Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 242: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:00, 25 April 2023 editSelfstudier (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers41,286 edits →Unofficial and unnecessary French translation of text back into English: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:20, 20 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,114 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 242/Archive 8) (bot
(18 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject Israel~~\|class=B~~\|importance=mid}}		{{WikiProject Israel\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProject Egypt~~\|class=B~~\|importance=mid}}		{{WikiProject Egypt\|importance=mid}}
	{{WP Syria~~\|class=B~~\|importance=Mid}}		{{WikiProject Syria\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Palestine~~\|class=B~~\|importance=Mid}}		{{WikiProject Palestine\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Military history\|class= Start\|Middle-Eastern=y\|Cold-War=y\|b1=n\|b2=y\|b3=y\|b4=y\|b5=n}}		{{WikiProject Military history\|class= Start\|Middle-Eastern=y\|Cold-War=y\|b1=n\|b2=y\|b3=y\|b4=y\|b5=n}}
	{{WikiProject International relations ~~\|class=B~~\|importance=mid\|law=yes\|law-importance=Low\|un=yes}}		{{WikiProject International relations \|importance=mid\|law=yes\|law-importance=Low\|un=yes}}
	}}		}}
	{{ARBPIA}}		{{ARBPIA}}
Line 25:		Line 25:
	\|leading_zeros=0		\|leading_zeros=0
	\|indexhere=yes}}		\|indexhere=yes}}

	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2019 ==

	{{edit extended-protected\|United Nations Security Council Resolution 242\|answered=yes}}
	Link "PLO" to "https://en.wikipedia.org/Palestine_Liberation_Organization" ] (]) 20:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
	:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:EEp --> – ] (]) 04:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

	== Useless Map ==		== Useless Map ==
Line 44:		Line 38:

	:Snap! It's misleading because to put the resolution in context it needs to show the territories occupied to which the resolution's calling for de-occupation refers, the Sinai first. How can we change it? ] (]) 15:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)		:Snap! It's misleading because to put the resolution in context it needs to show the territories occupied to which the resolution's calling for de-occupation refers, the Sinai first. How can we change it? ] (]) 15:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
			::It's also misleading because it misrepresents which territories were occupied.
			::Resolution 242 is absolutely explicit that conflict does not move international boundaries, so the Gaza Strip annexed by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War were occupied territories reclaimed during the Six Day War.
			::Sinai and the Golan became territories occupied by Israel, and the resolution demands their return. ] (]) 19:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
			::: Love that "reclaimed". Sorry but your personal analysis is off-topic in addition to being wrong. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

	== ~~Palestinian rejection~~ ==		== Preamble ==
	The lede includes the following sentence, which is unsourced and not covered in the main body: “The ] (PLO) in its ] adopted in 1974 rejected Resolution 242, with the rejection repeated by the ] in 1977.”

	Does anyone have a source for this? We need to explain exactly what part of the resolution they rejected, if any, in order to put it in its proper context.

	] (]) 22:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

	:I'm not familiar with the specifics, I had thought the PLO was against 242 from the beginning. Later on, the objection was mainly based on the Palestinians being portrayed as nothing more than refugees.] (]) 12:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
	:See below.--] (]) 12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
	::
	:::As an aside, pretty sure Arafat signed on to 242 in 1988.] (]) 15:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

	:I reinstated the text with sources.<ref>https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=8CiNDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT100&dq=Ten+Point+Program+PLO+rejected+242&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Ten%20Point%20Program%20PLO%20rejected%20242&f=false Jordan's Palestinian Challenge, 1948-1983: A Political History By Clinton Bailey</ref><ref>{{cite book\|last1=Tucker\|first1=Spencer C.\|last2=Roberts\|first2=Priscilla\|title=The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict\|edition=1st\|publisher=ABC-CLIO\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YAd8efHdVzIC&pg=PA1335 \|year=2008 \|page=1335 \|isbn=978-1-85109-841-5}}</ref> Article 1 of the 10-point program is the rejection of 242 as the basis for Arab or international dealings.--] (]) 21:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
	::Hi {{ping\| Chuka Chief}} I think this is a little hasty. I have just been reading what is considered one of the best sourced books on the subject – Avi Rai’s ''The Bride and the Dowry'', which chronicles the period from June 67 to October 68 in detail. . The sentence you added back, together with the subsequent quote we have from Israel, is used as a pro-Israeli talking point in order to support their theme of long-term “Palestinian rejectionism”. But the out-of-context juxtaposition of these two facts creates a misleading picture. In reality, the PLO were irrelevant actors at the time. It was the West Bank Palestinian leadership who mattered, and they made a consistent effort to make peace with Israel until they were blocked by the Israelis. Israel’s interest in land-for-peace stretched only to the Egyptian and Syrian areas. The Israeli government were at no point willing to give back the West Bank.
	::All of which is why things like this should not be in the lede until they are properly dealt with in the main body of the article (as required per ]).
	::] (]) 21:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

