Talk:Geography of Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Geography of Israel was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 20, 2008
Israel Portal
Geography of Israel is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Geography
Geography Portal

This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Wikify

I am Wikifying this article by sections. If you feel I have erred in either style or substance (for instance, if my links change the meaning of a sentence), please correct whatever you find. However, please note that if I leapt to an errant conclusion based on the context, it is likely that other readers will do the same; I recommend changing the wording and not just the link.

As I find things that need attention by anyone with subject knowledge (which is definitely NOT me), I'll post them here. To wit:

Topo Section: Need to create separate articles or stubs for Mount Herman (done), Mount Meron and Cape Carmel. I did not create them because, unless they have content, they will be VfD'ed instantly for lack of hits. There may be alternative names for these features that could be linked, or other ways to phrase the article if the features are not notable.Kevin/Last1in 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Climate Section: The context of the phrase, "...and the subtropical humidity of the Levant or eastern Mediterranean...," makes it hard to wikify, since the usage of Levant here does not mesh cleanly with Levant. Is there another word or phrase that could be used to identify the area of "subtropical humidity"? Kevin/Last1in 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested merge

Much has already been said. I think that the article is valid if fixed up properly. Currently, it seems more geography oriented but could have more history/bible references inserted to explain why the term settlement is the literal translation of the Hebrew 'hitnachlut' which does refer to the settling of any area (not only in 'disputed territories'). I reverted the redirect since the compromise of moving the contents to Geography of Israel was not even performed yet. I also added a merge template to make the move a bit more official and binding and copied this section to the destination talk page. --Shuki 17:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

(after conflict) Shuki, please do not revert before a different consensus is reached than the previous one. I have explained the concept with tons of references but to no avail. People remain confused about the concepts. I want to move on. Do me a favor this time. The discussions are old and closed. gidonb 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this now belongs to the Geography of Israel. gidonb 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I also do not want to discuss this. Just continue editing whatever and please leave my redirect alone. It was according to the outcome of an old discussion. I usually have no issues with your edits. On the contrary. They are very good. gidonb 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The articles were already merged. I have transfered the text and inculded it in the article. gidonb 17:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still missing in the article

After I started the human geography section with the text from the other article and some data that was already there, who picks up the challenge and continues expending this part of the article? Most of the economic geography is missing, as is population geography, transportation, and more. gidonb 17:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Climate

Could someone knowledgeable check the average temperatures added by the IP, and convert the corresponding degrees Fahrenheit? Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewing for GA

This article has been listed for over a month with no action. I am printing a copy out for review and will hopefully pass or fail it soon. Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failure

When I first gave this the once-over, I was impressed, as a former geography major. However, upon printing it out and reading through, I knew by the time I got done with the intro that it had serious issues.

The major one is the seriously flawed prose. There's repetitious wording, awkward phrasing, inconsistent use of abbreviations for units of measure, use of the wrong unit of measure for the situation (reservoir capacity is given in m³ and gallons, not cubic kilometers and feet), inconsistent use of British and American English, run-on sentences ... it's got all that. It will take more than a few fixes.

I also came to realize the article is incomplete ... we could have sections on the economic geography of Israel, the effect of the country's geography on its history (not an easy patch of land to defend).

I'll go through it later and copyedit, but the additional information will have to come from someone familiar with the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other things

Gee, I fail it and an edit war breaks out. And that was another thing I was afraid of ... while this article did a good job trying to be apolitical about a very politicized subject, there were places it couldn't avoid that and had to deal with the issues better than it did. One of those places was, indeed, the status of the West Bank, and I would also point to Golan Heights ... the article somewhat contradictorily refers to it as a "de facto annexation per Israeli law". If a law is passed, it's de jure. And, reading the Golan Heights Law article, I see where the contradiction arose. Since Israel has indicated (according to Golan Heights) its willingness to return the land to Syria if, among other things, Syria agrees to pretty much all Israel's terms, including not using strategically valuable high ground to launch attacks on Israel, I don't think the article should be so glib in describing it that way. Especially when the Heights, if counted as part of Israel, have its highest mountain (But where do Israeli peakbaggers go to say they've bagged their country's highest peak? That might be indicative).

We really ought to have a Territorial evolution of Israel article to deal with this, and hatnote it from here.

I also noticed that the intro, prior to this edit war, was suspiciously similar to the intro of the onetime FA Geography of India. However that cleaned it up some. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History lecture in lead, better to put in a separate article?

