Talk:List of cities in Israel

Requested move 6 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. I don't see any opposition here. Note: the move will require admin assistance, which I will request. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

---

List of Israeli cities → List of cities in Israel – The move would bring the title into the same format as the other articles in Category:Lists of cities by country. The issue of contention here is what to do with reference to Israeli settlements. I think that the most logical thing to do is to list have a listing of Cities in Israel in relation to Cities in Israel and to list Israeli settlements in the article on Israeli Settlements. The West Bank is not considered to be a part of Israel. Israel only claims/designates East Jerusalem as being annexed as Israel - but even here such claim is internationally disputed. There is no claim that the settlements are an annexed part of Israel and the West Bank (along with Gaza} has recently been internationally accredited as constituting the State of Palestine. A Cities in Israel article could easily provide links to the Israeli settlements article to enable cross referencing of content. GregKaye 16:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I know about the subtleties with "Israeli cities" and "cities in Israel". And reading the ratio, I can understand the proposal. But GregKaye, do you know of other discussions about this same issue? It pops up in various talkpages and times I recall. So, if this is a once-and-for-all proposal, that would be great. But I don't want to be surprised afterwards by another, overlapping discussion outcome. (my !vote is: of course, "Cities in X" is the general pattern and it resolves the occupational claims). Al Encyclopedia! -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support - This is a valid RM as a quick search on Wikipedia showed that, the common format is "List of...". These all follow the same format as USA, UK, Germany, Canada, Australia etc. Mbcap (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC best resolution of title and content

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.

There's not even a hint at consensus, or even interest in debating to move again something that was recently moved to this name. Four !voters proposed as many alternative titles. Archived without action. Kraxler (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

---

A recent RM has brought the title to List of cities in Israel rather than the, I think, more subjectively defined List of Israeli cities. This leads to the problem that areas such as East Jerusalem and West bank settlement cities lie outside the area, even within Wikipedia's definitions, defined as the area of Israel.

Two possible ways to resolve this situation would involve either

• Cutting content so as to fit in with some agreed limit on an agreed limit of legitimate Israeli territory.
• Again moving the article to a new title such as List of cities administered by Israel which could act as a parallel article which, for some reason, is still called List of cities administered by the Palestinian National Authority.

I personally favour the second option as it would allow a broader inclusion of information while still presenting an encyclopaedic content which would not require editors to make decisions which might better be made in the sphere of international politics.

I also think it would be worth developing an extra column to the tabulated content so as to indicate whether a city is in full or part in various areas associated with Israel: the area marked as being intended for a Jewish State in the original UN partition plan, the Jewish side of the Green line or the West Bank or the Golan Heights. However, while comments would be appreciated, this might be an issue for another time.

GregKaye 16:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Second Option - And I think I'd look to the text for the title. Try List of cities in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This seems like a pretty bulky title, but I think it should be one on which most people can agree on which geographic area we're referring to. These topic could quickly descend into bickering if we don't find an inclusive title. NickCT (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

NickCT I think that it would be positive if there was a move to List of cities in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (if that title is OK). This could provide further comparative encyclopaedic content inclusive of Palestinian cities such as:

• Gaza City pop.949,221
• Hebron pop.563,146
• Nablus pop.426,132

These would be added to a listing content including:

• Jerusalem 815,300
• Tel Aviv 414,600
• Haifa 272,200

Given that more content would be added to the article, perhaps an extra column could be added to the table to indicate comparative location. A simple division to Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza Strip might provide a potential reference but I personally think that the important context that no agreement has yet been reached should somehow be made clear. Further distinctions are that many terrtories were neither intended as being either in a Jewish or Arab state in the original UN partition plan as shown in File:UN Palestine Partition Versions 1947.jpg. I think note references would be benefically added to say if locations were originally intended, as in the case of Jerusalem, to be in a Corpus separatum (Jerusalem)/international administration or if, in the case of various territories that Israel has taken by force, they were originally planned to be in an Arab State. What do you think? GregKaye 09:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I think I support dividing it into two different articles, simply because the fact there are cities managed by palestinians inside Israel as a geographic entity at the very least. That said, NickCT's idea for making an admittedly bulky title would boil two lobsters in one pot, although again, bulky title. Either option would show respect to both parties in question, as the more I think about it I don't like how it stands as of this moment. Rotund but Reasonable (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What would be your favoured title for the exclusively Israeli title, List of cities administered by Israel or List of urban areas in Israel (as mentioned below) or List of cities in Israel both of which, I think, would at least require the removal of East Jerusalem and the settlements. GregKaye 09:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I won't even pretend to understand all the history and political ramifications involved with an article like this, but since I received a request to comment, here's my 2 cents... First, I would leave the name as is List of cities in Israel simply for the reason that it provides a finite and geographic based parameter for the core of the subject matter. Second, I think it is entirely acceptable for this article to then have sections which are devoted to "Israeli run or administered cities" (WITH ample respective redirects pointing to the appropriate section) until such time that that the size of the article dictates that it be split off per WP:SPLIT. Third, I think this article could be simplified with the expansion of the existing tables to include some of the specialized information such as the size and increase/decrease in city populations. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod One way in which something like this might practically work would be to give the article a name such as List of urban areas in Israel. This title would use wording similar to that found in the Israeli source document for the information from the Israeli Central bureau of Statistic and linked here. The documents wording is "Urban localities" and this type of reference might lend to mention of (still disputed) West Jerusalem as being "in Israel". Another way of doing it would be to present West Jerusalem as a city in Israel although I think there is limited substantiation for regarding West Jerusalem, inclusively, as being a city.

"city of west jerusalem" only gets "About 59 results" in books and "3 reults" in scholar. Which of these do you think would suit best?

Otherwise I think that an proposal such as List of cities in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories might work. GregKaye 09:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, I agree with your suggestions and would suggest that for any new articles and their respective names to be keep in mind that not everyone reading this article or searching WP will necessarily speak English as a first language. "Localities", "urban centers", and such are great vocabulary, but may make it harder to find the article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod TY. i THINK that article finding problems would be minimal on condition that the "List of cities in Israel" article acts as a redirect to a "List of urban areas title". Things might be easier to manage if there was just one "List of cities in Israel and Palestinian Territories" article but a two article plan can certainly work. An urban areas article may also need explanation but that is fair enough. GregKaye 19:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support change to List of cities in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories with location and note content added as presented above. GregKaye 09:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The title List of cities in Israel and Palestinian Territories would be more succinct. I don't think that we can yet specify what the Palestinian Territories are. GregKaye 09:55, 21 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.

Since the above rfc was approved by most, can now something be done about the article content? The basic problem with the article, that the name is "cities in X" and it lists cities outside the boundary of X, remains... ImTheIP (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the Population Table

It would appear that there was a mistake in the adding of the 2016 population figures, since Tel Aviv, Petah Tikva cannot have seen more than 90% population decreases since 2008. I've never edited a table on here, so I wouldn't know how to fix it, but I thought it should be brought to attention.

