Jump to content

Talk:Israel/Archive 84

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 82Archive 83Archive 84Archive 85Archive 86→Archive 90

Golan Heights?

Hi, I know this would make some people angry, but could the Golan heights be shaded in light green? It is de facto under Israeli control, and America recognizes it as part of Israel, but it is not shaded light green for disputed territory. Crimea is de facto under Russian control and the vast majority of countries do not recognize it as being part of Russia, but it is added green. I know the West Bank and Gaza Strip are different, but the Golan Heights are under full Israeli control and Wikipedia must give some weight to de facto, as they have done in other articles. So please, for the map, shade the Golan Heights in light green.

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears that everyone here, accept @Nableezy supports the map change. So can someone with the power to change the map change it? 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
That isnt true (the first person to reply to you for example), and this isnt a vote. nableezy - 15:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do not troll this discussion. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

False analogy which, like all analogies should not cancel the differences. Crimea has been Russian for 239 years, save for a very brief interim of several years, Russian in language and culture, thoroughly assimilated to that old geopolitical reality. The Golan Heights has been partially under Israeli control for 55 years, but historically there is nothing other than military might that underscores its annexation. In any case, sources (see the archives) determine what we do here, not personal impressions of 'similiarity'-ergo-sameness.'Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The crimea thing was just an example. What I mean was that pretty much every country with disputed territories has those territories shaded in light green, except israel. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I share Mr. Reading Turtle opinion on this. As I understand it, today light green marks on maps in Wikipedia mark an annexed territory which is not internationally recognized as such. The Golan Heights fit this description, so it should be colored in light green, the same as with other countries. I would also like to add that both the German and the Spanish articles for Israel follow the same logic. Tombah (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Could you clarify exactly which map or maps you would like altered or replaced? It looks to me that there are three maps which you could be referring to. The first is in the info box at the top of the article and shows the state of affairs in 1949. Perhaps it would be better to have a map which displays the current situation there. I'm guessing, though, that the current map is there as the result of heavy debate. Lower down are a map showing districts of Israel, in which the Occupied Territories are coloured grey, and this one, in which the Occupied Territories, including the Israeli-controlled Golan, are actually coloured light green. Whatever you would like done, it will probably be affected in some way by UN Security Resoltion 497 of 1981, which states that Israel's annexation was illegitimate and has the effect of confirming that the Golan is properly Syrian. In general, Security Council resolutions are binding on UN members, which includes the US and Israel, and, since it is based on the international treaties which have been made, heavily affect the position in international law.     ←   ZScarpia   12:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC) {Note: there's a discussion about whether Resolution 497 is binding or not here. A sources which discusses the binding or non-binding status of UN resolutions: [1].}
I mean the first map. On the Spanish wikipedia, German wikipedia, French wikipedia, and Hebrew wikipedia, the Golan Heights are shaded in light green or dark green. On some the West Bank is light green, but I think this may be to big of a step. In any case, the majority of non-English wikipedias have the Golan heights in shaded, and I think we should match this somehow. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't involved in any way in the selection of the current map, so know nothing about how that came about. Using the archive search box at the top of this talkpage would help to locate previous discussions. The Commons information accompanying the map says that its source was the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which may be significant (but I personally know nothing about that body other than what is stated in its Wikipedia article and what I managed to glean from a brief look at its Web homepage). Something to beware of are the ARBPIA sanctions placed on articles such as the current one which impose editing restrictions, including what editors with newish accounts can do (see the ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES warning at the top of this talkpage).     ←   ZScarpia   15:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
There isnt any requirement that we use a similar map as any other Wikipedia, but the Golan is nearly universally recognized as Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation. It should not be presented as anything other than that here. Beyond that, it isnt as though the only WP projects are German, Spanish or whatever language. Why not note that for example the Arabic, Farsi, Czech, Danish, Albanian, Esperanto, Dutch, Portugese wikis all do not show the Golan shaded? nableezy - 15:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Shade it in light Green. Likewise the article on Syria should be updated in the same fashion. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The way disputed territories are shown in this article should be consistent with the way it's presented in other articles. “WarKosign÷” 22:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Such as Morocco, Ukraine, China, India, Pakistan, Japan, Russia, Venezuela, Chile, Georgia (country), Somalia, Somaliland, France, Azerbaijan, Republic of Artsakh, etc. The only somewhat notable cases I can think of where this doesn't happen is with Belize/Guatemala and Guyana/Venezuela/Suriname. But neither of these two cases are in the majority practice. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree. At this point it is a double standard against Israel. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with WarKosign, Dunutubble, and User:Mr Reading Turtle that we need consistency. I don't have a strong opinion on whether disputed and de facto controlled territories should be coloured one way or another, but it should be consistent across articles. The Golan Heights, Western Sahara, and Crimea should all be coloured similarly (whatever colour that is). Jeppiz (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with your claimed double standard is none of those other instances have UNSC resolutions that say point blank that the territory remains occupied territory belonging to another state. We have an international consensus that the Golan Heights are not in Israel. Our article follows that consensus. nableezy - 01:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
We have numerous UNSC resolutions saying that the Crimea is Ukrainian and Abkhazia is a part of Georgia. Now read the articles for Russia and Georgia. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Name one. nableezy - 23:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