"Before June 1967, the area composing Israel (resulting from the armistice lines of 1949 and 1950) was approximately 20,700 square kilometers (7,992 sq mi), which included 445 square kilometers (172 sq mi) of inland water.[2] Thus Israel was roughly the size of the state of New Jersey, stretching 424 kilometers (263 mi) from north to south.[2] Its width ranged from 114 kilometers (71 mi) to, at its narrowest point, 15 kilometers (9 mi).[2] In the June 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured territories totaling an additional 7,099 square kilometers (2,741 sq mi).[2] These territories include the West Bank, 5,879 square kilometers (2,270 sq mi); East Jerusalem (annexed, according Israeli law), 70 square kilometers (27 sq mi); and the Golan Heights (de facto annexation), 1,150 square kilometers (444 sq mi)."

The current area of Israel is relevant in a geography article, the rest of this paragraph doesn't seem to be. I have searched for similar examples of history lectures in other "geography of" articles but failed to find anything resembling it. Case in point: Geography of the USA, another country whose borders have changed greatly over time. No comparisons of total areas before and after the Mexican Cession, the Alaska purchase etc. As Daniel Case suggests above, maybe the best solution is a Territorial evolution of Israel article, along the lines of the article Territorial acquisitions of the United States. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    • First to discuss a point brought up by 82.35.28.202, saying (in the edit summary): "It is occupied illegally according to international law.", and later "1967 was not self-defence -- Israel attacked first". Alright - first off, while Israel fired the first shot in 1967, it was not the aggressor. The first act of war was the blockade of the straights of Tiran to Israeli ships by Egypt. Blocking off straights this way is an act of war, and is against international treaties. Egypt also expelled the UN peace keeping force in the Sinai (United Nations Emergency Force), and amassed troops near Israel's border. Clear acts of aggression, and casus belli for a preemptive strike by Israel. There's nothing illegal about Israel's occupation of the territories. In wars territories get captured by one side or the others, and there are rules for these situations. The security council instructed the sides (Israel and the Arab states) to come to a peaceful solution, on the basis of Israel returning territories, for a peace treaty with the Arabs (resolution 242). This is the formula used in the peace treaty with Egypt (returning the Sinai). You may think the occupation is morally wrong, but there's nothing illegal about it.
    • Okay, MeteorMaker called the part he/she removed: "somewhat propagandistic history lecture". I must confess I see nothing "propagandistic" about that paragraph, as it is very factual, making no claims of right or wrong, just explaining the current situation of the areas Israel controls, and how that came to be.
    • "history lecture" - Israel's territory is a complicated business. You have "Israel proper" (1949 lines); you have the Golan Heights, under Israeli law, but not annexed; you have the West Bank, under partial control, with the PA in some areas; you have East Jerusalem, annexed; you have the Gaza Strip, not annexed, with no Israeli presence, though Israel still with some control (airspace, sea access), and no sovereign. This is complicated. Before delving into details, I think we should explain these points, and how they came to be. The US example is no good - all the areas you mentioned now have the exact same status as everywhere else in the US, so there's no relevant distinction.
    • Saying Israel is bordered to East by Jordan is true, regardless of what we think about the West Bank - Israel has a long, peaceful, border with Jordan, beyond the West Bank. Now, I don't think we can say Israel is bordered by the West Bank, as it is not an independent entity, with no sovereign save Israel, in its role as the military sovereign. Some areas of the WB are under Palestinian autonomous control, some under Israel's full control (though not annexed), and some are somewhere in between. There's no international border there, so it's not the same status as Jordan or Egypt.
    • I can totally see someone seeing the "bordered by the West Bank", and complaining that we're trying to "hide the occupation", or something similar.
    • For these reasons, it was agreed to use the phrasing "The West Bank and Gaza Strip are also adjacent" on the Israel lead, as this circumvents the use of the inaccurate word "border", but still mentions the areas. Now, as this article lead talks about these territories in detail, I see no need for that, but wouldn't object to using that phrasing here. okedem (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, MM has some points, perhaps with excessive rhetoric. The stuff about the 67 war has little to do with this article. My first point is that East Jerusalem was legally annexed is simply false, see Jerusalem Law and the Lustick paper cited there. It's about the same as the Golan Heights situation, and the same words should be used for both. Mentioning the WB & G as MM does is better and more accurate and neutral than not mentioning it. The question is how to phrase it, because there are objections to using the word "border" or any synonym. I don't really agree with them and don't think the circumlocution necessary (I don't think readers will really construe "border" as Wikipedia's legal opinion), but how about something like this - To the east of Israel (footnote saying within the armistice lines)? lie Jordan and the West Bank. etc. - somehow I just missed your last point until just now, which is much the same as what I just said. John Z (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We should note that the word "border" is not used in the case of Gaza, nor any synonym:

To the west of Israel is the Mediterranean Sea which makes up the majority of Israel's 273 kilometers (170 mi) coastline[2] and the Gaza strip.