Thank you 129.2.181.184 (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Sean

EJ

Has been described in this article and in East Jerusalem and in Jerusalem as occupied territory for years. That is not a contentious issue except in the minds of a few people who apparently happen to edit this website. If you want to include areas outside of Israel's sovereign territory then you have to, per NPOV, include what that area is widely and nearly uniformly recognized as. nableezy - 21:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, that part of this article should be covered under ARBPIA. nableezy - 21:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No Move. עם ישראל חי (talk) (non-admin closure)15:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

List of cities in Israel → List of cities in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories – This article used to be called List of Israeli cities, a formulation that got around saying that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and in the Golan Heights are "in Israel" when they are very much not "in Israel". However, this article now is titled List of cities in Israel and a large portion of the material in the article discusses territory that is not in Israel. If this article is to maintain the current title then material on East Jerusalem and any other territory not "in Israel" would need to be excised. nableezy - 21:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 21:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support: More accurate scope. List of cities in Israel should continue to redirect to the article, since it's a subset.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. I suggest List of cities in Israel and Palestine. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Problem there is this includes places in the Golan Heights. nableezy - 00:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – at some point some years ago there was a spate of complaints about naming things as in Israel, while they included some things in one of the disputed territories. The simple solution was to name this article "List of Israeli cities". This was applied to some similar cases as well. At some point, editors (mostly outside of the I–P conflict area, which is good) felt that such a solution was inconsistent with similar Wikipedia articles, the distinction in the title was unnecessary, and that it could be covered in the lead, which it is. The proposed title makes very little sense according to many guidelines on Wikipedia, but I am not personally strongly opposed to going back to List of Israeli cities. Just don't feel it's very important. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with an article titled List of cities in Israel. It will however have to be limited to what is in Israel of course. nableezy - 23:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Let's go back to List of Israeli cities, which was a much better title. The current proposal opens it up for inclusion of cities like Ramallah or Nablus. Number 57 19:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It would indeed, but I think the old title would need to be modified to say List of Israeli cities and Israeli settlements if you are only trying to include the Jewish localities in the occupied territories. And then I dont know what you would do with Arab cities in the Golan like Majdal Shams. I think the best course would be in Israel and the occupied territories and have a list that segregates within it but includes everything. nableezy - 00:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposal expands the scope of the list. The text currently reads: "The list includes four Israeli settlements in the West Bank, an area outside of sovereign Israeli territory." This makes the current title also inaccurate by the reckoning of many. The best title for this current list, the "76 Israeli municipalities granted 'city' status" by Israel, is the List of Israeli cities, which though slightly vague, is accurate. —  AjaxSmack  01:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• List of Israeli cities implies that the cities are in Israel, just like eg List of Scottish cities implies that those cities are in Scotland. However, not all the cities are in what is recognised as Israel. I would suggest List of Israeli cities in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories Either that, or a List of Israeli cities, limited only to cities in Israel proper. Huldra (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Huldra, a list article is not the right place for this and these entries should be removed. Seraphim System ^(talk)

Disagree... they are in a general sense Israeli cities. But it's difficult... the best test of NPOV in cases like this is that if we hit the balance, neither side will like it! Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewa: I don't understand how an NPOV justification can be made here — the current state of the article goes against the formal consensus in WP:WESTBANK by identifying the settlements as located in Judea and Samaria. The format of the article doesn't really allow for the type of qualification required by that consensus. List articles should be used for simple things - there shouldn't be a list of "Israeli cities" only cities in Israel (the area that is widely and non-controversially recognized as the State of Israel) - Israeli cities isn't an appropriate subject for a list-style article because the inclusion criteria is inherently unclear. There is no way for it be NPOV, which would require a balance of majority/minority views based on WP:RS.Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Move back to List of Israeli cities, overwriting and reversing 17:42, 3 March 2015‎ TexasAndroid (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (54 bytes) (+54)‎ . . (TexasAndroid moved page List of Israeli cities to List of cities in Israel: Move article as requested.). It might have seemed a good idea at the time, but...!!! Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and move back to List of Israeli cities. The lead section is enough for clarifying the scope of the list article. feminist (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

scope

As the requested move has failed I have removed material on places that are not in Israel. And for the record, not even Israel claims any part of the West Bank excepting East Jerusalem as being in Israel. nableezy - 21:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Nableezy, if this is not tendentious editing, I don't know what is. Everyone understands the scope of this article, and there was more or less a consensus to return to the previous name. I have reverted your edits and moved the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry, but tendentious editing is forcing a minority POV that even the Israeli government does not support, that colonies in the occupied West Bank are "in Israel". Kindly cease making personal attacks, it is conduct unbecoming an administrator. nableezy - 16:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, several users objected to calling Israeli settlements outside of Israel "Israeli cities" as it carries the same implication that they are "in Israel". You seem to have neglected those users in your so-called "rough consensus". nableezy - 16:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The scope of the article is (and probably should be) the 76 Israeli municipalities granted "city" status by the Ministry of the Interior. That four of these lie outside of Israel is unusual and/or controversial, but so are a lot of other anomalies in this complex world. Provinces of China lists Taiwan even though Taiwan has never been a part of the PRC. Including Taiwan on the list does not endorse PRC control of Taiwan; it merely reports what China considers to be a province. Districts of Cyprus includes Kyrenia District even though none of the territory of that district is controlled by the Republic of Cyprus, once again simply reporting what Cyprus considers to be a district. —  AjaxSmack  16:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The difference with Taiwan and the settlements in the West Bank is that Israel itself does not consider those settlements to be in Israel. The previous title specified "in Israel", and Im sorry but I dont feel that Wikipedia should be even more expansionist Zionist than the Israeli government in claiming what is and what is not "in Israel". nableezy - 18:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I think before taking such action we should seriously consider WP:MR, see User talk:AmYisroelChai#Non-admin close. Andrewa (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a separate matter. "Israeli cities" or "cities in Israel" is the same thing, and would not effect the reverts here. The settlements have to be removed. This fails clause 6 of WP:WESTBANK, it is not used by RS, it is not about geography, it is not about the term, and the article is not about the area. It is in violation of fundamental principles and must be removed per NPOV. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Except clause 6 has nothing to do with this. I oppose the removal. Best not to erase information from an encyclopedia on nationalistic grounds. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That view that the meaning of these two is the same thing has been expressed above, and also explicitly rejected by others. But my point is just that this section was premised As the requested move has failed..., and in view of the prospect of a move review that's an unsafe assumption. Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer: Who said anything about "erasing" information "on nationalistic grounds"? Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Best not to lie in an article about what is "in Israel" on nationalist grounds either dontcha think? nableezy - 15:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"In Israel" is an ill-defined concept with conflicting interpretations. However, "Israeli city" actually has a clear meaning - a city administered by Israel, under Israeli law and funding. All Israeli cities in the West Bank meet this criteria.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Cite a solid neutral reference for that definition. Otherwise it is just a personal claim. It is not how a native speaker of English would interpret the term. It's an Humpty Dumptyish redefiniton defining a phrase in a way that controverts what normal usage says it means, as has been done in the lead. Whatever, this needs wider neutral input, because I expect now one will just get the usual predictable POV lineup, and the farce of the change will turn out to be a numbers racket. It should therefore be reviewed by an independent panel, preferably by people who understand grammar and semantics.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That comment demonstrates exactly why there is support for "Israeli cities" as the title among the hardcore Israel supporters on Wikipedia. The entire point is to call the settlements, what are colonies according to any dictionary, "Israeli cities" and not "Israeli settlements". That is the entire point of this exercise. nableezy - 13:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the purpose of page is to list municipalities recognized and administered as cities by the Israeli government.Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Then you should have a title that reflect that, not an expansionist Zionist one. nableezy - 14:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Move review

I have taken step one of the move review process, see User talk:AmYisroelChai#Non-admin close if you have not already done so for my reasons. Comments welcome here. Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Closer has addressed my procedural concern by adding the required non-admin closure notification [1], and has replied suggesting a new RM. [2]

That is certainly one way to approach it. But IMO the better way would be to reopen the previous one, and provide a rationale for why the several !votes for a move to List of Israeli cities were not seen as a rough consensus.

But it continues to get more complicated... 12:58, 21 July 2018‎ Ynhockey (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (30,779 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Ynhockey moved page List of cities in Israel to List of Israeli cities over redirect: There is an apparent consensus on the talk page). That seems to make MR moot. I note that Ynhockey is an experienced admin of more than ten years' standing. Andrewa (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it's really complicated. Most editors commenting in the original move request said that they could live with the title List of Israeli cities. There is no unanimous consensus, but there isn't much to discuss because no reasonable alternative has been proposed—this is enough to say that there is a general consensus for this title. I don't mind more editors chiming in of course. Here is a summary of the options so far, with my opinion added:

• List of cities in Israel – opposed by several editors on the basis that some of the cities are located on disputed territory. My opinion: the title is fine, because the article makes a clarification, but in light of countless past discussions I can see why it might be opposed.
• List of Israeli cities – generally supported, opposed by two editors because the title might imply that all the cities on the list are in Israel. My opinion: this makes the most sense, and the title does not imply anything, plus there is a clear clarification in the article.
• List of cities in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories – generally opposed on multiple bases. My opinion: doesn't make sense because a) uses a loaded term that's not clearly defined. Is Gaza part of this? Area A? and b) because it would inevitably include Palestinian cities. Violates WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE (part of a policy), and IMO also WP:NPOV.
• List of cities in Israel and Palestine – not discussed in-depth, opposed by one editor. My opinion: doesn't make sense as above, more specifically, there is no reason to have a list with cities in two separate political entities.
• List of Israeli cities and Israeli settlements – not discussed in-depth. My opinion: doesn't make sense, as the vast majority of Israeli settlements are not cities. This list is about cities.

