Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu/Archive 3

indictment in lead
This is the culmination of years of investigations in to corruption, bribery, and influence dealing. Can somebody explain why it is being removed? Honestly the coverage in the body needs to be beefed up, this isnt just a fourth term subsection.  nableezy  - 03:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree this should be in the lead. I think, however, we should stress not the intent to indict (which, per recent sources, will lead to a pre-indictment hearing in 3-4 months - the timetable keeps on getting pushed back) - but rather the on-going investigations (police + prosecutors + now intent to indict) - Investigations involving Benjamin Netanyahu. The cases (and proceedings around them) - are clearly DUE and relevant - being a major aspect of Netanyahu's career for the past few years (including, possibly, being the trigger to the current 2019 elections which were called (a bit before the end of term) by Netanyahu). Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Im fine with your edit here, not so much with the edits by here and here.  nableezy  - 15:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, lets hear from Wikieditor19920 - the second edit is moot at the moment (as we expanded the bribery bit in the lede to well beyond that). The last one - set to be longest PM - I'm not sure about (he was actually set to be longest PM had he served out his current term (until October) and he could still win and be ousted 2-3 months afterwards (e.g. coalition fallout due to the indictment) and fail to each the mark) - both in terms of wording/accuracy (would be better to state date in which he would eclipse), and in including these "service stats" in the lead at all (the rest of the paragraph). I don't have a strong opinion, however, either way on these statistics. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Id personally remove the will be longest if he wins. If he wins and becomes the longest serving we can put is the longest serving.  nableezy  - 16:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK - so I guess we're agreed between us two on the current lead then. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm now getting a sense of the wildly different standards for leads that applies when it comes to different political figures. Why is a recent indictment, not a conviction, not problematic under WP:RECENTISM? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't comment on double-standards, however in my mind the investigations are lede-DUE not because of the recent intent to indict (he hasn't been indicted yet) - but because the investigations have been receiving serious coverage over the past two years or so, and have had political ramifications (e.g. the snap election timing is, per many political analysts, tied to the investigations.... The willingness to sit with an indicted Netanyahu in coalition has been a political issue in the past few months and it may affect the President's decision (on who to give first dibs on building a coalition) post-election, election issue - voters, and some street protests over this). If we were dealing with a recent issue (e.g. intent to indict out of the blue) - I may have had a different opinion - however my opinion is predicated on the whole buildup to this point, and not this particular point. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Except this is not recent material. Again, since you seem to have trouble with this, this is not what just happened. This is literally years of investigations and stories about those investigations. We have a frickin article about all the investigations. Perhaps you should self-reflect on that double standard you seem to think exists.  nableezy  - 16:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The indictment is not recent? It was announced last month. We won't know the significance of the indictment until we can observe whether it leads to a conviction or electoral consequences. This seems to be the standard that's accepted for certain articles but not for others, but I believe we should apply it consistently. I also don't need to be lectured about self-reflection by someone with your history in this area. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You want to actually respond to what people said instead of what you wished they did? A, no the indictment is not recent as, hello, he has not yet been indicted. The investigations however span years. With a ton of coverage of them, also spanning years. Im going to ignore the repeated display of ignorance about me and my history here, as you have no idea what you are talking about. Here, on this article, the investigations of corruption and influence peddling, which hello span years, and the resultant planned indictment are appropriate for the lead, and completely expunging that material violates NPOV. Get it this time? Or would you like to reply to another comment nobody made?  nableezy  - 16:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, OK, your history of topic bans speaks for itself, but I don't want to get personal with you. We have a potential indictment, which may or may not pass WP:10YT for the lead. If it leads to a conviction, it would certainly be notable enough for the lead; if it does not, that's very much in question. I don't understand why you're comfortable with a heavy-handed approach on some BLPs, but not others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we do not have a potential indictment, we have a planned one. And, again, you seem to be missing the point here. This is about years of investigations that have been widely publicized. Not one random indictment. That a sitting prime minister would be charged with a crime is kind of a big deal. Now, since you cant seem to help yourself here, no, this is not a heavy-handed approach to some BLPs and not to others, unlike yourself. You see me adding to the lead of this article the people who have criticized Netanyahu for what they consider to be racist remarks (like the Arabs are voting in droves, we need to stop them, widely criticized as racist, or Israel is not a state for all its citizens, it is a state for only the Jews, likewise criticized as racist)? Do you see me putting in various opinions from his political enemies? No, you do not see me doing that. You can keep ignorantly babbling about double standards but you should actually try to identify the standard. The standard is not, as per your MO, insert derogatory material on politicians I dislike and remove it for politicians I like. No, it is state the pertinent facts and leave the opinions out of the lead. There is in fact a double standard at play here, the problem is that it is yours.  