Talk:Israel/Archive 67

Map in lead
I propose adding a de facto map of Israel in the lead, along with the currently used 1949–1967 map. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, a map in the lede should reflect official situation only. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

That's inconsistent with the articles on other countries. De facto-controlled territories are usually in light-green. Dank Chicken (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this, with separate color coding for annexed (Golan) and not annexed territory. De facto control on the ground is by Israeli authorities.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * +1 Sokuya (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per previous discussions, reliable sources, and common sense. Even the government of Israel differentiates between (the majority of) the West Bank and the other territories occupied by Israel, applying civilian law in the Golan Heights and in Jerusalem and its suburbs and military law in the rest of the West Bank. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A map Illustrated what you just explaining would be great.--Moxy (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

*Support Israel reportedly has world's third biggest nuclear arsenal, so it can never be forced militarily. The second longest-serving Prime Minister in Israel's history, Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as many others, have said that Golan Heights will remain part of Israel forever. Also many Israeli ministers and politicians, as well as David Friedman, Donald Trump's ambassador to Israel, have greenlighted and expressed desire to annex the West Bank. Moreover, Israeli President Reuven Rivlin said Israel should annex all the occupied land it claims sovereignty over, including West Bank, and grant full citizenship to those falling under its extended jurisdiction Israel already is speeding up annexation of most of the West Bank. Israeli lawmakers are already writing bills to annex West Bank. Back in June 2017, two Israeli ministers have discovered a loophole to apply the bulk of new Israeli laws to Area C of the West Bank without formally annexing the region to sovereign Israel.. So it is almost guaranteed that Israel's borders will remain as is, unless it expands more into Syria due to the never-ending insurgency there.--Pailsdell (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC) The Golan Heights are not in Israel, the West Bank is not in Israel. Showing that Israel occupies these territories is appropriate, showing they are a part of Israel is a gross violation of NPOV.  nableezy  - 18:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless Israel is aiming its nuclear arsenal at Wikipedia's server farm, I don't see how any of what you wrote is relevant. Please cite policies or guidelines to support your argument, not the IDF or politicians. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, as long as it is clearly marked which territory is recognized internationally and which is not. It could be useful to also indicate (differently) West Bank and Gaza, areas said to be occupied by Israel. Per image use policy "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter", so having more information in an image servers this purpose better, as long as care is taken to ensure the image does not misrepresent the facts or misleads the reader. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A map showing occupied territories as being part of Israel is not "de facto", its a lie.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion of the proposed map. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 06:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone add this map?
My proposal seems to have majority support, so I made a map showing the entities requested above. , uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not operate on majority support, this map is a violation of WP:NPOV in that it portrays a minority position, that the Golan or East Jerusalem is in Israel, as though it were a fact.  nableezy  - 18:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is actually a good start. But color the golan and east Jerusalem differently. Area A should also receive a separate color than neighboring countries. West and east Jerusalem should also be color coded. This can be NPOV - it all depends on the captions and proper marking of what is in dispute and whyIcewhiz (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The map of Israel should reflect facts on the ground, not what people think or feel. Currently Golan and West Bank are part of Israel, but not Gaza. Gaza is only blocked, just like Yemen is by Saudi Arabia. You never know, tomorrow Israel may claim Mecca, then by your logic, we would have to change its status as occupied by Saudi territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pailsdell (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I've now illustrated Jerusalem (West/East) more clearly, spelled out the Golan Heights on the map, and added a note about Israel's internationally recognized borders to the image. Dank Chicken (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That map can not be in the article as it claims Golan heights and East Jerusalem is part of Israel, which it isn't. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It is, and it has been for decades now. Unless the Muslims can invade and reclaim Golan heights and Jerusalem from nuclear Israel, chance of which is near zero, Golan heights and all of Jerusalem will forever remain part of Israel. The map reflects current situation/facts on the ground. It about who actually has what, not who wants to have what. It's like we won't call you a billionaire unless you have at least a billion. Regardless of what you claim you are worth. Facts matter. So-called Palestine, which is a virtual state (not really existing if you believe Gaza still occupied) once claimed all of Jerusalem, now they claim East Jerusalem, in the future most probably they won't claim Jerusalem at all.--Pailsdell (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument is irrelevant for wikipedia purposes. It is not a question of whether we believe it should be a part of Israel or will remain so in the future. According to international law and most sources Golan is not part of Israel so in the map it must be distinct from the rest of of Israel. Of course for any practical purpose and according to Israel's law Golan is currently part of Israel, therefore it (and East Jerusalem) should appear in the map, distinctly colored and appropriately titled explaining the situation. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a de facto map, so there needs to be one color for de facto Israel. I clearly wrote on the map which areas are recognized and not. Dank Chicken (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want this to pass you should color the Golan and East Jerusalem radically different - say purple, and NPOV your map title.Icewhiz (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While I might agree with you, if you realistically want to convince other editors here who are "allergic" to any notion of Israeli control over territory - you should make this much-much clearer on the map (e.g. a clearly different color, not just a caption) and NPOV your image name. I think a clear map that clearly shows what is under contention could (after some opposition) pass here. The map you are currently suggesting, while it may received some support, won't.Icewhiz (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how "De facto map of Israel" could be considered a POV title in any way. I think a different caption is fairly appropriate, to illustrate that Area C is controlled, but not annexed, by Israel. Dank Chicken (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps try getting a “de facto” map of Russia added in the lede at Russia, and then come back here...
 * Icewhiz is giving you sensible advice.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification
The proposal to add a de facto map in sensible. Unfortunately, the arguments against it, loud as they may be, are contrary to current practice. Several users have argued against using the argument that Israeli control of Golan and East Jerusalem is not recognized. With all due respect, that argument is moot. WP practice is to show the de facto situation, not the de jure situation. So WP practice is clear, and users arguing against changing the map by referring to WP policies are - to put it simply - wrong. Is there an argument to treat Israel differently than the above examples? No such argument has been made. If none is made, the map should be changed, using light green for Golan and East Jerusalem. Jeppiz (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The map of Georgia shows the de facto situation, with breakaway Russian puppet states in light green, despite international law considering them Georgian territory.
 * The map of Moldova shows the de facto situation, with breakaway Transnistria in light green, despite international law considering it Moldovan territory.
 * The map of Cyprus shows the de facto situation, with Northern Cyprus in light green, despite international law considering it Cypriot territory.
 * The map of Morocco shows the de facto situation, with Western Sahara in light green, despite international law not recognizing Morocco's occupation.
 * Light Green is the right answer for the annexed areas of East Jerusalem and the Golan. The non-annexed territories under military occupation (Area C) need to be in a different colour (very light green). The Palestinian-administered territories which are still considered to be under occupation (Gaza and West Bank A & B) need a third colour, which is not the same as neighbouring territories. Then it will be consistent with the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I made Israel's internationally recognized borders orange, so it's extra clear now. But I don't want change any more colors as it might be too confusing for the average reader. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I Suggest you change the image name/title (which causes spurious objections that aren't of substance - but you should avoid this) - to say Map of Israel and territorial claims, change the color of east Jerusalem+Golan (annexed) to one color, and areas B+A to yet another (Gaza+West Bank), Area C to a different color. If you do this - I think you'll have a good chance at building consensus here - you'll still face a hard time with some editors, but as Jeppiz points out above - you'll be in the common practice as per other countries.Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be an incorrect title as Israel doesn't have any territorial claims, because the Knesset hasn't decided the definitive future of the Israeli-controlled territories. There is the state of Israel ('49–'67 borders + annexed E. Jer. & Golan) and the Israeli-controlled, but not annexed (Area C of the West Bank).

