From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Israel is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 8, 2008.


Undiscussed change[edit]

@Baking Soda: please note that until this edit the long-standing stable version said "disputed". There was no discussion that lead to the change, only a bold edit that has been reverted since. Per WP:BRD now is the time to discuss and try to gain a consensus for this change, rather than edit war over it. WarKosign 18:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of "disputed" vs "internationally unrecognized" for Jerusalem[edit]

Should "disputed" or "internationally unrecognized" be used for Jerusalem in the infobox/throughout article? Baking Soda (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Involved editors @Makeandtoss, Mortadella42, Sean.hoyland, Andreas11213, Sepsis II, WarKosign, and Ethanlu121:.

Survey & discussion[edit]

  • Internationally unrecognized is the more honest descriptor. Disputed makes it sound like there isn't a strong international consensus. This same problem also arose for "occupied" vs "disputed" territory, while Israel uses disputed, the international community uses occupied, so wikipedia, in the interest of NPOV, uses occupied. Sepsis II (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Editor permanently topic banned more than two months after making these comments per WP:AE.
  • Disputed per WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME. As Positions on Jerusalem states, "There is significant disagreement in the international community on the legal and diplomatic status of Jerusalem", so presenting only one of the positions as the international consensus is very POV and misleading. Disputed is the term often used in media, (example) or scholar works (example). A google search for "Jerusalem unrecognized" fails to yield relevant results in the first page, while searching for "Jerusalem disputed" yields a page full of relevant results. WarKosign 20:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Considering the international consensus in regards to the non-recognition of Jerusalem as a capital of Israel, that opening line at "Positions on Jerusalem" is problematic. But you claim there are other positions, can you list these countries and organizations which recognize the capital of Israel as being Jerusalem? If there is a dispute we should be able to know who the disputing parties are.
As I understand it, those who say there is an international dispute are similar to those politicians saying that scientists are still disputing climate change and evolution. Sepsis II (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Editor permanently topic banned more than two months after making these comments per WP:AE.
Wikipedia is built on sources, and by far more sources call Jerusalem disputed. You are questioning the sources and asking me to engage in original research. This is unusable, but I can speculate on why the sources prefer the term disputed. "internationally unrecognized" means "not recognized by (almost) everybody in the world", which is simply incorrect. Even if most or all of the governments do not recognize it officially (at least two contries do recognize it), most of them recognize it de-facto (see CIA fact book for example) and in any unofficial context such as travel or weather Jerusalem is undoubtedly in Israel. Many international organizations such as this also clearly accept that Jerusalem is in Israel. While undoubtedly there is *dispute* whether Jerusalem (especially its east half) should be considered to be in Israel, it is *not* recognized internationally that it is not in Israel, quite the opposite. WarKosign 08:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Endtime Ministries is not a reliable source for something as serious as diplomatic recognition, I suggest you present better sources there. Unofficial contexts aren't relevant here, we're talking about formal recognition by governments. So far as I know there is general consensus that Jerusalem is controlled by Israel, but that isn't the same as saying it is recognised internationally as being in Israel. Putting "disputed" there is a fudge that obscures the issue. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The question at hand has nothing to do with the location of Jerusalem in relation to geopolitics, the question at hand is about the recognition of capital hood, please don't try to confuse the two. Also random websites are not a source for such contentious matters. Sepsis II (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Editor permanently topic banned more than two months after making these comments per WP:AE.
  • Internationally unrecognized, per WP:NPOV - no country officially recognises Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem or the designation of Jerusalem as capital except Israel itself. Not one. I see no reason to use "disputed" here when the more specific "internationally unrecognized" is true. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • El Salvador?? As for the topic, I think Disputed is factual and NPOV. IU is a bit pointy and we should use the term most likely to avoid headaches. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
El Salvador? They were an exception...a decade ago before they moved their embassy to Herzliya. Even if it was two vs the rest of the world, it still wouldn't be any more of a dispute than say the illegality of the Israeli settlements. Sepsis II (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Editor permanently topic banned more than two months after making these comments per WP:AE.
  • Internationally unrecognized – per WP:NPOV, no country at the time of writing recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, United States included. Disputed in this context may imply otherwise. It should be noted that ownership of the land is disputed (use of disputed in a different context, footnote suggested to elucidate for that case). Baking Soda (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Internationally unrecognized This RFC was mandated by ARBCOM to settle some Jerusalem-related issues and it was a rather comprehensive and formal affair. The consensus that emerged described the situation as unrecognised, not disputed. --Dailycare (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Disputed - One side of the argument claims the Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, while the other claims that it is not, so, yes, it is disputed. The term Internationally unrecognized seems to be rather biased, as it implies that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, and that the other side of the argument fails to recognise it. However, who is to say which side is right or wrong? The answer is: no one. Whether or not Israel's capital is Jerusalem is being disputed, but one cannot prove which side has validity. Therefore, the term Internationally unrecognised, is biased, as it implies that one argument has more validity than another. Ethanlu121 (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Disputed is the version which was in use here and on all other articles. It is also a more correct description of the facts, since "Jerusalem" includes both East and West and the status of West Jerusalem is hardly disputed internationally. Debresser (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Internationally unrecognized, per User:Cliftonian. Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Internationally unrecognized per the above, and I dont honestly see why this is even challenged. Does anybody think internationally unrecognized is inaccurate? Or is obfuscation the goal here? nableezy - 17:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Internationally unrecognized - Which is the correct term and NPOV.--TMCk (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Internationally unrecognized - both are accurate, but this provides a further level of precision with just one extra word. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Israel[edit]

The pronunciation מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל in Modern Hebrew is [mediˈnat isʁaˈʔel], not [mediˈnat jisʁaˈʔel]. So no "j" at the beginning of Israel. The pronunciation sample is also pretty bad, with the same mistake. This sample on forvo is a good example of a native speakers pronunciation:מדינת_ישראל/ You could also check any speech of Benjamin Netanyahu in Hebrew for example. Can someone fix this? I have less than 500 edits so I can't edit this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelMaglor (talkcontribs) 09:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@SamuelMaglor: Do you have sources that support it ? I do not see sources that support current pronunciation either, though. WarKosign 09:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Don't really know what counts as a proper source for a pronunciation of a word/sentence, the woman in this clip: from an Israeli news report says Medinat Israel in the beginning, and the sample I linked before (מדינת_ישראל/) was made by a native Hebrew speaker ( who has contributed with a nearly 2000 pronunciations of Modern Hebrew words on Forvo.
Youtube is a perfectly good source for the fact that this woman pronounced the words this way during that interview. Even if you had lots of videos demonstrating same pronunciation, it would be original research determining that it is indeed the correct pronunciation. Forvo is crowd sourced, and per WP:UGC it's unacceptable as a source.
Ideally some linguistic article should describe evolution of hebrew pronunciation and use "Israel" as an example. If there are no sources either way I would support the change, but it's far from ideal. WarKosign 10:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
In general, Israelis have various problems with pronouncing their language. One is the general omission of the "hey" at the beginning of words, as though it read "ey". Another, similar, problem is the occasional omission of the "ji" as though it read "i", like in the example of Yisrael. I am not sure it counts as a correct pronunciation, though. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser: I'm aware that there are differences between colloquial and formal Hebrew such as omitting the h of ה and the glottal stop of א and ע, but even in formal settings such as in the Knesset, in Independence Day ceremonies, I've yet to hear any Israeli pronounce ישראל as "Jisrael", only "Isra'el". I would love to see an example of that.
You're confusing several unrelated things. There is no "j" in any form of the Hebrew language, so even if there are problems with language pronunciation (and as far as I'm aware of, there is none related to "i"), "ji" cannot be the correct way for pronunciation for any Hebrew words which aren't borrowed from other languages (which "Israel" obviously isn't). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a "j" in Hebrew, namely when the "yud" is the beginning of a word or syllable. That why it is called a "yud" and not an "ud"! :) Debresser (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Israel#Legal system[edit]

That paragraph says that "A committee of Knesset members, Supreme Court justices, and Israeli Bar members carries out the election of judges". The source cited there states that "Judges are appointed by the president, upon recommendation of a nominations committee comprised of Supreme Court judges, members of the bar, and public figures". Those public figures are two Knesst members (by tradition, one of them is from the the opposition), and two ministers (the justice minister and another minister). The justice minister is also the chairman.

I suggest the text "The election of judges is carried out by a committee of two Knesset members, three Supreme Court justices, two Israeli Bar members and two ministers (one of which, Israel's justice minister, is the committee's chairman). The committee's members of the Knesset are secretly elected by the Knesset, and one of them is traditionally a member of the opposition, the committee's Supreme Court justices are chosen by tradition from all Supreme Court justices by seniority, the Israeli Bar members are elected by the bar, and the second minister is appointed by the Israeli cabinet. The current justice minister and committee's chairwoman is Ayelet Shaked."