nableezy  - 18:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What a delusional rant. The indictment is not guaranteed and subject to a hearing, per the sources on this topic . What if the hearing results in a non-indictment? Then does this stay in the lead? You're arguing to emphasize something that is ongoing and pending, and may or may not result in substantive action. If we're going to go by the WP:RECENTISM and WP:BALANCE standards generally applied on BLPs, then the content is inappropriate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "What a delusional rant." Statements like these kind of say more about the person making them then the person they are responding to, particularly since Nableezy's comment appears to be perfectly rational, whether or not one agrees with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * as per your MO, You can keep ignorantly babbling, since you cant seem to help yourself are all clear breaches of WP:CIVILITY, and can be accurately described not just as a rant, but a rant directed personally at another editor. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait what? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to start a discussion talking about others supposed double standards then you should be prepared to answer for your own actual ones. You cant start with a personal attack and then be offended when it is turned around on you.  nableezy  - 19:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delusional rant? Nice, I see you cant answer any part of it, so I assume that as you cannot refute any of it that your incredibly witty comeback will be your last word on it here. Youre really out of your depth on this topic though. One more time. Even without the announced planned indictment, the investigations into Netanyahu revolving around bribery and influence peddling are not, a. recent, or b. undue to cover in the lead. Netanyahu has been dogged by these investigations for literally years. The selection of this AG, again over a year ago, was, according to his critics, made to install a loyalist who would not pursue an indictment. The investigations themselves have been reported on again for years. They span several years. Here's another one covering the cases dating to 2017. We have a common understand of what is "recent" I hope, but if not can you please tell me if something is covered in depth over several years, is that "recent"? This is not recent, either in the events or in the reporting. Yes, the AG recently announced his intent to indict Netanyahu. That is the only recent development here. The story itself is a. not recent, and b. reported on in depth for literally years, and c. obviously due to include in the lead. How many times do you think Icewhiz and I agree on something?  nableezy  - 19:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, which part of that diatribe were you expecting an answer to? I just made my point above: if the indictment does not occur, then the entire matter becomes largely insignificant and not lead-worthy. WP:BALANCE states The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. This is currently ongoing and pending, and on that basis, it should not be in the lead. I do happen to think it is significant and would like to see it addressed eventually, but you can't justify inclusion in the lead before charges are even announced. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Being unable to respond to others arguments does not make yours stronger. The material is due for the lead, even without an announced intent to indict. That is agreed to by both Icewhiz and myself.  nableezy  - 20:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to your ridiculous personal attacks, though I am addressing your central contention, that this is worthy for the lead, directly. I'm not impressed by your ipse dixit arguments. A "planned indictment" is not leadworthy, and including this in the lead does present a WP:BALANCE issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You very much have not. You seem to be alone in this view. Repeated slow-motion edit-warring may be reported. Kindly do not attempt to enforce your own view through edit-warring. Nobody has agreed with your position here. Until somebody does, or you make even the slightest attempt at actually addressing my argument, and not the one you wish I had made, I dont see any reason to continue this.  nableezy  - 21:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps counter-arguments with you are just in one ear and out the other, but I'd suggest you take the time to actually read my responses. I don't need to justify anything to you, and second, I know that you're familiar with edit warring and disruptive behavior generally as a repeat violator yourself, but you have no basis to threaten me. This is a WP:BLP and the WP:BURDEN is on you to achieve consensus, and I hardly have any reservations about being "alone" in a discussion limited to a couple of editors. I will repeat it again: a potential or "planned" indictment, which is still subject to a hearing, is not lead-worthy until we know the real-world impact of it, and this paragraph has no place in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I do know what edit-warring is. And I promise you, if you remove this material once more I will report your edit-warring against a clear consensus. If you want to follow policy then try this one.  nableezy  - 13:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, don't threaten me with frivolous and vindictive reports, and I'll note that you've overlooked the fact that a) 3 editors in this discussion have disagreed with mentioning the indictment in the lead, which is not consensus in a discussion of 6, and b) WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE places the burden on those seeking consensus for disputed material. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That burden has been met. There is a clear consensus. Exactly what three editors in this discussion agree with including mention of the indictment? At most, SharabSalam agrees on removing the indictment, however that user very clearly agrees with including the investigations. Icewhiz agrees with including all of the above, as does Zero, as does Jeppiz. Whereas it is you, and only you, arguing on removing the material entirely. So are there any users I missed?  nableezy  - 23:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The news about the Israeli attorney general intentions are recent news and could change. The Investigations involving Benjamin Netanyahu are old news and has a lot of coverage in the media and they are facts that arent changeable and more related so I suggest removing or moving this from the lead section and this remain in the lead. I dont think that someone who is going to read the lead section would want to know about the recent news of the attorney general intentions.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, how refreshing, a reasonable response free of personal attacks! Thank you, SharabSalam, though I have to disagree. I understand that the investigations are longstanding - however, they will essentially be meaningless if they result in a non-indictment, or even in a dismissed charge. Per the WP:10YT, we should consider these factors when placing such material in the lead. I agree completely that these charges are significant now, but I'm not so sure about later on. I'd even venture to say that maybe it's a safe bet that there will be an indictment and a conviction. However, neither I nor you know that, and I'm recommending we take the safer route by leaving it out until we know, which will likely be very soon. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Having read everything you wrote here, I am singularly unimpressed. The announcement of intention to indict Bibi is the biggest piece of news about him in recent months and not mentioning it early in the article would be ridiculous. The lead should reflect things true at the present and can be adjusted in the future, so the argument that the indictment might finally not happen is not valid. Zerotalk 04:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure but been under investigation does not require to get indictment or charged of criminal charges. A similar case would be Donald Trump article although there is no indictment or charge against Trump, there is a mention of the investigation against him in the lead and it would make sense after 10 years even if there is no indictment or a charge against him. These factors that you mentioned simply doesn't alter the fact that there was an investigation against Netanyahu. The reason why I think the intentions of the attorney general should not be in the lead is because IMO they aren't significant or important news and could change after all they are intentions of someone else also not worth mentioning in the lead of BLP.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I care much more about following policy than impressing you, frankly. But don't take my word for it, let's refer to what policy says: The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. In addition, he announcement of intention to indict Bibi is the biggest piece of news about him in recent months does not account for WP:10YT, so apparently you did not read what I wrote carefully. I've participated in a number of discussions over and written leads for several other high-profile articles, and a few weeks ago I may have agreed with you, but ultimately I think it's generally better to err on the side of caution. SharabSalam's point above about the investigation being lead-worthy but the Israeli AG's determination being questionable hits the nail right on the head; I would take it a step further and argue that we can't put the investigations into proper perspective until we learn the result. This gives us every reason to exclude the content for now, and make the necessary adjustments later on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I've been an administrator for more than 14 years and I don't need a newcomer to teach me policy. Neither of your two attempts here actually apply to the situation. You don't have a case and you should stop. Zerotalk 08:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh good, an appeal to authority (and an implicit threat?) instead of an argument. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If I may offer some observations
 * I encourage all users to comment only on the topic, not on each other.
 * There is a clear consensus for mentioning the investigations in the lead, with the indictment briefly mentioned in connection to the investigations though not as a separate them. In my reading, this seems to be the position of Nableezy, Icewhiz, SharabSalam, Zero0000. I also agree with this position myself. It seems only one user is opposed. It might be worth remembering that consensus does not mean unanimity. The consensus seems rather clear.
