Talk:Israel/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

Earlier reference to Israel than the Merneptah Stele

Under the section 'Antiquity', it is stated that the first historical reference to the nation of Israel comes from the Merneptah Stele from 1209 BC. However, recently, there has been a new finding published by Peter van der Veen, Christoffer Theis and Manfred Görg into the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections that showed a probable reference to Israel dating back from 1400 - 1350 BC. Here is a link to the actual publication for anyone wanting to read it -- https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jaei/article/viewFile/83/87 -- this finding has been welcomed and accepted by many scholars. I propose adding a reference to this as a possible earlier reference to Israel in the Wikipedia page with a brief mention. Any objections? Korvex (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not a new claim. It was proposed in 2001 and largely ignored. This 2010 paper was an attempt to resurrect the claim but it has also been largely ignored. In fact it is hard to find any articles by notable experts that discuss it. There is also severe disagreement on the date of the inscription. Zero^talk 03:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

So WP:UNDUE seems to apply here. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think WP:UNDUE applies here it does discussed in scholarly literature for example [1],[2] --Shrike (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: I don't see real discussion but a brief mention in both suggesting that it's still to be confirmed, right? The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible[3] says "possible...still under study" and The World around the Old Testament: The People and Places of the Ancient[4] says "may" and "whether or not this particular claim holds up". Both are referring to the 2010 paper. That's not real discussion, that's "for the sake of completeness we'll put in a sentence mentioning it" while being dubious about it at the same time. Korvex is saying this has been accepted by many scholars. I'd like him to name any scholars, preferably ignoring those that are biblical literalists because that gets us nowhere. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It may be not accepted by scholars but it does discussed it scholarly literature so we may mention it too that is still under discussion though I am not sure this is a right place.--Shrike (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike::As I said, I don't see that as discussion, as discussion means to me some analysis of the arguments. It wouldn't belong here anyway. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

And nothing on Google Scholar, which is telling. All I can find in academic sources is a handful of brief mentions without real discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Google Scholar finds 17 citations of the paper. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1073426990922503261 212.177.1.242 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

17 citations is pretty good and definitely qualifies as scholarly discussion. Doug, your definition of 'scholarly discussion' does not matter, it's what academia defines as scholarly discussion, and academia deems scholarly discussion is based on citations. This is definitely under scholarly discussion and sources that you even list show it is a possible reference to Israel. That's exactly my point, we will add a reference to the Wiki page mentioning this as a possible reference to Israel predating the Merneptah Stele, we will not put any certainty on it. This seems to clearly qualify Wiki's necessities to getting added to any page.Korvex (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I was wrong, but you haven't shown discussion and iff you really are arguing that three links to Olsen Park Church of Christ counts as scholarly discussion, or a citation in Focus Magazinesample articles is scholarly.... We need real scholarly sources presenting their viewpoint. A citation isn't enough. Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 06:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WP:FTN#Fringe archaeology in biblical related articles. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:Here is another source [5].So we have scholarly article in peer reviewed journal and another 3 sources that mention it.I think its more then enough to warrant one liner that there is a still ongoing discussion if there are earlier mention of Israel are valid.What do you think? --Shrike (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: Sadly we can't see how the citation is being used, ie there's no context to it. Your guess may be correct, but I'd prefer to see the context. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Not clear what do you mean.You don't see the context in google books.Its closed for you?--Shrike (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: I can only see the footnote, not what it's used for. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

At this point, the right first step is to start an article called Berlin Statue Pedestal Relief. All relevant sources can be brought there to build a balanced picture. To my read scholars view this as an unprovenanced item with a stretch interpretation. But we should discuss in the context of the new article first. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it warrant its own article but one liner here is WP:DUE--Shrike (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I would support a one-liner here if we can find a high quality source that discusses it. Merely citing a paper with a "may" or "maybe" is not discussion. I saw those citations before I wrote that it has been essentially ignored and so far I don't see reason to change that assessment. If this claim was taken seriously it would be all over the place with heated arguments for and against. Zero^talk 10:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Now I can see the text from the book Shrike found. Here it is (no page numbers show in Google):

"Thus far, there have been no references to Israel discovered in Egyptian texts dating from the fifteenth to the fourteenth centuries B.C.E. In 2001, Manfred Görg claimed that he may have found one included in a partially preserved list of names inscribed on a column base fragment, now stored in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. The surviving names are Ashkelon, Canaan, and a third name that is incompletely preserved, but which Görg interprets as “Israel.”⁶¹ Bryant Wood has pointed to this translation as possible evidence that Israel was in Canaan already in the fifteenth-century B.C.E.⁶² Hoffmeier, however, has argued that Görg’s reading “is plagued by serious linguistic and orthographic problems that preclude it from being Israel.”⁶³ If Hoffmeier’s criticisms hold, then the Merneptah Stele remains as the sole reference to Israel from ancient Egypt."

I think it is marginal, but I won't object to one well-crafted sentence based on that. Zero^talk 12:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hoffmeier's article is here. I am unimpressed by the apparent fact that the only discussion of the inscription seems to have been between theological types. Zero^talk 12:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think a one-liner is definitely warranted. Hoffmeir has definitely engaged in scholarly discussion with this 'finding' if I may, albeit he was against it. 17 citations that say it "might" reference Israel and a paper published to the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections is more then enough to add a one-liner that says it "might" reference Israel. Just to note, those 17 citations do not just randomly give supposed findings like this credibility, they would have researched the paper in the first place and have come to the conclusion that it was in fact a possibility if they were going to add a quick citation and reference saying the reference may be valid. Any thoughts? I honestly don't see a problem here. Wikipedia's guidelines sure do not invalidate a one-liner on this. Should I go ahead and add it?Korvex (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. If there isn't enough scholarly discussion for an article on the artifact (per Shrike's comment), then it isn't due here. If we care about the scholarly nuances here, let's do this properly and try to write an article on the topic. Otherwise this just smacks of a cheap and lazy attempt to drive an ideological position. Wikipedia is better than that. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you define as 'scholarly discussion'? This is problematic. 17 citations that mostly acknowledge the possibility of the possibility of it mentioning Israel is surely more than enough to warrant the existence of 'scholarly discussion'. The majority of archaeological papers don't even get 17 citations!Korvex (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have shown that your 17 citations claim includes non-scholarly sources, including 3 to s church's website,please stop suhhesting your figure means anything. Can you back up your claim about archaeological papers? Doug Weller talk 06:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hold up Doug, you're taking too much of a leap. I went through the citations and at least 10 are scholarly. James Hoffmeir and Bryant Wood have both discussed it (one accepting it, one rejecting it). Not only that, I think a mistake has been made... The 2010 paper we're talking about is the second publication, we must remember the original publication was only made by Manfred Gorg and was published in 2001, and this paper, according to Google Scholar, has 14 citations, and I can confirm at least 7 citations are scholarly. So if we take into account both papers on the same subject, the one published in 2001 and the one published in 2010, we have a total of at least 17 scholarly citations together, putting us back where we were. Anyways, any quick glance off of Google Scholar or any non-populist paper shows that in archaeology, most publications do not receive 17 citations. Seriously, go to academia.edu, find your average archaeologist, and see how many citations his/her paper gets... Probably most of them will not get 17 scholarly citations or close. So I think we have enough discussion here to warrant a well written one-liner, merely mentioning it as possibly valid, not at all certainly. If you go to Google Scholar and search up the Merneptah Stele, which is definitely in this Wiki page, you'll see as you go through the pages of Google Scholar that very few of the papers at hand actually accumulate 17 citations, and the consensus of archaeologists is that it authentically mentions Israel. So I don't see how the papers at discussion do not warrant a one-liner. Korvex (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Have we yet come to consensus about adding a one-liner about this pre-Merneptah reference? We've got two published papers that have been cited many times and discussed in scholarly material. Korvex (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No consensus yet. Citations aren't enough. It depends on how they are used. I haven't looked at them all yet. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Doug, then why do you not just look at them? In our discussion on Ai, I was given this source of a critical review of Ai -- http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.361.0099.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents -- aside from the fact that I rebutted this by showing that there is much more support that can be found in the scholarly literature for Khirbet el-Maqatir as Ai then against it, there was something interesting I noticed in this paper -- and that was that it cites Gorg's identification of Israel appearing in this early tablet and assigns credibility to the identification, and Aren Maier (author of the paper) even acts in confusion as to why the paper being reviewed by Maier does not speak or discuss Gorg's identification. The identification is cited here , it is cited as a very considerable possibility to mentioning Israel here , and several other sources that you've seen. The fact that all of these sources have in common is that they recognize that this identification has a real probability of being valid, which is the current state of scholarship on the issue. So, if all these academics and papers say that this is a possible reference to Israel predating Merneptah, it cleaaarly qualifies for a Wikipedia page to say the exact same thing in a single brief sentence. Korvex (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Where does 'real probability' come from? What I meant is that I don't see consensus here. Your probability claim confuses me, we can't say that. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand what I was saying when I used the word "real probability". What I meant was that the mention of Israel at around 1350 - 1400 BC has a valid chance at being valid. As we've both seen from the countless peer-reviewed papers discussed in this section, ALL of them say "yep, this might be legit", and if ALL of numerous publications on a small area of academia conform to the same opinion, that's a practical consensus. I'm only aware of 1 actual publication by James Hoffmeir that says this DOESN'T actually mention Israel, but it seems to me that Hoffmeir has a sort of an agenda here, because Hoffmeir has invested a lot of time & money into dating the exodus to the 13th century BC, which would be crushed if this identification is legit. Aside from there only being 1 paper against this identification, we've seen 2 papers for it -- the initial paper I mentioned in this section from 2010, and Manfred Gorg's paper from 2001. So we have 2 papers saying it's legit (the 2010 one actually rebuts Hoffmeir), 1 paper saying it isn't, and all the countless others saying "possibly". Therefore, the scholarly opinion seems really well balanced out -- the scholarly opinion seems to clearly say this has a good probability at being valid. You ask me where the "probability" on the validity of identification comes from Doug -- it comes from the 2001 and 2010 papers showing the evidence for the identification as Israel. But we've seen the scholarly opinion clearly says that this possibly mentions Israel, and therefore I'm going to ask you to make the edit (I don't have 500 edits yet, so I can't edit this page) that says "archaeologists may have identified an inscription with the name 'Israel' that goes back as early as 1350 - 1400 BC" -- or perhaps slightly reword it if you please (although that's what I would incite).Korvex (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, this article isn't about the ancient country, but the modern country that was established in 1948. The correct place, if anywhere, for that material would be the article for the ancient state. The Mernepthah stele is briefly mentioned in this article since most experts (although not all experts) believe the test mentions the term "Israel". Overall, this article is way, way too long and over half of the text now in should be removed, rather than new text added. --Dailycare (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dailycare. I think you are wrong, the origins of the country of Israel are perhaps one of the most important thing in this page, and adding a brief sentence to mention a possible earlier date is very important. I'm still trying to amass those 500 edits. If you think there is too much text here, I encourage you to start a new section to delete some of it.Korvex (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that edits on Talk pages will count towards your 500 :). I'm inclined to agree with Dailycare - this article should be about modern Israel, with a hatnote directing visitors to other articles about the ancient one.PiCo (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

On a sidenote, there is nothing in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#500.2F30 which says it must be mainspace (=article) edits. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

In which case an hour or so of determined commenting should get him his 500 :)PiCo (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Writing a comment every 7.2 seconds sounds exhausting. One can easily do 500 small script-assisted edits in articles, this is exactly why this restriction is meaningless and gaming-prone. “WarKosign” 10:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