The source for this is Basic Law: The Judicary:
מינוי שופטים (א) שופט יתמנה בידי נשיא המדינה לפי בחירה של ועדה לבחירת שופטים. (ב) הועדה תהיה של תשעה חברים, שהם נשיא בית המשפט העליון, שני שופטים אחרים של בית המשפט העליון שיבחר חבר שופטיו, שר המשפטים ושר אחר שתקבע הממשלה, שני חברי הכנסת שתבחר הכנסת ושני נציגים של לשכת עורכי הדין שתבחר המועצה הארצית של הלשכה; שר המשפטים יהיה יושב ראש הועדה.
Whatever I attributed to "tradition" could also be referenced if needed. Amitayzl (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amitayzl: We need a source for the tradition. You wrote that the committee members are secretly elected - the source does not say it. If both facts can be properly supported your proposal sounds like a very welcome change. WarKosign 16:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@WarKosign: see here. Pay attention to the secondary title:
"חברי הכנסת יצביעו באופן אנונימי עבור שני נציגים שיכהנו בוועדה"
and to "ראשי סיעות האופוזיציה גיבשו עסקה לקראת ההצבעה החשאית בכנסת."
That source may have an English version (many articles on Haaretz do), I but failed to find it. Amitayzl (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is a better soure: the law of courts:
"6. הוראות אלה יחולו לענין הועדה לבחירת שופטים שלפי סעיף 4 לחוק-יסוד: השפיטה (להלן - הועדה):
(1) הכנסת תבחר בבחירה חשאית את שני חברי הכנסת שיכהנו כחברי הועדה; הם יכהנו כל עוד הם חברי הכנסת, ואם תמה כהונת הכנסת - עד שהכנסת החדשה תבחר חברים אחרים במקומם והכל בכפוף להוראות חוק הכנסת, התשנ"ד-1994;
(2) המועצה הארצית של לשכת עורכי הדין תבחר את נציגיה בבחירה חשאית; הם יכהנו תקופה של שלוש שנים;
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitayzl (talkcontribs) 20:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
And a source for the traditions from the Israel Democracy Institute (link) :
"בוועדה תשעה חברים: שר המשפטים, העומד בראשה, נשיא בית המשפט העליון, שני שופטי בית המשפט העליון שאותם בוחרים שאר השופטים (באופן מסורתי על פי ותק), שר נוסף, שני חברי כנסת (באופן מסורתי אחד מהאופוזיציה ואחד מהקואליציה) ושני נציגים של לשכת עורכי הדין." Amitayzl (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign? Amitayzl (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, I'm waiting to see if anyone objects. WarKosign 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign, no one has yet objected, and I truly think no one has any rearson to object. I think you can do this now. Amitayzl (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Amitayzl: Done, please go over it and check that I didn't mess something up. WarKosign 11:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign, I think it's fine now. However, please pay attention that the article is not up-to-date. For example, the number of Jerusalem residents is as of 2009 (and almost 100,000 people are missing, see Jerusalem). This is most likely because of the very extreme protection. Amitayzl (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Consider Suzi Navot, Constitutional Law of Israel, Kluwer Law International 2007 p.146.Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2016[edit] (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

add |recognised_languages =

. (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

English has no special official status in Israel. If you think otherwise, please provide a source that proves it. WarKosign 12:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital[edit]

I understand that there have been many discussions on the topic of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, including a 56,250+ word RfC discussion that I believe expired on 9 July 2016. I'm sure there are also several discussions of which I am unaware among the 56 Talk archives, so please forgive me for rehashing an ongoing discussion. If there is a recent or ongoing discussion that addresses the exact issues that I raise here, kindly directly me to that discussion.

The lede presently reads that "Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital, although Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally unrecognized." There are two problems with this statement, but for the sake of framing and limiting the discussion, I will deal with only one. Virtually everyone and every country agree that Israel considers/claims/professes/knows/proclaims/believes/understands/views that Jerusalem is legally/religiously/historically/geographically/politically/territoriality/morally/ethically/internationally the capital of Israel. That is virtually undisputed. What is disputed is whether Israel has the legal/religious/historical/geographical/political/territorial/moral/ethical/international right to claim Jerusalem as its capital.

Because this article is about Israel, the fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital should be written without any ambiguity. The fact that Jerusalem as Israel's capital is challenged internationally should also be written without any ambiguity. However, as presently written, the WP:UNDUE and POV is weighted toward the dispute. The reason is the totality of the words "proclaimed" and "Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally unrecognized." By writing "proclaimed", it implies that Israel says it is, but that isn't necessarily so. What other cities that are not disputed capitals does Wikipedia write "proclaimed"? A balanced NPOV sentence would be: "Jerusalem is the capital, although Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally unrecognized." KamelTebaast 06:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Israel's and Israel supporter's believe/know/think that Jerusalem is the capital. Some believe that Jerusalem is Palestinian capital that the illegal zionist entity has occupied. Most of the countries say that Israel and the Palestinians have to negotiate the issue of Jerusalem and assume that eventually they will somehow share it. Wikipedia cannot decide that one of the POVs is the correct one, it has to describe this complex situation as neutrally as possible. WarKosign 08:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The long RFC you referred to explicitly dealt with the claim that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital", and determined it is not neutral to state that in Wikipedia's voice. It would also be wrong to adopt the majority viewpoint and say outright that "Jerusalem is not Israel's capital", even though this is better in-line with world opinion. But you're on the right track, in that we can definitely say Israel claims it's the capital, and that other nations reject this claim. --Dailycare (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Then shouldn't it be written as follows?
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, although Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is internationally unrecognized. KamelTebaast 00:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
No. That presents a POV as fact, namely that Jerusalem is Israeli (in Israel). nableezy - 01:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2016[edit]

In the IPA pronunciation of 'medinat yisrael' the first vowel should be [ə] and not [e]. (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed recently on this page. Please see #Pronunciation of Israel above. If you have sources for pronunciation, please provide them. WarKosign 20:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hotel King David bombing mentioned twice[edit]

I propose to delete this redundant paragraph: "On July 22, 1946, Irgun attacked the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing[128] of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.[129][130][131] 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.[132] The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, principally the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in Palestine and Transjordan.[132][133] The attack initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine). It was conceived as a response to Operation Agatha (a series of widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, conducted by the British authorities) and was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920–1948).[132][133]" since the attack is mentioned in the following section without so much detail. Besides, there's a chronological problem because this happened after World War II.--Jahsnik (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct regarding anachronism, however simply deleting the first menton won't do. I suggest moving all the informative bits (exact date, Irgun, British HQ) into the second mention. WarKosign 07:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Agree. Could you merge the two paragraphs? Because currently it looks horrible with such an obvious chronological mistake.--Jahsnik (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jahsnik: Done, please review.WarKosign 09:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Literature pictures[edit]

User:Avaya1, stop adding picture of Amos Oz. There is no reason to have more than one portrait especially in such a small section. Images does not fit in it and overlap into next sections in Desktop mode. And Agnon is the most influential Israeli writer. Number of languages a writer's works has been translated to is not the best criteria of importance. Agnon's works has been translated into tens of languages too, but unlike Oz, he featured on Israeli currency and won Nobel Prize. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the problem with 2 pictures. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Debresser, there's no reason we couldn't include Oz as well. Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't fit and mess up images in other sections. Check his revision in Desktop mode. But more importantly, it's not useful. Both authors are mentioned in text. Why put two portraits? Why not 3? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, the consensus seems to be to have pictures of both Agnon and Oz so I suggest we implement that consensus. Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, Avaya1. For the third time, it's a small section. See screenshot: link. Images should be located next to the text they illustrate. Besides that, this is article about Israel, not about Israeli literature. Don't overload articles with images. And even if we include another, it should be a poet, not two portraits of novelists. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of pictures in this article. One more does not make a difference as far as overloading is concerned, but it is the best way out of this issue, and there seems to be consensus for it, so I propose to leave it be and move on to other subjects. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Open screenshot link above. Images should be inside the section they belong to. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Debresser and Jeppiz. KamelTebaast 05:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll agree too. I don't have a strong opinion either way, just want to stop this silly edit warring. WarKosign 06:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Map of Israel[edit]

Hi everybody! Unfortunately, in a recent edit a useful map of Israel was deleted on the ground that the Golan Heights is not included. In response to that:

  • 1) First of all, the annexation wasn't recognized internationally.
  • 2) The map above, showing Israel on earth, also excludes the Golan Heights.
  • 3) The fact that there isn't a map with the Golan, doesn't justify leaving the page without a regular map like all the other countries in Wikipedia.