This leaves just one option that's both supported by multiple editors. Again, I am open to more discussion on the subject, but frankly don't see what more can be added.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with all of that (but I am of course involved). Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody said might imply, please do not be so dishonest in representing others positions. Their view was that it does imply that the cities are "in Israel". And nobody besides you has used the phrasing "disputed territory". Again, not even Israel claims the West Bank as being "in Israel", you are seeking to make Wikipedia more right-wing Zionist than even the most right-wing Zionist Israeli government in history. And you are claiming to do it in order to comply with NPOV. That is absurd. nableezy - 15:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

And Andrewa, the fact that Ynhockey is an admin has absolutely nothing to do with this. He is an involved editor in the Arab-Israeli topic area, and the fact that he made an undiscussed move that had multiple explicit objections to it without making an RM honestly says to me more that he should not be an admin than all is well because he is one (Open to recall however does not appear anywhere on his page). nableezy - 15:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If you feel that either or both of us have shown poor judgement in this sufficient to warrant de-sysopping, then there are channels for this, and I'm happy to help you to follow them. Discuss on my talk page please.

In the case of Ynhockey of course the first step is to discuss their actions on their talk page. I see there's already discussion there, but not on this particular issue. Andrewa (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This must rank as one of the grossest violations of Wikipedia policy by an admin I've witnessed in 12 years. Changing 'cities in Israel' to 'Israeli cities' conserves by a grammatical dodge the meaning of the first title while disguising the geopolitiocal violation of commonsense patent in the other title. It's rather unbelievable that supportive editors cannot see this. It hasn't received anything like the discussion such an expropriative or appropriate piece of political mangling this equivocation deserves. I didn't even notice the semantic scam, and scam it is, until I noted mention of it on Nableezy's page just now. Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no "geopolitical violation" here - these cities are recognized, admistered, and funded as Israeli city by the Israeli government. the reality on the ground (recognized by multiple reliable outlets referring to Israeli settlements in the West Bank) is that these settlements (including the ones with Israeli city status) are administered as Israeli cities.Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The point is, identifying 'settlement cities' (the proper term) as just 'Israeli cities' is an in-your-face violation of NPOV, because it makes out that the descriptor is neutral. 'City' status, per sources, has been pursued for a declared motive, to ensure that in any future discussions the 'Israeli city' will be exempted from any territorial discussion. Hockey has effectively framed this political position as neutral, when it is nothing more than the annexationist perspective of one party to the conflict, and it's beyond me how one can get away with such an abusive move. It incorporates as one article the material appropriately accorded a properly titled article, namely List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank, and therefore is cannibalizing a neutral article for political ends of redefining parts of the West Bank so that they become part of Israel, anticipating history (WP:Crystal). Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

To everyone upset about my move: I did not say I was not involved, and did not take any administrative action on the article. A reminder how WP:RM works: 1. someone requests a move, 2. there is a discussion, 3. if no consensus is reached, the article is not moved. This is exactly what happened here, so according to the move discussion, the article should stay at List of cities in Israel. Because I noticed that several editors supported a title that takes into account some of the concerns that were raised about the original title, I took the initiative and moved the article there: List of Israeli cities. I see that many people are upset by this move, and I can certainly move the article back. Not sure that's desirable though, I'm not here to make a point. In my opinion however, removing some cities from the list or opening an FLR based on the title alone—are indeed WP:POINT actions. Again, I am not speaking as someone who is uninvolved, but as someone who (hopefully) understands Wikipedia policies, both in letter and in spirit. Finally: if there is another title that anyone believe there is a greater consensus for, they should feel free to open another move request. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

So, in sum, those who have differing views than you are violating WP:POINT, but you however are not, when you are the only person here who seems to have ignored Wikipedia policy in making a move without discussion that had explicit opposition. I was fine with this article remaining at List of cities in Israel, but that did in fact necessitate removing anything not in Israel. That is not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and if you are going to continue making such false accusations Id ask that you do it an appropriate forum. The current title is misleading in that it conflates two things, cities in Israel and settlements that even Israel does not claim to be in Israel that Israel has designated as cities. nableezy - 09:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Israel claims these cities are Israeli. The Palestinians claim they are Israeli and demand their removal. The entire world community recognizes settlements in the West Bank as "Israeli settlements" - as do RSes reporting on the matter - one would be hard pressed to find any source not referring to these settlements as Israeli. The title Ynhockey moved to was the title of this article for many years, including when it reached FL status.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

No, the Palestinians and the wider international community say that they are colonies in occupied territory. Not that they are "Israeli cities". Kindly stop distorting your interlocutors arguments, it is quite unbecoming. nableezy - 22:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Most RSes use settlement, not colonies. However, even those that say colonies - say Israeli colonies. The Israeli nature of these urban settlements is not disputed by any side or serious source.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I dont honestly see what you are arguing here. You seem to be arguing that if a source calls this place an Israeli settlement then that means you can apply "Israeli" as an adjective to any other noun. Israeli settlement is a noun phrase, meaning a settlement established by Israel outside of Israel and in the occupied territories. The conflation of places in Israel and places not in Israel violates NPOV. nableezy - 16:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Even though there is a technical difference between "cities in Israel" and "Israeli cities", we are obliged to consider what the casual visitor reads into the title. (Wikipedia is for the readers, not for the editors.) In my opinion, a typical casual visitor will not understand the difference so the title is misleading. Failing to internally separate the different categories serves to cement the misunderstanding. I can't help but think that it is deliberate. Zero^talk 09:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Well the technical difference that gets the crystal clear 'cities in Israel' to extend into settlements in the West Bank by a rename 'Israeli cities' is a piece of Orwellian language manipulation that unambiguously implies annexation, anticipating the future, and therefore pure POV pushing of a rather patent political kind. But the problem with 'Israeli cities' is not only there. 'Israeli cities', as opposed to villages, towns, kibbutzs and moshavim, have mixed populations reflecting a the 20/80 divide between Jews and Arabs. This is not true of the 'Israeli cities' in the West Bank which, despite some minor presence, are designed to established Jewish citizens of Israel within the West Bank. In that sense, there is an additional distortion, implying somehow that settlement cities are open to free movement of all Israelis, and have a notable Palestinin Israeli presence. So it is doubly deceptive in its POV gamesmanship.Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The lead needs therefore rewriting to reflect the title, and the matter regarding these settlement cities should be excerpted and relocated on the proper wiki page, List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs can live in settlements, and indeed - some do according to Reuters. There may be acceptance committees for some small communal settlements (less than 500 households or people, don't remember which) - however any large settlement - in pre-1967 Israel or in the West Bank is open to all Israeli citizens - this is particularly true for the Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank.Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Tag

Icewhiz You are well-aware there is an ongoing dispute about the neutrality of the title. Explain your removal here. nableezy - 13:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

And as youve apparently seen fit to disallow even notifying readers of the issue of the title, Ive tagged the article. nableezy - 13:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You haven't established consensus for your view here on the talk page - placing a tag after not managing to carry the discussion is not an accepted course of action. Note these might be a 1RR issue - [3][4].Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Where on earth are you getting the idea that a consensus is needed for a tag? The purpose of a tag is to show that there is no consensus about a discussion and invite others to engage in the discussion. Perhaps if you read the linked instructions you might find your belief to be entirely fiction. Note under when to remove it says When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue. That sort of kind of gives proof to the lie that tags require consensus for them to be placed and that adding a tag when there is not consensus for a position is not an accepted course of action. As far as your last bit, I am unaware of what I am supposedly reverting. There is a new tag on the article, as you disruptively removed the more specific one. That isnt a revert, sorry. nableezy - 14:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

While the consensus requirements for a tag (or any edit) are softer than say for a move, it is widely understood that tags should not be applied lightly, and that they should not be applied when they are not expected to go away given the article's content. Tags are meant both to notify readers of a problem in the article, and also to notify editors, who can then fix the problem. The latter does not apply here, as the editors have already spoken, and the discussion can continue. In general, if any edit is disputed (and this one is), the correct step is to open an RfC on the subject. I'm not sure what the point is though, you have already started two different processes—WP:RM and WP:FLRC—and did not get consensus for your suggestions in either case. It might be time to give it a rest.

