Talk:ישראל / إسرائيل
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Why do we have two names?! I think Hebrew name is applied only. Isn't it?--OsamaK 11:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- According to the Israeli law and the Israeli supreme court ruling, Arabic is one of Israel's official languages. The supreme court ruled that preference should be given to the Hebrew language, but Arabic should be used extensively in official announcements. The state's name appear in Arabic (with the Hebrew name) on coins, stamps, identity cards, license plates etc. Drork 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- جميل، شكرا درورك للإجابة.--OsamaK 16:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- لا شكر على واجب :-) Drork 05:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- جميل، شكرا درورك للإجابة.--OsamaK 16:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a remark which is meant to explain the scope of this page. It actually includes sites not fully recognized as part of Israel, but are administered by Israel, i.e. Israeli authorities are responsible for maintaining them. While removing Jericho from this page seems just (imho) because it is administered by the Palestinian authority, having Wadi Qelt here seems reasonable because (as far as I know) it is administered by Israel even though it is not within Israel's recognized borders. Drork (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but what you have done, makes the "scope of this page" collide with the *name* of the page. I think that if you include places which are not in Israel "proper" (=pre-1967), then at least we have to change the title of the page. To include areas on the West Bank on a page only named "State of Israel" is quite insulting, IMO. At least, we would have to change the title to be something like "Areas under the control of the State of Israel"...which *is* a bit cumbersome... Btw, there are places in, say, Iraq, or Cuba , administered by the USA. But we do not place pictures of Quantanamo or the "green zone, Baghdad" under the "USA", do we? Regards, TheRealHuldra (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, the name "The State of Israel" shouldn't insult anyone. I have never heard of a person insulted by the name "The Kingdom of Sweden" or "The Tunisian Republic", and I fail to see how anyone would be offended by the name "The State of Israel". Secondly, the West Bank is a territory currently subject to interim arrangement of joint administration by several bodies. It seems logic to include sites and locales administered by Israel and accessible from Israel, with a proper remark that the page includes depictions of places outside the borders of Israel proper. There is no reason to include the West Bank on the title of this page, and there is no reason to include all sites in the West Bank on this page, only those administered by Israeli authorities and accessible directly from Israel. That would be like including Monaco under the page of France, which is perfectly logical and legitimate. Drork (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS - for the record, I did nothing but adding that remark. This page included images from the West Bank, then someone removed a few of them and retained several others. I added the remark to better define the scope of this page, and explained it here on this talk page, but I didn't add nor removed any image from this page. Drork (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, I don´t think anyone has stated that the name "The State of Israel" is insulting...it is *what* you include in that category which can become very insulting. Exactly the same way that it would be extremely insulting if you included "Oslo" in "The Kingdom of Sweden" ....(I promise you: Norwegians wouldn´t like that at all..) If you are insisting on including areas which are not an accepted part of Israel, but only administered by Israel, then that has to be shown in the heading....otherwise we are deceiving our readers. USA administer, say Quantanamo, ..but we don´t include it as a part of the US, do we? If you don´t want to take out the West Bank places, then this has to be changed into "Areas under the control of the State of Israel". Your call. Regards, TheRealHuldra (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Would you change the title "Russia" if pictures from the islands claimed by Japan were placed on that page? This is the Commons, not the UN, and we don't try to make political statements here. We just use a bit of common sense. Drork (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that it is in fact you who are making a very controversial (and to some: *extremely* offensive ) political statement when you insist on including places on the West Bank into the "State of Israel". If we are to work together in an international "setting"...as the Commons is, the following the rules/guidelines of, say, the UN, might not be such a bad idea. "Unilateral force" is certainly not going to make anybody popular. Regards, TheRealHuldra (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I can't help people being offended by the name Israel. Maybe the name Burkina Faso is offensive to some people, I don't know, but it certainly cannot be a consideration as to how the galleries should be managed. There is a clear reason why these images are here and not elsewhere, there is a disclaimer too, so no one would mistakenly think that these images show places in proper Israel. Once there is an independent Palestinian state, or any other new political arrangement, the galleries would change accordingly. The UN maps are not neutral, but reflect a certain political view held by this international organization. For example, as far as the UN is concerned, Taiwan doesn't exist as an independent state, while we both know it does. If you want to work by the UN standards, you'll have to deal with a lot of oddities like that. Drork (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop your Strawman-argumentation: it is not "the name of Israel" which is very offensive; it is what you include in that name. I try to follow what is the general UN official -line, or the BBC-line, if you like. That does NOT mean that I fully agree with them (I don´t)...but I think that it is a compromise that should be acceptable to most people. When someone unilaterally insists on imposing deeply offensive categories (albeit with a "disclaimer"): that is deeply offensive. And disappointing. But also most revealing. TheRealHuldra (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- We are not going to discuss here the legal status of certain territories in the Middle East or what is the best solution for certain political