Therefore, I ask one of you to restore it, since I'm not a confirmed user: |image_map2 =Israel - Location Map (2012) - ISR - UNOCHA.svg Thanks--Jahsnik (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Purple Line is the de facto border between Israel and Syria after an official agreement in 1974 between the Israeli and Syrian government. Hope this clears out your question. ה-זפרt@lk 18:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Jahsnik. --Midrashah (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The Golan Heights is a part of Israel, according to Israel.[1] KamelTebaast 20:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
And we should care... why? We use reliable sources for facts and attribute opinions, such as Netanyahu's. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Netanyahu has no opinion. He is a populist. Anyway, just like China, Sudan, Cyprus and Russia's maps include claimed, disputed and occupied territories, the map of Israel should include, in light green, territories the State of Israel claim are its sovereign territory. The fact is, de-facto, these are Israeli territories, while de-jure they are either Syrian territory (Golan Heights) or the West Bank (East Jerusalem). The West Bank is more complicated and not really claimed by Israel as an integral part of the state. With the West Bank, it is an "opinion", but with the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, it's a "fact". There is no difference between Crimea and the Golan Heights. These are today, de-facto, territories of Russia and Israel, by law, while having no recognition whatsoever.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Here are other countries which have disputed territories in their maps: Azerbaijan, Moldova, Morocco, Serbia, India, Pakistan, Japan and Ukraine. Guess which country doesn't have it? That's right! Syria! Déjà vu.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
And to explain this is not just an "opinion": Golan Heights Law and Jerusalem Law. It is not Netanyahu's opinion.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
"...the map of Israel should include, in light green, territories the State of Israel claim are its sovereign territory." You said the same thing I did, just more verbose. KamelTebaast 17:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I genuinely can't see where you wrote it, but whatever. Seems like we are having a consensus here, but I still couldn't find a good map.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The news article cited by Kamel Tebaast is titled "Netanyahu says Israel will never give up the Golan Heights", so it is his opinion. And Israel can pass laws that say the sky is green, or that the value of π is 3, but it won't make it so. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I"ve added the disputed territories to the orthographic map (although it is barely visable). I suggest this map in replacement of the other map.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Golan Heights is not in Israel, so I don't support this map. The map of Russia, for one, clearly marks Crimea in a different colour. Even if you want to show "de facto" stuff, this map isn't good. Incidentally, neither Golan Heights Law, nor Jerusalem Law is accepted by anyone outside Israel. I agree that it's not just "Netanyahu's opinion", but changing "Netayahu" to "Israel" doesn't change the essential point. Kingsindian   06:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Kingsindian, your sentence, "Golan Heights is not in Israel, so I don't support this map.", is as POV and irrelevant as others have said about Netanyahu's views. The only difference, he is the Prime Minister of Israel, speaking for the country. As far as I understand Wikipedia, it is not about your personal view on the subject. I personally believe that the Golan Heights are a part of Israel. Does that tilt the consensus? KamelTebaast 06:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I did not say that "it's my view that Golan Heights" isn't in Israel: I made a statement of fact. See the rest of my statement. I don't have anything further to add to that. Kingsindian   07:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Your unfettered hubris is appealing. Misguided, but appealing. KamelTebaast 05:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
'China, Sudan, Cyprus and Russia', Crimea etc.analogies. Bolter. There is no cogency in these issues: analogies always break down on examination. Israel's 'annexation' of the Golan Heights snapping off territory gained in war some decades ago from a sovereign state, and always subject nonetheless to an eventual peace agreement revision, is not comparable to Russia's resumption of its 2 centuries+ sovereignty over Crimea, which formed part of Russia, and was conceded briefly to the Ukraine when that country was more or less a puppet state of the USSR. Sovereign democratic modern states, as opposed to these, do not include territory recently conquered in war on their maps. That the Republic of China includes the Spratley Islands in maps is not a 'fact' qua legal reality, it's a cartographical statement, as such the only 'fact' is that China produces such maps. Your proposal puts Israel outside the Western conventions,-which fundamentally assert that boundaries are determined not by war but by internationally recognized agreements - and inside the banana totalitarian republics, which do as they will, and tell everyone else to get fucked. The Golan is not in Israel, neither is the West Bank. Everyone International body recognizes that, even the CIA. There are lots of things to fix here, but it's pointless wasting time on trying to get over the idea one national claim must be represented as a 'fact '.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Annexation and international recognition is one issue, de-facto control is another. There is no doubt that Israel has full control over Golan and partial control over West Bank, these facts should be represented in the map. WarKosign 16:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with WarKosign. I'd add that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias should be practical, for the benefit of their readers. At the same time, that doesn't mean we can't solve any issues: we could explain that the map reflects de facto control, or we could have two maps, one for de facto control and another for international recognition. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I obviously agree with both WarKosign and Debresser. KamelTebaast 17:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Since this has the semblance of a mechanical voting process, devoid of significant source-based reasoning or argument, I suggest those who wish to include this stuff in a map of Israel get an RfC up. In the meantime, I have asked for advice from the wiki experts hereNishidani (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
As I have explained there, that post comes close to canvassing. Please abide by the consensus here and do not go forumshopping in search of support. Debresser (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not canvassing. Wikipedia is a project that emphasizes neutrality. It is not appropriate for a delicate issue like this to be decided by an ad hoc majority of people strongly attached to Israel, (but not to Syria). The proposal is a serious statement via Wikipedia's global encyclopedia to the world that an historic part of Syrian territory is not Syria any more. You should get an RfC on this. Outside input from people who have no horse in this silly race. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Just scroll through List of territorial disputes. As far as I checked, any disputed territory large enough to be visible in the map is shown in a lighter shade of green on the locator map along with the main territory of a side claiming the territory. Check Sudan or India for example. WarKosign 20:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Where do you get the idea it is disputed territory. In 1981 Israel neither annexed the Golan Heights nor asserted sovereignty. In peace talks down to 2009 it has quite consistently offered to 'return' the Heights to Syria, something that signals it is not disputing the legitimacy of Syria's claim. These facts are completely anomalous to notions of territories with disputed sovereignty. All you have in hand is rumours by one government in the last few years that it will never be returned. You don't make maps according to the whims of one particular government, Likud.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
"Area controlled by India shown in dark green; claimed but uncontrolled regions shown in light green." 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, none of these analogies works unless you can show that these countries have expressed a willingness to renounce their claim or forsake their control, as has Israel. Each situation has to be considered on its merits, otherwise you get analogy implication spillover where no proper analogy pertains.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Israel claims, controls, and (in domestic law) has annexed the Golan Heights. Israel took control of the Golan Heights in 1967, 50 years ago. Israel effectively annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, 35 years ago. Granted, Israeli Governments have offered this land back to Syria in the past. But that doesn't change the current situation and position of Israel. It has been 10 years since Israel showed any signs of willingness to return the Golan Heights to Syria. As far as Israel is concerned, the Golan Heights are its territory. The Russian annexation of Crimea is also widely considered illegal, but still we show this on the map. Just because there isn't a perfect analogy doesn't mean we shouldn't show the situation as is. Light green is disputed territory, claimed and controlled by Israel. A few minor unique technicalities dont change this fact. Rob984 (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This discussion is untethered to anything concrete. I, on the other hand, was reacting to this proposed map by Bolter21, which did not show Golan, West Bank, etc. in different color, unlike the Crimea case. I have indicated why I oppose the map. People are free to waste their time though. I note, incidentally, that Crimea is shown in light green both in the Ukraine and the Russian maps. So that could be a model for the Golan. Kingsindian   04:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Currently map of Syria shows Golan identical to territory controlled by Syria, without any indication of the fact that the land de-facto part of Israel in the last 35 years. It's silly and misleading. WarKosign 07:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense, for reasons given above. 'Control' has no relevance to internationally recognized borders. Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
'Internationally recognized borders' have no relevance to control. Pretending that Golan is in Syria doesn't make it real. WarKosign 11:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I"ll break it down for you:
  • China's map Show territories China claims but don't control (McMahon Line and Taiwan)
  • Sudan's map Show territories Sudan claims but don't control (Abyei and Hala'ib Triangle)
  • Cyprus's map show territories Cyprus claims but don't conttrol (Northern Cyprus)
  • Russia's map show territories Russia claims and control but are not internationally recognized (Crimea)
  • Azerbaijan's map show territories Azerbaijan claims but don't control (Nagorno Karabakh)
  • Moldova's map show territories Moldova claims but don't control (Transnistria)
  • Morocco's map show territories Morocco claims, control and don't control, but are not internationally recognized (Western Sahara)
  • Serbia's map show territories Serbia claims but don't control (Kosovo)
  • India's map show territories India claims but don't control (Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir and Aksai Chin)
  • Pakistan's map show territories Pakistan claims but don't control (Jammu and Kashmir)
  • Japan's map show territories Japan claims but don't control (Kuril Islands)
  • Ukraine's map show territories Ukraine claims but don't control (Crimea)
Now what is the problem with adding:
  • Israel's map show territories Israel claim and control but are not internationally recognized (East Jerusalem and Golan Heights)
  • Syria's map show territories Syria claim but don't control (Golan Heights)
It's not a matter of if you agree or not. I don't think Russia has any right to be in Crimea, but it doesn't change the fact Russia officially claims Crimea and also control it. The light green represent the disputed territories of a country. Israel has laws defining that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are part of Israel, therefore Israel de-jure claim these territories to be part of "Israel". The same happens with China, which claims the McMahon line. Not showing a territory claimed by a country, that also happens to be fully controlled by it, is a violation of NPOV, because it is not your job to delegitimize a country's claim to a territory, just like no one disputes India's claims to the rest of Jammu and Kashmir, or Sudan's claims to the Hala'ib triangle. Israel (The Evil Jewish Nazis Who Murder A Million Christian Children Every Day To Put Their Blood On Matzo) happened to conquer the Golan Heights and make a law saying it is part of it. Don't like it? Not Wikipedia's problem. This is just one, of a hundred territorial claims, which some of them are shown in country maps. When you define "Israel" in a map, you might as well show, only in light green, what Israel define "Israel" and also happens to practice it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Syria does not 'claim' the Golan Heights. In international law, that lies within the borders of Syria. Only Israel 'claims' the Golan Heights, and is backed in that claim by no one. The only outstanding area disputed there, and not yet settled in international law, is the Shebaa farms, contested with Lebanon. Israel can 'claim' all it likes: the land is Syrian sovereign territory, and Israel's laws regarding it are null and void by a Security Council Resolution. Still, this is a numbers game, and Likudization via imaginative maps. By bthe same token we shall soon have a map of the West Bank in 'Israel'. I don't care one way or another, however. Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Syria claims the Golan Heights the same way Ukraine claims Crimea.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It might be better if you fixed the map I linked above because it makes no such color distinction. I would support such a map, but not the one, as I indicated above. Also your reference to blood libel was sarcastic, but please don't do it again. Kingsindian   13:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I must add my agreement regarding the frankly absolutely outrageous reference to blood libel. Please do not do that again. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Ì think the the current map (I modified) is sufficient for the infobox, showing Green Lined Israel in dark green and territories claimed by Israel ìn light green. I don't think an additional map is needed but a map can created on the same concept, showing territories under Israeli civil administration that Israel doesn't claim, a geopolitical sort of map, which has a place in the article. @Nishidani: just to clarify, while saying "Syria claims" it doesn't mean this is is what I plan to write in the caption of such map. Per NPOV I will write "Syrian territory under the occupation of Israel".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem really, but it should colour in Jordan, Lebanon up unto the Litani River and the Sinai. I'm being conservative. We can leave out all land west of the Euphrates until the Orthodox Religious parties win a plebiscite, which won't happy for a decade at least.:)Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Greater Israel? Who are you? Mel Gibson? Jokes aside, the reason why E Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should be in light green, is because unlike the West Bank or the Promised Land, these two territories are not a matter of Benjamin Netanyahu's opinion, they are legally (by legally I mean in Israeli law) part of Israel. Some countries also pass laws or decrees, saying they practice sovereignty on territories they do not control, but if it is an official decree or a law, it must be shown (unless it is too formal, like South and North Koreas, claiming each other). On the other side, if a country doesn't practice sovereignty over a certain territory, which is claimed as a sovereign territory of another country (recognized or not), it must be shown as well. This is why NKR is shown in Azerbaijan as well as TRNC in Cyprus and as mentioned before, with Ukraine. The day Kosovo will be accepted as a UN member, in the map nothing will change, until Serbia will renounce all claims to Kosovo.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