The reason I've made PA the same colour as the other neighbours is because, not Israel and PA. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. Please read the article - the international community considers these areas to be under Israeli occupation. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Occupied => Controlled (If occupied, also controlled. If controlled, not nessecarily also occupied.) See Logical equivalence. Therefore, controlled is a more fitting and neutral term than occupied. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Map of Israel West Bank and Gaza" - would this name work for everybody ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No, because the map doesn't highlight the PA. It focuses on Israeli sovereign territories only. It's not a map of Gaza just because Gaza happens to be in the map. By that logic, the name would have to be "Map of Israel, West Bank, and Gaza, and parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt". I can accept "Map of Israeli-controlled territories", even though i would favor "De facto map of Israel", because that's what de facto means. Dank Chicken (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you still talking about the same map as before, or has a new map been posted somewhere? (And if a new map has been posted, please highlight the link, because it's lost in this wall of text.) If you're just discussing changing the title but not the content, you're wasting your time. It doesn't matter what you call it if the content makes it unacceptable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about the map you linked, but now it has changed colors for Israel's internationally recognized borders. Maybe the update was delayed, but if you click on the link now, the newest version should appear. Dank Chicken (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To date, ALL of West Bank still is occupied/controlled/belongs to Israel. Per NYTimes, Mahmoud Abbas recently said "if the American-sponsored Middle East peace talks fail, he may dissolve the authority and hand sole responsibility for the West Bank back to Israel." Israel Defense Forces operates in ALL of West Bank as it's still part of Israel. --Pailsdell (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And NATO keeps operating in Norway. That doesn't mean the country is occupied/controlled/belongs to the United States. Dank Chicken (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I would use the title "Israel and Israeli controlled territories". The West Bank and Gaza are not necessarily claimed by Israel, but are still controlled. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That's just a longer way of saying "de facto". But if you really want to change it, isn't just "Israeli-controlled territories" better? Because where do you draw the line between "Israel" and "Israeli controlled"? Also, Gaza isn't really controlled, but rather blockaded by Israel and Egypt. Dank Chicken (talk) 07:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That part about Gaza is true. Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe "Israel, Israeli-controlled territory, and neighboring territory"? The title is going to be clunky regardless. I prefer the clunky title over "de facto Israel" because using the phrase de facto can imply that Wikipedia only goes by de facto boundaries, when as far as I know that is not a policy. The phrase "Israeli-controlled territory" is vague, but that is the point. Color codes would get rid of any vagueness in the image. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

How about "De facto territorial control in Israel and surrounding areas"? That's about as factual and neutral as it gets... Also, Merry Christmas! Dank Chicken (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That title works for me. Also, thanks, and you too! PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

One idea for a map is to use both de facto and de jure claims on territory. The result would be similar to the map Dank Chicken and other users proposed. For color codes, I would use one color for pre-1967 Israel, which the world recognizes as Israeli territory and where Israel has civil jurisdiction. A second color is needed for East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which Israel has annexed and is under Israeli civil law, but which has largely not been internationally recognized as part of Israel. A third color should be used for the West Bank and Gaza, acknowledging varying degrees of Israeli control in that area, that Israel has not annexed the territory, and that the international community largely regards that territory as part of a future Palestinian state. A fourth color is for neighboring countries. Appropriate, NPOV captions are also necessary. I am undecided on whether Area C should receive its own color or simply be part of the West Bank's color, although I am leaning against it since Israel has not annexed Area C nor has it officially claimed it (correct me if I am wrong on whether Israel claims it). The main reason to include a separate color would be to demonstrate Israeli control over that area, but that issue may be too specific to be in a lead image. Regardless, the areas should definitely be included as a map in the body of the article, where they are not currently included. Overall, these color codes do the best job of illustrating both Israel's de facto and de jure claims on territory. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think area C should have a separate color. First and foremost since this will the situation on the ground clearer to the reader. Area C is dinstinct both in demographics and in that it is under direct Israeli military occupation as opposed to rule by the Palestinian Authority.Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This entire conversation is predicated on a assertion without any backing, that there should be a map in an encyclopedia article on Israel that conflates Israeli territory and Israeli-occupied territory. We have maps that show the territory that Israel controls, and they do it in a NPOV way by showing that there is not simply a blob called "de facto Israel". We already have a map that includes all of this material, and it already is in the article, this map in the section Israeli-occupied territories. Including a map of the occupied territories that does not specify that those territories are occupied is a violation of NPOV, and it cant be used in the article. You want to move this map up to the lead sure, but for some reason Im guessing the Greater Israel backers here wont want to do that.  nableezy  - 03:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. You can argue until the cows come home about what to call the new map, but it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of making it into the article. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

