Talk:West Bank

Template:WP1.0

Recognition of Transjordan's annexation

Surely the sentence beginning "This annexation ...[14]" should be moved from #1 Etymology to #2.1 Jordanian West Bank. Since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank #2.1 includes "Pakistan is often claimed to have recognized Jordan's annexation too, but this is dubious.[32][33]" (the references are to Silverburg, S. R. (1983) "Pakistan and the West Bank: A research note", Middle Eastern Studies 19 (2): 261–63 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00263208308700547 and P. R. Kumaraswamy (March 2000) "Beyond the Veil: Israel-Pakistan Relations" p.9 and p.67 note 3) https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/94527/2000-03_(FILE)1190278291.pdf shouldn't Pakistan be removed from "Britain, Iraq and Pakistan"? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AWest_Bank%2FArchive_1#Pakistan. Mcljlm (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

West Bank residents and ineligibility to vote in Israeli national elections

Israel is a democracy but the vast majority of residents of the West Bank are not eligible to vote in Israeli national elections. Where should this information be placed in this article? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The West Bank is a foreign country under occupation. It's not constitutionally part of Israel, thus, the West Bank has no voting rights. The only part of the West Bank that is constitutionally part of Israel is East Jerusalem. The soon to be annexed Jordan Valley will get voting rights when the annexation happens. If it happens. Therefore, that information is totally unnecessary in this article. SoWhAt249 (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Replacing or adding new imagery where needed?

I was wondering if this article could put a clear map of the Area A/B/C division, as per the Oslo Accords, to good use. There is a section under Geography which talks about this, but there is no appropriate imagery to help the readers understand. The image I'm suggesting be added at the part where the article talks about this, is of my original creation, and is pretty detailed, but without any stuff that might confuse the readers. The map in question is this: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Control_status_of_the_West_Bank_as_per_the_Oslo_Accords.svg# A written legend under it would describe the coloration. SoWhAt249 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

For controversial issue, it would better to use file sourced from official government or authority release, to avoid much debate among editors in the future. (Just suggestion) — MusenInvincible (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Map colours

The green, red, and pink colours on the first map is a nightmare for people who are colourblind. Any way someone could change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FvanBerkel12 (talk • contribs)

I'm not colorblind but it hurts my eyes too. Zero^talk 15:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@FvanBerkel12 I can change the colours, but what colours (and shades) would you suggest instead? Seloloving (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I can't see the colors. Can you make them something neutral? Most color blind people are either Red-Green (most common), or Blue-Yellow (less common) color blind. Perhaps you could make it grey, red (or green) and blue (or yellow)? Alternately, can use shading (diagonal left, right, vertical, horizontal). Here is a good example of a map that is very useable for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:35FF:E702:24D2:558F:8AA7:72C7 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 

My changes

Nishidani, I understand that you object to my removal of Meron's opinion [1], but beyond that, do you object to my other changes too?

Most of them were related to the poor structure of the article and excessive verbiage. E.g in "individuals including Julius Stone,[109][110] and Eugene Rostow[111] have argued that they are legal under international law, on a number of different grounds." what value does "on a number of different grounds" hold? Same with "the European union as a whole considers ..." Of course, the European union implies the union as a whole and not a half. In my opinion, such formulations are pointless verbiage.

The paragraph that begins with "The international consensus ..." discusses the legality of the settlements. Then, all of a sudden, it references a poll showing that many Jewish Israelis support settlement relocation and then it continues the legality discussion. It's just confusing. The whole section "Israeli settlements" is not very well written in my opinion. ImTheIP (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Most of these I/P pages are not well written, being the mangled outcome of a oompetitive struggle by numerous editors to 'get their side's stuff in'. There is far too much sourcing and repetition, far too much importance given to various actors, the US as opposed to any other state, though of course there's some justification for that since the US is a sponsor of Israel and settlements. But the focus should still be on the two major parties, Israel and Palestinians. There's no sense of what is due and not due. Everyone mentions Stone and Rostow, but no one takes them seriously - it's an historical detail.

I have somewhere a complete rewrite of the establishment of Ma'ale Adumim. I started from scratch, found a dozen that illuminated all the internal politicking that led to it, and it seems to gather up all the key details not mentioned on that page, in two or three dense paragraphs. I haven't had time actually to put it up, but that is the kind of reworking which is required. just shuffling the deck isn't getting us really anywhere. Your two suggestions above were quite correct. Apologies. But, if one wants to really contribute here, I think the only serious option is to carefully take it paragraph by paragraph, retain the essential points, and source it all where possible from scratch, with every statement paginated and linked.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

What Nishidani said.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Abdullah I intentions

"Faced with the determination of Emir Abdullah to unify Arab lands under the Hashemite banner, the British proclaimed Abdullah ruler of the three districts, known collectively as Transjordan. Confident that his plans for the unity of the Arab nation would eventually come to fruition.." Aside from having no citation in that paragraph, it reads like a state political propaganda. I don't think his intentions are an objective perspective for a Wikipedia article, and therefore it would be much better if this paragraph and similar ones would be removed or paraphrased.--Crazyketchupguy (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)