the reason why E Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should be in light green, is because unlike the West Bank or the Promised Land, these two territories are not a matter of Benjamin Netanyahu's opinion, they are legally (by legally I mean in Israeli law) part of Israel.

Good grief, young Bolter. Have you been forming your knowledge of history from wiki articles? The GOLAN HEIGHTS LAW of December 14, 1981 extended 'the Law, jurisdiction and administration of the state' to the Golan Heights. This is an administrative law that neither asserts annexation nor sovereignty. Nor has East Jerusalem been formally 'annexed'. Israel has been extremely careful in tailoring its language in order to avoid the harsher fall-out consequent on either a legally-drafted declaration of annexation or sovereignty. Annexations that vioiate sovereign state territory come under an international law of compensation, etc. If that is the basis of your map, your premises are flawed. Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
משפט, שיפוט ומנהל - Law, jurisdiction and administration - this means that the Golan Heights have the same status as Safed or Nazareth. There is a reason why it is interprated as an annexation. Have you been to Mas'ade? 0 Jews yet more Israeli than Jaffa. The Golan Heights is the most Israeli-Israeli occupied territory in terms of sovereignty, while Isawiya is a no-mans-land and Shuafat is its own state. If you want the Hebrew source for Golan sovereignty, I"ll bring them to you.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The Golan Heights was annexed in 1981, it would be the fringe of the fringe to not call it an annexation. Someone's bias is showing when Israel out of all other countries has different standards. All countries with disputes have the territories shown in a different color, not sure why Israel is different. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Bolter. I'll ignore Joe's comment (and it's the logic of 'they get away with it, so why can't we? ). Assertions of opinion are just throwoffs from rote learning from bad textbooks. This is all meme replication from school textbooks or middlebrow newspapers.

The law 'extends Israeli civilian law and administration to the residents of the Heights, replacing the military authority ... The new law does not annex or extend Israeli sovereignty over the region. It does not impose Israeli citizenship on the Golan's non-Jewish inhabitants, as would be required by formal annexation. Leonard J. Davis, ‎Eric Rozenman, ‎Jeff Rubin, Myths and Facts Middle East Report 1989 p.80

