Template talk:World Heritage Sites in Israel and East Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Israel (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject World Heritage Sites (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites 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.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Old City of Jerusalem[edit]

I deleted the "Old City of Jerusalem" from the box. As there is no agreement on the status of the city of yet, and since the UNESCO does not refer to the state party as "Israel", I think it doesn't make sense to have it here. I realize this is a sensitive subject, but I am not making a political statement, I'm just sticking to the WP guidelines.

  • That is correct that UNESCO does not refer to the state party as "Israel", but Jerusalem is still a capital of Israeland main Israeli tourist destination. So I could agree that it will be mensioned in both Israeli and Arab/Palestinian lists, but to disconnect Jerusalem from Israel seems to be at least "strange". Shmuliko (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Your edit seems reasonable enough. Yazan (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed the Old City once more. There is no legitimate claim outside of Israel to the old city, it is part of the occupied Palestinian Territories. Look at the maps on this one. The old city is in the 1967 border, which is occupied by Israel. That would be like saying Hatra in Iraq is part of the United States because the U.S. occupies Iraq. asad (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Do not revert without participating in the discussion please. This is no way NPOV when you are claiming a UNCESO site in which UNESCO doesn't even define as Israel. And then you put it in a box with Israeli flags and titled "Israeli Heritage Sites." The footnote is irrelevant, it is no where defined as an "Israeli" heritage site, and therefore shouldn't be labeled as such with a weak footnote. asad (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Shmuliko, we cannot refrain from mentioning the Old City of Jerusalem and its walls in this template simply becuase it is located in an Israeli controlled area and because it is one of Israel's main tourist destinations. In this case, the best solution is to keep a note mentioning that the Territorial status of the site has yet to be determined, in the same way we did here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Did you completely disregard my previous post? You cannot just put it into that box because Israel controls it, when the GOVERNING BODY of the template in which you are associating it with does not recognize it to be Israeli! It would make just about as much sense if it was in a Jordanian template. I am removing it once more. Please do not add it unless you can add conclusive proof that the UNESCO gives Israel any jurisdiction over the site. Adding it again will break wikipedia NPOV and escalate the matter. asad (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
UNESCO did not recognize it to be located in Israeli teritory since the territorial status of this site is yet to be determined. Therefore, as I said before, the best solution is to keep a note mentioning that the Territorial status of the site has yet to be determined (in the same way we did here and here). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • By doing so you have completely undermined the point of the location stating "yet to be determined". Jerusalem is available on many templates dealing with world heritage sites, and is listed just simply as Jerusalem. You cannot provide any legal documentation states that the location of this world heritage site has anything to do with Israel other than it is illegally occupied by such, then it should remain off. And please don't make examples of other things that are viewed illegal by the rest of a world as a case to keep that site on some list. asad (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Whether you like it or not - these sites are currently located in full Israeli control - therefore it is not unreasonable to include them in the template "World Heritage Sites in Israel" with the note "Territorial status yet to be determined" added. As I said, UNESCO did not recognize it to be located in Israeli territory since the territorial status of this site is yet to be determined. The current compromise is fair for both sides and reasonable and a similar compromise have been implemented here and here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Just because Israel occupies the areas does not mean they are part of or "in" Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You have continuously failed to provide conclusive proof that this location has anything to do with Israel other than it is illegally occupied by such power. When you speak about the areas of "no man's land" located to the northwest of Jerusalem, it would be proper to say "Territorial status yet to be determined." But quite simply, the territorial status of this location is quite explicitly determined. It lies within the 1967 green-line which is illegally occupied by Israel. You have not provided any other evidence besides telling me to look "here" and "here". You could make the case for it being an Israeli state park as Israel claims it as such, but Israel is forbidden to claim this item as theirs. In this case we are talking about United Nations national law, it is not comparable to what Israel claims. asad (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So what has happened here, is that this page has been protected at it's current version, and yet the people who are purporting that it remain how it is still have failed to answer vital questions that I have raised to the legitimacy and legality of the subject? I would hope those who have reservations about the facts I have raised will contribute to the debate now. If not, it will be the same thing in one month. asad (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, no one has contributed anything at all to the debate. Fundamental answers to regarding this situation have not been provided by those who favor Jerusalem being on the list. Once again, if there is providable proof that Israel lays any claim to this site other than it illegally occupies such entity, then provide it. Until that proof is on the table there is no reason to consider it as such. Also, by the way, the territorial status has been determined, by the U.N. Council, the International Court of Justice, it is illegally occupied. It is factually incorrect to say "yet to be determined".asad (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Old City of Jerusalem and the Walls of Jerusalem be included in this template[edit]