 * Any user is free to take any position they want on the matter, but everyone involved would do well to remember that this is a sensitive area and disruptions (both edit warring and personal attacks) should be avoided. Jeppiz (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Respectfully, I believe you have misread the discussion I actually have no problem with you assessing consensus, but you should account for nuances in editors positions. qualified their support for the mention of the investigations by saying that the indictment should not be mentioned: The reason why I think the intentions of the attorney general should not be in the lead is because IMO they aren't significant or important news and could change after all they are intentions of someone else also not worth mentioning in the lead of BLP..  stated I think, however, we should stress not the intent to indict (which, per recent sources, will lead to a pre-indictment hearing in 3-4 months - the timetable keeps on getting pushed back) - but rather the on-going investigations (police + prosecutors + now intent to indict). My view is consistent with theirs in this respect, so it would seem we're at a 3-3 deadlock on the mention of the indictment, which is not consensus, while there is consensus for the mention of the investigations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, you think Icewhiz thinks that his own edit should be removed? You seem to have a problem reading what he wrote. This may help you. As might this. Please do not distort other peoples views. There is unanimous agreement here, outside of yourself, for including the investigations. There is one person besides yourself saying the intent to indict should not be included. Thats it. 3-3 deadlock, ha!  nableezy  - 23:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at the top 20 hits for "Netanyahu" in the Washington Post published since the AG's announcement. Only two failed to mention it (which were articles about his "not the state of all of its citizens" statement). It was even the main topic of many articles. Since there is no policy-based argument for censoring this highly notable and reliably sourced information, it is past time to move on. Zerotalk 23:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see agreeing with including the indictment in either of those diffs, but let's ask him to clarify. And WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote, it's often a compromise, and the way the two of you are conducting yourselves, it's clear you have no interest in actual consensus and just want to run roughshod over those who disagree with you. And, I'd appreciate if you would drop the dogmatic and untenable position that you're the only one making a policy argument and that the discussion is over when you say it is. A flurry of recent coverage falls clearly under WP:RECENTISM, and here's why: if there ends up being a non-indictment, this becomes a non-story. You can't predict the future, nor can anyone else here, so we have no basis to believe this warrants inclusion and passes WP:10YT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is about two sentences describing major events in this individual's life. You can't censor it by citing policy that doesn't apply. RECENTISM is about balance, not about avoiding mention of recent events. 10YT is irrelevant since there is zero chance that the lead will be the same 10 years from now. If Bibi is indicted, we will change the lead to report that. If he is not indicted, we will rewrite or remove that part of the lead according to the circumstances. Either way, it is correct and proper content at this point of time. Zerotalk 00:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, ask Icewhiz. Every other person has disagreed with your view that absent an indictment this is a non-story. The fact that we have in-depth coverage literally spanning years proves that point. Every other editor here agrees that the investigations themselves merits inclusion in the lead. Not quite the 3-3 deadlock you claim.  nableezy  - 01:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view the focus in the lede should be on the long running investigations (and political impact thereof) and not on the current status of intent to indict (which could be mentioned).Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead is not necessarily meant to be an elastic component of the article that changes with daily or weekly stories, even if major, unless the long-term significance is immediately clear. That's the purpose of the WP:10YT, which is not meant to be taken literally but to urge editors to assess events with a long-term view. MOS:BLPLEAD says something similar. I've been on the other side of the argument with events that I considered significant but others did not, and it usually resulted in the content being omitted, and in retrospect, that may have been the right decision. Here, we have a pending legal matter against the subject and it is not clear whether or not it will lead to an indictment. An investigation which was concluded without criminal charges will likely not be a major aspect of the subject's bio 10 years from now, and that's something that should be considered carefully. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But in this case there was a political effect - the timing of the snap elections and this being an electoral issue in 2019. Guilty or innocent - this has affected Israeli politics significantly.Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't pretend to have an intimate understanding of Israeli politics, so I'll concede this could very well be true. Worldwide, I think the long-term impact hinges on whether or not an indictment/conviction is forthcoming and whether it leads to his ouster. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This might be the biggest thing to happen in Israeli politics since Ariel Sharon's stroke. I dont know what worldwide long term impact is supposed to mean, but these investigations have been covered at great depth through a period of years, and it has had and is having an impact on the Israeli government. I get you disagree, but I think there is a general agreement, aka a consensus, for its inclusion.  nableezy  - 03:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Spelling error