	:::I think we need a section "PLO and Res 242" or similar in the body so the whole thing can be dealt with NPOV.] (]) 12:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::: Moving the goalposts, are we? You challenged sourcing. Sourcing was provided. Rejecting 242 was a cornerstone of the PLO, the #1 article in PLO programmes. The PLO, as the main representative body of the Palestinian people, is very relevant. Further, leaving in the lede the following single sentence paragraph: "In September 1993, the PLO agreed that Resolutions 242 and 338 should be ''the basis for negotiations with Israel'' when it signed the ]." while omitting the longstanding PLO rejection is entirely inconsistent.--] (]) 16:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

	:::::No moving goalposts, it was challenged both because it was unsourced (it was only added a couple months ago and you are sourcing it after the fact) AND because it was not in the body. It's very easy to source because it is true. It is as well completely misleading to, in effect, cherry pick the start and end dates as has been done here. At the other end of it, the 1988 Algiers declaration isn't even mentioned. This happens when you just pick out random facts and stuff them into the lead without a proper consideration. If you are unable to or don't want to do a section like I suggested I will do it.] (]) 17:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::::Challenge was on sources, both on talk above and in edit summary("moving unsourced to talk"). The goalposts are moving quickly. I removed the sentence in the lead on the PLO in 1993 as it is not sourced and not in body, and is not neutral without inclusion of position prior to 1993.--] (]) 06:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

	:::::::Please re-read the first post at the top of this thread. It said “unsourced and not covered in the main body... We need to explain exactly what part of the resolution they rejected, if any, in order to put it in its proper context.” That is the goal post that we started with, and it is the one we will end with. ] (]) 08:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

	:::::::I agree with the additional removal, the only reason I didn't remove it myself because it was not that which was initially disputed. I am concerned that the entirety of the PLO/242 relationship is dealt with and not only parts.] (]) 10:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::I have added a sub section about the PLO and 242, it still needs a little more in the way of referencing but most of it is there and I will think about a one or two sentence summary for inclusion in the lead.] (]) 13:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

	::::::::Having reflected, I think the lead already does cover the fact of Palestinian acceptance of Res 242.] (]) 13:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

	{{reflist-talk}}

	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2020 ==

			If I understand the preamble correctly, "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" means that the 1948 Arab-Israeli War did not change the Mandate boundaries. ] (]) 13:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	{{edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}
	Please restore with the following source to back it up:

			== Introduction ==
	<ref>{{cite book \|last=Brynen \|first=Rex \|title=Sanctuary And Survival: The Plo In Lebanon \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lAeiDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT82&dq=un+resolution+242+rejected+by+1974+PLO+ten+points&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwierZG5mPTnAhW1qHEKHa8RDqoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=un%20resolution%20242%20rejected%20by%201974%20PLO%20ten%20points&f=false\|publisher=Westview Press \|year=1990 \|page= \|isbn=0813379199}}</ref>

	~~Thanks--~~] (]) 12:59, 28 ~~February~~ ~~2020~~ (UTC)		The introduction doesn’t tell me what the resolution is actually about. ] (]) 16:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

			==Edit Request==
	::It was objected to not only because of it being unsourced but because it is not in the article body (stuff in the lead needs to be in the body and the lead is a summary of the important points of the body). Where would you want to put it in the body? After that we can see whether that is a sufficient importance to make it into the lead. I want to think a bit more but my first reaction is that 1974 seems arbitrary. As I know it (I need to check), 242 was opposed by the PLO right from the outset not just from 1974 and then later they relaxed their opposition.] (]) 13:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
			{{Edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}

			<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->
	:::In fact, just following the given wikilink to the 10 point plan, it says in there "...only repeated the principles of the policies which the Palestinian National Council had accepted in the past: the denial of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242". So, while WP is not in itself a source, that accords with what I had thought, that the rejection does not date from 1974; on the contrary, that date might be looked at more as a date when the PLO began to think about relaxing their objection to it.] (]) 14:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::Also, I couldn't find any reference to the Steadfastness and Confrontation Front in the ref you gave, maybe it is on another page? ] (]) 15:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Per my comment in the above thread just now, I agree it is true that the PLO rejected it. They did so by definition, as they had been founded only a few years earlier on what was then an extremist platform. What I hadn’t realized is that at that point they represented mostly refugee Palestinians, not the people on the ground in the West Bank. Which makes their rejection entirely logical, but needs to be put in its proper context. ] (]) 21:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
	:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{tlx\|edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] ] ] 17:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

	{{reflist-talk}}

			* '''What I think should be changed (format using {{tl\|textdiff}})''':
	== Unofficial and unnecessary French translation of text back into English ==

			The text "Secretary of State Dean Rusk" should be amended to "The United States secretary of state Dean Rusk"
	1. The section on competing meaning of the English and French versions of the text is heavy with original research on French grammar. "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict" either with "the" before territories translates into the same expression "des territoires", so why bother to unofficially translate back into English when the English original version is supplied?