About the tag itself: at the very least, it should be used when there is, as you said, "an ongoing dispute about the neutrality". There is an ongoing dispute about something, but I'm not really sure what, or why it's relevant—the procedures for changing an article's title are clear. As I wrote in the previous section, if you feel that the title does not reflect the content of the article (or violates NPOV), please open another WP:RM, to a title that you believe addresses these concerns. I'm not sure it should be done so soon after the previous WP:RM (up to you really). Until then, there is no justification for this tag, which is a form of poisoning the well.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the requirements for a move are in fact clear. Requirements you ignored and continue to pontificate over. And the idea that your undiscussed and challenged move is what should be the basis for any further moves, which apparently now require RM discussions and your move does not, is incredibly hypocritical. I feel that the article content violates NPOV. The title was fine before your undiscussed move, it however requires culling the article of material on place not in Israel. Did you get consensus for your change? Get off it Ynhockey, this game of claiming your edits are pure and wholesome and others are POINTy or whatever other buzzword you want throw at me without even the slightest bit of self-awareness is getting old. nableezy - 22:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

And to be perfectly clear, if you have any real interest in actually abiding by the policies you claim to understand both in letter and in spirit then you will reverse your move. You should also reverse your revert to include the propaganda that Israeli settlements in occupied territory are "in Israel". But I dont expect you to actually follow the policies that you claim to understand, only to continue to use them as talking points. nableezy - 22:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

As Ynhockey has declined to revert his contested move, I will do it for him. nableezy - 16:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Map issue

The map used in the lead of the article seemingly shows the Golan Heights as though it were in Israel. That is of course a minority position and using such a map violates NPOV. nableezy - 16:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The Golan heights are administered under Israeli law following annexation.Icewhiz (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Golan Heights are internationally recognized as being outside of Israeli territory. Again, this is a NPOV issue in that it presents an extreme minority view, that the Golan is in Israel, as a fact. nableezy - 17:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ive corrected this issue in the template. nableezy - 17:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC

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 list include Israeli settlements outside of Israel that have been designated as "cities" or "city councils"? --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Nableezy 18:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• No - and before this gets dragged into an argument of what is in Israel and what is not, I want to be emphatic about this point. Not even Israel claims any settlement outside of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is in Israel. Israel does not consider Ariel to be in Israel. Israel does not consider Beitar Illit to be in Israel. Israel does not consider Modi'in Illit to be in Israel. There is zero basis for including places in territory that even Israel does not claim as Israeli in a list of cities in Israel, or a list of Israeli cities as if that syntax game changes the fundamental NPOV issue here. By including settlements in occupied territory as though they were in Israel or that they are "Israeli cities" Wikipedia effectively advances an extreme minority political position, that the West Bank is not occupied territory and that it is indeed in Israel. That is Wikipedia would be taking a position on the borders of Israel so extreme that not even Israel advances it. nableezy - 18:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Whether Israel considers locations in the West Bank in Israel or not is immaterial (nor is it obvious in any direction - Israeli maintains ambiguity). I will note that the Golan is not ambiguous - as it has been annexed and laws of Israel fully apply. What is however obvious is that Israeli cities in the West Bank are fully recognized as Israeli cities, funded as Israeli cities (the central government provides quite a bit of the funds), have the local government structure (elections, reporting to the Israeli Interior Ministry), and are.... recognized as Israeli cities - by Israel, and I would add any RS that covers them. Even the Palestinians view these locations as Israeli cities (or settlements) - which they demand to be removed. In any Israeli CBS release, any compendium of statistics on Israeli cities - these cities are included. Furthermore, we should not engage in OR in regards to which cities are in Israel or not, but should rely on a list of such cities - as released for instance by the Israeli Interior ministry (and, I shall note, that in some cases some cities straddle the Green line - making this ORish indeed to determine what portion is where). The article should be move back to List of Israeli cities - which is more NPOV and is the title this article was with when it achieved FL status.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• No There is no argument logically feasible for including cities not in Israel as being in Israel. It is a manifest contradiction, and has only one purpose: controverting Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality by finangling to make out cities inhabited by Israelis ipso facto are in Israel, a form of discursive annexation per WP:Crystal.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This RfC is malformed. It isn't clear what "Israel" implies. This list should include cities in Israel, including those in areas annexed by Israel, which includes East Jerusalem and the Israeli portion of the Golan Heights, but not any settlements in the West Bank, which has not been annexed by Israel. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