I agree with JZ that even with the word "border" in the article, the potential for confusion is low, given that the West Bank and Gaza are perceived by most as areas distinct from Israel anyway. There is a line on the map in the article; that line should not be unexplained in the text. JZ's suggested compromise is OK with me though.
Re the disputed paragraph quoted at the beginning of this section, I see several problems with it:
  • It's about history, not geography. No other articles on the geography of a particular country seem to contain anything about territorial acquisitions over history.
  • It contains justifications for annexations that have not been recognized by any country and presents the Palestinian territories as "captured", after which the article goes on to describe geographical features of the West Bank as if they properly belonged to the geography of Israel, with no mention of the WB. That doesn't appear to be entirely appropriate.
  • It serves as justification for removing all references to the Palestinian territories from the preceding paragraph.
  • It's an eyesore, difficult to read and should not be in the lead.
The gist of it could be phrased along the lines of what Okedem said above, though more encyclopedically: "Israel's territory is a complicated business. You have "Israel proper" (1949 lines); you have the Golan Heights [...]". It should be mentioned that outside Israel, the OPT are not considered parts of Israel. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • But the history is needed to explain the complicated geography today, with areas under Israel's control having different status.
  • I see no justification for any annexation, only simple statement of fact - here's the segment mentioning annexation: "East Jerusalem (annexed, according Israeli law), 70 square kilometers (27 sq mi); and the Golan Heights (de facto annexation)" - no justification anywhere.
  • The word "captured" is a neutral way to phrase these things, and is commonly used in all kinds of texts about various wars. It doesn't carry any hidden meaning or insinuation.
  • I don't feel it's an eyesore, but that's not really open to arguments...
  • Here's the gist of it - the way I see it, the paragraph does a good job of explaining the different status the different parts of Israel have. But I'm not especially attached to this phrasing. If you think you can phrase it better, please - write your suggestion here. I'm open to ideas, and will support a better phrasing. okedem (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
"Israel" is not universally recognized as anything else than Israel proper (ie inside the '67 borders) and this is not the place to try to change that. To keep the article (more or less) intact, it could be renamed Geography of Palestine, else the sections dealing with unilaterally annexed or occupied territories should be removed or amended to clearly express that fact. In addition to the above list of problems with the disputed paragraph, I could add that it implies that the '67 borders have been superseded by new borders that supposedly include the OPT, which is not the case. Israel's area was 20,770 sq km before 1967, and it still is. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me like you're trying your best to take offense from every word here, with no real justification. No one's trying to change reality here, we're just trying to convey the facts. The paragraph in question does not justify any annexation, it simply lists the facts, in a very short manner. These things are relevant, and deserve mention. The fact that for every purpose the Golan heights are a part of Israel (at least until a peace treaty) is relevant, for instance. While not annexed to Israel, and recognized as Syrian territory, for all intent and purposes (residents, tourists, etc) - it is a part of Israel. It should be covered, while making sure the phrasing doesn't leave the wrong impression regrading its status.
I say again, that ignoring this would lead some people to claiming we're "trying to hide the occupation" (trust me, people will jump in with these claims).
There's no need to continue arguing over this paragraph. I said this a few lines above, and I'll say this again. If you think you can phrase this better, please - suggest a new phrasing, instead of accusing people of trying to distort the facts. okedem (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but when you call the OPT and Golan "different parts of Israel", it's easy to get the impression you want the article to convey that notion too. Working from the assumption that they are not parts of Israel until internationally recognized as such, we could easily make the article entirely uncontroversial by simply excluding the non-Israeli territories from the article, as I have suggested. If that is not acceptable, the relevant information in the disputed paragraph could be more uncontroversially phrased like this:

The area composing Israel is approximately 20,700 square kilometers (7,992 sq mi), which includes 445 square kilometers (172 sq mi) of inland water. Thus Israel is roughly the size of the state of New Jersey, stretching 424 kilometers (263 mi) from north to south. Many Israelis consider the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights to be parts of Israel. When noted, a particular geographical feature is in one of these territories.

MeteorMaker (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, you're hanging on a single word. Read what I wrote as "areas under Israel's control", if that puts you at ease.
Side note - I'd like to remove the New Jersey comparison. This is obvious Americanism, as the size of that state means nothing to people outside the US. Although the CIA Factbook lists such comparisons, they are not fit for an international encyclopedia.
Your phrasing conveys little. First off, practically no one considers Gaza to be a part of Israel. There are no Israelis there at all, now. Anyway, what people consider isn't the thing of interest, but what actually is. Moving about Israel, seeing the scenery etc, you cannot see or feel a difference between the Golan and the rest of the country (and its under civilian Israeli law). This is as opposed to the West Bank, which is under military law, or Gaza which is off-limits to Israelis anyway.
How about this:

