Template talk:Palestine-geo-stub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Scoping and image

I think that with regard to the Israeli and Palestinian geo templates, it was agreed to use the flag and not a map of the territory since it is POV either way. --Shuki 20:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur and would support a reversion. A Palestinian state is envisioned on both more and less territory than the West Bank and Gaza Strip (not to mention territorial exchange). It is worth noting, though, that the geo-stub is specifically applied to places within those boundaries. Tewfik^Talk 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the template accordingly - this will also save it from being confused with places in historical (pre 1948) Palestine. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If you reworded it, we can also move it. I changed Palestine to PNA. Amoruso 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ramallite's edit summary, I'm sure that we can all find an appropriate compromise. We all recognise that while there currently is no political entity called Palestine, this tag is practically going to apply to places in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Surely we can all meet halfway? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

{{protected}}

This page is protected from moving - please do not move stub templates without first debating such moves. Arguing about the wording of the template is fine, but not moving it. As it is, the current name was debated and this name was decided upon as being the most suitable for it. PNA refers to many things, of which the Palestinian national Authority is but one. PNA, in fact, redirects to a chemical!

The name is still not appropriate and will have to change once you unprotect. I'm very surprised by Tewfik's edit summary of "a government's territory, like 'geography of Israel,' or 'geography of New Zealand", which would only be accurate were it not called " geography of the Palestinian National Authority". The "Palestinian National Authority", unlike "Israel" and "New Zealand", is not the name of a territory and government, it's the name of a governing authority only. Let's leave aside the fact that it doesn't really govern anything and has no sovereignty over any of the land it 'governs' and actually covers more Area B than Area A and all that. The name of the template now is as utterly ridiculous as saying "Geography of the Government of Israel" or "Geography of the Chamber of Commerce of Toronto". Palestinian National Authority is not the name of a geographic location (unless one reads too much Israeli press, which sometimes uses it as such because they can't bring themselves to call it anything else). Completely unacceptable encyclopedically and grammatically. I think people here are smart enough to come up with something better, hopefully in proper English! Ramallite ^(talk) 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose using Palestinian territories for geography stubs of this kind:

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ramallite that the current text is no good. I suggest splitting this into separate "West_Bank-geo-stub" and "Gaza_Strip-geo-stub" templates, because these are actually well-defined geographical regions with more-or-less agreed-upon borders. -- uriber 18:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}. This suggestion is not specific enough for an admin to make the edit. If there is consensus for a split, i suggest first making the new templates, then migrating to them, rather than changing this one. CMummert · talk 20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Establishing such consensus would ideally involve WP:WSS/P on the one hand, and the related wikiprojects on the other. As a number of places in the West Bank are currently tagged with {{Israel-geo-stub}}, it would be wise to be as clear as possible about whether the intended scope for this stub type (or the above suggested replacements) is "all of the WB&G", "the WB&G minus the Israeli settlements", "the areas under the control of the PNA", or some other formulation, and (here's hoping) as wide a consensus as possible about what that should be. Alai 08:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What tag would an area like the Seam Zone be accorded?Tiamut 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If the scope is "Palestinian territories" or "West Bank" (or "disputed territories", or "Judea and Samaria", or whatever form of words to that effect yer havin' yersel'), then the normal interpretation would be to follow internationally-recognised borders, i.e. to include such areas within such templates. (The borders of present states, or delineated state-free areas, such as {{Antarctica-geo-stub}}; hence the lack of (say) a {{Kurdistan-geo-stub}}, or an {{Ottoman-geo-stub}}.) The current scoping statement would seem to assume they're Israel-geo-stubs (or terranulla-geo-stub, or otherwise nosuch-geo-stub). Alai 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What internally recognized borders? Israel's borders are "undefined". [1] "According to Ezrahi, a central problem is the undefined borders between the Israeli state and the Arab state. “No historians or religious leaders could agree what precisely were the borders of Israel …Israel became a borderless entity,” said Ezrahi. This, he argues, leads to problems between the army and the police. “In a normal country, the army is responsible for the security of external enemies and the police is supposed to deal with internal conflicts…but in Israel, we don’t know exactly what is internal and what is external, and it’s a very unhealthy situation." Further, the Seam Zone lies within the West Bank.Tiamut 09:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested edit

This template is protected, and should be tagged with {{protected template}}, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 19:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)