comment. I think that makes an exception of Israel, and on Wikipedia the aim is to have a uniform logic behind classifications. North Nicosia is annexed by Tuurkey and serves as the capital of Northern Cyprus but is not recognized as a Turkish city at List of largest cities and towns in Turkey; (2) Crimea was annexed by Russia but at List of cities and towns in Russia by population, cities there are excluded ‘as those were not a part of the 2010 Census, are a subject of an unresolved dispute between Russia and Ukraine, and are considered to be a part of Ukraine by the majority of the international community. The occasionally cited examples of China and Taiwan are useless: in neither case is the disputed territory occupied by the other party.'Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment North Nicosia has not been annexed by Turkey. I would say that settlements in Crimea ought to be included on such lists. If the territories are under the jurisdiction of the state of Israel, they ought to appear here. Endymion.12 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Were your view of unilateral annexation by a single state the qualifier for inclusion, and not international law, then, logically, you would be obliged not to include, as you did above, East Jerusalem, which, as Ian Lustick has shown, has, unlike the Golan Heights, never been formally annexed. There is a real problem here in avoiding making inclusive/exclusive judgements when the legal situations are complex.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, for those who aren't in the loop, I suggest reading the above discussions, especially the move discussion. There is a general understanding that the scope should include all Israeli cities, and the article title that got rough consensus was List of Israeli cities, to get around the problem that some cities are not de jure in Israel. There is really no point excluding cities in this list that get their services and budget from the same government institutions, inhabited by citizens of the same country, based on political disputes. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a “point” actually, that “point” being that those cities are not in Israel. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a rough consensus, as I wrote about, on a solution to this problem. In any case, these cities are administered by Israel in the same way as the other cities on the list, albeit with some minor technical differences. The Ministry of the Interior is still directly responsible for the cities though, and other government agencies provide them with the same services as they provide to the other cities. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Guantanamo is administered by the United States but it is in Cuba and no one pretends that the US's administering a township and base on foreign territory translates into that place being in the United States.Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I think your own example contradicts what you are saying: List of United States Navy installations includes Guantanamo Bay. The proposal is to call the list List of Israeli cities and include Israeli cities. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No it does not contradict what I wrote. Please parse what I wrote and the page you cite. Having a naval installation in a foreign country does not mean that territory is annexed.Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• No per Nableezy, it's extraterritorial jurisdiction - extraterritorial is self-explanatory, I think.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes otherwise it's an incomplete list. The article also needs to be moved back to List of Israeli cities. Number 57 08:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• No per nominator, and pr international consensus, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• No unless the title is changed to make it clear that we are not only listing cities in Israel. I can't think of such a title that will satisfy everyone and also be clear as to its meaning. As I argued before, "List of Israeli cities" will just serve to mislead many readers into thinking that they are looking at a list of cities in Israel, so it is not an acceptable solution. Also, any list under any title that includes places outside as well as inside the internationally recogized borders should be divided into sublists labeled accordingly. Zero^talk 02:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• No The four cites in the West Bank / Judea and Samaria Area have not been annexed. You can link to a separate list.Jonney2000 (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Among Israelis, cities in the so-called West Bank are still in Israel/Palestine proper.Davidbena (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Solution: The article name is tricky. It says "cities in Israel", but the international community views the West Bank as being a separate territory from Israel, while Israel keep its status vague. It never implemented the Israeli law there, but acts as if it did. If the article was called "List of Israeli cities" it would have been easier. Therefore I propose to keep Israeli settlements in a separate section under the name "Israeli cities outside the green line" or any other title.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 03:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes and agree with bolter and Ynhockey that it should be moved to list of List of Israeli cities to solve any POV problem --Shrike (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - Cities like Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim, whose inhabitants are Israeli and remain under Israeli control, can't be excluded from the list. I agree that it would be better to rename the article "List of Israeli cities" instead of "List of cities in Israel" which could imply the West Bank is part of Israel's sovereign territory.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per Ynhockey and Bolter21. The legal situation is problematic to say the least, but Wikipedia should focus on the reader. If we're faced with two equally viable alternatives, only one of which would make intuitive sense to the reader, then we should choose that alternative. In this case the reader would expect a list that includes all cities that are generally considered Israeli, regardless of how the list is named. We can then make whatever geographic and legal distinctions we wish within that list. François Robere (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes and rename to List of Israeli Cities, to avoid the issue of territory. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes it should include settelments and cties under Israel administrative divisions, we can put a footnote in the District column that mention that the city is located inside Area C for example. Where else would we list these cities? There are under Israeli sovereignty. Maybe we should change the name of the article as sugessted. Sokuya (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• No - Jewish hamlets in occupied zones outside Israel are not "Israeli cities". Also heading of the article itself ("List of Israeli cities") is problematic. If sites such as Ariel are on the list, then that is misleading. I'm not sure what would be the best headline, but the renaming of the article should be considered.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes All the reasons are already stated above.Tritomex (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per Sokuya. They are Israeli cities governed by Israel and accessible from Israel. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. Although the wording of the RFC leaves open the question of what's defined as "in Israel", cities that are unambiguously outside of Israel do not fit the topic even if they're administrated by it, have populations of Israeli origin, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes I'm not interested in political discussions - I visited this page because I wanted to find out information about relative population density in Israeli cities. These cities are Israeli. If you want to change the title back to "List of Israeli Cities", by all means - but removing content on Israeli cities is not an acceptable resolution simply because some people disagree with the politics involved. This page is meant to be a useful list, not a political battleground. Let's keep it that way. 193.104.77.4 (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• No Very simply, a list called "cities in Israel" should contain, just that, cities in Israel. There is absolutely no reason it should contain cities outside of Israel. That is disingenuous at best and certainly misleading WP:WESTBANK. Cities in occupied Palestine or Israeli colonies must appear in their own list in an article appropriately titled, not here as an addendum. Wikipedia is not a trailblazer setting precedents, nor is it a tool to politicize. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Veritycheck: you have voted twice in this RFC.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Corrected - Thanks. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• No per international consensus. As far as clarity for readers is concerned, this can easily be amended by including a hatnote disambiguation to a list of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank. Suggestions to move back to "Israeli cities" are not a solution as that just hides the issue behind a term whose definition is vague (Israeli by population? By law? Whose law?). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Partially - Yes for Golan and Jerusalem, as those have been officially claimed by Israel and no for the West Bank. --Gonnym (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• No. The entire "List of cities" series is about settlements located within internationally recognised state borders and not about those in colonies or areas controlled in violation of international law. Otherwise please add Sevastopol to List of cities in Russia and move Stepanakert to List of cities in Armenia. Anyone willing? Also, this RfC should ideally be moved to WP:CITIES. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you point me to the guideline that says that? I checked your two examples that would never happen and lo and behold - Sevastopol is included in the image gallery at List of cities in Russia and Stepanakert does indeed appear in List of cities and towns in Artsakh (no reason for it to appear in Armenia). --Gonnym (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Russia has formally annexed Crimea. Israel does not claim any part of the West Bank excepting East Jerusalem as being in Israel. Again, not even Israel claims any of these settlements as being in Israel. nableezy - 16:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: De iure, Artsakh is part of Azerbaijani territory that is occupied by Armenia and controlled by its military. That's why Stepanakert is NOT included in the Armenia article. See, nobody (hopefully) objects against adding the settlements to the article "List of settlements in Occupied Territories" (which should be created, just like List of cities and towns in Artsakh). But these towns should never be presented as part of the territory of the occupying power (Armenia or Israel). — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what both you and nableezy actually want. You gave two examples of cities that won't be in an article and I've shown that both are indeed in articles that shouldn't be. You say that Artsakh is part of Azerbaijan, but that article leads to Republic of Artsakh, a "de facto independent country". Look at my vote, I said that I support Golan and Jerusalem being included, as both have been de-facto legally annexed by Israel. The West Bank hasn't and should not be in this article.--Gonnym (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

"de facto legally annexed"??? See, the international community considers Golan "ILLEGALLY annexed". A minor detail but it is crucial to the discussion here. FYI, Arsakh is illegally controlled by Armenian forces. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Yes due to their significant importance. Otherwise you would be required to move the article back to List of Israeli cities. Rzvas (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• No. I agree with Kashmiri: The entire "List of cities" series is about settlements located within internationally recognised state borders and not about those in colonies or areas controlled in violation of international law. (OR Change the name of the article if you want to include those other cities not IN Israel.) Peter K Burian (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2018 (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.

rfc result

There certainly is no consensus for the inclusion of the challenged material of settlements outside of Israel's sovereign territory being included, as such, per WP:ONUS, I am removing those settlements. nableezy - 22:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't count well... let me help you: 12 votes for "Yes"; 9 votes for "No". That's called consensus for YES.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Uh no, that is "no consensus" my revert-warrior friend. nableezy - 20:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

As this is long standing content - well over a decade (including promotion to FL), WP:ONUS is on those who want to change the stable version.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Are you of the view there is consensus for this contested content? nableezy - 16:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You're putting the horse before the cart. The RfC is still open. Consequently, it's premature to be talking about results. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It was closed on the 3rd and re-opened later. nableezy - 16:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

Can somebody please provide a list of reliable sources for the idea that Ariel (city), Beitar Illit, Ma'ale Adumim, or Modi'in Illit are "in Israel"? nableezy - 20:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

As several RfC participants (as well as the former FL promotion, and this was the longstanding name of the article) opinied, the possible inconsistency in the article title would be resolved by moving this back to List of Israeli Cities.Icewhiz (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I suggest that you start a new Requested Move, outlining the points you make here. I think it could be argued that the RM above showed consensus to move to List of Israeli cities, and there was some debate here about whether the close was proper, but ultimately that's in the past now, and this is best addressed through a fresh RM. We would probably stipulate that an uninvolved admin close the RM to bring some closure to this question, which has led to repeated move-warring over the past month or two. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

And as many users have said such a move would be improper in that it doesnt actually address the problem with conflating places in Israel and its colonies outside of Israel. I repeat my request, can anybody provide reliable sources for Ariel (city), Beitar Illit, Ma'ale Adumim, or Modi'in Illit being "in Israel"? nableezy - 16:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The general consensus is that the proposed title does not adequately solve the issue of NPOV and creates an unnecessary inconsistency. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

---

List of cities in Israel → List of Israeli cities – Was promoted to FL with this name [5], and was in fact renamed during the FL nom. "In Israel" poses NPOV questions regarding cities in annexed areas (Golan), and occupied and as of yet unannexed areas (West Bank) - as well as issues with cities that straddle tue green line (or passs over by a bit). Israeli, on the other hand, is a factual description of all these cities - which regardless of location are adminstered by the same process under the Israeli Interior mjnistry. Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - the West Bank is administered by Israel Defense Forces Central Command as can be seen Judea and Samaria Area#Status and here from 2012 article. That said the title proposed isn't that bad, but my issue with it is that it breaks WP:CONSISTENCY with every other Category:Lists of cities by country article. If "In Israel" poses NPOV questions, a better solution would be "List of cities in Israel and in Israeli settlements" (which follows the first lead sentence), or "List of cities and settlements in Israel". I'd also like to point out that the article does not mention the Golan as a controversial claim, only the West Bank and East Jerusalem. --Gonnym (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The in Israel in the second title would still be an issue, and the Golan is only not listed as an issue as there are no cities as classified by Israel in the Golan. nableezy - 16:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Firstly, Wikipedia’s role is to inform, not obfuscate, or politicise. Gonnym accurately points to WP:CONSISTENCY here and there is no reason to break from it. The proposed change to “Israeli cities” is both argumentative and subjective creating more of the same issues we already face with the current title. It’s not a solution if it carries the same baggage. A name change must improve the article moving forward, not sideways.

