Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) →can you take a look at this?: Comment |
Zuchinni one (talk | contribs) →Check discussion please: new section |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
Yes, it is a touchy area. If you look, you will see that there is the article, [[:Israeli-occupied territories]] and a category, [[:Category:Israeli-occupied territories]]. Unless there is some object to that term and hence the category, that is likely a way out of the conflict. In the case of the national parks and reserves, there is no reason why these area should not be included. If fact I just added the subcategory. It is not possible to always draw a direct conclusion from an article to a template. In the case of {{tl|National parks of Israel}}, I would probably just just leave the name Israel in the name and break the listings into two lists, one for Israel proper and the other for the occupied territories. This would maintain a distinction and yet unify the areas operated by Israel. That in my mind is probably what the template needs to show. If you do work like that and clearly expand [[:Category:Israeli-occupied territories]] beyond the conflict, editors have a better way to classify the articles related to these territories. But again this whole area is subject to emotional reactions. I'm almost afraid to nominate anything that includes Jew or Jewish for discussion since it will likely always result in opposition for reasons not behind the nomination. But hey, you need a thick skin to edit here. I don't know if I answered your questions, but good luck. Maybe the lesson and wisdom is that making any change in the area is not going to be easy. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
Yes, it is a touchy area. If you look, you will see that there is the article, [[:Israeli-occupied territories]] and a category, [[:Category:Israeli-occupied territories]]. Unless there is some object to that term and hence the category, that is likely a way out of the conflict. In the case of the national parks and reserves, there is no reason why these area should not be included. If fact I just added the subcategory. It is not possible to always draw a direct conclusion from an article to a template. In the case of {{tl|National parks of Israel}}, I would probably just just leave the name Israel in the name and break the listings into two lists, one for Israel proper and the other for the occupied territories. This would maintain a distinction and yet unify the areas operated by Israel. That in my mind is probably what the template needs to show. If you do work like that and clearly expand [[:Category:Israeli-occupied territories]] beyond the conflict, editors have a better way to classify the articles related to these territories. But again this whole area is subject to emotional reactions. I'm almost afraid to nominate anything that includes Jew or Jewish for discussion since it will likely always result in opposition for reasons not behind the nomination. But hey, you need a thick skin to edit here. I don't know if I answered your questions, but good luck. Maybe the lesson and wisdom is that making any change in the area is not going to be easy. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:The discussion at the page move was based on the arguments there. I suspect that any attempt to combine what is in Israeli proper and in the occupied territories is going to be problematic. I strongly believe, and I think the discussion hints at this, that having separate articles for the occupied territories is the least objectionable direction. I will agree with you that a no consensus decision, does not bestow consensus status across the board for renames to the no consensus name. Each case needs to be considered on the individual merits. As to the contents of the template which is what I think your specific question is. This needs to be discussed on the template talk page and a decision reached there. The RM that was closed can be considered there, but how much, if any weight, it has in that discussion will be up to the participants. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
:The discussion at the page move was based on the arguments there. I suspect that any attempt to combine what is in Israeli proper and in the occupied territories is going to be problematic. I strongly believe, and I think the discussion hints at this, that having separate articles for the occupied territories is the least objectionable direction. I will agree with you that a no consensus decision, does not bestow consensus status across the board for renames to the no consensus name. Each case needs to be considered on the individual merits. As to the contents of the template which is what I think your specific question is. This needs to be discussed on the template talk page and a decision reached there. The RM that was closed can be considered there, but how much, if any weight, it has in that discussion will be up to the participants. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Check discussion please == |
|||
Hi Supreme! You recently added complaints from foreign journalists into the Israeli Military accounts section. It really doesn't belong there and in the past has been moved to a a more appropriate location in the Media reactions section. |
|||
Please either undo your change or provide support for why it should remain here: [[Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Does_this_belong_in_the_Israel_Military_Accounts_section.3F]] |
|||
Cheers, |
|||
[[User:Zuchinni one|Zuchinni one]] ([[User talk:Zuchinni one|talk]]) 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:31, 3 June 2010
Why did you
Well, because I did not see a consensus in that discussion. While I did not say so in the close, there is always the option to split out the articles from the occupied territories into a separate list. I'll also add that there is Category:Nature reserves in Israeli occupied territories so with a list split, there is a way to deal with the various issues. Finally I'll add that on this issue, no matter which way the decision came down, someone would be upset. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Templates
It would be best to discuss changes you wish to make to the Israeli Parks template before making the changes, since attempts to change the name of the article failed at the RfM mentioned above above. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 21:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The discussions at the template as can bee seen here: [1]][2] [3][4] [5] [6]clearly show many people discussing and showing that the occupied territories should be in it, the IP address removed it without consensus here and without participating at the talkpage: [7] there were no consensus to change the template. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The results were mixed, no one firm side for or against, and the debate had been effectively left hanging since your topic ban began. Just a piece of advice, since you just came off an Israel-Palestine AE topic ban, it might be best to ease your way back into editing. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean? The vast majority of editors at the template discussion including several Israeli editors supported the inclusion of occupied territories. So why wouldn't I revert the edit by the IP when there was no consensus for the change? and a lot of that discussion was from 2008, so it hasn't been "left hanging" since my topic bann. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The results were mixed, no one firm side for or against, and the debate had been effectively left hanging since your topic ban began. Just a piece of advice, since you just came off an Israel-Palestine AE topic ban, it might be best to ease your way back into editing. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Breein1007
I notice you reported this user per 3RR, you should inform them of this. As you've been threatened by the editor, I could do the informing for you let me know. RomaC (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do whatever you want. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Have informed the editor. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
can you take a look at this?
Yes, it is a touchy area. If you look, you will see that there is the article, Israeli-occupied territories and a category, Category:Israeli-occupied territories. Unless there is some object to that term and hence the category, that is likely a way out of the conflict. In the case of the national parks and reserves, there is no reason why these area should not be included. If fact I just added the subcategory. It is not possible to always draw a direct conclusion from an article to a template. In the case of {{National parks of Israel}}, I would probably just just leave the name Israel in the name and break the listings into two lists, one for Israel proper and the other for the occupied territories. This would maintain a distinction and yet unify the areas operated by Israel. That in my mind is probably what the template needs to show. If you do work like that and clearly expand Category:Israeli-occupied territories beyond the conflict, editors have a better way to classify the articles related to these territories. But again this whole area is subject to emotional reactions. I'm almost afraid to nominate anything that includes Jew or Jewish for discussion since it will likely always result in opposition for reasons not behind the nomination. But hey, you need a thick skin to edit here. I don't know if I answered your questions, but good luck. Maybe the lesson and wisdom is that making any change in the area is not going to be easy. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion at the page move was based on the arguments there. I suspect that any attempt to combine what is in Israeli proper and in the occupied territories is going to be problematic. I strongly believe, and I think the discussion hints at this, that having separate articles for the occupied territories is the least objectionable direction. I will agree with you that a no consensus decision, does not bestow consensus status across the board for renames to the no consensus name. Each case needs to be considered on the individual merits. As to the contents of the template which is what I think your specific question is. This needs to be discussed on the template talk page and a decision reached there. The RM that was closed can be considered there, but how much, if any weight, it has in that discussion will be up to the participants. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Check discussion please
Hi Supreme! You recently added complaints from foreign journalists into the Israeli Military accounts section. It really doesn't belong there and in the past has been moved to a a more appropriate location in the Media reactions section.
Please either undo your change or provide support for why it should remain here: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Does_this_belong_in_the_Israel_Military_Accounts_section.3F
Cheers,
Zuchinni one (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)