"Israel's area is approximately 20,700 square kilometers (7,992 sq mi), which include 445 square kilometers (172 sq mi) of inland water.[1] Israel stretches 424 kilometers (263 mi) from north to south, and its width ranges from 114 kilometers (71 mi) to, at its narrowest point, 15 kilometers (9 mi).[1] Israel also partially controls territories captured in the 1967 Six-Day War, totaling an additional 7,099 square kilometers (2,741 sq mi).[1] These territories include the West Bank, 5,879 square kilometers (2,270 sq mi), which is partially administered by Palestinian National Authority; East Jerusalem, 70 square kilometers (27 sq mi), which was annexed according to Israeli law; and the Golan Heights, 1,150 square kilometers (444 sq mi), under Israeli civilian law, but not annexed."

okedem (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Much better, and I agree entirely with the removal of the NJ reference. However, I feel it's a bit too political (in the category, not opinion sense) to sit perfectly well in an article on geography. The finer details of administration are better described in articles on the political entities or on the Palestine/Israel conflict. It's not like such things will remain unchanged on a geological time scale (though you never know). Also, the part about East Jerusalem can be removed since that area doesn't contain any geographical features mentioned in the article. Suggested new phrasing:

"Israel's area is approximately 20,700 square kilometers (7,992 sq mi), which includes 445 square kilometers (172 sq mi) of inland water.[1] Israel stretches 424 kilometers (263 mi) from north to south, and its width ranges from 114 kilometers (71 mi) to, at its narrowest point, 15 kilometers (9 mi).[1] Israel also partially controls the West Bank, 5,879 square kilometers (2,270 sq mi) and the Golan Heights, 1,150 square kilometers (444 sq mi). When noted, a particular geographical feature is in one of these territories."

MeteorMaker (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems good to me. I just don't understand the need for the last sentence. I mean, obviously if we say "Mount. something in the the Golan" - then we mean it's in the Golan...
Perhaps you mean - "Geographical features in these territories will be noted as such"? okedem (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's indeed what I meant. I think we are ready for the launch ceremony now. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. okedem (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mt Hermon

Hopefully we can solve this one in the same cooperative spirit as the issue above. User:Nickhh has suggested deleting Mt Hermon from the list of geographical features in this article, and there seems to be some substance in his suggestion: The coordinates given in the Mount Hermon article [1] place it inside the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force Zone, which is an area not under Israeli control. The southern slopes are inside the Israel-annexed zone though. Again according to the Mt Hermon article, an adjacent unnamed peak at 2,236 m is the highest elevation in Israel, not the 2,814 m Mt Hermon proper. I have updated the article accordingly. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Most of Mt. Hermon is within Syria and Lebanon, including the highest peak. Still, given Hermon's importance in Israel, it deserves mention. It houses important military points, and serves as a very popular tourist site. okedem (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with highlighting in the lead the fact that Israel (illegally) occupies territory that does not belong to it. Perhaps we could build something in about how it's a nice day trip for tourists, and has important military facilities located there? Perhaps we could get some input from an editor who lives in the Golan Heights? --Nickhh (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I know some people enjoy saying the phrase "illegal occupation", but even saying it a million times doesn't make it correct. Egypt and Syria were in a military alliance to attack Israel. They were the aggressors, they launched the first acts of war. Israel's war was in self defense. Unfortunately for Syria, it lost, and lost the Golan. Boohoo. Now, Israel may return it the Syria in the future in a peace treaty, but that doesn't make the occupation of it illegal in any way. When a country tries to destroy another, as Syria tried in 1948 and 1967, it runs the risk of losing land. How else? A country can attack, and worst case - loses nothing? Aggression has a price. Trying to destroy your neighboring country has a price, and that price, in this case, was land. okedem (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Take it to your blog. --Nickhh (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea, you're the one going on about "illegal occupation", not me. okedem (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rising sea level?

The atlas suggests that there is a fairly low-elevation route from the ocean to the Dead Sea,[2] but the resolution isn't very clear and in any case erosion issues might be more relevant. In case this is a familiar topic to someone I'll ask: is there any ground for concern that eventual loss of ice in Greenland or Antarctica could flood the entire Dead Sea basin? (Conversely, would such a flood consume enough volume to offer any significant relief to the other cities/countries inundated by rising sea level?) Wnt (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. A back-of-the-envelope calculation:
  • Appr size of the Dead Sea basin: 500 cu km
  • Surface of Earth's oceans:361,800,000 sq km [3]
  • Reduction of level of sea after flooding of Dead Sea basin: 500/361,800,000 = 0,0000013 km = 1.3 mm.
MeteorMaker (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... I'd have guessed the Dead Sea basin to be bigger than that, but you're right - no matter what it can't be consequential, except of course in Israel/Palestine and Jordan. Wnt (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)