Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs) |
Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) →Requested move: No consensus to move |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Requested move == |
== Requested move == |
||
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop --> |
|||
{{movereq|List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories}} |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|||
'''No consensus''' to move. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 21:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
[[:List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel]] → {{noredirect|1=List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories}} — Many of the areas in the list are Israeli-proclaimed national parks and nature reserves in the Israeli-occupied territories: the West bank and the Golan Heights. They are not in Israel according to the entire worldview. Therefor the neutral name should be "List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories" --[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 18:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
[[:List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel]] → {{noredirect|1=List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories}} — Many of the areas in the list are Israeli-proclaimed national parks and nature reserves in the Israeli-occupied territories: the West bank and the Golan Heights. They are not in Israel according to the entire worldview. Therefor the neutral name should be "List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories" --[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 18:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 52: | Line 55: | ||
::::I suppose another option might be to only state where they are geographically like in [[List of National Parks of the United States]] i.e. 'National parks and nature reserves of Israel, the Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights' <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Sean.hoyland|<font color="#000">Sean.hoyland</font>]]''' - '''[[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]'''</small> 05:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC) |
::::I suppose another option might be to only state where they are geographically like in [[List of National Parks of the United States]] i.e. 'National parks and nature reserves of Israel, the Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights' <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Sean.hoyland|<font color="#000">Sean.hoyland</font>]]''' - '''[[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]'''</small> 05:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' the occupied territories are occupied territories not a part of israel.[[User:Andres rojas22|Andres rojas22]] ([[User talk:Andres rojas22|talk]]) 22:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' the occupied territories are occupied territories not a part of israel.[[User:Andres rojas22|Andres rojas22]] ([[User talk:Andres rojas22|talk]]) 22:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom --> |
Revision as of 21:17, 9 May 2010
occupied territories
Many of these places are Israeli proclaimed national parks and nature reserves in the occupied territories, we can not say that that they are "of Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thats fine, but lets get other editors input in how to address this issue before moving the whole article to a long drawn-out name. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 13:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am reverting the title change per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes. If you wish to move it, please garner consensus and make a request via steps outlined at Wikipedia:RM --nsaum75¡שיחת! 13:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, several of these areas are in the occupied territories, not in Israel, this is neutral pov: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel → List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories — Many of the areas in the list are Israeli-proclaimed national parks and nature reserves in the Israeli-occupied territories: the West bank and the Golan Heights. They are not in Israel according to the entire worldview. Therefor the neutral name should be "List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Support, per above. Should the move not succeed the areas not in Israel should be removed from this article, and only keep the ones in Israel in this one. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Support As SD points out, the West Bank and Golan Heights are considered to be Israeli-occupied territories by most of the world and not a part of Israel proper. The suggested title better reflects the page's current contents and is more NPOV than the current title. Should the move request not succeed, locations in these areas should be removed. Tiamuttalk 18:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Absolutely; this should really be obvious. Huldra (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose continued attempts to politicize non-political issues and demonize Israel at every possible venue. The original title "List of national parks and nature reserves of Israel" is the most appropriate. Alternatively, I would support "List of Israeli national parks and nature reserves". By avoiding the term "in", we avoid the problem described by the nominator. Breein1007 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- No we don't because they are not "of Israel" and they are not "Israeli" parks/nature reserves, they are in the occupied territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just a note: this user has been topic banned from this subject, so he won't be able to respond. But I feel that I need to respond to his latest comment in case someone else comes by here and reads what he wrote. It is absolutely false. All the parks and reserves in this list are 100% Israeli. They were created by Israel, they are operated by Israel, etc. I made it clear that we avoid the problem of location by using the word of instead of in. Breein1007 (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Its not like Israel built them - they're nature reserve for goodness sake. Tiamuttalk 18:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's not like this has anything to do with the issue at hand. Certain people are making a big fuss about this issue (and have since been topic banned for this continued behaviour). They're just nature reserves for goodness sake. What's with this obsession to politicize anything and everything that has to do with the Jewish state? Breein1007 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Its not like Israel built them - they're nature reserve for goodness sake. Tiamuttalk 18:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just a note: this user has been topic banned from this subject, so he won't be able to respond. But I feel that I need to respond to his latest comment in case someone else comes by here and reads what he wrote. It is absolutely false. All the parks and reserves in this list are 100% Israeli. They were created by Israel, they are operated by Israel, etc. I made it clear that we avoid the problem of location by using the word of instead of in. Breein1007 (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Suggest a less tenatious rename or specific subsections in the article, per standards at other articles involving Israel and Israel controlled territories. As an alternative, perhaps an uninvolved third party could come up with a neutrally worded sub-article about Israeli-designated national parks in Israeli-controlled territories, which would be linked to in the appropriate places/articles. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 23:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- "less tenatious" ? Discussions here show clearly that the areas are occupied territories, thats what they are called by the entire world. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment Shouldn't parks in Israel and those in the Palestinian territories be in two separate lists? If not, I would use the term "Palestinian territories" to be less controversial, or "Israeli-occupied territories" to be more specific. ← George talk 04:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Palestinian territories" does not cover the parks in the Golan Heights, and "Israeli-occupied territories" sounds a bit redundant after Israel. Tiamuttalk 18:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment - How about 'List of Israeli managed national parks and nature reserves' ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I could accept this as a possible compromise, though I do not understand the objection to "occupied territories" given that its mainstream terminology in use worldwide. Tiamuttalk 18:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- My preference is also 'List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories'. My reason is that it's a list of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories. Seems obvious and policy compliant... However, I proposed a compromise because I don't have sufficient privileges to block editors for being very bad at geography or having topic specific policy compliance phobias. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- This proposal is much more appropriate than the one proposed above. However, I think "managed by" is still superfluous and the best option would be "List of Israeli national parks and nature reserves". Breein1007 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but they don't belong to Israel and Israel didn't create these natural wonders. I'm willing to accept "managed by", but any implication of Israeli ownership or patent hood over places in occupied territory is totally unacceptable. Tiamuttalk 20:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I suggested 'managed by' because it avoids the issue of whose land it is. Leaving it out, as Tiamut says, can suggest that all of the land that constitutes the parks and reserves is Israeli land, whereas, according to reliable-source-world, some of it is Israeli occupied. Cities in Western Sahara aren't included in the List of cities in Morocco despite being administered by Morocco by the way. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- This proposal is much more appropriate than the one proposed above. However, I think "managed by" is still superfluous and the best option would be "List of Israeli national parks and nature reserves". Breein1007 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- My preference is also 'List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories'. My reason is that it's a list of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories. Seems obvious and policy compliant... However, I proposed a compromise because I don't have sufficient privileges to block editors for being very bad at geography or having topic specific policy compliance phobias. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per Breein1007. Attempt to politicize inane things such as environmental topics. NPOV is to use either Israeli _____ or _____ of Israel, not to introduce negative, politically charged POV, if some editors cannot handle '___ in Israel'. The parks and nature reserves were declared by Israel and protected by Israeli law. Tiamut, No one has yet to show how the disputed ones are in fact 'Palestinian' or 'Syrian' nature reserves. In fact, the boundaries of parks/reserves in general are usually entirely arbitrary to whoever declares them. If someone would take the time to write an article about Palestinian nature reserves or national parks, they might also be able to claim to some areas 'in Israel' as being Palestinian parks/reserves. That would not really imply sovereignty. --Shuki (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
General comment - Well, speaking as someone who thinks of the Golan, for example, primarily as an interesting volcanic province, I think it's fair to say that there's a bit difficulty seeing things clearly from a detached, policy compliant perspective on issues like this. There's also a bit of a detachment from the real world in my opinion. Having the view that things like this are continued attempts to politicize non-political issues and/or demonize Israel at every possible venue seem quite ironic to me. Making a 'List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel' which includes areas regarded and routinely described as Israeli occupied by RS is already, in effect, politicizing Wikipedia. Claiming that this is a non-political issue is at odds with reality. An international oil&gas or mineral exploration company certainly wouldn't look at carrying out exploration activities in Israeli administered areas that fall outside of Israel as a non-political issue. And claims that editors are trying to demonize Israel can be countered by claims that editors are trying to sanitize Israel, perhaps not conciously, but nevertheless, ignoring real world political and naming issues reflected in reliable sources is problematic from a policy compliance perspective. I'm just saying... Sean.hoyland - talk 09:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Technically everything is political, e.g. which bus do I want to catch to the market today: the one with the poultry/goat problem or the one with the drug cartel problem...but my comments were meant to address a wide array of over-politicization of articles, not just IP articles (and I believe I said something to that affect)...
- Anyhow, Please see my original comment in which I stated As an alternative, perhaps an uninvolved third party could come up with a neutrally worded sub-article about Israeli-designated national parks in Israeli-controlled territories, which would be linked to in the appropriate places/articles. Maybe "sub-article" was the incorrect term, parallel article would be more fitting. However there are Israeli national parks in territories that Israel has annexed (per its law, albeit unrecognized by most countries) and territories which it has some intentions of relinquishing at a future date. Unfortunately, that opens a whole new can of worms (or maybe recycled can of worms, since it involves sovereignty issues that have been discussed elsewhere). So the "managed by" terminology might be the least "prickly" way to go, since it removes the issue of "ownership" while saying something that everyone here (so far) seems to agree upon -- that Israel manages the parks. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 10:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose 'managed by'. Plainly awkward. Breein1007's proposal is the closet to the WP conventions. --Shuki (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion is supposed to be closed after 7 days. There is no consensus for the proposed change. I still suggest 'List of Israeli national parks and nature reserves' as this avoids the issue of identifying the geographic location. Breein1007 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose another option might be to only state where they are geographically like in List of National Parks of the United States i.e. 'National parks and nature reserves of Israel, the Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights' Sean.hoyland - talk 05:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose 'managed by'. Plainly awkward. Breein1007's proposal is the closet to the WP conventions. --Shuki (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support the occupied territories are occupied territories not a part of israel.Andres rojas22 (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.