NEW MAP
Since the adding of a de facto map of Israel (named Israeli-controlled territories) to the lead was supported almost unanimously, but the coloring and phrasings were disputed, I've now made a . The annexed East Jerusalem and Golan Heights now have their own color, and I've also marked the "Green Line" and which areas are and aren't internationally recognized as Israeli. Now that I've double-checked the whole discussion above, the inclusion of such a map in the lead of this article is supported by me, Icewhiz, Sokuya, Moxy, Pailsdell, WarKosign, ɱ, Jeppiz and PointsofNoReturn. It's only opposed by SupremeDeliciousness, MShabazz and nablezzy. So far, NINE (9) editors are in favour and THREE (3) are against. Dank Chicken (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this should be in (coloring, titles, captions, etc - could be discussed) - the map actually makes clear what is what.Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Where did you get this from: "Since the adding of a de facto map of Israel to the lead was supported almost unanimously" ? There are several editors disagreeing above about changing the map in the lead. The map you want to ad is also not "de facto", this is de facto: and its already in the article. The map you want to ad is a false map as it shows East Jerusalem and Golan Heights as part of Israel, and therefore can not be added anywhere into the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 8 editors in favour and 3 against. [Edit: it's actually 9 - 3] Yes, I would call that almost unanimously. E. Jerusalem and Golan are annexed, which means they are in fact part of Israel. You should be glad I still gave them a separate colour than the rest of Israel. Tibet actually has the same colour as the rest of China in the lead of the latter. The map you linked is old and incorrect. East Jerusalem and Golan are annexed, not occupied. The Gaza Strip is neither occupied, nor annexed. The only entity that could be seen as occupied is the rest of the West Bank. Dank Chicken (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest using a different name than de facto. However the current version of the map clearly shows East Jerusalem and the Golan in a diffferent color from pre 1967 Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I belive Israeli-controlled territories is a generally accepted name based upon the discussion above. Changing name now. Dank Chicken (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dank Chicken, your personal opinion that East Jerusalem and Golan heights are "part of Israel" and "not occupied" is disagreed by the entire international community and is a violation of npov which is a Wikipedia guideline. The map can not say anything of these things you are proposing.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't be preposterous. I clearly wrote internationally recognized for the dark blue and annexed for the light blue areas. That is strictly factual. If an area is occupied, then military law is applied, not civil law. Nobody would seriously consider Crimea occupied; because it's annexed. Same goes for East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Dank Chicken (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * First, 8 out of 11 may be "almost unanimous" in a banana republic, but nobody who has ever taken elementary school math could describe it that way. Second, Wikipedia is not a democracy.
 * Finally, your assertions notwithstanding, the territories occupied by Israel (they're not "controlled" except euphemistically) are not part of Israel. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is why I gave area C a completely different colour. It may not annexed by Israel, but it's militarily and civilly controlled by it, and has hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens living there. Which is why it should neither be marked as Israeli, nor be marked as part of another country. If you scroll though this whole discussion, you'll find that almost everyone agrees with me. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it's not a dictatorship either (where one of a few persons can dictate everything). Dank Chicken (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your map has the light and dark blue in the same box with the name "Israel", so you are including occupied lands as "part of Israel". This is factually false and a violation of npov.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Either you're a liar or ignorant (I genuinely hope the latter is the case) because E. Jer. and Golan are not occupied. Nobody considers them occupied, except for you and maybe North Korea and Iran. How many times do I have to explain this, an annexed area cannot also be occupied since civil law, and not military law, applies. Dank Chicken (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and without international legal effect." "2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision.". Your fake map is not getting into the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Here you demonstrated two opposing POVs, occupied vs annexed. The map should be careful in not giving preference to either, and just to present available information (that Golan heights and East Jerusalem are controlled by Israel, while the legality is disputed) in a neutral and factual manner. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 22:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dank Chickens map does not do that. It is literally claiming East Jerusalem and Golan "are part of Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To quote your own source; "[...] Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration [...]" - that's precisely what annexed means. Wikipedia even lists East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as examples of annexation in the article lead. However, it's hardly news that the annexation isn't recognized by the UN, which is why I gave the internationally recognized and the annexed territories different colors. Now that I've double-checked, such a map is actually accepted by me, Icewhiz, Sokuya, Moxy, Pailsdell, WarKosign, ɱ, Jeppiz and PointsofNoReturn. It's only opposed by you, MShabazz and nablezzy. So it's 9 - 3. Dank Chicken (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The map must clearly state that West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights are internationally recognized as occupied territories. Its also not acceptable to have Israel in dark blue and the occupied East Jerusalem and occupied Golan Heights in light blue, the colors are to similar, they should be completely different, like orange or pink. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, annexed ≠ occupied. Yours is a minority view and I won't damage my factually correct map by making the legend false. I'm afraid your misconception has been disproven and outnumbered throughout this whole discussion. Regarding the colouring, I have a Wikipedia precendent on my side. Crimea is Russian-annexed, just like east Jerusalem and Golan are Israeli-annexed. And in the map in the lead of the Russia article, Crimea is illustrated with another shade and not another colour than internationally recognized Russia; excactly like my map. End of debate. Dank Chicken (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Minority view? The entire world and the UN says West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights are occupied by Israel, so the map must clearly state this. Or else, it cant be added to the article. Also, calling grey "neighboring countries", while not having Golan Heights as grey implies that Golan heights is part of Israel, so at the very least the area should be striped grey. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to write this? ANNEXED DOES NOT EQUAL OCCUPEID!!! Regarding the colouring, I'll make Golan blue/grey striped when you convince the editors on the Russia's talk page to give Crimea grey stripes. If you fail to do so, please stop nagging me about this. Dank Chicken (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Rhetoric here aside, and possible fixes to the map captions, the proposed map clearly shows a what pre 1967 is, what was annexed (and under civil adminstration) though unrecognized internationally, what is still under military occupation, and the areas of the Palestinian authority. This is valuable information for the beginning of the article, placing the reader in context.Icewhiz (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * - I suggest legend as follows:
 * dark blue - Israel, as recognized by the international community.
 * light blue - Golan & East Jersusalem, annexed, not recognized.
 * Light green - Area C West Bank, Israeli military occupation.
 * Grey - Neighboring countries and the Palestinian Authority. Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The Palestinian Authority of the West Bank is Israeli-occupied, along with area C, whereas the Gaza Strip is not. I just think that's an important distinction to make. I also clarified the PA borders on WB & Gaza. Dank Chicken (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - Fixed! I made a few changes to your proposal:
 * Dark blue - Israel, as recognized by the international community
 * Light blue - East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, annexed by Israel
 * Light green - Area C of the West Bank, Israeli civil and military control
 * Grey - Neighboring countries and the Palestinian Authority
 * West Bank - also known as the Judea and Samaria areas; occupied by Israel
 * Support. You might have some additional quibbling on captions - but I think this map greatly clarifies visually the status of various territories in and around Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and happy new year! Dank Chicken (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the map itself is probably as good as it's likely to get. Thank you, Dank Chicken, for the time and effort you put into it. I have a few thoughts and questions about the language in the captions and key. These questions are not intended solely for Dank Chicken, but for all editors:
 * 1) I'm concerned about describing Israel's territory, in dark blue, as "recognized by the international community". As I have written elsewhere, in the following discussion I believe, the "international community" doesn't recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. Some states don't recognize Israel at all. What does the language add to the map? Would the reader be less well-informed if the text were removed?
 * 2) On the other hand, I think describing East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as "annexed by Israel" without including the fact that the annexation isn't recognized by the international community is only telling a half-truth.
 * 3) What is the "Israeli civil and military control, military law applies", with respect to Area C, intended to convey to the reader? (Confusion, I'm afraid.) Can we simply say that military law applies, the same way we say civil law applies in Israel proper and the territories it claims to have annexed?
 * 4) The reddish/pinkish border is described as "Borders for the Palestinian Authority". I think the phrase should be "Borders of the Palestinian Authority" (not "for"). I also wonder whether we can improve on that by saying something more about the border, perhaps by referring to the Oslo II Accord or changing it to "Borders negotiated with the Palestinian Authority" (or "with the PLO", if one wants to be precise)?
 * 5) Because of NPOV, ArbCom decisions, and consensus, I don't think the phrase "also known as the Judea and Samaria areas" belongs below the name West Bank. See WP:WESTBANK. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment re occupied territories I oppose this map going into the article with the occupied territories grouped together with and the same color as independent neighboring countries. It implies a nonsensical perspective on the rights and freedoms of the Palestinians living in those areas. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On a technical note, the map should be saved as an svg (not a png) so that others can easily edit it. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * My map clearly states that all of the West Bank is occupied by Israel. However, the Gaza Strip is subject to an Egyptian-Israeli blockade, not occupation. When the final version of the map is decided, I'll change it to an svg. Dank Chicken (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Malik Shabazz, for appreciating my map and sharing your concerns!

