Talk:Judea and Samaria Area

message: What are the sub-districts and natural regions of the Israeli-controlled Judea and Samaria? jlog3000 (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the article. See Judea_and_Samaria#Administrative sub-regions Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of sub-districts and natural regions of the Israeli-controlled Judea and Samaria 

message: I've been observing the drawn-out dispute at this article (over what I believe is just a case of reading too much into things), but I am confused about this " does not mention a district of Judea, uses Samaria in non-district context." Why would we mention a non-district context? With this article it seems that we are having trouble deciding whether or not to write about the district alone or about the name itself. Chedorlaomer (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I took a stab at rewording this section. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-district context 

message: Per the discretionary sanctions authorized at WP:ARBPIA,  has been banned from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days. He is still welcome to make other non-revert changes to the article, and to bring up concerns at the talkpage, to build consensus for desired changes. --Elonka 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be based on a misconception: I did not remove Jayjg's (cherry-picked) cites, I just moved them to the proper place in the article, the part that actually discusses the usage of the name "Samaria".  I humbly request that you lift that ban.  MeteorMaker (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you removed the statement that the term "Samaria" is sometimes used, which is exactly what those sources supported. The fact that you didn't actually remove the sources, but merely hid them in an irrelevant citation, is not a defense of your edit. Jayjg (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "...what those sources supported" = original research.  What the sources (scores of them) say is that these are biblical terms used primarily by Israelis for political purposes.  Jay is trying to refute the secondary sources using primary sources, which is a classic violation of original research.--G-Dett (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ArbCom restrictions

message: From what I can gather, the opposition to following the sources in describing these as "Biblical terms" or "Biblical names" is that some Wikipedians understand this to mean "used only in Biblical times."  This is certainly not what the sources mean when they explicitly say that Judea and Samaria are biblical names for the southern and northern West Bank, respectively.  On the contrary, the scores of mainstream, contemporary, top-notch reliable sources that designate them as Biblical names do so explicitly in the context of the terms' contemporary use: 
#CNN:"Israelis often refer to the northern West Bank region by its biblical name of Samaria."
#New York Times: "The operation began just before midnight, as the leaders of the regional council of Samaria, which takes the biblical name for the northern West Bank, gathered at a nearby army base."
#New York Times again: "In Samaria, the biblical name for the northern West Bank, and in Binyamin, the central district around the Palestinian city of Ramallah, settlers recently ousted their more mainstream representatives in local council elections, voting in what they called “activist” mayors instead."
#Washington Post: "Weiss has been one of Israel's most recognizable settler activists since 1975, when she moved from her home near Tel Aviv to a tent in the hills of Samaria, the biblical name for the northern West Bank."
#USA Today:"Physically, the mountainous settlements are harder for the army to close off. But ideologically, for settlers who only refer to this region by its biblical name, Samaria, this land is on an even higher ground."
In short, it is precisely in the context of the term's current use that the sources underscore that these are biblical names.  Other, more in-depth and/or academic sources go further, and point out that the contemporary use of these terms is politicized and controversial, that they are used primarily by annexationists, and so on.  But there is no need to add that sort of background information here.
By the same token, there is no argument for obscuring the key fact about these terms as they are used today: they are biblical names.
I am implementing a compromise edit, one that makes very clear that "biblical names" ≠ "used only in biblical times," that these biblical names are still used today: 
For the geographical regions known by the biblical names Judea and Samaria, see Judea or Samaria.
This should clear up the confusion Jay, NoCal, and others have about what scores of top-notch sources mean when they say "biblical names," and ensure that readers do not suffer from similar confusion.  If editors find the compromise edit unsatisfactory, please discuss your concerns in detail here, and please address my concerns in detail as well.  If you want to go ahead and modify it, knock yourself out – just make sure that your version includes the fact that these are biblical names.  That fact is relevant, undisputed, and sourced to the nines; and as long as it's phrased in such a way that the reader won't misunderstand it to be saying "used only in biblical times," there's no argument for removing it.--G-Dett (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That actually sounds very reasonable to me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Ditto.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