No it should not as the name of this template is "World Heritage Sites in Israel", while the Old City of Jerusalem and the Walls of Jerusalem are outside of Israel in the occupied territories. Claiming they are in Israel is a violation of npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


"Territorial status is yet to be determined" is factually incorrect. Read here and reaffirmed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad112 (talkcontribs) 17:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Jerusalem was originally designated an international city under the 1947 UN Partition Plan. It was not part of either the proposed Jewish or Arab states. However, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the western part of Jerusalem was captured by Israel, while East Jerusalem (including the Old City) was captured by Jordan which immediately expelled all the Jewish residents of the Jewish Quarter, destroyed All the main synagogues, and bulldozed the Jewish Quarter. During the Six-Day War of 1967 Israel captured the West Bank (including East Jerusalem and the Old City) from Jordan, and eventually incorporated Eastern Jerusalem and its surroundings into the municipality of Jerusalem, including several neighboring villages. Jordan officialy ceded its claims to the West Bank in 1988 to the PLO. Thefore, the status of the big Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, of East Jerusalem, and of the Old City of Jerusalem are still a matter of dispute which would only be finalized in the future final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Becuase a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has not been reached yet, I think it would only be balanced and fair on both sides to currently add these sites to this template with a note that states that their "Territorial status is yet to be determined" (the same way it has been implemented here and here). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You have failed to address any single points and legal court decisions I have brought up. You claim it is disputed because Israel says so. Who else in this world claims that this land is disputed? Jordan ceded whatever to the West Bank is entirely irrevlevant. Did you read the texts of the UN resolution and the International Court of Justice decision I provided? The fact, whether you chose to decide it or not, is that East Jerusalem is illegally occupied territories as per U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 and later reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. I cannot go to my neighbors land and put one foot on it and then force him to put an asterisk on his deed that says ownership of his land has yet to be determined. Whenever territorial status is redetermined perhaps you can add it -- but as it stands now, East Jerusalem is illegally occupied Palestinian land despite Israel illegally annexing the area in 1980. You examples that you provide are just as illegitimate as this one, for the same reason and the same principles, and I plan on making a fuss about those here very shortly. -asad (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Include in template, but change template name to 'of Israel' and not 'in Israel' to leave ambiguously neutral. --Shuki (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Its not a heritage site "of Israel", its located in the Palestinian territories.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how that's ambiguously neutral so much as misleading. Daily's version is more precise without changing the scope of the article, why not use that name? Sol (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The 'Palestinian territories' is an even more misleading term and there is no / we have not been able to come to a consensus on what that means: Area A, or even including Area B and Area C as well still not decided in the negotiations. Some people here would like to decide the outcome of the negotiations ahead of time and deny that they are taking place. Even those claiming the Israel is colonialist need to accept that the West Bank is currently 'Israeli territory'. The Old City was never in Palestinian hands and never administered by a Palestinian organization. --Shuki (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You are extraordinarily incorrect in claiming that it is a misleading to call it Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is the official term of recognition of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by the United Nations, European Union, the International Committee of the Red Cross, as well as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Please refer to footnotes 7-9 on Palestinian Territories. -asad (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Asad pretty much covers it. People are free to reject the reasoning of the international community but "Occupied Palestinian territories" is a common term used to refer to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Even the Israeli High Court of Justice refers to the "occupied territories". There's only one country who maintains that all of these historical sites are in Israel. Sol (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I should not have to remind you that the Int'l Red Cross only recognized the Israeli 'red cross' a couple of years ago and forced it to remove the star of david from its insignia if operating remotely. I don't recall too much of the 'international community' having a problem with this for the past 60 years or the clear discrimination that the cross and the crescent are valid symbols but the star of david is not. WP is not the 'international community'. WP strives for NPOV. --Shuki (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Give me a break. We are not the "Goyim" here trying to come down on Israel. And it is funny how you want to delegitimize one of the foremost defenders of human rights because their organization told Israel that their ambulances with the little "Star of David" emblems on them were only recognized in ISRAEL itself. You know very well that the emblems only came from the flags of Switzerland and Turkey, with ZERO religious implications behind them. It wasn't until Israel tried to make it a P.R. matter because they wanted ambulances with "Star of David" emblems to be able to receive just as much diplomatic access in foreign nations as the historical cross and crescent do. WP does strive for a NPOV, therefore we should do everything we can to take the example of one of the most foremost NEUTRAL human rights defenders as the ICRC. -asad (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove - "in Israel" or "of Israel" both assert that it is either "in Israel" or that is belongs to Israel. Neither of those things are true. East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount and the Old City, is recognized as occupied Palestinian territory outside of Israel by nearly the entire world. The current "territorial status" is clear, it is occupied Palestinian territory, so that removes TheCuriousGnome suggestion from being accurate. The "permanent status" may not be as clear, but right now these sites are not in Israel or "of Israel". These templates should follow UNESCO's designation, if UNESCO lists no state neither should Wikipedia. The determination of what is a World Heritage Site and what state that site is in is made by UNESCO, not by Wikipedia editors. nableezy - 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment: Why not change the template name to "(...) in Israel and the Palestinian Territories"? --Dailycare (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That is an option, probably the best one. Are there any sites in the Golan Heights? If so it needs to be a wider title. nableezy - 21:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I can support this if the places outside of Israel are not removed from the template.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Include with a footnote that they are located in occupied/annexed territory (i.e. basically the current status with better wording in the footnote). пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment Support Dailycare's name change. This would save a lot of headaches on down the road. Sol (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove. The Old City and the Al-Buraq wall are not in Israel for the reasons explained here and on the blog. Its occupation by Israel is illegal, and we await the day the nations of the world stand up to this injustice and crush the zionist occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikoziko (talkcontribs) 22:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

  • RFC Comment I must say I think Dailycare's name change is good in bypassing the problem. Oh dear, I expressed and opinion which now makes me a contributor I guess. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Include per Shuki.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Include Administered by and claimed (illegally or not) is close enough for me. Number57's idea of a note might work.Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Include per Shuki.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • There will inevitably be a predictable block of users from either "side" that will "!vote" here, but most of them will be ignoring the policies of Wikipedia. The simple fact is that the majority of reliable sources say that the Old City is not in Israel. It is a violation of NPOV to say that it is in Israel as it asserts a minority view as a fact. For the users saying that the UNESCO World Heritage Site named Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls is in Israel; could you please provide a reliable source saying that such a UNESCO World Heritage Site is in Israel? UNESCO certainly doesnt seem to think so. nableezy - 04:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Excuse me Nableezy, but it is very poor form to accuse editors who do not agree with your personal obviously biased POV of "ignoring the policies of Wikipedia" and "violation of NPOV" that sounds somewhat presumptuous on your part. Kindly tone down your accusations that reflect a lack of WP:AGF and even border on violating WP:CIVIL, and let editors who do not agree with your POV have their say as well. Feel free to argue the points and disagree with them as much as you want, that's normal WP procedure, but to base your "arguments" on wild and unfounded accusations maligning sincere and reliable editors of long time good standing, what does "a predictable block of users" mean in any case?, this is not the way to go. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • IZAK, I am well aware of your proclivity to make these absurd statements and gain acceptance only by exhausting others, so Ill make one small response. Neither you nor anybody else can provide a source saying a World Heritage Site named "Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls" is in Israel. You and the others arguing for including it are ignoring both NPOV and V to claim land for Israel that is not in Israel. Yes, that is ignoring the policies of this website. nableezy - 13:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Include. It's a no-brainer, millions of tourists every year, both Jewish and Christian, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Israelis, visit these sites every year with the understanding that they are in Israel, not to mention that Palestine does not exist (yet) as a formal state and has not been recognized (yet) as a state by the international community, so who and what exactly is Israel "occupying"? Its own holiest shrine and the original ancient (and now modern) capital of the Jewish people? The nominator is violating WP:NOTSOAPBOX; WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and WP:LAWYERING and is requested not to politicize questions about the Western Wall and the Old City of Jerusalem at this time. There is no violation of "NPOV" because Wikipedia does not "decide" questions of international suzerainty and is outside of local and regional politics. As of the present time these places are under direct Israel control and governmental, political, military, civil, judicial authority,likewise, just as Puerto Rico is under direct US control, Tibet is under direct Communist China's control; Northern Cyprus is under direct Turkish control, the Falklands and Gibralter are under direct British control, etc etc. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Include per Shuki. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Lets just clear up the logical and grammatical problems of Shukis suggestion . How can one logical claim that such items can be "of" something? No one says the "T.V. of my house". You would say the "T.V. in my house". Logically, how is Jerusalem of Israel? Did Israel give birth to Jerusalem? Are we attempting to personify the debate? This is ridiculous and a feeble attempt for the people who know that Jerusalem has no place on this list to include it. Lets sum up their arguments:
-"Administered by Israel" -- An administration that has ZERO recognition by the international community, and each minute that goes by is Israel's constant violation of a U.N. mandate.
-"Millions of people visit Jerusalem knowing that they are in Israel" -- You know, I don't really know how to respond to such a claim other than those people obviously are ignorant to the fact of international law or blatantly reject international law.
-"What exactly is Israel occupying" -- Israel is occupying Palestinian land in DIRECT violation of international law, see U.N. Resolution 242. Perhaps you are not familiar with it.
-"Wikipedia does not "decide" questions of international suzerainty" -- This is perhaps the most comical argument. So you would have no problem with mean changing the name on the Israel entry from "The State of Israel" to the "State of Asad"? Logically you must agree, because Wikipedia does not recognize sovereign states, right?

The people who support Shukis idea are clearly throwing fundamental principles of international law, as well as sensible logic (that all nations in the world, except for Israel, refuse accept their annexation of Jerusalem) and the international consensus on the matter out the window. -asad (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Asad112, if you choose to pick about my words and IZAK's then you should expect it in return. DId you read the article about resolution 242? Does resolution 242 mention anything about 'Palestinian territory' or does it merely use the term territory. The WP article has much criticism about the actual meaning of 242, and objections to assuming that territories means 'occupied Palestinian territory' which the text does not say. Now about the discussion of 'in Israel' or 'of Israel' or 'Israeli'. Many seen a problem with describing some locations as 'in Israel', fine. Some seem to also claim that saying something like 'Israeli city' means city in Israel, fine. It seems to those of mother-tongue English, that saying 'of Israel', has connotations to being 'Israeli' but not necessarily 'in Israel'. There is an Embassy of Israel and an Israeli Embassy in London, but even though its territory is Israeli sovreign land, it is not 'in Israel'. So here, we can avoid conflict by also saying it is a WHS of Israel, or 'adminostered by Israel'. Better to look for a compromise then batter down the hatches and be stubborn. --Shuki (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
My life experience has taught me that the only people who actually debate the meaning of 242 are pro-Israelis. 242 can't be any more clear. When is states withdrawal from the land captured during the recent conflict, no one, but those few pro-Israelis, debate that that directly talking about the 1949 Armistice Line. I quite frankly don't care whether or not you chose to accept 242 or not, the fact of the matter is that all international governing bodies of the world recognize the land in inside the 1949 line to be "Occupied Palestinian Territory". That is an unavoidable fact that you can just dismiss because Israel has raised objections to the legality of it. It's legality has been reaffirmed throughout history through decisions made by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. There is no other compromise in this matter but to change the title to ....sites in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Unless you want to remove Jerusalem completely and we can create another template completely that is just for the Palestinian territories (something that I personally favor), but for means of compromise I would chose listing both entities. The fact remains that no one is able to yet provide proof that UNESCO claims this site to be in Israel, or more less have anything to do with Israel. I don't think that proof will ever come. -asad (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You can't deny the unavoidable fact that 242 does not mention anything about 'Palestinian territory'. You used a bad example and are compounding your error by evading that and trying to merely throw sand in our eyes. And error number two; trying to dismiss the two acceptable Red Cross/Red Crescent symbols as being merely taken from meaningless 'non-religious'(?!) icons from two flags and then claim the Jews for making an Issue about the star of david. Gimme a break. Asas112, welcome to the WP I-P conflict, give more credit to other editors for knowing more than what you want us to know. --Shuki (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
What mistakes were made? Do you deny that Israel is violating 242? Do you deny the governing bodies of the world refer to the area in which 242 is talking about as Occupied Palestinian Territory and Occupied Syrian territory? Please don't play the Christine O'Donnell card on wording here. You can claim what ever you want in attempt to dismiss and discredit the organization which foremost protector of human rights on this planet, but you have no proof. Please prove to me that the decision ICRC took on choosing their symbols was somehow religious in nature? Can you? Can you prove that there is some conspiracy perpetrated by the ICRC not to include the Star of David? You can't. No one can. It is just a false claim PRed up by a country to discredit an organization who has accused them numerous times of flagrant violations of human rights, IMO. Why do don't you give me credit for not being a total moron and can we actually get back to the topic. I will restate my earlier request that you completely ignored. "The fact remains that no one is able to yet provide proof that UNESCO claims this site to be in Israel, or more less have anything to do with Israel. I don't think that proof will ever come". Thanks! -asad (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Include - it's just a template, a tool to aid people in navigating wikipedia, finding related articles. Since Israel manages the site right now, since it is accessible from Israel, since it straddles the pre-1967 border, it is clearly relevant to Israel and it should remain in the template. Putting it here does not prevent it from appearing in Palestinian or Jordanian related templates as well and says nothing about its status. It's just a template, you can't lawyer everything to death. Poliocretes (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename or exclude Per Dailycare, international community and the overwhelming weight of sources. unmi 23:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Include - per Shuki. KantElope (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Include per IZAK, Shuki, Poliocretes. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Include per Number 57 and Poliocretes (mostly), as long as a disclaimer remains. Its a navigational aide, listed where most potential western readers would expect to find it. It should also be included in any related Palestinian or Jordanian templates, as long as the same disclaimer appears in those places as well. Nableezy, I would be prepared to support you if you decided to reproduce the wording in the aforementioned templates. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 07:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This debate needs to end right now: More evidence showing the status of Jerusalem from UNESCO I really do not want to know what to tell you all who still recycle the same arguments regarding Jerusalem. It is still factually incorrect. UNESCO itself, issued a degree a week ago reaffirming that these sites are are OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY. Read it right here. There is no debate. It is as clear as it can be. The title of the article is "Executive Board adopts five decisions concerning UNESCO’s work in the occupied Palestinian and Arab Territories" and it goes on to speak about the sites in Jerusalem. No mention of Israel what so ever. But just count how many times it says "Occupied Palestinian Territories". The evidence against Jerusalem is being there is becoming insurmountable. 242, ICJ, ICRC sources are now irrelevant, UNESCO itself is the only thing that matters now, because it is a UNESCO template. This article should be unlocked, Jerusalem removed. -asad (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a valid point, and in fact here is a list of sites per country. Jerusalem is listed as a separate entity distinct from Israel. But returning to the earlier proposal, renaming the template would seem to solve this issue. --Dailycare (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Include per Shuki with disclaimer.Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Include per Shuki, Poliocretes. Davshul (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for reliable source[edit]

Could somebody please provide a reliable source that says a UNESCO World Heritage Site "Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls" is located in Israel? nableezy - 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Anybody, anybody at all? nableezy - 17:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
see above, timestamp 20:47 - UNESCO says Jerusalem is a separate entity to Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please add a <noinclude></noinclude> between the pp template. Many pages appear at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. TbhotchTalk C. 19:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Done. Also fixed the formatting of the comment underneath and added a nowrap to stop the Tells being on a separate line. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Name change[edit]

If the places outside of Israel are not removed from the template, the name of the template should be changed to "World Heritage Sites in Israel and East Jerusalem", and the Israeli flag removed, per that locations outside of Israel are in the template. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support per above. --Dailycare (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per above. -asad (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like no one objects to the name change. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Flag[edit]

I removed the flag of Israel per that the template also includes places in EJ. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer[edit]

Why is the disclaimer "Territorial status yet to be determined" ? Isn't it internationally recognized as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel? So I suggest we change the disclaimer to that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you remove the disclaimer all together, users can click on East Jerusalem and decide for themselves if they want to side with the Israeli government on the issue or the entire world on the issue. -asad (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
You are right. As the template is now, no disclaimer is needed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)