This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Green Line (Israel) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Green Line (Israel). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Green Line (Israel) at the Reference desk. |
I deleted the "The Fallacy of the “1967 Borders”" section. The passage was simply taken from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs site - a Jewish/Israeli lobby group. It is not only not a primary source, but it is a ridiculously bias source. I'm happy for the section to be returned if properly referenced but anyone returning it - PLEASE TRY TO BE BALANCED! Pages like this end up absolutely worthless if everyone just fills them up with divisive political opinions. 59.167.126.79 ( talk) 10:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The Jewish prisoners taken during the Israeli war of Independence is mentioned. Why no mention of the Arab POWs and forced labour gangs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry keep on forgetting to sign Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention the DMZ between the Green line and the Blue line in Jerusalem 1949, and between the Green line and Red line of the Jordanian and Israeli forces. Why? The Sovereignty over the DMZ was the biggest cause of clashes in the Latrun area and Jerusalem. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is reference No. 2 in? Reference 2 is about Israeli security post 67 and nothing to do with the Green Line. The article is nothing more than the strategic argument for why Israel wishes to keep the Golan Heights and West Bank post 67 and nothing to do with the Green Line. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The term settlement is widely used for Israeli localities in the West Bank (and to a lesser extent, Golan Heights), although a certain user has recently been edit-warring to insert the inherently POV word 'colony'. I believe there is consensus on this issue already, and would be glad if someone pointed out the centralized discussion which took place in the past (I can't find it). Additional opinions are welcome. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"Localities"? I have no objection to the use of the word "settlement" to describe the Israeli colonies. What I object to is the insistence that it must be slavishly adhered to at all times. I fail to understand, even after a careful reading of the definition of the word "
colony", why you find that term so objectionable, or how on Earth it could be considered POV.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 10:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"Even if somehow the word 'colony' was factually correct in describing Israeli settlements..."' - please see
colony if you have any doubts. I can't see the the problem with NPOV, how exactly does the use of the phrase "Israeli colony" contravene policy? I'm afraid I find your analogies spurious, and let me assure you I'm not trying to get rid of the use of the term Israeli settlements".
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 15:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the second part of your entry, Amo. As for the first, where did you get that from? If someone is known to have murdered, do you insist he cannot be called a "murderer" on Wikipedia unless someone else has used that exact word about him beforehand?
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If Israel started to build concentration camps, but used another term to describe them, would you insist Wikipedia couldn't refer to the camps as "concentration camps" because Israelis might find that offensive? Some Turks are offended by accusations of
genocide against them regarding the Armenians. I would say that is their hard luck. The only good reason needed to call the Israeli colonies as such is because they are colonies (see
colony). If you believe that is "factually incorrect", by all means tell us why. As I now see the colonised also refer to the colonies as such, I'm not sure there's much left to say.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Your argument is nonsensical, Ynhockey. Not all the West Bank colonies are "attached" to Israel, as you seem to think. Your argument about sovereignty is irrelevant. What definition of colony makes it necessary for sovereignty to have been declared over the colonised territory beforehand? If you want a definition of colony, go to the article
colony, where the first sentence is: "In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state." and the second paragraph says: "People who migrated to settle permanently in colonies controlled by their country of origin were called colonists or settlers." Okedem, I'm not proposing we cease use of the term "Israeli settlement", but rather that we end what seems to be an informal ban on alternate terms. If you have never seen the term "Israeli colony" used before, you can
here.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 17:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I see no good reason to institute a total ban on a term that is an alternative to what could be construed as a
euphemism. I don't think the term "colony" has as bad a reputation as you're making out. For example, no-one is accused of speaking in a negative way when they talk of
colonization of the Moon or
Mars.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 18:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are a number of sources that use the term "settlement":
Even Palestinian and Arab sources use the term:
It is ubiquitous. I could find thousands more. Which reliable sources use the term "colonies"? Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the section entitled “The Green Line and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” to include positions displayed by the documented record and corresponding references. The section's previous version had no references and was undoubtedly a POV entry. I have included extensive resources, from multiple, diverse sources (to avoid the claims of “bias” that will inevitably arise) in this current version, so I feel it would be appropriate to discuss any changes before they are made. Shakur420 ( talk) 00:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Why are the Golan and East-Jerusalem mentioned in the overview of the article Green Line (Israel). They could be mentioned under Impact but are not part of the line itself. I will move or remove the passages after some weeks. A discussion before would be fruitful. -- 85.164.223.130 ( talk) 09:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Israel before 1967 is the same as after. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The "The Fallacy of the 1967 Borders" section is ridiculous and needs to be deleted immediately. It is pure propaganda that even the Israeli military does not believe: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps MBVECO ( talk) 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) MBVCO
Israel has never legally annexed any territory to the frontiers it was recognized by, being .."an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" [1] ... talknic ( talk) 15:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted several consecutive edits due to some of the text not complying with WP:V. There were a few things that were ok but it was impossible to undo the parts that were not policy compliant while leaving the rest in. Since doing this manually is prone to error I reverted the whole thing.