United Nations resolutions on Abkhazia. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Not a single one of those says anything about an annexation by Russia, and Russia never purported to annex Abkhazia, making the invocation of that curious. nableezy - 00:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Nableezy, please stop arguing. Can someone mark this discussion as closed. I don't even need the change anymore, which is exactly what Nableezy is after, but I am sick and tired of this pointless arguing. Nableezy, I am fed up with your POV pushing and biting. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Cool story, this is an article talk page to discuss the article Israel. If you do not wish to discuss then this is not the place to be. I have zero interest in your personal opinions about me, and this is not the place to discuss them anyway. nableezy - 00:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Your right! This is where we civilly discuss how to improve the article, not be sarcastic, bit users, and constantly troll discussions! Do you understand @Nableezy? 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I havent trolled a thing. You not liking what other people say does not make it trolling or biting or uncivil or anything else. Kindly stop misusing this page. Thanks. nableezy - 03:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
UNSC is just a political body, its position doesn't make anything more (or less) correct. Are you saying that Crimea should not be considered occupied just because Russia has veto power? UNSC position is notable enough to be mentioned, of course, but it does not determine whether something is or isn't true. “WarKosign” 05:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
No, the UNSC is the body responsible for maintaining international peace and security and per treaty has the authority to make binding resolutions on all member states. No, sources should determine what is occupied, but the comparison you continue to make is flawed in that there is a finding by the UNSC that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. The examples offered in response have no such finding, and as such the bs claim of a double standard is just that, bs. Our article includes a map showing the occupied territories, the lead says that these territories are occupied and effectively annexed, and Israel has itself repeatedly claimed that the Golan is not actually annexed as the Golan Law made no claim of sovereignty and purposely did not claim to annex the territory. So, again, your examples simply are not analogous and the attempt to claim they are is a bit of subterfuge in that it makes a vague wave to some supposedly equivalent cases that any good faith examination will find to not be equivalent. nableezy - 05:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Each disputed territory in the world is unique. Your argument is "Golan should not be treated the same way as the rest of the disputed territories because <list of differences>" could be as easily applied to any other disputed territory in the world, and it wouldn't make it any more valid. On most WP articles disputed territory is clearly indicated on the map of the country claiming this territory, with detailed description of the special state of the territory - who is claiming what, for what reasons, and who supports/objects these claims. No reason for Golan to be treated differently. The fact that it's unique is of no consequence, every territory is unique. “WarKosign” 05:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Each disputed territory in the world is unique, why yes. Which is why the rest of your comment does not follow. Because each situation is unique, claiming there us some uniform standard is what is not valid. In this case we have Israel repeatedly claiming in the international arena that the Golan in fact is not annexed, we have the UNSC saying as a matter of international law it is not annexed and it remains Syrian territory. And so our map reflects that. The idea that because two situations are different somehow there is no reason for them to be treated differently is a basic failure of logic and common sense. nableezy - 05:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Actually, Russia does. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
For God's sake, every single country in Wikipedia with disputed or annexed territories has a map with the contested territory in light green. Check the articles of Japan, Russia, Argentina, Morocco, etc. Even the articles of Israel in other Wikipedias have the Golan in light green. No country besides Argentina considers the Falklands as Argentinean territory, as far as I'm aware. There must be other examples of territories whose annexation or control is widely unrecognized by other countries. This is the appropriate and accurate map for this article:
Israel (orthographic projection) with disputed territories.svg
(it doesn't show the West Bank because even Israel doesn't claim it as its own, but simply a "territory in dispute", although controls it de facto) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:73c0:601:883a::d27:d62d (talk)
  • I see two dilemmas as being entailed with any changes to the map.
First, the point about the UNSC recognition making the situation in the Golan Heights materially different from most other 'disputed territory' situations - added to it Israel's own lack of formal annexation or declaration of sovereignty, which makes it slightly ambiguous if it even IS disputed territory. If the UN recognizes it as Israel, and Israel has not formally claimed it, then surely it IS still a part of Syria, just de facto occupied by Israel for the various stated strategic imperatives - occupying the high ground, maintaining control of the Sea of Galilee, etc. Technically, I believe the two countries are still at war, only in a state of ceasefire, right? So the Golan Heights are essentially the temporary territorial gains mid-conflict prior to the signing of a peace treaty formalizing any such territorial arrangements.
Secondly, the situation in the Golan Heights holds some close parallels with the situation in the West Bank, where large swathes of territory are recognized internationally as not being part of Israel and have similarly not been formally annexed by Israel, so altering the map to shade in the Golan Heights would need to be part of a wider drawing of the maps to treat the similarly occupied territories in the West Bank in a comparable manner.
Finally, it might be worth considering, even if some colouring is the best option, that a different color, maybe yellow or some other option, might be best to differentiate the UN ruling peculiarities of the Israel's border drawing compared to other more commonplace disputed territory issues, which usually involve at least some sort of formal claim of sovereignty on the part of the occupier. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The Golan was annexed by Israel in 1981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.138.41 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Read the bit in the article where it notes they intentionally avoided using the term 'annexation', so it was a unilateral extension of Israeli law to the country without even a formal declaration of sovereignty by the Knesset, no international consensus, and not even amid an armistice with Syria, only a ceasefire. Without a peace deal with Syria, it will remain forever occupied and no more. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Splitting hairs much? You yourself pushed for the word annexation in lede, back then when it was convenient for you for some reason: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1072462074 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.138.41 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Note 'effectively annexed' - quite different really. Words are actually quite important when it comes to matters of international or any other form of law. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
"Occu-annexed". They annexed it (domestic law), everybody said nah (international law), so still occupied. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing

There is little need for such a long discussion of something that is really quite simply: no double standards. Of course we are not going to apply one standard for every other country de facto controlling and occupied territory and another standards for Israel. Sorry to be blunt, but users who fail to understand that run foul of WP:COMPETENCE. I both understand and support anyone who thinks the Israeli occupation of Golan is wrong, because so do I. That is not the topic under discussion here, though. It's merely about using consistent colour codes across articles on countries de facto controlling an occupied territory. If WP decides not to colour any such territory (which would be my personal preference), then great! But as long as the prevailing preference is to colour such territories in light green, obviously we won't apply a different standard here compared to all other country articles. Again, this comes down to basic WP:COMPETENCE and really should not require a long debate spanning several days. Jeppiz (talk)

  • @Jeppiz: If you think it is so neat and tidy, where exactly would you draw the de facto annexation line running through the middle of the West Bank? This is Pandora's Box. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    Unrecognized annex is still occupied, that's it. A legal occupant cannot legally annex in international law.Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    Would you like to directly accuse long-standing editors you disagree with to be lacking competence? Because that is a basic personal attack and I have no problem reporting it. Ignoring the points made by others and claiming your position is the only acceptable one and anybody who disagrees with you is incompetent is gaslighting and uncivil. Kindly dont do that. At least you removed the incredibly offensive NONAZIS bit, so kudos for going half way in being civil. The other countries have different situations, and ignoring that is your prerogative if you wish, but nobody else is required to stick their head in the sand and claim everybody who disagrees with them is a racist idiot. nableezy - 18:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    It simply isn't credible to claim that in every other case we should use one policy, but not when Israel is concerned. Sorry if you take it personally, but I do believe that anyone having such a strong bias that they fail to see this, or, more accurately, fail to realise how strong their bias related to this topic is, would benefit from not editing it. They may well have considerable competence in other areas, but arguing that we should apply an opposite policy here to the one we currently apply to all other country articles is, in my view, indeed such a strong bias as to constitute a WP:COMPETENCE issue related to this topic area. (Again, I say this as someone opposed to the Israeli occupation of Golan). Jeppiz (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    It simply isnt credible to claim that disparate issues must follow the same standard. I dont really care what you are or are not opposed to. Israel's occupation of the Golan is not the equivalent of Russia's occupation of Crimea. A, Russia has explicitly asserted that Crimea is annexed. B, there is not a UNSC resolution saying the supposed annexation is illegal and the territory remains part of another country's sovereign territory. Read WP:COMPETENCE before you link it again, because if you do I will be reporting it to AE. And maybe look in the mirror before you lecture anybody else about bias, I cannot recall a single instance in which you made an edit or talk page comment that strayed from the unabashedly pro-Israel line. And oh by the way, it is not every other country that has territories they occupy in light green. The US map never included the territories it occupied in Iraq, the Armenia map does not include the territories it occupies in light green, the Turkey map does not include Northern Cyprus, the China map contains the territory it claims in light green but not the territory it occupies (Tibet, Aksai Chin), those are actually in dark green. You are making up a standard, and even when this situation is manifestly different from any other are demanding we follow your made up standard. And you have the gall to call others racist and incompetent. nableezy - 18:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    Nableezy. Jeppiz is his own man, is closely deliberative and to my knowledge over several heated articles, does not engage in personal attacks. On the other hand, Wikipedia is a logician's nightmare in terms of cross-article coherence, and arguments of the kind, 'everywhere else' the pattern or judgment is this or that ergo . . .don't persuade me. Also because a hundred times I have tried to argue for cross-article coherence in the I/P area raising some (apparent) inconsistency. and I have had the WP:Otherstuffexists link thrown back at me by POV pushers. Ultimately, the only thing that should count is documentary detail, differentiation. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    You must have missed where he dropped a NONAZIS link claiming it antisemitic to not include Israel's occupied territories in a map of Israel before he removed it as hardly necessary. The repeated claims of WP:COMPETENCE when that is about understanding basic English is likewise a blatant personal attack. I dont know about you, but calling me a racist and an idiot strikes me as a personal attack. nableezy - 18:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    My apologies. Distracted by watching the Laurel and Hardy bio film. Yes, suggesting the usual ballistic clampdown on Israel hasbara missile of Wikipedia:No Nazis is indeed grossly offensive.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    Nishidani, it was indeed unsuitable which I why I removed it right after reading through it (before anyone had still commented). I certainly don't intend that any user in the discussion has such political sympathies and I do apologise to anyone offended. I intended to make a general reference to the practice of signalling out only Israel, but realised myself that it might across badly, and was inappropriate, which is why I immediately removed it upon reading through my post. Jeppiz (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    I'll still bear witness to your bona fides and general excellence as an editor. To explain my dissent on your take would inevitably lead to an extraordinary TLDR excursus on the double standards operative in every sphere of public reportage on conflicts generally, not only with regard to the I/P conflict (though for me the rhetoric of exceptionalism which I've studied in Japan, the US and Israel- has been of particular heuristic importance in the last case, the canary in the cage, for a much broader failure of cogency in conflict analysis of the contemporary world. I know the Israeli meme that uses the double standard card to great effect (why us and not Sudan etc.), and it does almost invariably imply that the apparent dissonance is indicative of latent anti-Semitism. That has, in my view, a specious plausibility and, on occasion, might be true, depending on particular constituencies and circumstances. But generally it is cynically tactical, something that of course I'd never read into your lapse in alluding to it. It is this tactical resort, so commonplace in I/P discourse in the mainstream that editors here recognize instantly. The argument in any case would take me, us, astray into the duplicity of so much of the discourse thrown our way (the Ukraine/Russian war being only the latest instance of the pathology)and so I'll drop it. Twice in the last month both Nableezy and I on different pages have adopted positions that would appear to contradict the POV attributed to us (in one case appearing to adopt an Israeli POV - we weren't thinking cui bono but in terms of principle). Editing is hard and misreadings are frequent for all of us. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    Maybe strike the claims of users being unable to comprehend basic English next, would be just great. nableezy - 20:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    First of all, Nableezy, unlike you, I haven't identified any individual user; I have expressed a general opinion about bias in edits. Second, this discussion is not limited to just Crimea and the Golan. As several users have made perfectly clear above, there is a general policy applied to numerous countries. My only argument here is that applying one policy to all those cases and an opposite one to just Israel simply isn't tenable. As for your personal accusations, well over 95% of my edits have nothing to do with the general ARBPIA area. I suggest you refrain from further personal comments about individual users on article talk pages. Jeppiz (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, you just make a vague wave to people who oppose your viewpoint and call them racists and incompetent in order to later claim you never personally attacked anybody. If that happens one more time we can see how that defense holds up at AE. You are welcome to strike through any of your blatant personal attacks on this page at any time. And again, your claimed standard a. does not exist, and b, is materially different in this case as opposed to say Crimea. nableezy - 19:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Beyond the nonsense about competence, the status of the Golan and the status of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and according to many sources the status of the Gaza Strip are exactly the same. Occupied by Israel. It would be a basic NPOV issue to have the Golan in light green and the West Bank (including EJ) and the Gaza Strip in some other color. They are all occupied and controlled by Israel. nableezy - 19:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This is for everyone, not just Nableezy. Jeazle Petes, this is getting ridiculous. However, double standards most not be tolerated. Let's have some WP:PEACE y'all.
🕊 ☮️ ✌️ 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
That is not an acceptable edit and Ive reverted it. There is very obviously no consensus for that change on this page. Kindly do not do that again. nableezy - 23:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The actual edit by Mr Reading Turtle seems perfectly in line with the overall discussion, in which most arguments over the past several days seem to favour a consistent policy. In reading through the opposing arguments, I find very little in terms of convincing argumentation apart from stating that each situation is different which, even if true, is not in itself an argument against the change. So both in terms of users expressing opinions and in terms of the content of those opinions, there does seem to be a consensus for a map consistent with other territories having annexed occupied territories. Please note that consensus does not mean unanimity. Having said that, the revert by Nableezy seems correct. In my understanding of ARBPIA and the 500 edits needed to edit the area, wishing several other users happy Passover (or any other greetings) would not really count as edits, meaning that the revert does appear to be the correct course of action. Jeppiz (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @Jeppiz. Can you make the edit as per the consensus on this page? 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it would be fruitful to reverse back and forth. I support the content of the edit but think it is better to wait a few more days, at the very least. There is no hurry, better for the discussion to run its course. Jeppiz (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok! Thanks for your WikiWisdom (I made that up lol). 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
There are several editors who object to the edit, and please note consensus does not mean a majority vote. I myself am not opposed to including the occupied territories as occupied territories, but again there is no difference between the West Bank including EJ, Gaza and the Golan. Only including the Golan is a blatant attempt at pushing an Israel-centric POV. You want to have a map with the occupied territories? Sure. You want to have one with just Israel+Golan? No, that wont do. But shocking development, an involved user has decided that the opinions he doesnt agree with are not convincing. Yeah, you dont decide that either. nableezy - 00:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Nableezy, please calm down. I thanked that user. Why don't you take a break at the Department of Fun? 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Please stop directing personal comments on this page. My response was to Jeppiz, not to you. nableezy - 00:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: As Nableezy says, it would be frankly bizarre and inconsistent, and as you like to say 'a double standard' to move to a map including the Golan Heights in green while simultaneously not highlighting any of the parts of the West Bank that are in a similarly illegally occupied predicament at the same time. An inconsistency between articles is bad, but not uncommon on Wikipedia due to the often siloed way in which content is developed; an inconsistency within an article is much worse. You still have not responded to my question on how you would consistently represent the West Bank. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mr Reading Turtle: I think your edit gives excessive detail to caption. This is better and concise for the infobox: | image_map = Israel (orthographic projection) with disputed territories.svg | map_caption1 = Israel on the globe, with annexed territory in light green.