Both of Gonnym’s suggested titles above are NPOV, unambiguous and not controversial. I support them. They would be an improvement to what must be an encyclopaedic article. By the same token, Wikipedia must not be used as a tool for propaganda by some to flagrantly go against the international community to misinform which the proposed title, through design or accident, would do. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - quoting Zero0000 above: Even though there is a technical difference between "cities in Israel" and "Israeli cities", we are obliged to consider what the casual visitor reads into the title. (Wikipedia is for the readers, not for the editors.) In my opinion, a typical casual visitor will not understand the difference so the title is misleading. Failing to internally separate the different categories serves to cement the misunderstanding. I can't help but think that it is deliberate. nableezy - 16:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - to this deeply misleading name switch - it is practically the same thing. So again - “no". GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Would go some way to resolving the NPOV issues with including Israeli cities in the occupied territories. Excluding them from the list and insititing on a title that definitively excludes them just seems to be WP:disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Can't see how this could be considered misleading at all – places like Ariel and Beitar Illit are clearly Israeli cities, but not located in Israel. Number 57 18:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Whereas insisting on keeping them in when the title definitively excludes them is somehow not disrupting Wikipedia? Hmmm, wonder why that is. nableezy - 15:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

If you're trying to infer that my POV is that the West Bank is part of Israel, then I'd suggest you have a look at my editing history. Start with my RfA, where you'll see that several members of WP:Israel !voted against (following a canvassing campaign) because I'd been removing Israeli settlements from "in Israel" categories.

Back to the subject in question, my viewpoint is that any list of Israeli municipalities should include those in the occupied territories – not because they're legitimate, but because they are Israeli municipalities that function like any other in most respects. What does Wikipedia gain from omitting Ariel, Beitar Illit etc from this list entirely? Nothing as far as I can see, and the attempts to remove then seem to be more about winning some imaginary battle about the legality of the settlements than providing comprehensive information for the reader. The proper way to do this would be to have them in the list with it clearly marked that they are settlements in the West Bank. Personally I don't see how any reasonable editor could object to that solution. Number 57 21:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the proper way to do that would be to have a title that does not obfuscate the issue. I proposed one earlier, it was shot down. But just playing these little word games like "Israeli city" does not mean what any reader would presume what it means, that is a city in Israel, because for this one specific country the normal rules of grammar and physics cease to apply is what is the problem here. Have West Bank in the title if you want to include the West Bank. nableezy - 05:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but only if the West Bank cities are separated into their own list similarly to this version. Both the split lists and the name change are required as the minimal acceptable combination. Zero^talk 01:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per RfC above. Consensus doesn't equal unanimity.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The full quote from WP:CONSENSUS is "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable) nor is the result of a vote." but a minor majority in the vote is the only reason you have provided for your interpretation of the RfC outcome. It is quite obvious that the RfC did not provide a consensus. Zero^talk 05:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you count the RFC? 12 votes against 9. You are the minority supporting the removal.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't know what "nor is the result of a vote" in the policy means? Zero^talk 13:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY with Category:Lists of cities by country entries. I don't see this rename solving any of the NPOV issues; how to deal with cities in the Golan Heights, etc. can be better handled in prose or by linking to other pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support, but only if the West Bank cities are separated into their own list. Per Zero. That seems like the right idea. NickCT (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: The entire List of cities in X series is built around geographical location, not around the cities' ethnic composition. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. NB my previous comments on the topic. —  AjaxSmack  01:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RFC result

At the very least I think everyone can acknowledge that there is no consensus for the inclusion of the settlements outside of Israel in this list. Accordingly, per WP:ONUS, I am removing them. And to make this point crystal clear, WP:ONUS specifically says The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. nableezy - 14:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Verifiiablity

I request a single reliable source for the Israeli settlements being in Israel. That is a basic requirement for content on Wikipedia. nableezy - 01:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anybody have a single reliable source for Ariel being in Israel? Modiin Illit? Any? nableezy - 15:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Established in 1978 and located in the center of Israel is the blossoming city of Ariel. CityofAriel(Israel)‐ACaseStudy The Institute of Archaeology at Ariel University is the newest archaeological institute in Israel. Inflation, Alternatives and Gravitational Waves Workshop, Ariel, Israel

Do I really need to do the same for Modi'in as well? Debresser (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources for the location of those settlements. nableezy - 17:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

An academic Archaeology source is not reliable? Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean Ariel University being used to claim that Ariel is in Israel? No, that is not a reliable source for the borders of Israel. If you mean an advertisement for a Physics conference, that is likewise not a reliable source for the boundaries of Israel. nableezy - 17:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

And if you think any of those actually are reliable sources, I invite you to put "Ariel is a city in Israel" in the article Ariel (city) and see what happens. nableezy - 17:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. The support argument is strong - the current title is misleading - but there is clearly no consensus support for it. Perhaps a more concise title, if one could be conjured, would gain consensus support? (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

---

List of cities in Israel → List of Israeli cities in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories – As there are a body of editors who insist on including places not in Israel in a list that says it is about places in Israel, the title of the article should reflect its content. This article contains entries that no source says is in Israel. It contains entries that even Israel does not say are in Israel. If the purpose of this article is to denote only the Israeli cities in both Israel and in the occupied territories then the title needs to reflect that. Above it was objected to changing this to List of cities in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories as it would include cities such as Ramallah ans apparently we need to fully segregate the list based on ethnicity. Fine, but that does not resolve the definition of territory covered by the article. This title does. Nableezy 01:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• List of Israeli cities is shorter, was the title when this became FL, and solves the problem here. Ramallah is not recognized as an Israeli city (nor is it administered by Israel - the PA has control on the ground) - the settlements in Area C, and specifically the cities, are recognized as Israeli cities by Israel, and are administered as such. Icewhiz (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Please do not try and add this as a back door option. Your proposal with that same name was just recently rejected (this is very close to WP:IDHT). --Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As noted above, this title potentially opens up the list for the inclusion of Ramallah, Nablus etc. Reverting to List of Israeli cities would be a better solution. Number 57 11:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)\