Need I say more? It should carry a title reflecting all the parties or the conflict ... talknic ( talk) 02:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This is currently badly phrased or cited. The sentence "The Green Line is not an international or permanent border." is an absolute (and by itself uncited) statement. But it's obvious that what that sentence presents as absolute fact is a bone of contention. So did the writer of that mean that according to Professor Schwebel the Green Line is not an international or permanent border? If so, then write that. As is, the opening sentence there presents a particular POV as fact without clear attribution and even without an appropriately accompanying inline citation. 31.18.251.194 ( talk) 21:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. The previous closure here appears to have been vacated with no reason given and, as far as I can tell, no contesting of the decision. In any case, re-closing to say again that there is a consensus against changing the current disambiguation. Jenks24 ( talk) 03:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Green Line (Israel) →
Green Line (1949) – Replace outright controversial non-neutral title. New name is pretty short.
Qualitatis (
talk) 12:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Six countries are involved, not only Israel. The fact that someone asserts that it defines the border between Israel and several of its neighbors says something about the title's misleading nature. Moreover the suggested title makes clear that the origin is in 1949, not 1967. --
Qualitatis (
talk) 15:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I did not propose the move because it is so extremely important, but rather because it gives false impression on the common reader. Green Line (Israel) suggests a border (indeed) of Israel and obscures the historical context. If
Green Line could be used, no one would have had a problem with it. Interestingly, there is only opposition to a neutral title, to begin with a sock puppet, ironically not aware that "Green Line (Israel)" suggests a border, recognizing not only Israeli land theft within Israel proper in terms of the Partition Plan, but also the illegality of settlements and annexation of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line. Next time you may think about that. --
Qualitatis (
talk) 11:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC) As one may rightly argue that the meaning now includes the 1967 boundaries, I propose the even better title
Green Line (demarcation). --
Qualitatis (
talk) 13:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Green Line (Israel). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey Wikieans.
I'm not logged in but I noticed that there's a See Also (SA) reference to _At the Green Line_ which appears to be a fairly small documentary with a distinct point of view. That should probably be removed from the SA list.
Cheers! 76.93.155.184 ( talk) 07:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Also it should be mentioned that referred "1967 borders" is supported by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 since it states "1967 lines", where "lines" means "border", as we can see by reading the spanish and french (both of them United Nations official languages) version of the resolution ('fronteras' or 'frontières' means borders in spanish and french):
"Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines"..(English version)
"Expresando grave preocupación por el hecho de que la continuación de las actividades de asentamiento israelíes están poniendo en peligro la viabilidad de la solución biestatal basada en las fronteras de 1967". (Spanish version)
"Constatant avec une vive préoccupation que la poursuite des activités de peuplement israéliennes met gravement en péril la viabilité de la solution des deux États fondée sur les frontières de 1967". (French version) -- Elelch ( talk) 21:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The text of the original 1949 armistice agreement (link below) calls the lines the "Armistice demarcation lines". The word "border" is absent from the text. Therefore, the assertion in this article that the green line is called the "armistice border" is wrong and must be corrected.
Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
The article quotes the article in the Armistice agreement that categorically states that the Green line is not to be considered as borders. However, it goes on to say that Israel considered them as borders. It has been the highest priority for the state of Israel to assert that the Green line was not a border. The Green Line served as administrative demarcations, just like those inside a federated state or across municipalities - not international borders.
The fact that the UN and pro-Palestinian organisations might refer to the Green Line as "pre-1967 borders" in no way change its legal status, made blatantly clear in the Armistice Agreement. States not parties to an international agreement cannot alter its terms. Please rewrite the paragraph that states that Israel considered the Green Line its borders.
As it stands, the article suggests an interpretation contrary to the very terms of the Armistice Agreement - one hat could not have made itself clearer.