text: This works for me, as well. NoCal100 (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm touched, guys.  Seriously.  I could kiss y'all.--G-Dett (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Me first!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Neither NoCal nor I were "confused" by what the sources said; rather, we objected to your use of the sources to make inaccurate assertions. In the future, when proposing new wording, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Your current proposal more accurately reflects both reality and the sources, and seems reasonable. Jayjg (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My edits were always exactly and only and word-for-word what the sources said, so no kiss for you mister; but here's a tepid, half-assed high-five for not obstructing this marvelous-delicate thing we've got going.--G-Dett (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise edit

message: Why is this article not called Judea and Samaria Area which is what Districts of Israel gives as the official term?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name. 

message: Usage of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" in article space appears to contravene 3 key Wikipedia policies: Naming Conventions, Undue weight and Neutral Point of View.  A large body of evidence has been collected during extensive discussions  (see list below) that unequivocally shows that these terms, alone and in combination, are almost entirely peculiar to Israel. As of today, no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been put forward that contradict this finding. 
Discussion links (most closed, included for reference only):
*Judea (archive)
*Samaria (archive)
*Samaria
*Judea and Samaria (archive)
*Judea and Samaria
*West Bank
*Judea
*Israeli settlement (archive 6)
*Israeli settlement (archive 7)
*Israeli settlement (archive 8)
*Israeli settlement (archive 9)
*Israeli settlement 
*
MeteorMaker (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you've proven that you simply are not paying attention. The article is about Judea and Samaria, you want to rename is West and Bank? --Shuki (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand. I'm not suggesting renaming, I just post the facts here for posterity and future reference, and this article is appropriate since much of the discussion referred to above took place here. The reason I posted it now is that I'm among a large group of editors who will become topic-blocked collectively within a couple of days due to an unfortunate ArbCom decision, and I don't want the painstakingly collected sources and our findings to sink into oblivion as a consequence. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" 

message: In light of the clarifications above about population in the settlements only, and J & S A being not a purely geographical term: Isn't it inappropriate to state in the infobox that the area is 5878 sq km? As the infobox is now, it states that there is an area which is 5878 sq km large, which has a population of 304 569. Surely, neither Israelis, Palestinians or any others would claim that this is the case--Barend (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand you. Please expand on your thoughts, you had a good eye to notice that. I think that Judea and Samaria 'Area' includes the entire area claimed, not only the Israeli populated places. Israel has legal and military jurisdiction over the entire area. The infobox should be updated to specify the 300k number refers to Israeli citizens, and the number of Arabs should also be included in the same field, hopefully from an RS. --Shuki (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: User Peter Cohen stated, in the above, that "[Judea and Samaria area] can be used to refer solely to those parts of the remaining West Bank that have Israeli settlements and are administered with them, as opposed to those that are run by the Palestinian Authority". This area is not 5878 sq km, as that is, apparently, the area of the whole West Bank. It has also been stated on this discussion page, that the existence of this article is not a "POV fork" from West Bank, because it covers a different topic than the geographical area covered by the article "West Bank". So if that is the case, either the infobox should state the area of the Israeli settlements and their population, or not state an area at all - or so it seems to me. I hope this was clearer. The whole topic is, of course, somewhat complicated.--Barend (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I respect Peter Cohen, but don't know why you are quoting him as if to quote policy. J&S Area certainly does not mean only settlements land, and not even all of Area C land, but to encompass the entire area. This is not my opinion, it is fact. Currently Israel has sovreignty over the whole area. The article is definitely somewhat of a POV fork. The 'West Bank' article in current state is POV enough and mainly a place holder for Palestinian State, the main map includes Palestinian areas, not Israeli ones. A WP ceasefire made current status that J&S Area means the Israeli government administrative region and not a geographical area which pro-Arabs claim Judea and Samaria is an Israeli term only. J&S is 'allowed' to be refered to in the biblical sense, and also in off-hand mentions like Samarian/Judean Hills. --Shuki (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I got the impression that Cohen represented consensus. If this is infact a POV fork, than obviously it shouldn't exist, but I won't try to stir up that debate again. But if the article refers to the same geographical area as the West Bank, and not just the Israeli administrative structure and settlements in the occupied territories, than the population number here is wrong, as you say above. Because clearly, the area does not have 300 000 inhabitants, the number is a lot higher.--Barend (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Barend has a solid point, the article doesn't really keep in line with only covering the militarily administered/Israeli controlled areas of the West Bank and starts to look a lot like a POV fork. If the justification is that the article is on the administrative area (per the archives) then it doesn't make sense to include the areas not administered by the IDF in the land area info. I know it's a venerable hornets nest of controversy but it's a little confusing as it is. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is obviously a POV fork.  It's the term the Israeli government and Israeli right use for the West Bank (not including East Jerusalem).  That's all.  I see no reason to have a separate article about it. john k (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Ignoring JohnK's emotional comment...Sol, this article should be expanded instead and/or the WB article made less POV. Jurisdiction and administration are not the same and not mutually exclusive. Just because Israel has allowed self-administration with the PNA in certain areas does not mean it has relinquished anything yet/permanently. FWIW, many still claim that Israel occupies these areas including Gaza as well. and again, FWIW, this is an official term of the Israeli goverment, that in itself is notable enough for record. --Shuki (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What was emotional about my comment?  john k (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cuz you merely stated your dead-end vote/opinion without adding anything and we are having a decent discussion trying to get somewhere. Anyway, I did sort of answer you anyway that I agree with you and the government uses this term. --Shuki (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I'm not questioning if it's notable, it certainly is, but the land area seems off. If it's really just a reference to the administrative area then it seems weird to include the land not under Israeli control but omit the people living there. I'll at least try to find some government source that defines the J&S area as there doesn't seem to be one at the moment. Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Area'' in infobox

message: I screwed up my edit summary but the Israeli Supreme Court agrees that it's occupied territory.Sol (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupied, Not Controlled 

message: and say it is a biblical name , and have a link to the israel and juedea kingdom?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.110.40 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  why you dont talk about origin of name? 

message: Something here about the term "Judea and Samaria" might be misunderstood. - The definition "Judea and Samaria Area" is a valid one, BUT depending on the context: I think the English wiki just have failed to make clear the distinction between the various uses of the coin "Judea and Samaria" across the field of Israeli rule in the West Bank, which may count four principal agents: The Army, The Government, The Police, and the Settlers' leadership. When it comes to the Israel Police's jurisdiction the area's name is "Samaria-Judea District" (מחוז ש"י, "Mehoz SY"), when it's about the Israeli Army (who has the major everyday presence on that ground) it is "Judea and Samaria Area" (acronymed איו"ש, "AYoS"). When for statistical needs and administration of the Jewish population, the area is officially referred to as Judea and Samaria District - "Mehoz Yehuda veShomron", alike with "Mehoz Tel-Aviv" and "Mehoz Heyfa" etc (See reference). Add to that the fact that in casual tongue among a wide circle in Israel Judea and Samaria is preferred as to describe the actual geographic region rather than the hostile-resonating "West Bank". 31.210.179.35 (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First: what exactly is the difference between the two Hebrew nouns מחוז (mehoz) and אזור (ezor) according to you? and second: why does the Israeli government not call Judea and Samaria a district but an area in its statistics for instance here? and third: do you have any references for the distinctions you make? and forth: what's “hostile-resonating [about] ‘West Bank’”? Ajnem (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As said, and as backed in the data both given by me above and linguistically accurate to most measures of observation, "Judea and Samaria" is regarded in the Israeli jurisdictive system as one of seven Districts of Israel, where "Mehoz Yehuda veShomron" encompasses the illegally planted Israeli settlements in the West Bank and is referred to as an "extra" district that is, we have 6 districts plus one which is irregularly administered. The Army calls it an "area". Therefore when you want to behold the area of the West Bank from a geographical angle you title it West Bank, and when you want to write about the Israeli civil definition you title it Judea and Samaria District. 94.230.87.146 (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area/District 

message: If an article is linked multiple times in an article, there is no justification for adding it to the "see also" list. My removal of a link was reverted by an editor. Apart from reading comprehension problems, I cannot see any reason for this action.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is zero cost to the article of having the link in the see also section so it should remain as it is useful and pertinent to the reader. Dlv999 (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:ALSO: "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Hertz1888 (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "reading comprehension problems"...charming...but you may have a point. My concern (other than the tiresome knee-jerk revert and vandalism label) was the removal of the Main| link to the subsection section of the West Bank article. Removing that makes no sense. That is the main article with the master copy of the information about the status. However, getting back to reading comprehension problems, the link should be to West_Bank#Legal_status rather than the non-existent West Bank#Status section. I don't have a preference for whether the link to Israeli-occupied territories stays in the see also section. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple links to the same article

message: This section is now located at Talk:West Bank#Merge with Judea and Samaria Area
In the lead the article claims that it is about "the official Israeli term corresponding to the territory usually referred to as the West Bank, but excluding East Jerusalem.[1]". But Wikipedia is not a dictionary so why have we created an article for the official Israeli terminology for part of the West Bank. Relevant material should be covered in West Bank article, e.g. administration of the West Bank. Dlv999 (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: because it is not just a "term" - it is a geo-political entity - an Israeli administrative division, with its own organs etc... They think it's all over (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess sort of like the difference between the Palestinian territories and the State of Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Vast majority of sources do not hold "Judea and Samaria" to be a "geopolitical entity" they view it as occupied Palestinian Territory under Israeli military occupation. TTIAO comment shows the problem with the article: it is a POV fork of an extreme3 minority position on part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Dlv999 (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this be a redirect to [[West Bank]] 

message: "This article refers the Israeli administrative area", but I find hard time finding any references to this administration, in status it says its under military control, but see also links to Israeli Civil Administration that operates in this area since 1981?  also there are several Administrative regions as of?, thanks.--Mor2 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates? 

message: Trying to be an encyclopedia, omitting "West Bank" is a fault. -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to be an encyclopedia, omitting "[[West Bank]]" is a fault. 

message: That isnt accurate. Judea is a historical name, Samaria is a historical name, the term Judea and Samaria however is not. The origin of the name is covered in the terminology section, but claiming that the combination is some sort of historic synonym for the area now known as the West Bank isnt true. I restored the lead as it was prior to that change. nableezy - 00:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. However, the terminology section was unclear too since  introduced these changes in January, which I have now reverted. It gave the view that this area's name was changed by the Jordanians (who occupied it but not Israelis according to that edit too) and the sources were removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "historical names" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Judea and Samaria Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120523211210/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org:80/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100323135314/http://thereport.amnesty.org:80/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-occupied-territories to http://thereport.amnesty.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-occupied-territories
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We should not allow this kind of bias to happen in this article. Do you agree?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:1380:1000:6E00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A "Palestinian" refers to an Arab in the region of Palestine. Take into account that not all Arabs, including Palestinians, are Muslims. Before prior contact of Islam, most "Palestinians" are were Christian at that time. Also, Palestinians are not immigrants because they had been living in the Palestine region before the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. -- Chxeese (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Palestinian bias 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Judea and Samaria Area. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215195555/http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton63/map/01_01e.pdf to http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton63/map/01_01e.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Judea and Samaria Area. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140825085245/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Re this revert - 
# Israel actually does not consider the West Bank occupied - it has chosen to treat the West Bank as if it were occupied in terms of application of military law, however the quasi-official (and I'm using this term, as Israel, as in many areas, has decided not decide or make a declaration either way) position Israeli position is that the area is not occupied as there was never a state formed in the West Bank (the Palestinians not forming one, and the Jordanian occupation seen as illegal by Israel) - terra nullius. In terms of legal jargon - Israel has internally used "the held territories" as jargon (as opposed to occupied), and this argument has been used in various forums.
# The US has recently stopped using the word occupied. Some have seen this as a change of policy, e.g. .
# While very clearly this position is held by most , it is not clear it is held by all - there might be an island nation or two with a diverging position.Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the word many should be in there. Do we have a RS stating everyone in the international community considers it? Its too vague of a qualification to have it appear as everyone. - GalatzTalk 14:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupied and international community 

message: This article is very specifically about the Israeli administrative district, and per WP:WESTBANK, specifically clause 5, requires that the use of Judea and Samaria Area specifically refer to the administrative district and not to the land itself. Finally, the citation added for the sentence Judea corresponds to part of the ancient Kingdom of Judah, also known as the Southern Kingdom does not actually address the need for that citation, namely whether does what Israel considers "Judea" as part of the West Bank actually correspond to the Kingdom of Judea (which went quite a bit further than boundaries of the Israel district). nableezy - 05:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a misapplication of policy. You would be correct if you were talking about some random location in the West Bank or some event. However, it is entirely reasonable ti discuss the etymology ans history of the ise of Judea and Samaria in the Judea and Samaria Area article. Furthermore, discussion of antiquity, which is what you removed, uses Judea and Samaria per WESTBANK(1).Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is absolutely not, and this tag team edit-warring is tendentious and disruptive. This article is not about antiquity. That guideline is the result of a binding arbitration decision, and edits that violate it may be brought to AE. nableezy - 15:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

text: You also restored a source for material that it does not in any way support. Why exactly are you misrepresenting sources? Thats a pretty big deal in an encyclopedia. nableezy - 15:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

text: And finally, as you have repeatedly written where it suited your editorial goals the onus is on those seeking to include disputed content to demonstrate a consensus for it. What part does edit-warring play in that? nableezy - 21:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  scope 

message: Has there ever been any discussion of the ramifications coming out of the Haaretz article mentioned in a box at the head of the talkpage?:
* Haaretz - Omer Benjakob - Judea and Samaria District? Wikipedia in Hebrew can't find the West Bank, 16 February 2018: In theory, Jewish settlements in the West Bank constitute one of Israel’s seven administrative districts. However, the so-called “Judea and Samaria District” may not actually be a district, or at least does not have the official status of one, according to a recent discovery by Hebrew Wikipedia editors."
    ←   ZScarpia   21:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal blackhole. 

message: although the international community considers the West Bank to be a territory held by Israel under military occupation.[5] 
Change to
Although part of the international community considers the West Bank to be occupied territory. Noting the Jewish communities which existed their pre-1948 also seems logical (https://embassies.gov.il/dublin/AboutIsrael/history/Pages/Judea-Samaria-.aspx#p)
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:7491:A582:A5F1:A9D0 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Trump modification in the US view is covered elsewhere, but the statement on international community remains accurate. nableezy - 03:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy with US opinion 

message: The source for UN Security Council Resolution 242 is invalid and has odd tags. A corrected source is https://undocs.org/S/RES/242(1967). I would change it but apparently that is not allowed because it's protected. Hammy (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is OK as is, yours is as well and I actually prefer that style myself. I think the tags are a complaint about using the source material directly rather than filtering it through a secondary. It's a bit pointless because you can just click the wikilink and go read all the gory detail there.Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the UN SC resolution 242 

message: The phrase "Israeli-occupied territories" should be replaced with "Israeli-liberated territories" to reduce the article's anti-Semitic bias. 2001:5B0:46E4:BE58:D8F:BC2E:A7C7:A633 (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2021 

message: When talking about the terms used in Israel for the area, from my experience "the Territories" is more common than "the West Bank" among left wing circles but from my experience where you born and raised matter more when it comes to this terms Multiverse Union (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms Common Usage  

message: Unfortuantely, this page discusses a very narrow Palestinian narrative, much of which is skewed. I would expect Wikipedia to at least try to include balanced information. This entire page needs to be rewritten. 109.226.59.2 (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023