I only have objections for two of your proposals:
 * 1) Since I didn't include the annexed territories under Israel, as recognized by the international community, I think that explains that they are not recognized by the international community because they fall under another description. The UN did recognize (see paragraph five) Israeli sovereignty over dark-blue territory when they admitted Israel as a memer in 1949.
 * 2) I don't think the Oslo II Accords should be mentioned as the PA's territory expanded to inlclude all of the Gaza Strip in 2005.

In your opinion, what excactly should the language in the captions and key be? Dank Chicken (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You could change the dark blue to "pre-1967 Israel". Adding a separate color for the Palestinian Authority might make sense - if it doesn't make the map look like a kaleidoscope - do it. Maybe as a different shade of grey or with stripes. Regarding "East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights" - if we can't agree on short enough text below - we could just leave it at that - "East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights" which is factual. Same for "Area C of the West Bank". There is only so much you can place in a legend - if it becomes too complex - just leave the place names, and have the article explain. Added by Icewhiz 07:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The map is only supposed to illustrate Israel. If I were to give the PA its own colour, I'd have to give all of the neighbouring countries separate colours. Pre-1967 is a little dubious. That could refer to kingdoms of Israel and Judah during the Iron Age, or the Hasmonean dynasty during the 1st century BCE. I would have to change the name to "1949–1967 Israel" but if I remove that the dark blue is internationally recognized, I'd have to write on all other areas that they aren't, and that would make the legend so much longer. I'd appreciate if you could propose a final text, and then I'll compare it to mine and Malik Shabazz's. Dank Chicken (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the PA - that is your view point. Several sources still consider the PA (including Gaza) to still be occupied by Israel. Merits of this argument aside, it is not being made regarding Jordan, Egypt, or the vast majority of Lebanon. I suggest captioning as follows (in the case there is no consensus for longer text):

This is factual - leaving all quibbling over other explaining text to outside the image. On the "West Bank" map caption, ditch "also know as the....".Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Israel 1950-67 lines.
 * East Jerusalem & Golan Heights.
 * Area C of West Bank.
 * Palestinian Authority.
 * Other Countries.
 * The only problem is, that won't inform the reader on what is recognized, annexed, occupeid, or none of the above. Most people throughout this discussion, including me, have stressed the importance of the map explaining the status of the territories marked in the map. I could shorten the text, but not that much. What about:


 * Dark Blue - Israel, size when admitted to the UN
 * Light Blue - East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, annexed by Israel
 * Light Green - Area C of the West Bank, occupied by Israel
 * Grey - Neighbouring countries, including the Palestinian Authority

Israel's 1949–1967 borders are marked in green on the map and written in the legend. The map also states that all of the West Bank is occupied by Israel. The borders of the PA are also marked on the map and explanied in the legend. What I can do is remove the rest of the text, if deemed to be excessive. Dank Chicken (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am essentially suggesting you separate the issues. Get the map in - and fight over more detailed captions afterwards. Technically, the captions do not have to be in the map - e.g. see the map at Nazi Germany where there is a map and then captions for the color codes beneath. e.g.:
 * {{Legend|#000080|Israel 1950-67 lines.}}
 * {{Legend|#a5dfa5|Area C of West Bank}}
 * ...Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

, I've changed it to match your proposal, with small detail changes. See Dank Chicken (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Add this map?
My question goes as following:

Should this map be added to the lead of this article?

Also, feel free to come with suggestions if you feel the map and/or its description needs to be improved in any way. Happy new year, Dank Chicken (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The map adds valuable detail in showing what exactly is under contention and where, and the various different legal statuses of different areas. There might be some quibbling over captions - but the map itself is valuable.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. At you proposed adding map "along with the currently used 1949–1967 map". Infobox cannot contain three maps, two of which are different versions of the same type of map. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , it doesn't nessecarily need to be in the infobox, put it anywhere as long as it's in the lead. Dank Chicken (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about WP:LEAD? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, excactly. Dank Chicken (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lead section cannot have images. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to whom? Dank Chicken (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

According to common practice and Wikipedia guidelines. Look at other countries' articles. If you mean aligning it to the left it will create MOS:SANDWICHING. It cannot be below infobox either because then it will appear in the History section. And besides that, if there's one map decided to be the best one, there shouldn't be other versions of it. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by versions? This is a completley different map. And it wouldn't appear in the history section if you were to put it just after the last sentence in the lead. It would appear right next to the content table. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Both are maps of Israel. Having two in the lead would be superfluous. And images in Wikipedia articles are not arranged the way you described, ask anyone. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I belive the map is essential to the lead and as it seems, most editors agree with me. Regarding the excact placement, that's just a technical detail that can be fixed by testing different placements though out the lead (inside or outside the infobox). Dank Chicken (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support.--Calthinus (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose:
 * 1. If you look at any country, that doesn't have overseas territories, most of them have just one map, which shows it's position on the globe. If there's a second map, it's always a map from the UN or the CIA.
 * 2. The proposed map is vertical, which will make infobox too long.
 * 3. It's just looks like someone's Photoshop creation, which it is. Other countries' maps are done using uniform design and colors (green or red) and are not cluttered with legends and writings. This article already have a map with all this stuff at Israel. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Israel isn't like most countries. It controls different territories with different statuses, hence different colours are needed. And there is no rule at Wikipedia that says the maps have to be from certain organisations. Obviously, you haven't read, where it's explained why that map is outdated. Dank Chicken (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's shouldn't be in the lead. China controls different territories with different statuses (see One country, two systems and Territorial disputes in the South China Sea), but has one simple map. There's probably other examples that I don't know about. If the UN map in the Infobox is bad it should be removed, leaving one orthographic map in the Infobox and the proposed map in the article's body. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of China, isn't more informativity better than less? That's how I'm looking at this.--Calthinus (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In Infobox it's the other way around. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Who the fuck is Mariolis MG? I'm sick and tired of being accused of things without any evidence whatsoever other than the fact that we both have blank user pages and we edited the same article once. Wow, how compelling... First SupremeDeliciousness, and now you. Get off my back, god damn it! Dank Chicken (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note is for sure a sockpuppet. I think he's the same person as . Both have similar behavior and interests. They created and blanked their user pages soon after registering and edited the same article at the same time: link. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * TriggerHippie, if you think someone is a sock, the best idea is not to use that to discredit them on talkpages as then it looks like you are throwing WP:ASPERSIONS. Instead, you should open an WP:SPI case. Cheers. --Calthinus (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * see . Onceinawhile (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here: Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Dank Chicken (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose we are moving in the right direction, but Dank was wrong to have started this rfc before resolving the outstanding concerns raised in the thread above. He was also wrong to have started on this without coming clean re his past history, per my link above, but that is another matter. I oppose this for the following reasons:
 * It is NPOV to show the areas of Palestinian civil control as “neighboring countries”. The Israeli military occupation of these areas, even with a civil understanding, is real and should not be ignored in a “de facto” illustration of Israel today, as illustrated here and here
 * It is NPOV to show all of Area C as de facto Israel. It would be correct to show only the areas allocated to Israeli settlements per
 * Area C and East Jerusalem should be noted as “still to be negotiated”, as this is their status under Oslo. This is how Mark Rosenblum showed it here
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Civilly speaking, the PA is a neighbouring country, but I agree that it's important to mention all of the West Bank is still Israeli-occupied, which I did on the map. If I was to highlight every single built-up area, the map would become a mess. But all of the settlements are located in area C, and I wrote that Israel maintains military and civil control over that area. I could add NOTE: The final status of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is still to be negotiated. Would you accept the map if I did that, or do you have any further suggestions? Dank Chicken (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would deal with my third point, but not the first two. I am not proposing showing all the built up areas. Only (1) not conflating the PA areas with neighboring countries, and (2) differentiating between Israeli civil and military control areas. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose, this is a pov pushing map not explaining to the readers that the West bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights are internationally regarded as occupied territories. There is no reason to have a map like this in the article, specially not in the lead, the current map: shows all of Israel, there is no reason to replace it, specially not with a fake map like this one. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, Dank Chicken who created this fake map is a confirmed sockpuppet per this SPI: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still a valuable map - sock puppetry (elsewhere) aside. POV issues can be address with proper captioning.Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with here--this isnt a partisan issue in fact, the map is valuable because it is informative.--Calthinus (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You could switch POV all together with the captions, e.g. maps with caps here Israeli-controlled territories.png of the West Bank, Zionist military occupation}}{{Legend|#bfc9ca|Neighbouring countries, including the Palestinian Authority''' (Under continued occupation and harassment by Zionists)}}{{Legend|#000000|Mock legend to make a point}}]]. Which is a POV that might pass muster in arwiki or fawiki. The map itself is informative since it actually shows which regions are what in the area - giving context for discussion about those areas in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