disputes, are we? Certain places in Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights are disputed territories, however Israeli authorities are responsible to administer them, i.e. take out the garbage, fix the lightening, secure visitors etc. Naturally, these places are accessible from Israel, i.e. you should land at the Ben Gurion (TLV) Airport with a valid visa to Israel in order to visit them. Therefore, it seems logical to include their images here. The disclaimer is meant to clarify that this gallery also includes places which are not in Israel proper, because we wouldn't like to give false information to the users, but this gallery is not the place to get into a political debate. Drork (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop your Strawman-argumentation: it is not "the name of Israel" which is very offensive; it is what you include in that name. I try to follow what is the general UN official -line, or the BBC-line, if you like. That does NOT mean that I fully agree with them (I don´t)...but I think that it is a compromise that should be acceptable to most people. When someone unilaterally insists on imposing deeply offensive categories (albeit with a "disclaimer"): that is deeply offensive. And disappointing. But also most revealing. TheRealHuldra (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I can't help people being offended by the name Israel. Maybe the name Burkina Faso is offensive to some people, I don't know, but it certainly cannot be a consideration as to how the galleries should be managed. There is a clear reason why these images are here and not elsewhere, there is a disclaimer too, so no one would mistakenly think that these images show places in proper Israel. Once there is an independent Palestinian state, or any other new political arrangement, the galleries would change accordingly. The UN maps are not neutral, but reflect a certain political view held by this international organization. For example, as far as the UN is concerned, Taiwan doesn't exist as an independent state, while we both know it does. If you want to work by the UN standards, you'll have to deal with a lot of oddities like that. Drork (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that it is in fact you who are making a very controversial (and to some: *extremely* offensive ) political statement when you insist on including places on the West Bank into the "State of Israel". If we are to work together in an international "setting"...as the Commons is, the following the rules/guidelines of, say, the UN, might not be such a bad idea. "Unilateral force" is certainly not going to make anybody popular. Regards, TheRealHuldra (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Would you change the title "Russia" if pictures from the islands claimed by Japan were placed on that page? This is the Commons, not the UN, and we don't try to make political statements here. We just use a bit of common sense. Drork (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, I don´t think anyone has stated that the name "The State of Israel" is insulting...it is *what* you include in that category which can become very insulting. Exactly the same way that it would be extremely insulting if you included "Oslo" in "The Kingdom of Sweden" ....(I promise you: Norwegians wouldn´t like that at all..) If you are insisting on including areas which are not an accepted part of Israel, but only administered by Israel, then that has to be shown in the heading....otherwise we are deceiving our readers. USA administer, say Quantanamo, ..but we don´t include it as a part of the US, do we? If you don´t want to take out the West Bank places, then this has to be changed into "Areas under the control of the State of Israel". Your call. Regards, TheRealHuldra (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS - for the record, I did nothing but adding that remark. This page included images from the West Bank, then someone removed a few of them and retained several others. I added the remark to better define the scope of this page, and explained it here on this talk page, but I didn't add nor removed any image from this page. Drork (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, the name "The State of Israel" shouldn't insult anyone. I have never heard of a person insulted by the name "The Kingdom of Sweden" or "The Tunisian Republic", and I fail to see how anyone would be offended by the name "The State of Israel". Secondly, the West Bank is a territory currently subject to interim arrangement of joint administration by several bodies. It seems logic to include sites and locales administered by Israel and accessible from Israel, with a proper remark that the page includes depictions of places outside the borders of Israel proper. There is no reason to include the West Bank on the title of this page, and there is no reason to include all sites in the West Bank on this page, only those administered by Israeli authorities and accessible directly from Israel. That would be like including Monaco under the page of France, which is perfectly logical and legitimate. Drork (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Last year, a law declares Hebrew to be the only official language: BBC. The page should be renamed. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
4 images have to be removed from sections[edit]
In the "Geography of Israel" section there are 1 image from the Syrian city Majdal Shams and two images of the Syrian Mount Hermon. Another image is the "Corns of Hittin" image, that one is maybe in the Syrian Golan, not sure. These four images displace areas that is not Israels, they must be removed to another section.. maybe "Syrian areas Israel is occupying" .. for example.--85.229.133.210 23:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Israel annexed them in 1981 so they are belonging to Israel and are part of it, even if Syria does not agree to that (but they opened the wars, not Israel). MathKnight 11:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Totally Absurd. NOBODY but Israel accept this. TheRealHuldra (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Read the note at the top of the page. --SuperJew (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Totally Absurd. NOBODY but Israel accept this. TheRealHuldra (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Anyway, Israel didn't even really annex the Golan (certainly not in the way that it annexed east Jerusalem), but merely "extended Israeli law" over it... AnonMoos (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Name[edit]
There's discussion about the name of this page at the Village pump. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)