Since there has been no formal Israeli act of annexation and legal assertion of sovereignty, everything you say is impressionistic. As to Mas'ade, my group wilted under the sun, and took us back to cool off at Banias. I whipped off my clothes and did a backflip off a rock into those luscious waters. People were embarrassed, for a minute, then a young woman had the good sense to strip and dive in as well. Within 30 minutes the whole group was splashing about in the nude.
All I can see here in this mapping venture is a Likud venture to make out Israel is sovereign in territory which it still refuses to annex. It is a political claim by a particular party, not a de jure reality. Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, RS calls it annexation, secondly, Israel does indeed give citizenship to those who want it. Consider the Druze in the Golan, some chose citizenship and others didn't. You keep trying to make this political, but it's not. It's practical. Israel controls the Golan and should be reflected of that. That is how it works in Wikipedia. You have one color for the country and a lighter color for territories controlled. And yes, if it's good enough for EVERY OTHER COUNTRY then it's damned good enough for Israel. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thats a bit simplified, reliable sources say multiple things on this. Eg these back to back articles in the Brooklyn Journal of International Law: Application of Israeli Law to the Golan Heights is not Annexation and Application of Israeli Law to the Golan Heights is Annexation. nableezy - 22:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I am getting a little tired of Nishidani calling this point of view "Likud". This is the opinion of certain editors here on Wikipedia. Leave Israeli politics out of it. WP:NPA clearly says to comment on the issue, not on the editors. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
You might note that this started as an attempt to assert that the Golan Heights was in Israel as an Israeli position. Since no formal act of annexation or assumption of sovereignty exists, the position is that of the Likud party under Benjamin Netanyahu, and those editors who are asserting the pseudoid happen to repeat a clearly identifiable party line, not the official position of Israeli governments over time, which is what establishes a consistent, supra-party national claim.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not just Likud policy, it's the popular opinion. Regardless of who holds the opinion, Golan Heights Law is often considered annexation. I hope you won't dispute the fact that Israel controls Golan. Either of the three issues (claim, (disputed) annexation, actual control) is reason enough to display the area on the map showing Israeli territory, in a different color and with appropriate label. WarKosign 08:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Even worse. Bolter dismissed Netanyahu's opinion because he is a 'populist', you accept the populist opinion. Given that you all admit there is no act of parliament that annexes or establishes Israeli sovereignty, now the ‘claim’ is that Israeli public opinion thinks it is part of Israel. Map making of international lines according to popular delusions. I don’t dispute facts. I try to make sure I’m not sucked into confusion about facts by slipshod usage. When you express the hope that 'I ‘won’t the fact that Israel controls Golan,’ of course I dispute that because thus formulated it is false, for the simple reason that it reflects popular opinion: Israel controls 1,200sq kms of the Golan, Syria the other 600 sq kms. So you are all passing off as an Israeli claim either a popular feeling or what was set out by Netanyahu and Likud in these terms: Likud-led government will stay on the Golan Heights and keep them as a strategic asset".'
This is a political partisan claim of intent to stay, not a declaration of a claim to sovereignty.
Bolter made the claim:'The West Bank is more complicated and not really claimed by Israel as an integral part of the state. With the West Bank, it is an "opinion", but with the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, it's a "fact".
He too is wrong, since in its topographical map, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs specifically defines the West Bank, with the Golan, as part of Israel. I guess the next move for the ethnonationalization here will be to map the West Bank as an integral part of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Not that I disagree with Nishidani, but I do think in the interest of fairness it should be noted that that linked Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs map does have a note at the bottom left of it saying "This map is for illustrative purposes only and should not be considered authoritative". What it's doing on a government website in that case beats me, though. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am a bit confused about what we are arguing here. Currently there is a map in the infobox, showing E Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as light green. @Nishidani: Do you oppose this map? @WarKosign: Do you think the map should include the West Bank as well? We had a consensus to remove one additional map and include the Golan and E Jerusalem in light green, now what we are arguing for?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I almost never edit Israeli pages, so rest assured this is not a matter of trying to block what you all decide. Nothing I say will change the consensus. I'm merely registered problems in entering that consensus into Wikipedia's neutral voice.
For me, a precise, neutral map of Israel has nothing to do with disputed, contested, occupied territory. It is the land where there is universal consensus that the legal entity Israel has inexpugnable rights as a regular state among the community of nations.
If a nation 'claims' territory, and it is 'disputed', you usually have some evidence in the legal conventions and negotiations that reflect this claim, whether of land occupied, or lost or whatever. I can see no evidence influencing the editors' reflex assertion Israel claims the Golan Heights which draws on acceptable documentation. All research indicates at the moment is that Israel occupies the Golan Heights (by that token the US occupies/occupied Afghanistan, Iraq: but it hasn't made a 'claim' regarding that.)
Many banana analogies are drawn, but no attention is paid to the details. The China article has a map created in 2008 from google maps including Arunachal Pradesh as claimed territory, for example. Well China historically did conquer this, but then returned it, and withdrew behind the McMahon Line, and the wiki map was drawn on the basis of google maps before google maps corrected it under protest a year or two later. China really makes no fuss that Arunachal Pradesh is in India: it only objects formally to the presence of the Dalai lama there. One could go on through the list and raise similar observations. I think in terms of universal law, not what banana states or dictatorships rant on about. I'd prefer to see Israel within the Western sphere of thinking, not aligned with Sudanese revanchism.
I worry whenever we make encyclopedic calls based on faulty reasoning on 'facts' that are far more complicated. An encyclopedic as potentially subjective as this, edited by anyone, must use stringent evidence analysis to justify key wording and data.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Can you please provide a link to a map of Israel that you suggest? KamelTebaast 15:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure. I trust the C.I.A. on this. See hereNishidani (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nishidani Trusting the CIA is about the last thing I'd do in my life. Even if I were an American. :)
I prefer the map with the Golan Heights in some color, to reflect the de facto and de jure annexation, albeit not recognized. Their is no point in using maps that don't reflect the situation on the ground, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Debresser. By all means reaffirm your opinion, but don't contaminate it by citing technicaò language you don't evidently understand ('de jure annexation').Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, you do really need to stop your constant need to put people down, it is getting old. Secondly, will you also trust the CIA map for India? Or like everything, Israel is a special case? The Wikipedia maps don't specify that the territory is part of Israel/India, just that it is controlled by India/Israel and that is why it's in a different color. What exactly do you have against Israel/India/Ukraine, etc.? Or is it just Israel? I will wait for you to make the changes to all the other countries not using CIA maps where they also include territories controlled. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I defend human dignity, I don't 'put people down', an unfortunate idiom that likens people to dogs shot by police or put out of their misery by vets. You keep harping on the hasbara theme that anyone outside the fold critical of Israel, to be coherent, must at the same time criticize identical behavior in every third world country similar to the abuse detected in Israel. I.e. it's basically an obsession with Jews, treating them as exceptional. This is a very boring meme. When I defend human rights in my country, I don't feel the need to immediately add a comprehensive critique of every other country that falls short of universally endorsed principles of justice. So the insinuation is tedious.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
And are you going to address my point? 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with both Debresser and Nishidani. Showing Israel withing the Green Line is quite stupid, if you look at the other cases of disputed territories (Nish, feel free to phrase "disputed territories" however you want). As for Debresser, I not only want the Golan to be shown in dark green, I also want it not to be a subject of debate, but because it is a subject of debate, it is shown in light green. One might claim that Area C is De-Facto annexed into Israel and other also claim that the Gaza Strip is under Israel occupation while the PA in the West Bank is a puppet of Israel, should we show them as well? We are defining "Israel" here, so Israel in the Green Line plus the territories with a sufficiant amount of sources to show they are annexed and cosidered part of Israel by Israel.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Golan Heights is not Israeli territory according to the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. This has been repeatedly established at Talk:Golan Heights. Its even a question as to whether or not Israel actually claimed to have annexed the Golan, the law on applying civil law over the Golan specifically did not include the term annex, with some sources saying that this was done specifically to claim that Israel had not annexed the Golan. Regardless of that, even if one were to accept that Israel has attempted to annex the Golan, reliable sources come down quite clearly on the side of the Golan remains Syrian territory held under belligerent occupation by Israel and is not Israeli territory. Its all well and good that people have their own views on this, but as an encyclopedia based on reliable sources the fact that the majority of reliable sources state rather clearly that the Golan is not Israeli territory trumps any of the supposed arguments made here to claim the Golan as Israeli. I dont have a problem included the Golan in a map if its marked as Israeli-occupied and not as Israeli, eg the map from the CIA File:Golan heights rel89-orig.jpg or File:Golan_Heights_Map.PNG. But presenting the Golan as though it were something other than Syrian territory under Israeli occupation violates several Wikipedia policies, most especially WP:NPOV. And Bolter, we emphatically do not define Israel, reliable sources do that and we reflect them. And they define Israeli sovereign territory as being with the Green Line. nableezy - 18:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody here is claiming otherwise, it is my understanding that Nishidani doesn't want to display it at all, regardless if it's in a different color and noted, similar to how all other territorial disputes are noted in Wikipedia. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 18:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Nishidani, nobody is debating your obsession to demonize Israel while promoting a Palestinian nationalist agenda; it's pretty much understood. Also, this is not about "hasbara" or criticism of Israel, or even why you aren't fighting against other countries. This is about Wikipedia. All we seem to be asking is that Israel's map is given the equal parameters that the other countries on Wikipedia are given. KamelTebaast 18:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's remain civil. Both blaiming someone for systematic, non-good faith POV as well as using the retarted word "hasbara" is wrong and will bring this conversation no where.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. When Sir Joe however twice repeats a meme, hasbara, or not, that comes directly from the standard 'how to reply' talking points lists, and implies thereby there's is something 'peculiar' about my editing Palestinian articles, because they deal indirectly with Israel, and Israel is predominantly 'Jewish' (wink wink, nudge nudge) I defend myself. The other fellow's 'nobody is debating your obsession to demonize Israel while promoting a Palestinian nationalist agenda' is a reportable WP:AGF violation apart from being inanely false. The next I'll get attacked for having an obsession with demonizing the Republic of China because on many articles, like the Epic of King Gesar, I found it written from the victor's POV, and went through it like to make it conform to denationalized scholarship. In any case, these jabs are off topic, like my replies. I'd still like to see some evidence that internationally, Israel's official position, apart from its toying with maps for local consumption, clearly and unequivocably sets forth the view that the Golan Heights are part of Israel, and as such, not negotiable. If you can't provide that, then suggesting it is an official 'claim' is WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Per negotiation, Israel had also negotiated about East Jerusalem as well as areas withing the Green Line as part of "equal land exchange". Are all areas Israel offered the Palestinians from inside the green line "not Israeli terrotiries"
(1) Yaël Ronen‏, Transition from Illegal Regimes under International Law n.42 reads.’The effect of this legislation is tantamount to a claim of sovereignty, but formally Israel has avoided claiming to have annexed the Golan Heights.
This is by an expert, and it confirms what I suggested. There is no clear, unequivocal official Israeli claim for the Golan being annexed or sovereign Israeli territory.
(2)P R Kumaraswamy‏ Historical Dictionary of the Arab-Israeli Conflict ‘the legal status of the Golan Heights and the claims of Israeli sovereignty are contested even within Israel. I.e. there is no unequivocal Israeli claim.
(3) Richard J. Samuels, Encyclopedia of United States National Security, In 1981, Israel annexed the Golan Heights but this annexation has not been recognized internationally and the Golan is generally considered Israeli-occupied Syrian territory by the United Nations. This is meme reproduction since legal scholars say it did not annex the GH
(4) Sharon Korman‏ The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force
p.255 ‘In the case of Israel’s incorporation of East Jerusalem it is clear that conquest has not given rise to recicogni9zed of rights of sovereignty.
p.263 largely because of the outcry against the Israeli measure in the United States.-which had joined with the other fourteen members of the Security Council in voting in favour of resolution 497-Israeli officials began to suggest that the extension of Israeli law to the Golan Heights should not be read as an act of annexation or permanent incorporation of the territory into the state of Israel, since Israel remained, in principle, prepared to negotiate its return to Syria in accordance with Security Council Resolution 242 (1967).
p.264 a draft resolution put before the Security Council condemning the annexation was rejected by the United States on the ground that while it opposed any unilateral change in the status of Israeli-occupied territories, it did not regard the application of Israeli law to the Golan Heights as an annexation.
p.265 Whether or not Israel’s action in extending its law to the Golan Heights is interpreted as amounting to an act of annexation, it is clear that its conquest of the Golan Heights has not given rise to recognized rights of sovereignty. . .The notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory which it occupies, or to act beyond the strict bounds lay down in the Fourth Geneva Convention, has been universally rejected by the international community- no less by the United States than by any other state.’
This is the second technical discussion. Like the first it disowns the idea of annexation or sovereignty and even documents that Israeli officials denied it must be read as annexation into Israel, a position adopted and confirmed by the United States.
  • (5) Yvonne McDermott‏, David Keane‏ The Challenge of Human Rights: Past, Present and Future,‘Israel purported to annex the Occupied Golan, basing its claims to sovereignty on its purported annexation pursuant to the 1981 legislative act – the Golan heights Law.
This book shows no familiarity with the legal issues, but does state 'purported'. Look it up. It means 'being intended to seem to', meaning it didn't actually do . .
[(6) Yehoshafat Harkabi Palestinians and Israel, is irrelevant since it was published 7 years before the Golan Law was passed.
(7) [2] This doesn’t work. It just indicates your google parameters.
(8) Paul Francis Diehl (ed.)‏ A Road Map to War: Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict ‘Israel sees itself as the sovereign entity in East Jerusalem and in the Golan Heights by virtue of the laws it has passed extending civilian rule to those areas.'
This refers to a generic Israeli perception of sovereignty, but it is not as requested a clear unequivocal statement of the Israeli official position before the world.
(9) Efraim Inbar,‏ [3] writes that the aim of the Madrid conference was to get Syrian recognition of Israel, a peace treaty ensuring Israel’s security that might have involved 'Syrian recognition of at least some of Israel’s claims to the Golan Heights'. p.151
It's was a bargaining chip in 1992, that did not foresee the claim as one staking out the Golan as Israeli.
(10) is a crap snippet from Southwest Radio Church of the Air, 1977 before the Golan Law was passed.
(11) Kathleen A. Cavanaugh, Joshua Castellino‏ (eds) [4] ‘extended Israeli law and administration to the Golan Heights, effectively annexing the territory of the Golan. For this reason, Israel considers this territory as annexed and not occupied;'
This is a general work by specialists in another area, and repeats a meme.
(12) This is as useless as tits on a bull, being from Author House.
Opposing these sources will be WP:FRINGE.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you don't appear to have read the sources, since you fucked up comprehensively on several, from AuthorHouse, to books published before 1981. None of the sources answer what I asked for, a clear official statement of Israeli government policy. The two that are actually written by experts provide ample evidence to the contrary of what you claim. Quick googling is not the way to go, you must read the sources.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To make the discussion concrete again, here is the map currently in the article. The Golan is shown in light green and the Israeli territory in dark green. If anyone has a problem with it, detail it here. Kingsindian   19:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, I am going to warn you for the last time, you need to stop your patronizing and condescending attitude. I can have a thought without it being the "Likud" thought. We are here to follow wiki policies and that is all I mentioned. What's good for the Ukraine, India, etc. is good for Israel. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 19:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This map looks fine to me, after Bolter21 added disputed Golan and East Jerusalem. I would consider also showing controlled but not claimed territories (West Bank and Gaza) in yet another color or several different colors depending on degree of control. WarKosign 19:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
As said before, I oppose adding the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. To me its like showing Iraq in a map of the US in 2003.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Golan Heights is a region in Syria and not in Israel, so why would a map of Israel have a part of Syria included in it? Doesn't make any sense.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Same reason why India and Russia have Kashmir and Crimea in their map. Why is Israel different? The Golan is controlled by Israel, same as Kashmir and Crimea. The map differentiates in a different color than Israel proper. I reverted you. Please don't make changes while talk page discussions are ongoing, and nobody here that I know of is disagreeing with the Golan inclusion, we are discussing other additions, best I can tell. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Well the changes have to be done after consensus, not before. And I dont see any consensus here above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
No, you are removing against consensus. Wikipedia consensus is to show the territory in a different color. Note how this is about the Golan not the WB or Gaza. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, why is this: "Area controlled by India shown in dark green;claimed but uncontrolled regions shown in light green." OK for India, and why is this: "Russia (dark green)Crimea (disputed, Russian-administered) (light green)a" good enough for Russia, AMONG MANY OTHERS, but it's not good enough for Israel? 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I added text to the map with the similar comments from the Russian infobox. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Different kinds of conflicts have different solutions. I dont know about the background of the conflicts in those other disputes, but in this dispute no one recognizes Israels claim, and its internationally recognized as part of Syria. And WB and Gaza are also occupied, but not in the map. Israels claims are not facts and shouldn't be in the infobox. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The crucial points are that (a) no one has been able to quote an official Israeli government statement (so far) that unequivocably states that 'the Golan Heights is an integral part of the state of Israel', to form the basis of an explicit claim (b) you can cite all the analogies you like but the issue under examination have been rejected, not by the UN, but by the United Nations Security Council, a ruling confirmed by Israel's sponsor there, and even admitted by Israel's negotiators over the years (see above) which means it is universally rejected (c) and rejected with clear reason in unchallenged international law, relating to the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) as specifically clarified in 2001, i.e. that these are territories under belligerent occupation, and cannot for that reason be claimed as sovereign territory by the belligerent. Make all the fancy maps you like, but these are the reasons why Israel is very careful to use creep to establish a facts on the ground sovereignty while abstaining from defying the UN Security Council's unanimous rejection of such a position by a formal declaration of annexation. Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nishidani Making a huge effort to assume good faith, but warning you to stay civil in view of the real danger of you being reported on WP:ARBCOM, I shall explain the term "de jure annexation" for you. That is an annexation that was ratified by the annexing state's parliament. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I very much have a problem with that map, as it differentiates between EJ and the WB, both of which have the exact same status, Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation. Either show the occupied territories or dont, but dont pick and choose between them. Also, just a lighter shade of green wont do, if you want to add them make them patterned green and grey. I reverted the map on commons, Bolter if you want to change that map upload it with a new name. nableezy - 22:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser. There is no incivility here on my part. There are many rumours of my incivility, some of them uncivil, which is another matter. Try and focus, as Bolter asked us to, on the issues. 'That is an annexation that was ratified by the annexing state's parliament' is meaningless. Look up the word 'ratify'. It means endorsing formally something that has already taken place. The Golan Law did not ratify a annexation, because no 'annexation' pre-existed it. This is an English distinction of the simplest kind. And, you apparently haven't read the thread. The idea that the Golan or East Jerusalem were annexed is unfounded in the technical literature, as Ian Lustick showed here. He concluded:

There has never been an official act that has declared expanded East Jerusalem as having been annexed by the State of Israel. Though politicians have referred to it as part of the territory over which Israel is sovereign, there has in fact never been an official declaration of Israel's sovereignty over this area. As far as official statements go, the still authoritative proclamation was the government of Israel's reply to the U.N. secretary-general in July 1967, which explicitly denied that Israeli actions in expanded East Jerusalem constituted annexation. In this connection it is also important to note that the law which extended Israeli administration and jurisdiction to the Golan Heights in 1981 used exactly the same language as that contained in the ordinance used to make the same extension of Israeli law to enlarged East Jerusalem. When Prime Minister Begin defended the Golan Heights bill against criticism in the Israeli parliament that it constituted "annexation" and for that reason was a dangerous affront to the world community, the prime minister responded in a manner more or less identical to the language used by Eban in his official response to the U.N.- resolution condemning Israeli measures in east Jerusalem in 1967: 'You,Begin said from the Knesset podium "use the word annexation, but I am not using it."

I am happy to have Bolter as an interlocutor, because though our differences are irreconcilable as often as not, he is studious, he examines what you argue, and sticks to the point. When Lustick wrote: 'In the Israeli debate that rages over the future of the Golan Heights, few argue that the Golan Heights Law actually established Israeli sovereigtnty there,' Stav hadn't yet graced the earth. Perceptions change over time of course, one can see here that, when Lustick wrote few in Israel thought the Golan formed part of Israel (1997) now several editors connected to that state are convinced it is obvious. This is the effect of preferred language imposing itself, cultural contexts one is exposed to, but the legal technicalities don't if the facts remains as they were when Lustick wrote.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the edit summaries claiming a consensus to show the Golan, cmon, really? There pretty clearly is not a consensus in this thread, and the article shouldnt be touched on this point until there is. And adding "disputed" for the Golan when the actual status is "occupied" is a bit of a NPOV-violation.

@Nishidani: I'm confused. You're against Netanyahu's populist opinion; but you quote Begin's populist opinion. In other articles you don't care what the Israeli government proclaims, yet here you're stuck on whether or not the government of Israel used the term annexation. You're all about reliable sources, yet you refute reliable sources stating that Israel annexed the Golan. Here are such reliable sources: The New York Times; BBC; Aljazeera; Encyclopedia of United States National Security; Encyclopedia Britannica. Lastly, I suggest that you clean up "annexation" from Wikipedia pages Golan Heights and Annexation before you battle it here. KamelTebaast 04:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
If you are confused it is because I alluded to what someone else described as Netanyahu's populist opinion, and cited what Ian Lustick described as Begin's populist opinion, and you ascribed both citations to me as my personal views. As to cleaning up 'annexation' on wiki pages, I've done that for about a decade, whenever I see it misused, and the usual editors creep back in restoring it where inappropriate. It is the obligation of all editors here to accept that, in the proper sense of the word 'annexation', Israel has annexed neither East Jerusalem nor the Golan Heights. All the technical papers by competent authorities state this, esp.Ian S. Lustick, 'Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?,' Middle East Policy, January 1997 Vol. 5, Issue 1 January 1997 pp 34–45. I suggest to all editors here that they take cognizance of reality and clean up the indiscriminate use of the word 'annexation' regarding East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Rubbish from newspapers has no weight in determining technical issues of some complexity. On principle I generally refrain from meddling with articles on Israel. Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought Nishidani had agreed to the Golan being depicted in a different color in the map? Currently, it is in light green: we can make it checked or shaded or whatever to stand out more. Correct me if I'm wrong. As I said above, areas like Crimea are shown in a different color in both Ukrainian and Russian maps on Wikipedia. As long as the status of Golan is marked clearly and distinguished from the other territories, I have no problem with it. East Jerusalem is much more tricky: at this point, I do not support the shading of East Jerusalem on the map. My impression was that the initial issue was with the Golan, I don't know why East Jerusalem was dragged into the content dispute here. Kingsindian   04:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
My opinion has no weight here. I merely listed the problems with paying lip-service to a meme, namely, ignoring what the technical literature states unambiguously, that the Golan Heights is not in Israel and has not been 'annexed'. Asked my opinion, I stated that I was for the C.I.A. map, which defines Israel as it happens to be, not as it is fantasied to be.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Golan and East Jerusalem are in exactly the same situation: Israel extended its law to both, which is usually (but not always) is considered annexation. This alleged annexation is not recognized internationally and the territory is not considered to be part of Israel by other countries. Both territories are completely controlled by Israel and their occupants have the option of getting Israeli citizenship whenever they choose. Situation at the West Bank is vastly different, this is why EJ is not the same as the rest of WB. WarKosign 07:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
No. That's wrong. In neither case did Israel, tout court,'extended its law to both'. Had it, all the Arabs of East Jerusalem would have immediately had full Israeli citizenship, and the rights, including land title, that come from them. In annexation you extend the rights current in the laws of the annexing state to all people within the territory of the area annexed. In both the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, Israel failed to apply this key measure which would have gone part of the way to legitimizing the ostensible claim that what took place was a formal act of ‘annexation’. In East Jerusalem, the Arab population was not included as Israeli citizens: they were given residency permits as ‘temporary’ immigrants. Israeli laws in East Jerusalem were extended to Israeli settlers only, while the Arab population was and still is treated as under belligerent occupation. In the Golan while some civil right were extended to, or rather imposed on, the Druze, Israel confiscated 80% of the property of those Druze, and was not extended to the few Syrian and Palestinian Arabs remaining of the 120,000 who lived there before the 67 war. The way Israel tried to extort an acceptance of a limited citizenship right is described in a very good essay by R.Scott Kennedy, ‘Non Cooperation in the Golan Heights:A Case of Non-Violent Resistance.’ in M. Stephan (ed.) Civilian Jihad: Nonviolent Struggle, Democratization, and Governance in the Middle East, Springer, 2009 pp.119-130. Of course, this, like so many other sources duly given on talk pages, will not be used, but ignored.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The source you quote contradicts your claim: "since 1967 the Golan has undergone a continual and systematic process of annexation, not least in economic terms, to the state of Israel" "The international community rejected Israel's unilateral annexation of Arab land" "...legislation to formally annex the Golan" "With formal annexation...". BTW, at the moment 94% of the Druze self-identify as "Druze-Israelis" and increasingly more of them are applying for citizenship. WarKosign 12:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Druze as you know often stand on Shouting Hill by Majdal Shams to shout at each other across the border.Attempting to write collegially in Wikipedia is a bit like that, only here we shout past each other, and don't connect up as they do there. I with, with Bolter, mustered over a dozen sources on this. 3 are recognized authorities on the issue of 'annexation' and they all concur no annexation was ever legislated. You ignore that, prefer not to read Lustick, and choose one source that deals with another issue (what occurred among the Druze) and which reflects the popular usage. One just doesn't study history that way, pal. One doesn't angle for the rubber boot in the stream, shouting 'eureka' while ignoring the trout lurking there. Annexation as I explained does not mean ethically cleansing an area and according a few rights to a small selected population remaining. The 1967 Golan population when Israel invaded was from 120-145,000, consisting of a dense interweave of Christian, Palestinian, Circassian, Armenian, Kurdish, Hourani, Mughrabi, Turkmenic microsocieties in 200 villages. All the villages were razed, save one or two with a Jewish memory. Of course the Syrian military infrastructure was left standing to prove that the Golan's vast intricate mnosaic of historic agricultural communities were in fact just a military threat to Israel, nothing more. 20,000 left as the Israeli military bulldozers proceeded to demolish all of their villages, which they were waiting in the fields to return to. According to the standard Zionist historical template, these 'Syrian Arabs' all fled with the army, save for 6,000 Druze in 4 villages, after they were advised to flee (shades of 1948). According to the historical record, the villagers displaced who remained there were hauled before courts and ordered out, those temporarily displaced in the fighting were refused return. Israel issued formal 'expulsion ' orders. Nothing of this is in our articles. So much for 'annexation', i.e. the application of Israeli law to all people in a conquered territory, regardless of their ethnic identity. Read Lustick: he's the authority.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I will read Lustick carefully when I have time. For the moment, however: "the widely held view, both in Israel and outside it, is that the State of Israel actually annexed East Jerusalem-either in 1967 or in 1980, when the Knesset promulgated the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel-and has fully asserted its sovereignty there." He goes on to explain why he considers this view incorrect. I'm not questioning his expertise, yet even he supports the fact that Israel annexing East Jerusalem (and I guess Golan too, pending more reading) is a non-fringe, possibly majority, POV. WarKosign 14:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
A widely held view in the US is that the world was created in 6 days; that evolution never took place; that Ufos exist; 57% believe Satan exists; 40% believe the world will end in as the Bible predicted; the Chinese believe that Jews control America; 41% believe in the Bermuda Triangle,77 percent of all Americans "believe there are signs that aliens have visited Earth", etc.etc. In short, this is an encyclopedia, based on facts, and to a lesser extent, informed judgments about those facts. It is not a dumping ground for 'widely held beliefs' except in articles covering faith commitments.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nableezy This edit of your removed the caption of the map, claiming it is inaccurate. I fail to see what is inaccurate about it, and most importantly, the text you removed seems to be supported by a clear consensus here. I'd ask you to undo your edit yourself at this stage, until such time as you argue your point and gain consensus. Debresser (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
A clear consensus here? Are you serious? Youre not gonna do that again are you, claim a clear consensus for edits in which there is anything but on the talk page? And its inaccurate because the map doesnt include the Golan in light green, and if it did include the Golan in light green it should say "occupied by Israel", not "disputed, controlled by Israel". nableezy - 15:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
If you have a problem reviewing the discussion, then you are the only one. Is there anybody else here who thinks that there is no clear consensus on this issue? Debresser (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
By 'consensus', you seem to mean a 'majority'. Reread Wikipedia:Consensus:'Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity ... nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns . . .A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.'
The legitimate concern here is that there is no evidence whatsoever (so far) that Israel has formally included the Golan Heights into Israel. All we have is the application of Israeli law to that territory. The Israeli Supreme Court endorsed that. But in terms of international law, underwritten by the authority of the United Nations Security Council, this is null and void.The 'dispute' is an Israeli word, reflecting a unique Israeli position in the world. The rest of the world doesn't dispute that the Golan Heights is Syrian.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nishidani Don't be so condescending: I know what consensus is and how it is and isn't formed and established.
@Nishidani That is indeed one of the two main differences between the Golan Heights and the West Bank. 1. That Israeli law applies in its entirety. 2. That it is de facto governed by Israel. Those differences should be reflected in the map, and were reflected in the most neutral way till Nableezy decided to ignore consensus here and undid it. I have still to see anybody but the two of you, of course, who disputes that there is clear consensus for the text Nableezy removed. It is precisely this highhanded way of editing that will get him topic banned soon. Debresser (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
One cannot have it both ways. Editors here pressing for the Golan to be Israeli territory cite the fact that 'Israeli law applies in its entirety' (not quite, as you see in the use of Lebanese Druze law). They use the same argument with Jerusalem, as including East Jerusalem, given the Law and Administrative Ordinance Law passed in 1967 to the latter. The problem is, that ordinance did not 'extend Israeli law in its entirety' to East Jerusalem. A large part of that law's technical provisions makes comprehensive exceptions to the application of Israeli law to East Jerusalem: Israel's labour laws were not applied; Israel's health and safety regulations were exempted; the Israeli Absentee Property Law was not extended there, et c,.etc.etc. In other words, the criterion you are all endorsing as proof that the Golan Heights is part of Israel automatically disinvalidates your editorial position re East Jerusalem. If that is the benchmark, then the Golan is Israeli, but East Jerusalem isn't. No one here is to blame for the fact that many disputes arise from the lack of clear unambiguous legal positions, of course (I'm to blame, apparently, because every time I bring documents to bear no one else mentioned, the resort to evidence is dismissed as 'condescending', 'patronizing'). But in editing, we cannot change our criteria from page to page in order to safeguard a nastional POV which is internally incoherent.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Let's bring E Jerusalem and the Golan Heights back (to the article, not to Jordan and Syria) and write in the caption "light green: unrecognized territories under the law, jurisdiction and administration of the Israeli government".

This is supposed to solve:

  1. The disagreement on "disputed territories"
  2. The disagreement on wether the territories were annexed or not
  3. The disagreement on wether Israel claim sovereignty over those territories or not

Note - The rest of the West Bank is too complicated and vague to show in the map. Area C is officially under the administration of the Israeli army and Israeli law doesn't apply there in full. Area B and A are also not exactly under the control of Israel. I don't think it needs to be shown. This is an article about "Israel" and am sure many will agree that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are de-facto Israel, more than the rest of the West Bank.

Opinions? feel free to suggest better wording, I am just a stuped idiot who not know inglsh--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean "under international law"? Debresser (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Under the law, jurisdiction and aministration (חוק, שיפוט ומנהל) of the Israeli Government.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
No, thats euphemism bordering on dishonesty. Those territories are occupied by Israel, full stop. They are not "de facto Israel", they are Palestinian and Syrian territory held under belligerent occupation by Israel. nableezy - 16:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
light green: Israeli-occupied territories under the law, jurisdiction and administration of the Israeli government".?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is "Israel" not "Israel and occupied territories". So the infobox should only have a map of Israel. Other maps further down in the article discussing the occupation can include occupied territories clearly separating them from Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Half of Israel's capital is considered "occupied". A map of Israel shouldn't show half of Israel's capital?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Israel annexed the Golan Heights (RSs:The New York Times; BBC; Aljazeera; Encyclopedia of United States National Security; Encyclopedia Britannica). Moreover, as discussed above, there is a reality on the ground for some 50 years. The map needs to reflect this. KamelTebaast 20:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what Israel claims, or what its Golan Law and Jerusalem Law say, no international institution recognizes its claims. Thank you, Kamel Tebaast, for providing sources in advance to bolster my assertion.

I recommend that the Israeli and Syrian nationalists stop playing their respective games and try to draft a neutral caption for the map. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Tell me Malik, in terms of de-facto situation, if you live in a place, under the law, jurisdiction and administration of the Israeli government and you are also entitled to have Israeli citizenship, where exactly do you live, de-facto? Half of the sources say that unrecognizingly Israel, while some say that Israel didn't really annex the Golan, but only extended the law, jurisdiction and administration to the Golan. Interprate it however you want, the Golan Heights is a territory with the same administrative status as Safed or Haifa where the locals can have Israeli citizenship. For the last 50 years they were not administrated by Syria, they didn't pay taxes to the Syrian government, they didn't have access to the rest of Syria and while they couldn't vote on Syrian elections, they voted in all Israeli general elections since they non-annexation move happend. 'Why can't it be shown in the map?. Virtually the exact same thing happened in Crimea, but in Crimea, Russia officially said they are annexing the territory while here some dispute the fact that the Golan Heights law was an annexation or not (some of those who disagree are those who think the Golan Heights should be returned and they want to avoid an Israeli referandum on it).
As for East Jerusalem, it must be shown, according to the Jerusalem Law, Israel claim sovereignty over East Jerusalem. Just like Crimea is shown for Russia, East Jerusalem will be shown for Israel. This is also why East Jerusalem is shown for the State of Palestine.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
If you think this is a "nationalist-POV", I"ll be honest, while I want the Golan Heights to be a part of Israel, I don't give a damn about East Jerusalem. The only reason why this conversation started was becuase virtually every significant territorial dispute, occupation and sovereignty claim is shown in other maps of other countries, including many occupations or claims with no recognition whatsoever.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
And I don't bare the ridiculous nationalist point of view of showing it all in full green becuase Israel claims it. Per NPOV, it must be the same as other countries, in a lighter shade than the basic green.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Bolter21, you're arguing about several things, none of which is relevant. I didn't question the map, only the caption. I don't care whose roads you drive on to visit the Golan; in accordance with policy, I think we need to rely on what reliable sources say, nothing else. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's the problem: under international law, West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and Golan are all occupied. Now, are we going to show all of it in the Israeli map in light green? If we are talking about de facto control, will we show Area C as light green? If we're talking about "de facto annexation", will we put the part behind the West Bank Barrier in light green? Things will go hairy very quickly if we follow this kind of logic. My proposal is the following. (a) We can either keep the map as it is. (b) Or we can try this: show the Golan in light green (checked or shaded or whatever if needed). Leave East Jerusalem and the others alone because it is complicated. (This section was initially started because of the Golan anyway; I don't know why East Jerusalem came into it.) The caption for the light green part should say "occupied and under administrative control by Israel", or something similar. Kingsindian   16:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Or short and simple "under Israeli administration". See WP:KISS. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if you mean "occupied and under Israeli administration". If so, that is fine. But simply "under Israeli administration" is inadequate for reasons I mentioned above. Actually "occupied" implies "under Israeli administration" (but not the converse obviously), so the latter phrase is redundant. But I am ok with a bit of redundancy if required to get consensus. Kingsindian   16:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Under policy, we are obliged to work towards a consensus. I am inclined to think Kingsindian has provided a reasonable compromise, that satisfies no one, but that all can probably live with.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
This is what I offered before: "Israeli-occupied territories under the law, jurisdiction and administration of the Israeli government" but in short. I don't have a problem with that, just to suggest a tweak: "occupied under Israeli government administration", because "Israeli" might also be interpreted as the Israeli Army, which administers Area C.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. West Bank can also be described as "occupied and under Israeli administration, but the situations in Golan and West Bank are quite different. How about "Occupied and administered by Israeli government" ? WarKosign 17:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly what I suggested ^w^--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign, can you explain what you see as the difference between "occupied and under Israeli administration" and "occupied and administered by Israel" (or Israeli government)? To me, the second is just a round-about way of saying the first; they don't communicate different ideas. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
My intention was to differentiate between administration by Israeli government same as rest of territory of Israel and administration by Israeli Civil Administration which administers parts of West Bank not as part of Israel. WarKosign 06:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Bolter21 If you would have added the word "international", as I suggested above, like this: "Israeli-occupied territories under international law, jurisdiction and administration of the Israeli government", I would agree. Without it is completely unacceptable IMHO, since the word "law" alone is ambiguous.
@Kingsindian "under Israeli administration" is not the same as "occupied", because occupied territory can be ruled (and under international law usually should be ruled) by civilians of the occupied population, which is not the case for the Golan Heights. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"occupied and under Israeli jurisdiction and administration" then. Kingsindian wants to add "occupied", and WarKosign's comment is also correct that there is a difference between the West Bank and the Golan Heights, which can be expressed by adding "jurisdiction". Debresser (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Dovid, I meant under the "law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel" (חוק, שיפוט וממשל)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
How about “areas under de facto Israeli control and civilian governance.” Which is object and NPOV.Jonney2000 (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Per NPOV "occupied" need to stay. "civilian governance" may refer both to the discussed territories and most of the West Bank. We want to avoid that.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Capital wording in infobox[edit]

We recently had a discussion on this very page on whether to refer to Jerusalem as the "disputed" or the "internationally unrecognised" capital of Israel, and so far as I know the consensus was very much for "internationally unrecognised" as accurate, NPOV and less ambiguous. I was surprised, therefore to find the wording changed unilaterally by the user Ha-Zephyr (ה-זפר) back to "disputed"–with this even obfuscated within a footnote, leaving no immediate challenge to it in the infobox for the lay reader. I put it back, but was reverted. Am I wrong? Was that not the consensus we reached? If so I am more than a little confused with the present wording and formatting. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cliftonian Do Excuse me for the trouble. It was an error not noticed by me. I just noticed, and it has been corrected back to as "internationally unrecognized". Thank you ה-זפרt@lk 20:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Bullshit. That was not an error. You simply imposed your personal preference on this article. You didn't have the honesty to describe what you did in your edit summary and you marked your reversion as a minor edit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Putting the issue of the wording to one side, where has having this in a footnote come from? This was never discussed at all. I've put it back to the consensus version and I think it should stay that way until we thrash this out properly here on talk. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Have self-reverted per WP:1RR. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the issue of the recent slow-going edit war is, but I want to call upon all editors to discuss and not revert. I would be willing to mediate, if anybody thinks I would be fit to do so. Debresser (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The point of contention now is essentially between the two versions visible on this diff: that is, whether to have "internationally unrecognized" next to the word "Jerusalem" in the infobox as we had done for a while or to instead have it in a footnote, as it is at present following HaZephyr's change here. Note this wasn't mentioned in the edit summary when the change was made. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
If that is all, then we can simply exchange opinions here on the talkpage, and decide by consensus. No reason to edit war about this.

The question is then whether the fact that the status of Jerusalem is contended is important enough to have in the text proper, or a footnote is enough for this information. Opinions, please. Debresser (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to ask for opinions. We shouldn't re-open the discussion—above at Use of "disputed" vs "internationally unrecognized" for Jerusalem—which ended less than two months ago, because two editors won't abide by consensus. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The question is not whether it should be "disputed" or "internationally unrecognized". The question is whether it should be in the text or in a footnote. Debresser (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
My apologies. I misread your question. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It should be a footnote. It already gives something which is political in nature (recognition vs. non-recognition) more importance than it deserves, and putting on par with a fact (that it is the capital) would be undue weight. Epson Salts (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • LOL. It's a "fact" that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, but "political in nature" that the whole world doesn't recognize that? Nope. They're both facts, and they're both political in nature. One fact shouldn't be shunted off to a footnote because it makes supporters of Israel uncomfortable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Couldn't have put it better myself. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I asked Triggerhippie4 to comment. We need some outside input here, or this discussion can end up a stalemate. I posted it at WT:JUDAISM . Debresser (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Notes should be in footnotes. That's why this feature is exist in infobox. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. A country declares their own capital and doesn't need international recognition for it. If the US decides to move the capital to Philadelphia, that is an internal US matter. The fact that countries may not recognize a certain aspect of that, is for a footnote, not the actual text. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Countries may not like it, and that is for a footnote, but it's an internal question for Israel, not other countries. 🔯 [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph}} 🍸(talk) 15:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: Why do you not weight in with that opinion above, or is this WP:CANVAS? KamelTebaast 15:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This needs to be changed back to "internationally unrecognized", there are certain editors who have hijacked this article and are pushing a strong non neutral pov through edit warring. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic groups[edit]

Does the percentage of "Ethnic groups" cover people from "problematic areas" such as Gaza, West bank and Golan Heights? Meanwhile, location map excludes those "problematic areas". However, I hope Israeli census does not exclude Jewish in those areas. We need to correct all, especially location map that give error view. --AntanO 03:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Well, Israeli censuses cover all of the population in localities recognized by Israel. The entire Golan Heights are fully annexed along with the native population, as well as East Jerusalem. The rest of the West Bank is not annexed but the Israeli settlements there are recognized by Israel and counted as well. The Arab localities of the West Bank are not counted.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)