How? It says Israeli? How can you possibly support List of Israeli cities and say this one includes Palestinian cities? Did you even look at the suggested name? nableezy - 15:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest a Speedy close to this WP:POINTy RM (which is almost identical to the one that was rejected above and which the OP was opposed to), with a suggestion that the OP drops the WP:STICK about the RFC that resulted in content they didn't like remaining in the article. If it isn't speedy closed, then Oppose for the reasons the previous RM failed. Iffy★Chat -- 13:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not identical, this includes the occupied territories, which the other did not and why I opposed the other. Oh, and no. An RFC ending in "no consensus" is not cause for me to attempt to rectify an issue with an encyclopedia article making false claims that have no sources. nableezy - 15:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Since the necessary information cannot be given in a very short title, a better choice is a longer title that states what the page contains without any stunts. The present title is dishonest and the suggested title is honest; simple as that. And how Icewhiz and #57 imagine that Ramallah would fit under a title that has "Israeli cities" in it, I don't know. Please read the proposal more carefully, folks. Zero^talk 15:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• I don't agree with Nableezy's summary above (this isn't segregating by ethnicity, Israeli-Arab-majority cities are still Israeli cities), but this seems like a workable solution. "List of cities in Israel", "List of cities in Israel and [territories]" are not viable, removing Israeli cities over the green line from the article definitely isn't viable, and apparently "List of Israeli cities" isn't viable (for reasons I don't completely understand), so I support this proposal. I don't think that the word "the" in the title is necessary, but that's not enough of an issue to oppose. --Yair rand (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:KISS. The article itself can add the necessary caveats. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support a speedy close as per Iffy, otherwise oppose per Debresser and Icewhiz. François Robere (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed title is clumsy, but the situation itself is not neat and ordered. The present title is dishonest, and highly POV since it asserts, in Wikipedia's voice, that cities established illegally by Israel on territory universally recognised to be outside the borders of the Israeli state are "in Israel". Either Wikipedia is deliberately supporting Israel's expansionist claims, or it is deliberately including false information in an article; there is no other interpretation of the current title. RolandR (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close per WP:POINT. In essence this is no different from the other RMs and RfCs opened in the last few months. The arguments have been made, they are just as relevant there as here, and there is no point opening another one. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Arguing that discussions that ended with no consensus is a reason to not discuss an issue is, in my opinion, one of the more foolish things on this talk page. And there is plenty of competition for that title. nableezy - 18:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Too clumsy, although there clearly is a problem with the current title which needs resolving. Counter-proposal: List of cities in Israel and under Israeli control (or, shall we say jurisdiction instead of control?). This would exclude cities controlled by the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. Anyone? — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: From all the ones listed here, this in my opinion is the most accurate. Would use jurisdiction rather than control. --Gonnym (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Every Palestinian city is likewise under Israeli control (better known as occupation). nableezy - 19:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Not if you actually know the law, read West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord#Divisions - none of the Palestinian cities are in Area C. hence the use of jurisdiction. --Gonnym (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Another word to consider would be "Israeli administration": List of cities in Israel and under Israeli (Israel's) administration. This circumvents the concept of jurisdiction, becase ex definitio jurisdiction should be lawful whilst the legality of the Israeli jurusdiction over the settlements is questionable. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with Zer0000. Long and correct is better than short and wrong. Even better if the settlement entries were moved to "List of cities in the West Bank" and this article's title kept as is. But that is not happening, so... ImTheIP (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't rationally see any need to make this move, and it actually decreases the quality of the title and compliance with WP:MOS. This article is mainly about cities in Israel; the fact that there are other four Israeli cities in the West Bank is already clarified in a proper section, so it doesn't justify making a long title, which is just unhelpful. --1l2l3k (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"consensus"

I fully intend to restore the tag, arguing there is consensus for this title on the basis of "no consensus" closes is asinine. The closer of the last RM literally said the current title is misleading. nableezy - 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Since this continues to be removed, I will be opening another RFC. The idea that no consensus closes mean that there is consensus for the status quo simply does not compute. nableezy - 21:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No.... enough with the RFCs. The matter has been argued to death and yes, it finished up as no consensus, which isn't ideal but that is still an outcome in its own right. Which means that the issue is settled for the time being, there is no outstanding debate and the tag should be removed. It's time to move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, this continual flogging is fruitless and needs a hiatus. I'd suggest a year before this is re-visited. The point-making, and vile accusations of "propaganda" by the OP need to be stepped back a little before this should be allowed to restart. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry, but how does no consensus mean that the issue is settled? Can somebody please explain in what world no consensus to remove means there is consensus to include? There are core policy issues here, NPOV and Verification are both violated in this, but because there is "no consensus" that means it is settled? nableezy - 21:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Once we deal with a situation a few times and nothing changes, we stop. Now is the time. Try again in 2020. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously I have no idea what that means or how it in any way applies to my comment. I dispute the neutrality of including places not in Israel in a list of places in Israel. There has of yet been no consensus to that issue, and every discussion about it has been closed as "no consensus", and the material remains, despite the majority of users in the RFC agreeing it should not. So that means it should stay? And what does that have to do with a battleground? nableezy - 21:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously you have no idea what it means to just stop arguing and tagging things and gaming the system? Really? Just stop doing that, and we might make some progress. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ive already said what I think of your accusation about gaming. But no I do not think that "no consensus" RFCs are a reason to stop discussion of what I find to be a problem. If and when there is ever a consensus against my position I can assure you I have no issue accepting that. But just saying it was discussed is not a reason to not discuss it if that discussion did not result in a consensus. nableezy - 21:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S. to validate the 1RR thing, you definitely need to make sure the edit notice is applied here, if that's a real thing. Otherwise no-one will know they're under your specific terms when editing the article. It's not fair at all to wheel out 1RR when there's no notice at all, and certainly not excusable via applying a dubious template when you're involved. Don't do that again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This isnt my user talk page, but to the point Ive added the arbitration template to this talk page. If an admin wants to add a 1RR edit-notice they can do that, but regardless, all articles in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area are under a 1RR. That is not something I decided, that is what the Arbitration Committee decided. nableezy - 23:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

People need to be notified of that. You get that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I do, thats I why I just put the template on here. Beyond that, there isnt much more I can do. As far as the tagging and RFCs, its been suggested that I instead use the formal dispute resolution noticeboard, and Ill do that instead. nableezy - 23:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Well do bare in mind that you went all supernova over 1RR when this article had no such notification. You need to work on that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

And as for the dispute resolution noticeboard you are of course welcome to go there and say your piece, but as a neutral observer I would say it really is a pointless exercise. The debate concerning both the list's content and its name are over. Closed as no consensus, but nonetheless over. You would be far better served to just forget about this issue for a year or two and move on. It is difficult when you feel strongly about something, as you clearly do. I know all about that, I've been there as well with issues I felt strongly about. But nothing you do can change the situation and it's better for your own health to accept that earlier rather than after yet another round of bickering.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This isnt something that I feel particularly passionate about. This is to me is one of many small problems that Wikipedia has, and there are numerous examples where Wikipedia subtly pushes the POV, a fringe POV among qualified sources I might add, that the West Bank is "in Israel". Now if I dont feel passionate about it why then am I persisting? Well mostly because it's one of those small things that I might actually be able to correct. Once upon a time it took literally years to include an undisputed statement of fact about these settlements in their articles, that they are widely regarded as illegal under international law. Some of the same users that now oppose removing those settlements from a list of cities "in Israel" and further oppose specifying that said list includes places outside of Israel. But, through repeatedly showing that the overwhelming majority of sources supported that material, and by engaging the wider community over and over until a consensus, any consensus, was reached, that undisputed fact is actually included in those articles. And if at any point along the way there had been a determination of consensus against my position I would have shut the hell up about it and left it alone. But saying that Closed as no consensus, but nonetheless over. allows for users to filibuster any improvement on the basis of showing up with enough numbers at any one discussion to shout down the change. Im sorry, but that goes directly against what our editing policy calls for. No consensus means more discussion with more people, not less. And honestly, I find considerable fault with the closes of both the requested move and the RFC. It is not supposed to be an exercise in counting. Specific NPOV violations were called out and never refuted. The strength of the argument seems to have been analyzed and then ignored in the requested move. What I see here is a set of users filibustering against correcting policy violations, and never once actually responding to those specific violations. Multiple users in the above RM made comments that so obviously were false that they should be ignored entirely (the ones saying it covered Palestinian cities when the title says Israeli cities). So no, I do not agree to the idea that a. there is nothing I can do, or b. I should accept that. nableezy - 00:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

When an article title does not match the content, either the title or the content should be changed. The situation can never be stable until the mismatch is corrected. It isn't rocket science, just good editing. Zero^talk 01:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a limit on how long we should persist with the same circular arguement. Walls of repetitive text and edit warring over tags does not encourage uninvolved editors to get involved - to the contrary.Icewhiz (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"List of Israeli cities" is synonymous with the current title. It is a lexical smoke grenade. The possessive adjective "Israeli" (with a nisbah) stems from the noun Israel, meaning the state. The English variant is "Israel's".