			* '''Why it should be changed''':
	2. In English Language "the" is defined as saying something about all the things referred to by a noun
	The use of the definitive article is crucial for meaning of the text. Lord Cardigan's remarks "… the draft resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole and as it stands."

			There is no context indicating that this is a USA secretary of state.
	3. The example given by John McHugo has a source that doesn't exist. The title with the phrase "Right-wing Israeli interpretation" leads to the suspicion it is a fake quote: It is also factually incorrect (see example below), something a native English speaker would recognize.

			* '''References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button)''':
	"A solicitor wants to rent out his French villa to an additional lodger. In English he instructs his local agent to clear furniture in the villa to make room for this person while the existing lodgers are away. When they come back, the existing lodgers complain that the house has been stripped bare, and all the furniture in the villa removed. The local agent responds "Mais Monsieur, you told me clear out the furniture!" No, he spoke in English and didn't specify all, he left it up to local agent to judge what would be enough to remove to make room.

			https://en.wikipedia.org/Dean_Rusk
	I propose (a) removing the French grammar lesson on the grounds of Original Reseach
	(b) , and remove the suspicious example on the grounds of verifiability.
	(c) adding Lord Cardigan's remarks on not messing with the text, in either English or translating from French. ] (]) 14:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

			] (]) 23:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Before replying to the rest, the "suspicious example" is in fact archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20050524095037/http://www.nad-plo.org/nego/permanent/borders/related/McHugo.pdf and the title is indeed "Resolution 242: A legal reappraisal of the right wing Israeli interpretation of the withdrawal phase with reference to the conflict between the Israel and the Palestinians" and if the quote you refer to is "Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park" that is in fact in the archived source. So maybe first rephrase your request so as to exclude the apparently incorrect assertions about McHugo as well as your own unsourced OR re a French villa, and take it from there. ] (]) 14:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
			<!--Don't remove anything below this line-->
	::OK, thanks Selfstudier, my mistake. There are a number of links for reference , the first warned about Malware, some didn't contain the article and one the fourth said "This site can’t be reached". Got it now, let me do as you suggest and reformulate my request focusing on the unofficial French translation into English. ] (]) 18:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
			{{reftalk}}
	::So, there are currently two English versions of the UNSC242 text, the official one that was drafted in English, voted in English and deposited as a UN record, and and unofficial English version put forward by those who never accepted the intentional non-prescriptive text of record. I say intentionally non-prescriptive because the text of draft resolution A/L.522/REV.3* said “Calls upon Israel to withdraw immediately all its forces to the positions they held prior to 5 June 1967” was REJECTED. It was Lord Caradon's empirical observation that the only text to gain enough votes left out the definitive article, and as official English language sources point out, "the" means "all".
			:Done... - ] (]) 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::As mentioned, translating the controversial text "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" is rendered in French from the English either with or without the "the" both as "Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit", but only when translating the resulting French translation back into English does the "the" get put back in. To put it another way:
	::Official English text: territories >>> Official French text "des" territoires >>> Unofficial English translation: "the" territories.
	::Rejected English meaning: "the" territories >>> Official French text "des" territoires >>> Unofficial English translation: "the" territories.
	::So the official French translation doesn't distinguish between the accepted or rejected English meaning. Quel dommage. It is only when the French version is translated back into English that the ambiguity is resolved, and the rejected meaning is embraced. This non official translation is not of record and does not comply with the Vienna Law of Treaties, which says that any ambiguity should be resolved from the context. The context is simply the English version, the official one of the resolution that was drafted in English, voted in English and deposited as a UN record and translated from. It is unnecessary and open to bias to argue further as to what the original English version meant.
	::This unnecessary extra step is the failure of the Wiki page. I haven't (yet) explored the argument for taking the intentionally non-prescriptive interpretation, but I note the Wiki page is particularly one sided in arguing the context of the resolution. Contrary to the historical record this Wiki page ignores that UNSC242 was rejected by the Arab League at the Khartoum Conference (…no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it). Also, renowned Jurist Allen Gerson said in on page 74 "..242 did not require an immediate Israeli withdrawal from conquered territories. Rather, as did UNSCR 62, it made the future territories an issue for negotiation in the context of peace treaty deliberations...In this respect, UNSCR 242 further pursued the policy established by the Security Council in 1949 that the necessary means for termination of the Arab-Israeli conflict was a freely negotiated peace treaty." ] (]) 21:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
	::There's seems to be no counter arguments so far, so let me be a little clearer on the suggestions to improve the section on French vs. English versions of the text.
	::
	::(1) Remove the unofficial French to English translation of the equally valid French text and the translator's original research justification that seeks to reintroduce the English "all territories" meaning to the no less equal official English text.
	::(2) Include Lord Caradon's remarks "the draft resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole and as it stands."
	::(3) Cite authoritative English Language resource from the British Council's "Learn English" page that "the definite article say something about ALL the things referred to by a noun", i.e. if all territories were to be included in the withdrawal.
	::
	::I also notice some other improvements the balance the controversial meaning.
	::(A) Note the The Arab League instantly recognized the gist of the resolution and declared at the Khartoum Conference (…no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it).
	::I'm assuming "no" means "no" and not "maybe", but would be interested to hear accepted defences to that charge.
	::(B) Note that Israel did hand back the Sinai taken during the Six Day War to Egypt in exchange for a peace agreement. The map on the page seems to deny that Sinai was taken in the Six Day War.
	::
	::(C) Include the defeated vote of the text of draft resolutions for comparison.
	::S/8253 of 20 November 1967: The parties to the conflict should immediately withdraw their forces to the positions they held before 5 June 1967 in accordance with the principle that the seizure of territories as a result of war is inadmissible.
	::S/8227: UN Documents : Security Council Report: Occupation or acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and consequently Israel's armed forces should withdraw from all the territories occupied as a result of the recent conflict.
	::(D) Reference Allen Gerson that the UN was acting consistently in that "..242 did not require an immediate Israeli withdrawal from conquered territories. Rather, as did UNSCR 62, it made the future territories an issue for negotiation in the context of peace treaty deliberations...In this respect, UNSCR 242 further pursued the policy established by the Security Council in 1949 that the necessary means for termination of the Arab-Israeli conflict was a freely negotiated peace treaty." ] (]) 13:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
	:::My bad, link should be https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-180619/ ] (]) 13:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
	::::{{tq\| Remove the unofficial French to English translation of the equally valid French text...}}. Please specify the text you wish removed and the reason for that and we will deal with that first. ] (]) 15:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:20, 20 January 2025