People who do that usually get WP:ECP removed, meaning that they can't edit these articles or get it back with just another 500 edits, they have to request it from an Admin. It also would suggest that the editor might not be exactly the type of editor we need or want. It's not a meaningless restriction. Note it also blocks IP addresses entirely. Normal talk page edits do count. As in this case, they help editors learn about our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 11:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have shifted from the Berlin Pedestal mentioning Israel at about 3350 BC to how I can get my 500 edits. Thanks (I guess), but the conversation must be shifted back. It is mentioned that there should be just a link to the ancient Israel because the current Wiki page should be about the modern Israel, but there is already a huge amount of information in the current Israel Wiki page about ancient Israel. It must either be accepted or completely removed. Adding a well-constructed half-sentence to mention the reference from 3350 BC is not at all problematic by any guideline of Wikipedia.Korvex (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd go for removal of all reference to Israel pre-1947/48, simply because this article is one of a set of similar articles about countries/nations. Some countries have very long continuous histories (China for one), and that history needs to be covered at least briefly; others are very new creations (Canada, South Sudan); and a very few, like Israel, claim a long history but with a huge gap in the middle. That claim is worth mentioning, but it takes up too much room here. But this discussion belongs in a new thread, I think.PiCo (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the name Israel mentioned as a personal name at Ebla, as well as a sentence describing other contemporary references to Israel from Antiquity (Mesha, Kurkh, Tel Dan) Drsmoo (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"As a West Semitic personal name it existed long before it became a tribal or a geographical name.This is not without significance, though is it rarely mentioned. We learn of a maryanu named ysr"il (*Yi¡sr—a"ilu) from Ugarit living in the same period, but the name was already used a thousand years before in Ebla. The word Israel originated as a West Semitic personal name. One of the many names that developed into the name of the ancestor of a clan, of a tribe and finally of a people and a nation."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Thank you @Doug Weller: would you like to add that source to the article? I'd be happy to add it as well. Drsmoo (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: If you don't mind, would you please do it? Needs to go in the main article also. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

References

wrong gov website

change 'website' from israel.org (which does not work and redirects you to MFA website) to working https://www.gov.il/ Andrii Trepak (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Israel/Archive 59#Official website. Israel.org is working. Gov.il has nothing in English on it, except Welcome page, and it's linked in the "External links" section already. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

israel.org redirects to http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/Pages/default.aspx.

So why not to just indicate http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/Pages/default.aspx as website? Andrii Trepak (talk • contribs) 08:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Because if mfa.gov.il changes its internal layout (say, remove Pages subdirectory) or switch from aspx to another technology this URL would no longer work. There is less reason to suspect israel.org domain would stop working. “WarKosign” 08:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition, the israel.org links was obviously intended to be an easily recognizable redirect page. Saying it "does not work and redirect" means "it works and redirects". Debresser (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Middle East vs Western Asia

For US-Americans and Canadians Israel is in the middle east, since their "near east" is Europe, but this article is for the world-wide English speaking community and for most English-speaking countries (UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa... and India, Pakistan etc) Israel is NOT in the middle east, but in Western Asia.--Karljoos (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. In Europe we also called Israel the Middle East. Never heard of Western Asia in Europe! Debresser (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The article on Western Asia specifically says "The concept is in limited use, as it significantly overlaps with the Middle East". So it makes much more sense to use the more popular term for the same area. “WarKosign” 12:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The more popular term being "Middle East", I hope? Debresser (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As the article on Western Asia says, the term Western Asia is of limited use compared to Middle East, so yes. “WarKosign” 14:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Are we going with popularity or with correctness? OK, I found these: 1. [The origin of the term Middle East http://www.transanatolie.com/english/turkey/In%20Brief/middle_east.htm] 2. [The term “Middle East” https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/the-term-middle-east/] 3. [New York Times - Editorial Notebook; How the Middle East Was Invented http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/13/opinion/editorial-notebook-how-the-middle-east-was-invented.html. I stand corrected: the term was not a US-American term, but British. I suggest we go with the more geographically correct term Western Asia.--Karljoos (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You already suggested that, and nobody agrees. The term is both popular and correct. In addition, this encyclopedia is too America-centered as it is (see WP:GLOBALIZE). Debresser (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020225835/http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-07-29-west-bank_x.htm to http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-07-29-west-bank_x.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014191556/http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html to http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150731092044/http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf to https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Observers claimed Israel or According to observers