The current title is pragmatic, because it includes regions that are disputed, but controlled by Israel. They are de facto in Israel, without prejudice to their status under international law. It's a valid simplification, with a reasonable loss of detail. Also, "neutral point of view" is an oxymoron. What comes close is the "no point of view", i. e. some kind of radical skepticism or nihilism.

Distinguishing by legal status in the title leads to clumsy and complicated formulations like List of cities in Israel (de jure) vs. List of cities in Israel (de facto), or List of cities by Israel. It's like insisting on the abbreviation "U.S.A." instead of the shorter "U.S." (or "America"), although everybody knows (or should know) that there is more to America than the US, and there are also the United States of Mexico. For comparison, the List of cities in Serbia includes those in Kosovo, although Kosovo is de facto sovereign. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Generally, NPOV tags should not be removed until there is a consensus, This is common sense, if there was consensus the tag would not be needed but it also says it in the documentation for those who need proof of this kind of thing: Template:POV#When_to_remove. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Um not even Israel claims any of the settlements in the West Bank are in Israel. They are not "de facto in Israel", that is a POV that has literally no backing in any serious source. Again, not even Israel says that any of the settlements outside of East Jerusalem are in Israel. nableezy - 17:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that there is no consensus for the current title. However, I also believe that the problem is not that much about neutrality (NPOV) as about factual accuracy of the current title. Consequently, the tag should reflect this; a NPOV tag is inapropriate.

I do not object to another RfC in a few weeks if its wording will give it a reasonable chance to pass. An article title is quite an important issue - also because titles are used by Google as answers to queries - so I see no reason to force the discussion to break for a year. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The split option

Has the split option been fully explored in previous debates? That is, create a new page called List of Israeli cities in the West Bank and move the four West Bank cities there? ImTheIP (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Now I found List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank so I take it that the idea has already been discussed and rejected.ImTheIP (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Existence of another list does not really have any bearing here. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, but do you oppose the proposal or not? ImTheIP (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, as this relitigates the remove option. These cities are overseen by the Interior ministry, are included in the same CBS statistics (e.g. understanding where Haredi Jews live is skewed without two of these...), vote in the same local and national elections, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can suggest a compromise? Because if "your side" isn't willing to compromise, then I think Nableezy et al are entirely justified in creating RFCs again and again to challenge the unsatisfactory status quo. ImTheIP (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "list of cities overseen by the Interior ministry" nor cities "included in CBS statistics". Read the current title again. And now read the content. See? The two don't match. Nableezy et al. are trying to resolve the discrepancy somehow – for the readers' benefit. A new RfC is fully warranted. And existence of other articles partly duplicating this one is certainly a fact that can be considered. — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Just reminding everyone that the compromise already agreed-upon in the past was the title List of Israel cities. I think there is pretty broad support here for this title, as it resolves any factual/technical accuracy issues, but also strong opposition among a small number of editors. I feel however that there is a lot of WP:IDHT going on here. There have been three requested move discussions and an RfC, and a proposed compromise, yet the discussion continues. I am guessing that this is in hopes of tiring everyone so that whoever is left wins. Therefore I take issue with this discussion itself. Personally I am fine with either the current title or List of Israeli cities as a compromise, but this has already been stated, and I have a feeling it's not going to satisfy the aforementioned group of editors. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course you personally are fine with your favored position but you unequivocally do not have any authority to shut down a discussion about a NPOV violation in an article, despite whatever issues you have with it. Likewise, given your fondness for telling others not to violate WP:NPA and to follow WP:AGF, you might do well to review those links. To the point, neither this title or the List of Israeli cities option fix the NPOV violation here, namely that these illegal colonies are not in Israel and calling them Israeli cities continues that misrepresentation. nableezy - 16:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

And as far as IDHT, are any of the settlements listed in Israel? You seem to have trouble either hearing that question or answering it, Im not sure which. nableezy - 16:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Israeli settlements are generally considered to be Israeli - as we might see in our title choice of Israeli settlement. These particular Israeli settlements happen to be cities - thus they fulfill the definition of "Israeli city". Whether they are or not "illegal colonies" is immaterial. Icewhiz (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how unsourced opinion is going to help resolve the current dispute. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

NYT - Tania Rashkovski, 24, playing with her baby, Martin, in the West Bank Israeli city of Ariel, ....A West Bank Enclave Is on Edge, NYT, 9 September 2010.Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

A minority of sources when not directly discussing where a settlement is use "Israeli city". However it is much more common among sources to call it a settlement, Israeli or Jewish, including the NYT, but also the BBC, or AFP, or really you already know this could be expanded to huge number of sources dont you? But how about you answer the direct question, are any of the settlements in Israel? nableezy - 19:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

United States Fleet Activities Sasebo is not in the US. The question is irrelevant, as sources that see these areas as outside of Israel still call them Israeli settlements.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ynhockey, I think that is a defeatist attitude! Arafat and Rabin reached an agreement so why can't we? :) I also don't think it is right to quelch the debate because if there is no consensus then people should be allowed to continue to discuss. Perhaps you can state whether the "split option" is acceptable to you? It seems like that is the way cities in Palestine are handled so there is precedent. There is Lists of cities in the State of Palestine but that article doesn't list anything and instead splits it up into List of cities administered by the Palestinian Authority, List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank and List of cities in the Gaza Strip. ImTheIP (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question, it is not acceptable, because it changes the scope of the article, which is not justified. I don't think the way Palestinian cities are organized should have any weight here, it's really not relevant. I don't think they are organized correctly either, but I will leave it to other editors to decide whether the fact that Gaza and the West Bank are administered by separate entities is the determining factor for whether to keep the Palestinian cities in one list. For Israel there is no such issue, and the only difference with the local authorities in the disputed territories is the technicality that they are not officially "in Israel". That technicality is easily resolved by changing the title to List of Israeli cities. I know that some editors are disputing that these cities are even Israeli, but that's a real stretch—unless someone wants to rename Israeli settlement to "Jewish settlement in the West Bank administered by Israel" or whatnot.

Even with the current title there is no actual NPOV issue. Lots of lists contain entries that are not directly related, and sometimes those entries are not even split into a separate section like here. For example, almost all country lists contain partially-recognized countries or non-country entities. List of countries by GDP (nominal) lists State of Palestine and the European Union. No one claims that this is an NPOV violation, and the same applies here. Titles aren't meant to describe every detail in the article, they are meant to be a very concise summary of what the article is about. Even the lead section often doesn't summarize everything, but in this case the lead actually does discuss the issue in depth (maybe even undue depth).

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As there has been no progress and no consensus on this title or the material I am opening a new RFC. nableezy - 16:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

RFC (again)

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)
• 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)

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)

• Motion to speedy close. An almost identical RfC was run barely a few weeks ago – see above. No point wasting anyone's time by turning this page into an continuous WP:BATTLEGROUND. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• No. This article will never be stable until the title honestly matches the content. Currently the title is dishonest and therefore unacceptable. Zero^talk 22:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• No — That would just be nonsensical. As Nableezy describes in better detail, these areas are not even in Israel and to claim otherwise brings about huge NPOV violations. Also, efforts to shutdown a good-faith RfC attempting to address major discrepancies are counterproductive.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, as long as they are clearly marked as such. Excluding them just seems to be some kind of point-scoring exercise. Number 57 12:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• No - as per past discussions. GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• No: these cities are not in Israel. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes: In the first RFC I voted no (we are now on the fourth). Since then the article has changed a great deal. The four cities are now placed in a separate section with a long disclaimer. The Israelis list these places as cities and Wiki states what their status is. You do not have to like it but these places exist.Jonney2000 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

Oh - it is fairly obvious (see for instance - [6] 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)

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 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)

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.[7] Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

• No - Seems like it might confuse folks. NickCT (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• No - mismatch between title and content. One or another needs to be adjusted.--Staberinde (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

References

Discussion

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)

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)

The above section is not meant for threaded discussion, this is. nableezy - 06:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Where is this going?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

 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)

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. Zero^talk 14:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Tel Aviv-Yafo

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. Zero^talk 14:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Add be'er ya'akov

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)

Transcription Change

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)