Furthermore, if we consider that Jordan withdrew any claims on the territory in question, the area in question could only be Israely territory or res nullius - where no state has established legal rights. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
222.154.232.8 (
talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Please change in article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.189.68.25 ( talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald Trump is president, not Barack Obama, area quote "The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" by many international bodies and national leaders, including the United States president (currently Barack Obama),[5] Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas,[6] by the United Nations (UN) in informal texts,[7] and in the text of UN General Assembly Resolutions.[8]" 94.72.206.172 ( talk) 20:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Green Line (Israel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The section "History" should be improved with a mention of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that refered to green line. So I propose this paragraph to be added at the final of that section:
-- Elelch ( talk) 21:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point! There is a paragraph in the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section of the article discussing imagined changes to the border. Your quote would fit in there. ImTheIP ( talk) 20:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Green Line (Israel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
ImTheIP: Why was it necessary to remove every mention of the Golan Heights from the body of the article? (You missed one in the second paragraph of the lead, by the way.) - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 16:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Green Line (Israel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru.www/publications/showpubs.php?id=206When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The Green Line article claims the following:
"The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" by many international bodies and national leaders, including the former United States president, Barack Obama),[5]"
The footnote given (#5) does not support, but rather disproves, the claim that President Obama referred to "1967 borders." He used the words "1967 lines" to refer to the 1949 armistice agreement. In the footnote #5 linked article, CNN misquotes Obama in the headline ("1967 borders"), but his response to this was "I have been misquoted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:1900:306E:A489:7A04:F75F ( talk) 13:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
No one is referring to the green line by “1967 borders”. This needs to be edited as it is clearly wrong. bobmutch ( talk) 15:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The article should note that the disputed territories are only the Western part of the Mandate of Palestine; the Eastern part is what is now known as Jordan. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 18:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The green line wasn't just a line, it was quite a bit of land in various areas (see eg the map in Canada Park). The article presently doesnt mention much about that....it should be expanded.
We have places like Kfar Ruth, which is mostly located inside the green line...(the google map seem pretty good [5])
Does anyone feel up to the task? Huldra ( talk) 21:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This needs to be edited and fixed. Anybody with Any understanding of the is really Palestinian conflict knows that the green light is never referred to as “1967 borders”
The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" by many international bodies and national leaders. bobmutch ( talk) 16:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"The Golan Heights are another exception, having been informally incorporated by Israel [...] Israeli settlements in these areas are essentially subject to the laws of Israel rather than those of the Palestinian Authority." Since the Golan Heights was captured from Syria, there is (as I understand it) no question of it being administered by the Palestinian Authority, so this seems wrong or at least misleading. -- atdt ( talk) 23:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 01:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Green Line (Israel) → 1949 Armistice lines – The name "Green Line" is the Israeli name for the line. Hence, using the Israeli name violates WP:NPOV. The name "1949 Armistice lines" better reflects the nature of the line. Note that the current version of the article calls it the "1949 Armistice border", which is incorrect since an armistice line is not a border. Another reason for the move: it's incorrect to call it a line in the singular form, rather than the plural form. This "line" is actually 4 different lines defined in four different agreements between Israel and its four neighboring countries. Banana Republic ( talk) 22:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
"Israel declared Jerusalem "complete and united" as the capital of Israel according to the 1980 Basic Jerusalem Law.[11][12] This claim has not been recognised by any country or by the United Nations (UN) Security Council."
I actually do not know whether the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by the US under Trump means they recognize it as "complete and united". Do they?--
Adûnâi (
talk) 02:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Historically there have always bipartisan policy differences between the US executive and legislative branches, and Jerusalem is a case in point. Congress passed a law, with bipartisan support, requiring the us to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but successive presidents, of both major parties, have signed waivers in order to avoid complying. believe that the article should mention this, but avoid TMI. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 16:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "During the war in 1947–48, Jews residing east of the Line," to "During the war in 1947–48, Jews residing east of what subsequently became the Line," Ross 01:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
correct is what is written in the linked to "Declaration of I.": The borders were not specified in the Declaration
Not what is written here. 2A02:8109:B6A2:5500:5068:7082:976D:5444 ( talk) 10:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
"Kibbutz Ramat Rachel was left almost entirely outside the Israeli side of the Green Line.[16]"
The text given in note 16 has nothing on Ramat Rahel.