this paragraph should not be in the article Israel We should not be pushing Political views on the article. you can have a link to the "criticism of Israeli Peace Process" where you can have this text, but not as text in the main body of the article. thanks Igor Berger (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Igorberger: there is an (extremely long) thread a bit higher on this page, here. It's better not to split the discussion into several threads. “WarKosign” 08:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

just gave my 2 cents. i am not enlightened to the whole discussion about this, but was asked for an opinion. Assuming NPOV, thanks Igor Berger (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

WarKosign if you like add my opinion to the relevant thread, or give me a link where you guys discussing it, and I will add it myself. thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

ok, added my input. hope i did it in the right thread :-) Igor Berger (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

What have we here, a little canvassing?

• [6]
  • I forgot I canvassed you already[7]
  • I guess I should remove the duplicate notice[8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

Of course, this isn't the fault of the editors being canvassed but of the sockpuppet—likely a perma-blocked editor—who is engaging in canvassing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• And a little more...
  • [12]
  • [13]
  • — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

By far not the first time I'm being canvassed. Often comes in form of an email from an editor I've never seen before, by then usually an already blocked sock puppet. I tried telling admins, responding on the sock's own talk page or ignoring the messages. Specifically in this case Israel is on my watchlist, probably on the watchlist of all the editors who were canvassed, so it was of little consequence. I don't think it can be blocked in any way short of allowing only autoconfirmed users edit talk page of an editor who ever touched an I/P area, so perhaps it can only be countered by posting a notification such as this thread to bring editors with different opinions. I'd prefer a more neutral title, something like "RfC to counter canvassing".“WarKosign” 06:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I realize that most of the editors who were canvassed already watch this article. This was the second time this week that I noticed multiple IPs and throw-away accounts canvassing, though, and my message was primarily intended for the canvasser. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

He had a point though on this one - it was a bit unbalanced - in particular your edit Malik where you qualified "some" by "Some, such as Israeli ambassadors," - discounting this view point. I don't edit-war on request (and I've ignored a different request asking me to do something in " Israel and apartheid analogy" which came through this week too) - but inserting the US UN ambasaddor's statements in addition to unspecified Israeli ambassadors was in line there (which I did). I'm not sure the paragraph should be there at all - but I'm not getting into it - letting previously involved editors figure this one out.Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The article, about a speech by Ban, said that he echoed what Israeli ambassadors have said for years. I thought it was more meaningful to attribute the criticism to multiple ambassadors than just to Ban. I'm sorry you disagree. Instead, you turned the sentence into a laundry list of names, losing the forest for the trees. It may stroke your ego but in my opinion it does a disservice to the reader of the article, who probably couldn't care less. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually added two names - Ki-Moon and Haley. You attributed this to multiple Israeli ambassadors - which was too narrow - and made it sound like only the Israeli administration takes this position. We could pare it down to Israel, the United States (at least as per the current regime - I believe this goes up to Tillerson and Trump as well), and former UN leadership (the current, as per their position, is precluded from taking sides), as well as others.Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please look more carefully at the diff. I took a generic statement ("Some also claim") and added an example ("Some, such as Israeli ambassadors, also assert"). I'm sorry if you read that as meaning "Only Israeli ambassadors assert". Instead, you've turned the sentence into a laundry list. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I appreciate the notification. It is a good thing to notify editors who have previously edited an article. And I personally don't care if the notification is a tad less than neutrally worded. I am well capable of making up my own mind about any subject. It wouldn't be the first time an editor notifies me, only to find me on the talkpage disagreeing with them. Debresser (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)