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Egypt Mid‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Syria Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East / Cold War Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

International relations: United Nations / Law Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Low-importance).

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:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 22, 2005, November 22, 2006, November 22, 2007, November 22, 2012, November 22, 2014, and November 22, 2017.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Useless Map

The "Map of territories occupied by Israel, Date 22 November 1967" accompanying this article makes no sense at all. It excludes the Sinai and it does not explain what the coloring means at all. Brasselimburg (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I came to say the same. It is extremely odd as the conquest of Sinai was a principal cause of international shock. Among other things the area is twice the size of Israel + Gaza + Golan Heights + West Bank and extended up to the Suez canal. There is a good map that is used for the the Six-Day War Israeli_occupation_of_the_Sinai_Peninsula articles. It makes sense to use it here as well.

I'm not sure how to get it to render in non-gigantic size, so I will just link it.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:6DayWarEnglish.png

Isak Rubin (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Snap! It's misleading because to put the resolution in context it needs to show the territories occupied to which the resolution's calling for de-occupation refers, the Sinai first. How can we change it? JonathanMeldrum1975 (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It's also misleading because it misrepresents which territories were occupied.

Resolution 242 is absolutely explicit that conflict does not move international boundaries, so the Gaza Strip annexed by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War were occupied territories reclaimed during the Six Day War.

Sinai and the Golan became territories occupied by Israel, and the resolution demands their return. AJRT1 (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Love that "reclaimed". Sorry but your personal analysis is off-topic in addition to being wrong. Zero 10:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Preamble

If I understand the preamble correctly, "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" means that the 1948 Arab-Israeli War did not change the Mandate boundaries. AJRT1 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction doesn’t tell me what the resolution is actually about. 76.149.87.68 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

The text "Secretary of State Dean Rusk" should be amended to "The United States secretary of state Dean Rusk"

Why it should be changed:

There is no context indicating that this is a USA secretary of state.

References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://en.wikipedia.org/Dean_Rusk

187.92.78.179 (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: