This template is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template should be split into two different templates:
A template which would cover subjects related to Palestinian nationalism
A template which would cover the region of Palestine.
For anyone whom do not understand why this is necessary - try to imagine how you would feel if a similar template called "The region of Palestine and Jewish nationalism" would be added at the bottom of the same pages this template has been added to. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The template doesn't directly cover nationalism at the moment, so we can change the title if you like. To answer your question, I would welcome such other templates being put on relevant pages - there are a few of them which cover the topics you suggested: e.g. Template:Israel topics. This is a much needed navbox to cover all the topics related to Palestine. The concept of Palestine is complex and this template is intended to help users navigate a an easily confusing group of topics. Splitting it up will only ensure the confusion continues. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Have changed the name of the template as per TheCuriousGnome above. Template name is now consistent with other similar templates (have added category). Given the complexity of the term "Palestine" (as evidenced by non-stop wikipedia debates by editors with differing viewpoints), this template attempts to appropriately covers all the common interpretations of the name to group the key articles covering every viewpoint. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
You behaviour is totally unacceptable. This is not how wikipedia works - consensus must be found before blanking whole articles and replacing them with your own version. Unfortunately I do not have time to find out what rules you broke with your behaviour right now - hopefully someone more knowledgeable than I can point it out.
Please note that I appreciate your work, and you should appreciate that of others. I am not going to try to remove your templates (at least not without proper discussion), and you should not try to remove the existing template unless you can find a proper consensus - an outcome I believe is highly unlikely (I have put it back here Template:Palestine topics). They can happily coexist as they help the reader in different ways. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Miniapolis 20:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - the topics are mostly related to PNA, some to State of Palestine, others to West Bank and Gaza; in any case this is not something which can be defined as Palestinian territories. What are Palestinian territories? - Occupied territories in 1967? Occupied areas today? Palestinian-controlled territories today? totally unclear.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
oPt means what's described in the lede of that article - the WB and Gaza occupied in 1967. Japinderum (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Palestinian Authority defines "Palestinian territories" as "Liberated Palestinian territories", meaning those they currently control (areas A+B of WB, GS controlled by Hamas); international community related to Palestinian territories as "Palestinian-controlled territories", more or less in accordance with the Palestinian Authority stance.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I mean I'm thinking of Palestinian territories in the sense described in the Wikipedia article called Palestinian territories: "The Palestinian territories ... comprise the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip." So, the PNA would be one of the topics addressed within a "Palestinian territories topics" template. CsDix (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Support - the template includes topics related to the PLO and SoP and while it can be argued those are included because of the "and the Palestinian people" I think having PNA in front of the title is misleading. Japinderum (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Nothing, ultimately, I suppose – it's just that it's categorised with templates called "X topics". CsDix (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, should have read the request more carefully. Yes, it would be best to move as proposed. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
COMMENT - you can't change the opening proposal on the fly, during the discussion - it makes it unclear who supports/opposes what. Initially the proposal was to move to "Palestinian territories and Palestinian people", now it's different from that. And that change was not announced here. There is no problem with the actual move to be to a different target from what was proposed (if, for example, all responds were "oppose, but I think XXXX will be better", then it gets moved to XXXX despite the opening proposal being for YYYY). My opinion is that "and Palestinian people" should remain, because this is an unique case and not some "general [territories] something template" (or whatever you call it). If that is removed, then some of the wikilinks in the template may have to be removed. Japinderum (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I was here from the beginning, the proposal was always to move this to "Template:Palestinian territories topics". I agree that "and the Palestinian people" remain in the header of the template itself, the thing that you would see transcended into the article itself, but the title should probably be standardized to to match the rest of the Category:Country and territory topics templates. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, you are right. Japinderum (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment - i agree in general that it should be <X topics>, i disagree with the "Palestinian territories", which can refer to "occupied palestinian territories", "palestinian controlled territories" or "liberated palestinian territories (Hamas designation for Gaza). I think it should be kept "Palestinian National Authority topics", while another template soon should be created named "State of Palestine topics" in accordance with the recent change of status in UN and the following title change of Palestine in all UN institutions.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
If a Template:Palestinian National Authority topics and a Template:State of Palestine topics are viable and would be sufficiently distinct, that seems fine to me. (The former would be about an authority (an administration, a government, etc) so I imagine would sit in a "politics and government templates" category rather than a "country and territory topics templates" one.) If, though, these wouldn't be that distinct, or, perhaps, not receive sufficient consensus to be viable, it looks as though Wikipedia uses "Palestinian territories" as the compromise (consensus?) approach. CsDix (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree with counter proposal per Greyshark, as it would work neatly as two sub-templates under the broader Template:Palestinian nationalism. This would then need some pruning, to remove the topics which related to other topics such as the state of Palestine (per new template proposed by Greyshark, to include topics related to the palestinian territories) and Palestinian people (per existing template here Template:Palestinians). Oncenawhile (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Theoretically they can be made distinct, but knowing what happens to edits about such topics in other articles it's dubious this can be actually achieved. Recent title change in the UN, however diplomatically important, is irrelevant to almost all wikilinks currently in the template, so that's not a good reason to make changes there. State of Palestine currently only claims, but doesn't have any control over the Palestinian territories - so what Oncenawhile proposes can be made only with big caution, that realistically won't be adhered to when editing in this politically-loaded topic. Japinderum (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
You keep asserting that "Palestinian territories" is a vague and dubious term. I won't bother to repeat everything I said at Talk:Palestinian_territories#Considered_by_whom but, the long standing lead of Palestinian territories has described the PT as consisting of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and if there were any real dispute over that, the lead definition would have dawn far far more controversy, and would have done so a long time ago. the overwhelming majority of RS describe the PT as consisting of the west Bank and Gaza Strip . You're previously assertions that PT can commonly refer to just Area's A and and B of the West Bank and Gaza Strip wasrejected.
The Palestinian Territories consists of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there may be valid reasons for a split, but PT being vague is not one of them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
@Emmette, your above comment is a kind of loose and incorrect, because it was your proposal which was rejected - . Don't try to make it the other way around (as i remember you even apologized for that incident).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Irreverent. The objection was to your assertion about the meaning of the term "Palestinian territories", it clearly states "[Greyshark09's] claim that the Pt term today is widely implemented not to the entire WB and GS, but specifically to the areas under PNA control is completely unsupported and easily refuted." Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course my proposal is not piratical (piracy?)Greyshark09 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - reminder - to date (2012) a Palestinian state still does not have sovereignty over the entire Palestinian territories. These types of templates (the state templates) should only contain the information related to the official governmental body and not information related to other non governmental organizations operating in the Gaza strip and the West Bank or information relating to the Jewish/Israeli settlements/organizations in the West Bank. When a final peace agreement would be reached between the Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel which would put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the PNA would become the official body governing a Palestinian sovereign state which will extend over MOST or ALL of the Palestinian territories (depending on the final agreement reached), therefore, in my opinion it would definitely be more correct to either use the name "Palestinian Authority" OR "Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people". TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I will ask your clarification - do you agree to name this template "Palestinian National Authority topics", and perhaps in the future (when relevant) create another template "State of Palestine topics" (per my suggestion above)?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
A "Template:State of Palestine topics" content will be very limited - only three of the wikilinked articles in the current template are related to SoP. Japinderum (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
It will take some time to build a list of articles, but it is inevitable. UNICEF also changes the Palestinian designation to "State of Palestine" .Greyshark09 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The Government, Security, and Politics sections deal with mostly with the Palestinian National Authority, but otherwise this template deals mostly with the Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent the Palestinian people. How about renaming this but with no prejudge against spiting a Palestinian National Authority template off from this one? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought about your oppose some more and I'm confused. How would naming this to "Palestinian Territories" cause it to include non governmental organizations? All the other Category:Country and territory topics templates use the name of their respective Countries or territories yet they don't have non governmental organizations listed.
Comment I just made a change to the template. I added "PNA" to links that deal with the PNA rather then the Palestinian territories or people in general. This, aside from making it more organized and making it clearer as to what these articles deal with, might also serve as a compromise for some of the arguments to split this, especially Oncenawhile's, and might address TheCuriousGnome's concerns. In the process I had to replace "Palestinian National Authority" with "Palestinian territories" in the header, because otherwise the "PNA"'s I added would be confusing, but most of these articles deal with the Palestinian territories or people in general rather then the PNA specifically anyway. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
That change was reverted not because of an objection but because of no consensus. The discussion had gotten rather stuck so I was trying to implement a possible comprise using WP:BRD. If there would have been objections the objector would have reverted and then the objection could have been discussed, and if no one objected to it we would have had a new consensus, but the "no consensus" revert sabotaged that. Anyway here's my version, anyone object to it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment - to summarize there is no consensus for move, because 4 users support (Cs, Emmette,Japinderum,BDD), another one offers weak support (Nightw), and 3 users oppose (Grey, Onceanawhile, Gnome). In addition, it seems everything now converges into SoP, so the proposal seems like a last year's snow.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Onceanawhile never said opposed the move, he said that he supported splitting the template. Your oppose is based on the fringe view that "Palestinian territories" is a vauge and dubious ther, whichhasbeenrejected by 6 editors (including me). That leaves one valid oppose.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
You sound desperately obsessed over-excited, which doesn't help you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I should have said "your assertion" instead of "fringe view" that was a bit uncivil of me, but "You sound desperately obsessed, which doesn't help you" is a blatant personal attack, how could you possibly think that it was an appropriate or constrictive thing to say? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, i should have said "overexcited" instead of "obsessed". But considering our long relationship, i felt much more friendly with yourself to use some slang words.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
"You sound desperately over-excited, which doesn't help you." is still a personal attack, inappropriate, and unconstructive. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
"everything now converges into SoP" - quite untrue if in everything you include PLO or oPt. Only some PNA institutions may merge into SoP, it still not clear what/how/when. The "Palestinian territories" continue to be under Israel occupation, so there are many separate articles about them, distinct from the political-related SoP and PNA. Japinderum (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a clearly political template.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.