It would be helpful to highlight all the territories claimed by Israel (but disputed by some others) in one colors, and the territories controlled (and not claimed) by Israel (and considered occupied by some others) in a different colors. They should not be marked in the same color because they are not in the same status, the purpose of this coloration is to add clarify, not to confuse the readers. “WarKosign” 06:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Which territories would you consider formally claimed by Israel? The lack of formal annexation declarations seems to make this a bit of an objective minefield. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say annexed, I said claimed. I think there can be no question that Israel claims Golan and East Jerusalem, whatever the exact legal terms are. “WarKosign” 09:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Well then, you don't think Israel 'claims' any of Area C, B or A? It seems like the government's aspirations in the West Bank extend beyond E Jerusalem. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Whether Israel has formally claimed something may be ignored as a matter of international law, territory of another sovereign cannot be "claimed". That Israel says there is no lawful sovereign in the case of the WB can likewise be ignored. A lawful occupant cannot annex. If a lawful occupant does annex (by way of domestic law) and at the same time shows no sign of ending the occupation, then its occupation becomes as well illegal. Presently the status of all these territories, annexed formally, annexed de facto, whatever, is occupied (probably illegally), end of. Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Selfstudier, I agree with everything you say above, but it's not really material to the discussion. Russia also claims and occupies Crimea illegally, Morocco claims and occupies Western Sahara illegally and so on. Indicating which state de facto controls an area has nothing to do with the legality of the occupation/annexation. Jeppiz (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The status of all of the territories is the same, that's the point.Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The claim that the status of the Golan and EJ differs from the status of the WB and Gaza is directly contradicted by any number of sources. For example:

  • Roberts, Adam (1990). "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. 84 (1). American Society of International Law: 60. Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza

It is non-neutral to have our article claim that these territories somehow have a different status when they do not per reliable sources. If you want to include the occupied territories as occupied territories I am totally on board with that. If you want to claim somehow that the Golan and EJ are different, that is a NPOV violation and unacceptable. nableezy - 15:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so let's have the Golan and WB in light green as 'occupied territories'. Maybe Gaza as well, although Hamas has de facto control within that territory. But I'm in favour of showing both the Palestinian territories and Golan in light green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:503:C747:0:0:2354:AEC8 (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Totally fine with that, with a caption that says the Israeli-occupied territories are shaded light green nableezy - 15:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Yep, no problem with that. Occupation is the one unambiguous constant. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with either this proposal or the status quo ante. The first map should display either the simple, undisputed territory of Israel proper, or the full complexity of its occupied territories. Nothing in between is NPOV. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Idem. Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
My personal preference would be the exact words "occupied and disputed territories", but any caption can do. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a difficulty with the phrase "disputed territories", it is a phrase used by Israel to refer to the WB based on the claim that there is no sovereign. See Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967#Terminology However, there is no dispute over the sovereignty in international law and the territory is occupied.Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Disputed territories doesnt mean anything, and is POV in that it espouses the view of one of the involved parties. And before anybody says occupied espouses the view of the Palestinians or of Syria, no, it is the view of the rest of the world. nableezy - 16:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: As far as I know Israel doesnt "claim" any of these areas, but it does exert different level of control depending on area type. It also maintains that some of Israeli settlements in C areas will remain in Israeli control in eventual agreement, so I guess we could differentiate these areas on the map as well. The mantra "all the territories are occupied" is misleading, since there is a vast difference between different "occupied" territories. “WarKosign” 16:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
No, there is no difference in the occupied territories, and that has been sourced. On the other hand we have your personal opinion based on absolutely nothing at all. Making that a mantra that is misleading. nableezy - 16:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
You can keep repeating your mantra, it won't change the fast that there is a vast difference. “WarKosign” 17:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Ive actually cited a source that says flat out "Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza". You on the other hand have made a series of unsourced assertions that we need not take in to consideration at all because you are not a reliable source. nableezy - 18:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you need sources for the fact that for any practical purpose Golan and East Jerusalem are parts of Israel? You keep bringing up legal opnionions, I'm talking about reality on the ground. As illegal as Israel's control of the territories may be considered by some, it is there and it's a fact that cannot be ignored. “WarKosign” 18:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
You need sources to say their status is different. They are not. You can keep asserting that they are, but the reliable sources say they are not. The control Israel exercises over all these territories has a name, that being military occupation. You seem to think that calling them occupied means that Israel does not control them, but the opposite is true. nableezy - 18:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
According to sources, they are not part of Israel. So you are in a minority there.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
As I said, it's pointless. You keep ignoring reality and keep quoting the same legal claims. As long as you only acccept these opinions and ignore reality - sure. Enjoy your fiction. Meanwhile I can visit these parts of Israel whenever I chose. “WarKosign” 19:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
It is indeed pointless when one editor brings eminently reliable sources and another one just says "no". Guess which one has any weight on Wikipedia? Have fun with your trip, but like nearly every other thing youve written here, that is not relevant to our article Israel and as such is not material suited for an article talk page. Maybe stop violating WP:NOTFORUM and bring some actual reliable sources for your position. nableezy - 19:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Seconded. Quite surprising to see WarKosign say he couldn't give a fuck for sources. Sounds like a signing off adieu to the project. Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Ignorance is bliss. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I had to take a break. Now, where were we? You requested a source for the fact that EJ and Golan are different from the rest of the disputed territories? Golan Heights Law and Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem articles are full of such sources. It doesn't matter whether these annexations are accepted outside of Israel, the mere declaration makes the status of territories different: Golan and EJ are claimed by Israel while the rest of the territories are not. “WarKosign” 06:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't affect the status from an occupied/disputed territory perspective. The classification is not about domestic rulings. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
"The classification is not about domestic rulings" - says who? Classification is about whatever we decide as correct and most most relevant/useful for the readers. Can you give any reason *not* to show on the map where are Golan and EJ that are mentioned in the article? “WarKosign” 10:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Says me as well. Israel can declare the moon to be made of green cheese if it pleases, we don't have to pay attention. The defining feature of these territories is that they are and remain occupied no matter what Israel might do in an attempt to alter that status. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I have brought a source that directly says the acts that amount to annexation for both EJ and Golan do not change their status as occupied territory. You just said no. And you repeat it with your oh so misplaces blue sky link. You can keep arguing about irrelevant things or use catch phrases like "disputed territories", but according to reliable sources the status of EJ, along with the rest of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan are all Israeli-occupied. So our map will show that status as well. Our article already says exactly that. See in the lead where it says "since the Six-Day War in June 1967 has occupied several territories, and continues to occupy the Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, though whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement is disputed." nableezy - 14:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
All the territories are considered occupied, some are claimed by Israel and some are not. Nobody says that Israel's claim has any effect on the alleged occupation status, so you can stop repeating this mantra. What we are discussing is whether to represent Israel's claim on the map illustrating this article. “WarKosign” 15:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
It isnt an allegation, it is a fact, and that what you may be discussing, but what I am discussing is including the territories Israel occupies as occupied territories. And there seems to be wide agreement on that at this point. And oh by the way, Israel has said, for both EJ and the Golan, that they have not annexed the territories through the laws applying their civil law to them. So what is actually in dispute is if Israel has even claimed those territories. But what is a fact, attested to by countless sources, is that those territories are occupied Palestinian and Syrian territory, and our article already reflects that. The map will too soon enough. nableezy - 15:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
It is a fact that some people, such as yourself, consider the disputed territories occupied, as you are demonstrating. Of course the map should show all the disputed territories. It should also indicate that there is a difference (not in alleged occupation status, don't worry) between territories claimed by Israel by Golan and Jerusalem laws (whether they should be considered annexed or not) and territories for which Israel did not make any claim. You keep making the same straw man argument - I am not suggesting *not* to show these territories as allegedly occupied, so you can stop arguing against something that nobody proposes. “WarKosign” 15:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Ive brought reliable sources that say this as a fact. You can dismiss that as "some people", but on Wikipedia when reliable sources say something as a fact and no equivalent reliable sources dispute it then it is a fact. I will not be drawn in to this game with you, you are the one making straw man arguments and misusing this page as a forum. And again, Israel has explicitly said that the Golan and Jerusalem Law did not annex, or claim as its territory, either territory. You can keep ignoring that, but I will not. You can keep with the bs about "allegedly", but no, we have that as a fact in the article already. And the map will say it as a fact too. Or we can keep the status quo here. I dont actually care which way, but trying to distinguish between the Golan/EJ and the rest of the occupied territories is non-neutral and will not happen, because as has been demonstrated on this talk page already there is no consensus for that. nableezy - 16:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
