "filibustered" despite the fact the article has already been modified to address your concerns. Enough is enough. François Robere (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ, how do you not get that the number of discussions does not matter if there has been no consensus established? And yes, filibustering. Ive raised very specific NPOV and V issues. What sources support that any of the West Bank settlements are "in Israel"? How is it due weight to say that they are "in Israel" when no serious source does that? Do you, or does anybody else, address those issues? No, they type forcefully and with green font about the number of discussions about the matter, as though that indicates that their favored position, included only by default for some odd reason, is the binding one. Guess what buddy, no consensus emphatically does not mean consensus. And absent a consensus on the topic I, and anybody else, am perfectly entitled to seek wider community input, in the hopes that those filibustering editors are not able to once again prevail through "no consensus". nableezy - 05:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doing anything on wikipedia in regards to Israel/Palestine conflict is plain frustrating. From any side of the debate. Making accusations of bad faith here really won't help anything. Nableezy, reviewing the above RFC that ran for 2.5 months Amakuru's close actually leaves something to consider. The result of the discussion resulted in no consensus for the established question of the RFC. There was actually already a consensus that the cities in West Bank should remain in the article, a consensus made thru editing (see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The discussion did establish a consensus to keep them in separate tables. I ask you to consider this. While I support the removal, If the consensus is no should it result in removal? In the face of the other recent discussion with a fairly large participation, I'm not sure the consensus would be for the contents removal. That of course is for an univolved closer to establish. Where is this going seems a reasonable question. I agree that you have taken a proper course of action, attempting to use a dispute resolution process to resolve this, but I really can't see this actually resolving much as presented.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as I am the one who separated it, I can assure you that it did not imply any consensus to retain them in the article. I separated them as before there was no explanation that despite the dishonest title of the article that it included a set of things very much not in Israel. That does not however resolve the root issue here. nableezy - 05:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the close above by Amakuru. They call it a compromise however the way they discuss it, pretty it's seems to me that they are saying its a consensus. Their language also seems to suggest that the content should stay per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. I agree with your position but again I question if this RFC is even set up to accomplish anything. If successful it may just have the action of pushing another rename discussion. Disengaging and putting the issue on ice for a while so the frustration can die down is something you may consider.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. The only reason the material is in the article is because of "no consensus". There is not now, nor has there ever been, a consensus, implicit or otherwise, about the inclusion of the material. I really dont care if anybody thinks the RFC will not accomplish anything. We will see in a month. And if it again ends in no consensus, guess what, there may well be another one after that. And if the RFC closes with a consensus that the settlements not be included they will be removed. nableezy - 16:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that the "other side" here was willing to compromise on the separation in the article. They are separated. They are designated. There is a big dab of boiler plate text on the international community's opinion - it is all there. Now, if we could see a little bit of compromise on the title - we could just close this on-going mess. Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise? What is the compromise here? Maintaining that places not in Israel are in Israel? That remains the issue here. You refused to include the West Bank or the occupied territories in the title. That compromising? Please, get off it. Ive offered multiple titles that resolve this, you and the others that insist on maintaining a fringe political POV as fact have refused to compromise. nableezy - 16:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Beit Shemesh founding date

[edit]

Beit Shemesh existed with the same name and location from the Bronze Age. See its Wikipedia page. It was indeed re-founded in 1950, but if we are dating each city from its modern incarnation, then many cities in this list need their dates changed, for example, Eilat. Historically, cities have been destroyed and rebuilt many times (resulting in a "Tell", a hill of layers), so re-building of an ancient city is common.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua fox (talk • contribs) 08:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It's not clear what kind of change you are proposing and given the nature of this topic establishing consensus for change will be essential. It's possible what you are suggesting could be achieved with a note (as in note 1 which appears in the Beersheba row next to 1900). However, making a proposal an ensuring there is consensus would be the first essential step before reactivating an edit request for this. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua made a good point. That column of the table is completely inconsistent. Writing Eilat as "neolothic" looks silly given that neolithic remains can be found in practically all these locations. Zerotalk 14:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Aviv-Yafo

[edit]

Hello, the name of the city of Tel Aviv-Yafo needs to be changed to Tel Aviv, as the name of the city in the English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by מחסל האגדות (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts. This question has arisen before, and you can see that even though the article is Tel Aviv the first sentence starts with Tel Aviv-Yafo. The infobox too. Also see Talk:Tel_Aviv/Archive_4#RFC_Tel_Aviv/Yafo/Jaffa. Zerotalk 14:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add be'er ya'akov

[edit]

Be'er ya'akov is officially now a city. It should be added to the list. The ultimate editorxyzyazz (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transcription Change

[edit]

Some transcriptions are wrong, for example, Bnei Brak and Petah Tikva. The proper transcriptions are Bne Brak and Petaẖ Tikva (yes, the line under the h is necessary!)

https://hebrew-academy.org.il/2022/06/27/%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C/ מושא עקיף (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_cities_in_Israel&oldid=1263929165"