Template talk:National parks of Israel

Change what? The authority is owned and controlled by the state, thus all national parks as well. Territory ownership has nothing to do with it.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you wrote: "the tomb of Samuel is controlled and administered by the Israeli national gardens authority".....so why not change the template to reflect that? (That is, if you want places on the West Bank to be included in the template.) The problem is, that as it is now, the template most certainly *implies* "Territory ownership", whether we like it or not. I think we have two options: either remove all places that are not in "Israel proper" (i.e.pre-67)...or change the name to indicate that this template includes all national parks *presently administered* by Israel. Regards, Huldra (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care what it implies. Fact of the matter is Israel controls it (hence, the tomb and all other national parks there are clear and defined. As an opposite, I'm not so sure why the Judean mountains are here and exactly how and when they were included. You can have your own inquiry about this if you wish.) ) and will continue to do so on the near future. I would have said the same if it was a shrine on the Himalayas or a pyramid on the moon.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you for telling me about the Judean mountains..that was an oversight. As to the rest: I´m not sure I follow you at all. Say, if the US army have total control over a UNESCO world Heritage Site in Iraq; does that mean that the site in question should be listed under "UNESCO World Heritage Sites of USA"? Just wondering. Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

While your wondering this, add to your wondering the question why was John McCain allowed to ran for President as someone who wasn't born on US soil.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. So, the way I understand it, is that you think it would be ok to let an Iraqi site listed under "UNESCO World Heritage Sites of USA"? Seriously; I am trying to come up with rules/follow rules that are the same all over WP/the world. We cannot create "special circumstances" for just one country...then *all* countries will soon claim to be "special".

And if you think something "belongs" to Israel, (even if it is not on Israeli land)..for cultural reason, or whatever...then think about what problems that will cause? Shall we Scandinavians reclaim, say, Shetland and Dublin?? Seriously, I hope you will address the issue. Thank you. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

U can try, Good luck on that one... I don't need to think anything, actually because all the facts regarding the current real and actual situation on location are on my side-all sites at the list are as of now under Israeli control and sovereignty, sites and land. Until such Iraqi...ah, Palestinian country comes forward to claim (they will have to do more then that) otherwise. BTW, you can add notes or something like that to sites that are "unrecognized" or whatever, I don't really care-at the condition that no site is removed.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ocupied Territories will be better

We agreed that the "sovereignty" of the territories is at worst disputed, haven't we? I think it will be best that every site that is disputed should be (again, at worst) marked with an * with a "Territorial status yet to be determined" text at the bottom, like in Israel's World heritage infobox.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)