Anyhow, I guess (!) it must be "The agricultual land of Kibbutz Rahel ...", the buildings of the Kibbutz being inside the Green Line. 2A02:8109:B6A2:5500:5068:7082:976D:5444 ( talk) 10:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Green Line (Israel) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Green Line (Israel). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Green Line (Israel) at the Reference desk. |
I deleted the "The Fallacy of the “1967 Borders”" section. The passage was simply taken from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs site - a Jewish/Israeli lobby group. It is not only not a primary source, but it is a ridiculously bias source. I'm happy for the section to be returned if properly referenced but anyone returning it - PLEASE TRY TO BE BALANCED! Pages like this end up absolutely worthless if everyone just fills them up with divisive political opinions. 59.167.126.79 ( talk) 10:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The Jewish prisoners taken during the Israeli war of Independence is mentioned. Why no mention of the Arab POWs and forced labour gangs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley kennedy3 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry keep on forgetting to sign Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention the DMZ between the Green line and the Blue line in Jerusalem 1949, and between the Green line and Red line of the Jordanian and Israeli forces. Why? The Sovereignty over the DMZ was the biggest cause of clashes in the Latrun area and Jerusalem. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is reference No. 2 in? Reference 2 is about Israeli security post 67 and nothing to do with the Green Line. The article is nothing more than the strategic argument for why Israel wishes to keep the Golan Heights and West Bank post 67 and nothing to do with the Green Line. Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The term settlement is widely used for Israeli localities in the West Bank (and to a lesser extent, Golan Heights), although a certain user has recently been edit-warring to insert the inherently POV word 'colony'. I believe there is consensus on this issue already, and would be glad if someone pointed out the centralized discussion which took place in the past (I can't find it). Additional opinions are welcome. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"Localities"? I have no objection to the use of the word "settlement" to describe the Israeli colonies. What I object to is the insistence that it must be slavishly adhered to at all times. I fail to understand, even after a careful reading of the definition of the word "
colony", why you find that term so objectionable, or how on Earth it could be considered POV.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 10:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"Even if somehow the word 'colony' was factually correct in describing Israeli settlements..."' - please see
colony if you have any doubts. I can't see the the problem with NPOV, how exactly does the use of the phrase "Israeli colony" contravene policy? I'm afraid I find your analogies spurious, and let me assure you I'm not trying to get rid of the use of the term Israeli settlements".
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 15:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the second part of your entry, Amo. As for the first, where did you get that from? If someone is known to have murdered, do you insist he cannot be called a "murderer" on Wikipedia unless someone else has used that exact word about him beforehand?
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If Israel started to build concentration camps, but used another term to describe them, would you insist Wikipedia couldn't refer to the camps as "concentration camps" because Israelis might find that offensive? Some Turks are offended by accusations of
genocide against them regarding the Armenians. I would say that is their hard luck. The only good reason needed to call the Israeli colonies as such is because they are colonies (see
colony). If you believe that is "factually incorrect", by all means tell us why. As I now see the colonised also refer to the colonies as such, I'm not sure there's much left to say.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Your argument is nonsensical, Ynhockey. Not all the West Bank colonies are "attached" to Israel, as you seem to think. Your argument about sovereignty is irrelevant. What definition of colony makes it necessary for sovereignty to have been declared over the colonised territory beforehand? If you want a definition of colony, go to the article
colony, where the first sentence is: "In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state." and the second paragraph says: "People who migrated to settle permanently in colonies controlled by their country of origin were called colonists or settlers." Okedem, I'm not proposing we cease use of the term "Israeli settlement", but rather that we end what seems to be an informal ban on alternate terms. If you have never seen the term "Israeli colony" used before, you can
here.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 17:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I see no good reason to institute a total ban on a term that is an alternative to what could be construed as a
euphemism. I don't think the term "colony" has as bad a reputation as you're making out. For example, no-one is accused of speaking in a negative way when they talk of
colonization of the Moon or
Mars.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 18:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are a number of sources that use the term "settlement":
Even Palestinian and Arab sources use the term:
It is ubiquitous. I could find thousands more. Which reliable sources use the term "colonies"? Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the section entitled “The Green Line and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” to include positions displayed by the documented record and corresponding references. The section's previous version had no references and was undoubtedly a POV entry. I have included extensive resources, from multiple, diverse sources (to avoid the claims of “bias” that will inevitably arise) in this current version, so I feel it would be appropriate to discuss any changes before they are made. Shakur420 ( talk) 00:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Why are the Golan and East-Jerusalem mentioned in the overview of the article Green Line (Israel). They could be mentioned under Impact but are not part of the line itself. I will move or remove the passages after some weeks. A discussion before would be fruitful. -- 85.164.223.130 ( talk) 09:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Israel before 1967 is the same as after. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The "The Fallacy of the 1967 Borders" section is ridiculous and needs to be deleted immediately. It is pure propaganda that even the Israeli military does not believe: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps MBVECO ( talk) 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) MBVCO
Israel has never legally annexed any territory to the frontiers it was recognized by, being .."an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" [1] ... talknic ( talk) 15:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted several consecutive edits due to some of the text not complying with WP:V. There were a few things that were ok but it was impossible to undo the parts that were not policy compliant while leaving the rest in. Since doing this manually is prone to error I reverted the whole thing.
Need I say more? It should carry a title reflecting all the parties or the conflict ... talknic ( talk) 02:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This is currently badly phrased or cited. The sentence "The Green Line is not an international or permanent border." is an absolute (and by itself uncited) statement. But it's obvious that what that sentence presents as absolute fact is a bone of contention. So did the writer of that mean that according to Professor Schwebel the Green Line is not an international or permanent border? If so, then write that. As is, the opening sentence there presents a particular POV as fact without clear attribution and even without an appropriately accompanying inline citation. 31.18.251.194 ( talk) 21:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. The previous closure here appears to have been vacated with no reason given and, as far as I can tell, no contesting of the decision. In any case, re-closing to say again that there is a consensus against changing the current disambiguation. Jenks24 ( talk) 03:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Green Line (Israel) →
Green Line (1949) – Replace outright controversial non-neutral title. New name is pretty short.
Qualitatis (
talk) 12:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Six countries are involved, not only Israel. The fact that someone asserts that it defines the border between Israel and several of its neighbors says something about the title's misleading nature. Moreover the suggested title makes clear that the origin is in 1949, not 1967. --
Qualitatis (
talk) 15:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I did not propose the move because it is so extremely important, but rather because it gives false impression on the common reader. Green Line (Israel) suggests a border (indeed) of Israel and obscures the historical context. If
Green Line could be used, no one would have had a problem with it. Interestingly, there is only opposition to a neutral title, to begin with a sock puppet, ironically not aware that "Green Line (Israel)" suggests a border, recognizing not only Israeli land theft within Israel proper in terms of the Partition Plan, but also the illegality of settlements and annexation of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line. Next time you may think about that. --
Qualitatis (
talk) 11:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC) As one may rightly argue that the meaning now includes the 1967 boundaries, I propose the even better title
Green Line (demarcation). --
Qualitatis (
talk) 13:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Green Line (Israel). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey Wikieans.
I'm not logged in but I noticed that there's a See Also (SA) reference to _At the Green Line_ which appears to be a fairly small documentary with a distinct point of view. That should probably be removed from the SA list.
Cheers! 76.93.155.184 ( talk) 07:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Also it should be mentioned that referred "1967 borders" is supported by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 since it states "1967 lines", where "lines" means "border", as we can see by reading the spanish and french (both of them United Nations official languages) version of the resolution ('fronteras' or 'frontières' means borders in spanish and french):
"Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines"..(English version)
"Expresando grave preocupación por el hecho de que la continuación de las actividades de asentamiento israelíes están poniendo en peligro la viabilidad de la solución biestatal basada en las fronteras de 1967". (Spanish version)
"Constatant avec une vive préoccupation que la poursuite des activités de peuplement israéliennes met gravement en péril la viabilité de la solution des deux États fondée sur les frontières de 1967". (French version) -- Elelch ( talk) 21:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The text of the original 1949 armistice agreement (link below) calls the lines the "Armistice demarcation lines". The word "border" is absent from the text. Therefore, the assertion in this article that the green line is called the "armistice border" is wrong and must be corrected.
Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
The article quotes the article in the Armistice agreement that categorically states that the Green line is not to be considered as borders. However, it goes on to say that Israel considered them as borders. It has been the highest priority for the state of Israel to assert that the Green line was not a border. The Green Line served as administrative demarcations, just like those inside a federated state or across municipalities - not international borders.
The fact that the UN and pro-Palestinian organisations might refer to the Green Line as "pre-1967 borders" in no way change its legal status, made blatantly clear in the Armistice Agreement. States not parties to an international agreement cannot alter its terms. Please rewrite the paragraph that states that Israel considered the Green Line its borders.
As it stands, the article suggests an interpretation contrary to the very terms of the Armistice Agreement - one hat could not have made itself clearer.
Furthermore, if we consider that Jordan withdrew any claims on the territory in question, the area in question could only be Israely territory or res nullius - where no state has established legal rights. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
222.154.232.8 (
talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Please change in article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.189.68.25 ( talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald Trump is president, not Barack Obama, area quote "The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" by many international bodies and national leaders, including the United States president (currently Barack Obama),[5] Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas,[6] by the United Nations (UN) in informal texts,[7] and in the text of UN General Assembly Resolutions.[8]" 94.72.206.172 ( talk) 20:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Green Line (Israel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The section "History" should be improved with a mention of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that refered to green line. So I propose this paragraph to be added at the final of that section:
-- Elelch ( talk) 21:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point! There is a paragraph in the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section of the article discussing imagined changes to the border. Your quote would fit in there. ImTheIP ( talk) 20:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Green Line (Israel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
ImTheIP: Why was it necessary to remove every mention of the Golan Heights from the body of the article? (You missed one in the second paragraph of the lead, by the way.) - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 16:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Green Line (Israel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru.www/publications/showpubs.php?id=206When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The Green Line article claims the following:
"The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" by many international bodies and national leaders, including the former United States president, Barack Obama),[5]"
The footnote given (#5) does not support, but rather disproves, the claim that President Obama referred to "1967 borders." He used the words "1967 lines" to refer to the 1949 armistice agreement. In the footnote #5 linked article, CNN misquotes Obama in the headline ("1967 borders"), but his response to this was "I have been misquoted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:1900:306E:A489:7A04:F75F ( talk) 13:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
No one is referring to the green line by “1967 borders”. This needs to be edited as it is clearly wrong. bobmutch ( talk) 15:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The article should note that the disputed territories are only the Western part of the Mandate of Palestine; the Eastern part is what is now known as Jordan. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 18:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The green line wasn't just a line, it was quite a bit of land in various areas (see eg the map in Canada Park). The article presently doesnt mention much about that....it should be expanded.
We have places like Kfar Ruth, which is mostly located inside the green line...(the google map seem pretty good [5])
Does anyone feel up to the task? Huldra ( talk) 21:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This needs to be edited and fixed. Anybody with Any understanding of the is really Palestinian conflict knows that the green light is never referred to as “1967 borders”
The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" by many international bodies and national leaders. bobmutch ( talk) 16:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"The Golan Heights are another exception, having been informally incorporated by Israel [...] Israeli settlements in these areas are essentially subject to the laws of Israel rather than those of the Palestinian Authority." Since the Golan Heights was captured from Syria, there is (as I understand it) no question of it being administered by the Palestinian Authority, so this seems wrong or at least misleading. -- atdt ( talk) 23:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 01:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Green Line (Israel) → 1949 Armistice lines – The name "Green Line" is the Israeli name for the line. Hence, using the Israeli name violates WP:NPOV. The name "1949 Armistice lines" better reflects the nature of the line. Note that the current version of the article calls it the "1949 Armistice border", which is incorrect since an armistice line is not a border. Another reason for the move: it's incorrect to call it a line in the singular form, rather than the plural form. This "line" is actually 4 different lines defined in four different agreements between Israel and its four neighboring countries. Banana Republic ( talk) 22:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
"Israel declared Jerusalem "complete and united" as the capital of Israel according to the 1980 Basic Jerusalem Law.[11][12] This claim has not been recognised by any country or by the United Nations (UN) Security Council."
I actually do not know whether the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by the US under Trump means they recognize it as "complete and united". Do they?--
Adûnâi (
talk) 02:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Historically there have always bipartisan policy differences between the US executive and legislative branches, and Jerusalem is a case in point. Congress passed a law, with bipartisan support, requiring the us to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but successive presidents, of both major parties, have signed waivers in order to avoid complying. believe that the article should mention this, but avoid TMI. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 16:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "During the war in 1947–48, Jews residing east of the Line," to "During the war in 1947–48, Jews residing east of what subsequently became the Line," Ross 01:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
correct is what is written in the linked to "Declaration of I.": The borders were not specified in the Declaration
Not what is written here. 2A02:8109:B6A2:5500:5068:7082:976D:5444 ( talk) 10:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
"Kibbutz Ramat Rachel was left almost entirely outside the Israeli side of the Green Line.[16]"
The text given in note 16 has nothing on Ramat Rahel.
Anyhow, I guess (!) it must be "The agricultual land of Kibbutz Rahel ...", the buildings of the Kibbutz being inside the Green Line. 2A02:8109:B6A2:5500:5068:7082:976D:5444 ( talk) 10:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)