SPI case is not closed yet, so striking all of the user's comments was premature. It is most likely that an admin will confirm clerks findings, but due process should be followed. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I see that those who support this map didn't bother to preview it and don't care about the Manual of Style. Even Dank Chicken's idiotic suggestion, in his proposal, to add this as a third map to the Infobox did not raise any questions. People are just eager to stuff this article more and more. The size of this page is already one of the largest among other countries, with one of the longest leads – let's make the Infobox the longest! The Infobox already overlaps the Etymology section. With this amateur monstrosity as a map, it will go down to the History section, messing up the images. And if the image in the Etymology is aligned to the left, it will cause MOS:SANDWICHING. Also, the legend in this map would be unreadable, and the huge caption below it has no place in the Infobox. The only legitimate questions are whether the current UN map in the Infobox should stay or go, and whether this map should replace the map in Israel or not. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The current maps in the infobox are utterly useless, i cant see a thing on them, they are so small and unclear. the map shown above looks so much better. even if people disagree with this map, can the page not have a map similar to this in size and style, so its easier for people to see and more informative? the current map in the infobox is pointless. Yandanta (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ↑ It's another sock of Dank Chicken: Sockpuppet investigations/Willschmut. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No im not a sockpuppet, nor have i been involved in this discussion previously. I just commented on it as it was right at the bottom of the talk page initially (till you merged it), and i agreed that the map currently on the infobox is dreadful and should be replaced with something more clear. I can understand why youd be suspicious of a new account joining the conversation, but im not that person. thanks Yandanta (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The only chance you have is to come clean – about everyhing in your past history – and ask for forgiveness. With a bit of rehab, and more respect for the community here, perhaps you could be an asset to the project. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Support. The captions may very well need a little polishing, but the map itself is much better than the one in the article. Nystart!! (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ↑ Confirmed sock blocked. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)