I noticed that there was a spelling error in the section 1.4, about his time as the finance minister of Israel. Specifically, the second to last paragraph currently reads 'debt-to-GDP ration' where it should read 'debt-to-GDP ratio'. A ratio is used to compare two numbers, not a ration. I would fix the problem myself, but the article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.147.215 (talk • contribs)


 * ✅. El_C 13:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Order
Israel counts their prime ministers only 'once', whether or not they served consecutive terms – Can you provide evidence of this, please? ― Tartan357  Talk 00:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Take a peek at List of prime ministers of Israel, how the numbering is done. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've seen that article. I have not seen any citations in that article that support that numbering approach. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you any reliable sources that all the Israeli prime ministers are numbered wrong? GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , you made a claim that normal ordering doesn't apply: Israel counts their prime ministers only 'once', whether or not they served consecutive terms. Please, back it up or move on. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you change the numberings at the infoboxes of the other Israeli prime ministers who served non-consecutive terms? GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I didn't notice. I agree that they should be changed as well, which will change both of Netanyahu's numbers. I'm happy to go through and do it. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's done your way, Netanyahu would be the 13th & 17th prime minister. Perhaps you should seek input from others on this matter (via random pings), before making such changes. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm free to follow WP:BRD if that's how I want to do things. You and I are discussing now. ― Tartan357  Talk 01:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

,, , , , perhaps these folks can helps us. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , sure, sounds good. I think the sourcing basis is probably not too strong for either convention—the ordering often seems to be something we just do on Wikipedia, although there are exceptions, such as U.S. President, for which my convention is followed. ― Tartan357  Talk 01:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The numbering approach in this situation does seem a little counterintuitive when first encountering it, but I do have to agree with GoodDay. It's how it's done. ~ HAL  333  03:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , what evidence do you have that that's how it's done? ― Tartan357  Talk 04:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . DrKay (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you! I'm happy to concede the consensus now that some sources have been provided. RT is a deprecated Russian propaganda outlet, BTW, although the others are more than sufficient. ― Tartan357  Talk 06:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And this Hebrew source, which clearly counts individuals regardless of number of non-consecutive terms, is as official as you could expect to find. Animal lover 666 (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2021
In the summary chart near the top of the page, the same date range is indicated for both terms as president. The text correctly indicates the actual date range for each term. 66.44.127.87 (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what exactly you want:
 * Bibi was never president. He was, and still is, prime minister. And his 2 seperate periods in this position are clearly correct. One potentially confusing point is that the first term he succeeded Peres, while the second term started with Peres as president.
 * There is also info about him being Likud chairman. This time includes his term as prime minister. Animal lover 666 (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Ben  ❯❯❯  Talk  17:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2021 (2)
Can someone please reference me the claim, that Benjamin Netanyahu was the first to be born after the Declaration of Independence of Israel (19 May 1948), yet he was born a year later (21 Oct 1949)? Ricorodrig Ricorodrig (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't believe he was the "first to be born after the Declaration of Independence of Israel" given what you stated. But it appears he is the first Prime Minister of Israel to be born in Israel after the Declaration of Independence of Israel. See https://artsandculture.google.com/entity/benjamin-netanyahu/m0fm2h?hl=en I hope this clarifies your question. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2021
Add Category:Members of the 24th Knesset (2021–). Quacelinz3 (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Number   5  7  16:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2021
I wanted to add his allegiance in his infobox, which would be Israel. It's a bit obvious but other pages such as George W. Bush, and Stefan lövfen have it. Der under Smurf (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. If you are referring to the infobox parameter allegiance, it would be helpful if that parameter were documented with a description of where and how it should be used, and what should be placed in that field. The word "military" does not appear in our article for allegiance, so it is not easily comprehensible by someone unfamiliar with this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)