Template talk:National parks of Israel

Change what? The authority is owned and controlled by the state, thus all national parks as well. Territory ownership has nothing to do with it.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you wrote: "the tomb of Samuel is controlled and administered by the Israeli national gardens authority".....so why not change the template to reflect that? (That is, if you want places on the West Bank to be included in the template.) The problem is, that as it is now, the template most certainly *implies* "Territory ownership", whether we like it or not. I think we have two options: either remove all places that are not in "Israel proper" (i.e.pre-67)...or change the name to indicate that this template includes all national parks *presently administered* by Israel. Regards, Huldra (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care what it implies. Fact of the matter is Israel controls it (hence, the tomb and all other national parks there are clear and defined. As an opposite, I'm not so sure why the Judean mountains are here and exactly how and when they were included. You can have your own inquiry about this if you wish.) ) and will continue to do so on the near future. I would have said the same if it was a shrine on the Himalayas or a pyramid on the moon.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you for telling me about the Judean mountains..that was an oversight. As to the rest: I´m not sure I follow you at all. Say, if the US army have total control over a UNESCO world Heritage Site in Iraq; does that mean that the site in question should be listed under "UNESCO World Heritage Sites of USA"? Just wondering. Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

While your wondering this, add to your wondering the question why was John McCain allowed to ran for President as someone who wasn't born on US soil.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. So, the way I understand it, is that you think it would be ok to let an Iraqi site listed under "UNESCO World Heritage Sites of USA"? Seriously; I am trying to come up with rules/follow rules that are the same all over WP/the world. We cannot create "special circumstances" for just one country...then *all* countries will soon claim to be "special".

And if you think something "belongs" to Israel, (even if it is not on Israeli land)..for cultural reason, or whatever...then think about what problems that will cause? Shall we Scandinavians reclaim, say, Shetland and Dublin?? Seriously, I hope you will address the issue. Thank you. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

U can try, Good luck on that one... I don't need to think anything, actually because all the facts regarding the current real and actual situation on location are on my side-all sites at the list are as of now under Israeli control and sovereignty, sites and land. Until such Iraqi...ah, Palestinian country comes forward to claim (they will have to do more then that) otherwise. BTW, you can add notes or something like that to sites that are "unrecognized" or whatever, I don't really care-at the condition that no site is removed.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ocupied Territories will be better

We agreed that the "sovereignty" of the territories is at worst disputed, haven't we? I think it will be best that every site that is disputed should be (again, at worst) marked with an * with a "Territorial status yet to be determined" text at the bottom, like in Israel's World heritage infobox.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

'Occupied' is a loaded word. If it's really important, I suggest 'National parks in Israel and the Palestinian Territories' or 'National parks in Israel and the West Bank'. Both are fine with me. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to West Bank, per your suggestion. There aren't any Israeli parks in the Gaza strip, so West Bank is more descriptive and accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

But there are at the Golan Height as well...--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Golan Heights are certainly not "Occupied Palestinian territories", so the header would definitely be wrong in that case. Are there actually any Israeli parks in the Golan Heights? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hippos is at the Golan Hights.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I know at least one, Nimrod fortress. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As discussed here and the section above, there are areas not in Israel included in the template so those areas must be in the name, removal of these areas as can be seen here:[1] can only happen if those areas in the occupied territories are removed from the template. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And as discussed at the other article RfC, National parks "OF" Israel does not imply that they are in Israel. It has nothing to do with the geographic location, so please stop making POV edits with no consensus. Breein1007 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was against the current consensus, you have not gotten any new consensus at this talkpage or any other talkpage to change it. As the closing admin of another article RfM said, and as I have shown you: [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my edit was restoring the longstanding consensus. You are the one who went against consensus. Posting your opinion on the talk page and immediately making the edit does not constitute creating a new "consensus". Nobody agreed with your suggested change. I explained very clearly, more than once, that it doesn't matter where they are located geographically. They are still parks OF Israel, AKA Israeli parks. They are owned, operated, etc. by Israel, not by the "West Bank" or "Golan Heights". If it said, Parks IN Israel it would be a different story. But it doesn't. Also, it was pointed out by more than one editor that the template should match the title. So feel free to continue discussing this issue here, but please stop edit warring. Breein1007 (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can clearly see from the discussions above that the editors in the end agreed to have the occupied territories or their names in the template. Huldra,[3] Jayjg[4] ArnoldPettybone[5] Ynhockey[6] and Me. Your claim that you are "restoring the longstanding consensus" is of course inaccurate. You are misrepresenting the consensus in your edits. You have no consensus to remove the occupied territories from the template. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

These users were addressing a potential title of "National Parks IN Israel and the West Bank". The current title reads "National Parks OF Israel". I can keep repeating myself over and over, but all I can do is assume you have no response to the fact that regardless of their location, these parks are still Israeli. Breein1007 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to ask SD to actually take part in productive discussion and not point us to places that don't exist. I suggest that he invite those editors back for clearing up the 'consensus'. --Shuki (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that, if someone wants to add info to the article, they should show how these parks are also Palestinian or Syrian parks. There is evidence that the Palestinians and Syrians do not accept the unilateral Israel decision on these parks by building unauthorized structures within them, so the template is merely describing parks that Israel decided upon. --Shuki (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Occupied Territories" is probably more correct, but, as some people object to that as being "loaded", I can agree on a compromise, using the name "West Bank " and "Golan" instead. Nobody buys the fancy word-splitting ("Of Israel"). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In vs Of.

The template is called National Parks of Israel. Even though for example the "Tomb of Samuel" is located in the West Bank it is in no way a national park of the West Bank. It is a national Park of Israel.--Fipplet (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Subgroup

The subsection added here [7], implys that the occupied regions are a part of the State of Israel, how it was before is more neutral with separate sections. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to create a false impression as if these Israeli national parks are located in an area which is not under the control of the State of Israel. Yes, these territories have been conqured during the wars of the 20th century from Jordan and Syria, Nevertheless, since then, they have been located within an area which is under the control of The State of Israel. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TheCuriousGnome. A similar issue was raised in WikiCommons, about photoes taken in Jerusalem and Ramat HaGolan (Golan Heights). The resolution was to include them under the scope, label and pages of Israel (since these photoes were taken by Israelis who accessed the disputed territories through Israel), with a disclaimer that "This page also includes depictions of sites and locales in the West Bank and the Golan Heights which are fully administered by, and accessible from Israel." This is reasonable compromise. When listing Israel's national parks - we must include those that are in the disputed territories, because this is a fact, even if we don't agree with it. Suppose some one wants to count the number of Israeli national parks - of course he will include in the count parks in the Golan or the West Bank. Therefore, the template must include these. You want to put a disclaimer? It can be discussed, but I don't think it is neccessary. MathKnight 08:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment above from MathKnight is a result of canvassing/votestacking: [8][9] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

He didn't tell me what to write and I never checked his contributions nor I know him. Moreover - this is a talk not a vote. What I expressed was reason alone. Please relate to the content and not Ad hominem. MathKnight 15:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing.. "Inappropriate canvassing" - "Audience-Partisan" a little bit down "Inappropriate canvassing" "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.".. now I'm pretty sure anyone who looks at your and Gilabrands userpage see clearly that he know what "side" that person will support. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked these two Wikipedians to participate in this discussion simply because they have a lot of knowledge about Israel and have been contributing a lot to Wikipedia and therefore I assumed that they would be able to help us reach a better result. I do not wish to have a big dispute about this with you. It might be better to involve the administrators in the decision making in this case in order to reach the best results. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

SD, this is lame. WP:Canvassing allows 'Friendly notices' neutrally worded. --Shuki (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)