"Some people" here being WP:WEASEL words for the entire international community minus the US. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
And what separates the United States' stance from the rest of the international community? The United States is the most powerful nation in the world and a permanent member of the UNSC. Certainly quite a notable opinion.
Most countries, additionally, don't even have a position on the Golan Heights and/or have never stated something in regards to it. The "International community" has yet to take a position in general. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
That's wrong. The UNSC voted unanimously (including the US) on the Golan issue, Res 497.
"null and void and without international legal effect". Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The US position on the Golan is an outlier, and I am unaware of them ever saying EJ is not occupied. But UNSC Resolution 497 remains on the books, sorry. And the line Most countries, additionally, don't even have a position on the Golan Heights and/or have never stated something in regards to it. is completely made up. The Golan being recognized as Syrian territory has been remarked upon by most countries over and over and over. See for example here: Next, the Assembly took up a draft resolution titled “The occupied Syrian Golan” (document A/C.4/76/L.8), adopting it by a recorded vote of 149 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 23 abstentions. By the terms of that text, the organ called upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, and in particular to desist from establishing settlements. Further, it called upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan. See the overwhelming condemnation of the US recognition. It is pure fantasy that this is not something that nearly every state on the planet agrees upon. nableezy - 16:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The unilateral declaration of support by the US, without a supporting vote in the UN, which the US wouldn't even dare to attempt, is basically the diplomatic and international law equivalent of a hastily scrawled scribble on the back of a beer mat. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone have a map? 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Wait here's a good one Israeli-controlled territories.png 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
No, that isnt a good one, that shows just Area C of the WB and not Gaza. Im working on getting one of the orthographic with the occupied territories shaded and not just the Golan. We do already have a map showing all this in the article, this. nableezy - 16:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I would like a map like this one however without the Israeli-controlled parts of the West Bank and coloured green instead of red. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Having a map that distinguishes between the WB/EJ, Gaza, and the Golan is a NPOV violation, as the overwhelming majority view among sources and competent international bodies is that all of these territories have the exact same status, that of occupied by Israel. I will continue to object to any attempt to portray the Israel-centric POV that the map should include Israel proper+EJ+Golan, as that is a basic violation of NPOV. nableezy - 20:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Guys, if you are working on a map of Israel with the occupied territories, please make sure it's dark green and light green respectively, so we respect the format for the infobox of every single country in Wikipedia. We don't want to start another long discussion about why Israel has a different map with its location on the globe with color blue or something. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:601:AD5B:0:0:E39:2AA2 (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The I/P conflict has generated a huge body of international law. In looking at the putative similar articles, one cannot see anything like the coverage of those legal judgments on the status of EJ, the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan which various wiki articles cover exhaustively, and on which basis we arrived at the determination that, with colour coding, the universal consensus as to their status in international law requires uniformity between the four topological objects on our wiki maps. All the dissenters say amounts to a vague, abstract chant about wiki making all of the generally comparable maps of annexed, seized, occupied or settled foreign land identical in colour, with no regard to any criterion other than 'identity' of situations. We follow the evidence, and sources. If other articles just mechanically assume annexed or disputed territories are identical, there's no argument, only a claim without proof, just fiddling with a comfortable illusion that colours perceptions and crashes the known distinctions between similar but different legal realities. NPOV, as Nableezy has argued, determines that our colour convention here at least must reflect not naïve desires for some vague uniformity but NPOV, which is secured by making the territorial realities one colour, reflecting their shared legal status. Nishidani (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
A lot of words to say nothing at all. Do you have anything against color green? It was a simple, non-controversial request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:601:AD5B:0:0:E39:2AA2 (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
My compliments. You are, given your premise, better at the art of précis, saying nothing at all in a mere 22 words of non-response. Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Need we pay attention to a drive by IP with a total of two edits, both unsigned? Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Could you please follow WP:BITE? Shrike (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Was it you? Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:IPDIS: The IP address's suggestion is worth as much weight as your own opinions. Neither does your edit count give you authority over other editors. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
In an article under extended confirmed protection such as this one, how much weight do the opinions or suggestions of non-extended-confirmed editors carry?     ←   ZScarpia   23:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The double standard here is crazy. And there's really no need to write walls of text (they are more disruptive than helpful). Just put the disputed territories in light green like we see in many other articles. It doesn't matter whether the occupation is right or wrong; it doesn't matter whether it is an annexation or something else; a mere territorial claim seems to be enough to color territories light green, as we see in Pakistan. And I see now that the map in Syria doesn't even include the Golan, that's how high their hopes are of ever recovering that territory. - Daveout(talk) 13:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"their hopes" - who, the editors? Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Syria's hope. I'm striking tha sentence, now that im looking closely at the Syrian map (the cartography), it does seem to include the Golan (which should be in light green in any case since they don't control it). - Daveout(talk) 13:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Already said that I will be getting a map with the occupied territories in light green, and will add it with a caption saying the occupied territories are in light green. nableezy - 14:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. It's good to see I-P editors working together for a change. Hope this becomes the norm. - Daveout(talk) 14:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Nableezy Do you have the map? I do not believe it has been posted (I might be wrong, it could have been reverted but I didn't check) 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Have not gotten it done yet sorry. If somebody else wants to make one with all of the occupied territories in light green (WB including EJ, Golan, Gaza), have at it. nableezy - 18:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 Done nableezy - 03:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Add Abraham Accors to the History paragraph (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Accords) Alon Nevet (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜  melecie  talk - 08:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey the population of Israel is ranked 93 now ,can you change it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population Tamar274 (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel's water area is 2.4% and not 2.71%. (Israel in Numbers 2021 Edition) DirtyPotatoEditor (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found out it was data from 2013... DirtyPotatoEditor (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Closing per requester. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Apartheid

The apartheid Israel is practicing is mentioned briefly, with zero elaboration on the systemic discrimination put in place for the two peoples living between the river and the sea. Instead a non-sensical sentence is given half of the mention: "Amnesty's report was rejected by Israel and several other countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany, while it was welcomed by Palestinians and other states and organizations such as the Arab League." What does it even mean to reject a human rights report? And what does it even mean to accept it? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
It's obviously a political position where you register your displeasure with information you don't like in a way that, as you say, is ultimately quite meaningless. Quite so, nobody ever actively "accepts" a report; "rejecting" one is just political spin and a means of avoiding actually discussing any of the substance of such reports. The only thing to "do" with such a report is to read it and either take on board its criticisms, or not read it and/or read it and fail to take onboard its criticisms. To reject it is I suppose in effect the declaration that, for better or worse, you have absolutely no intention of taking on board any criticism. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, I don't think it is correct to say that they rejected the report. They reject use of the word apartheid, which is frankly just a game of semantics. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
That's mainly correct, virtually no-one (on the Israel defender side) engaged with the actual substance of the Amnesty report.Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Secondly, the topic is in the wrong part of the article. It is currently under the "Israeli occupied territories", but the reports by the four human rights groups relate to the treatment of Palestinians in Israel as well. Perhaps it fits best somewhere in the "demographics" section? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I can't recall, maybe only B'tselem and Amnesty covered Israel as well.Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I can see the relevance of it in Demographics, or in politics. I agree it is a wider issue than just "Occupied Territories" as different policies are applied based on ethnicity within Israel, and differently applied to Israeli citizens based on ethnicity. Jeppiz (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The sentence is an interpretation of multiple sources, none of which directly state what is implied by the concept of states rejecting a report. The Haaretz article is interesting in that it begins of by stating that the State Department said that the United States "dismissed the view that Israel's actions towards the Palestinians constitute apartheid", but then illustrates that by quoting first-person statements from the State Department spokesman about his personal views. At least in part, the Wikipedia article sentence appears to be based on editors' interpretations of a journalist's interpretation.     ←   ZScarpia   18:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
While I agree with you, we must still take into account NPOV. CheeseInTea (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
NPOV means reporting what sources say. Selfstudier (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead too long

The lead summary is currently outsized. While not technically breaching the four paragraph guideline, this only being achieved by having gargantuan paragraphs, which is more of a workaround than good editing. It remains very long for what is meant to be a key summary, and pre-modern history component particularly seems bloated compared to that of its peers. The out of Africa stuff is and detailed Roman history exegesis is particularly missing the concept of a 'summary'. I might take an initial crack at paring down some of the worst of the dross-like elements cluttering the section. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 My small contribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=1085407227&oldid=1085338510) that you removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1085426730) should be kept, a similar one is also present in the introduction of the Palestine article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Recognition_by_United_Nations_members. Baptx (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Baptx: I would suggest that it is slightly more relevant on the Palestine page because the statehood of the State of Palestine is in some doubt. This is not the case for Israel, and most typical country pages would not include this. More importantly, it should go into the main article first. The lead summary should not be introducing new facts. (See: MOS:LEAD). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Iskandar323 It is already in the main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Foreign_relations (which mentions 164 countries instead of 165 mentioned on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel, I am not sure which one is correct). Baptx (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I searched for "165" so that explains why I couldn't find it! The priority should be finding a reliable source/correct answer, not lead placement. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The main issue is that the lede does not reflect the article. 80% of the lede is history. A proper lede would have a reasonable balance between the main sections of the article: History, Geography, Demographics, Government and politics, Economy and Culture. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes the lead is very long compared to other countries it’s need to be shorter Tamar274 (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2022

Danielwassetfree (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

i will do good things

 Not done: Edit requests are for requesting changes to a page, and not for requesting the permission to edit said page. Aidan9382 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit Req (section 2.5)

Under section 2.5 (Zionism and the British Mandate), at the bottom of the third paragraph:

During World War I, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent the Balfour Declaration to Baron Rothschild...

Replace "Baron Rothschild" with "Lord Rothschild", as per standard forms of address of UK nobles. Inconceivably (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel/Archive_84&oldid=1098889983"