Template talk:National parks of Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Protected areas (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Israel (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.


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[edit]

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)

'Occupied' is a loaded word. If it's really important, I suggest 'National parks in Israel and the Palestinian Territories' or 'National parks in Israel and the West Bank'. Both are fine with me. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to West Bank, per your suggestion. There aren't any Israeli parks in the Gaza strip, so West Bank is more descriptive and accurate. Jayjg (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
But there are at the Golan Height as well...--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Golan Heights are certainly not "Occupied Palestinian territories", so the header would definitely be wrong in that case. Are there actually any Israeli parks in the Golan Heights? Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hippos is at the Golan Hights.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I know at least one, Nimrod fortress. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As discussed here and the section above, there are areas not in Israel included in the template so those areas must be in the name, removal of these areas as can be seen here:[1] can only happen if those areas in the occupied territories are removed from the template. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And as discussed at the other article RfC, National parks "OF" Israel does not imply that they are in Israel. It has nothing to do with the geographic location, so please stop making POV edits with no consensus. Breein1007 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Your edit was against the current consensus, you have not gotten any new consensus at this talkpage or any other talkpage to change it. As the closing admin of another article RfM said, and as I have shown you: [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, my edit was restoring the longstanding consensus. You are the one who went against consensus. Posting your opinion on the talk page and immediately making the edit does not constitute creating a new "consensus". Nobody agreed with your suggested change. I explained very clearly, more than once, that it doesn't matter where they are located geographically. They are still parks OF Israel, AKA Israeli parks. They are owned, operated, etc. by Israel, not by the "West Bank" or "Golan Heights". If it said, Parks IN Israel it would be a different story. But it doesn't. Also, it was pointed out by more than one editor that the template should match the title. So feel free to continue discussing this issue here, but please stop edit warring. Breein1007 (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyone can clearly see from the discussions above that the editors in the end agreed to have the occupied territories or their names in the template. Huldra,[3] Jayjg[4] ArnoldPettybone[5] Ynhockey[6] and Me. Your claim that you are "restoring the longstanding consensus" is of course inaccurate. You are misrepresenting the consensus in your edits. You have no consensus to remove the occupied territories from the template. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
These users were addressing a potential title of "National Parks IN Israel and the West Bank". The current title reads "National Parks OF Israel". I can keep repeating myself over and over, but all I can do is assume you have no response to the fact that regardless of their location, these parks are still Israeli. Breein1007 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I want to ask SD to actually take part in productive discussion and not point us to places that don't exist. I suggest that he invite those editors back for clearing up the 'consensus'. --Shuki (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that, if someone wants to add info to the article, they should show how these parks are also Palestinian or Syrian parks. There is evidence that the Palestinians and Syrians do not accept the unilateral Israel decision on these parks by building unauthorized structures within them, so the template is merely describing parks that Israel decided upon. --Shuki (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Occupied Territories" is probably more correct, but, as some people object to that as being "loaded", I can agree on a compromise, using the name "West Bank " and "Golan" instead. Nobody buys the fancy word-splitting ("Of Israel"). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussions before showed clearly that occupied territories or their names should be in the template: Huldra,[7] Jayjg[8] ArnoldPettybone[9] Ynhockey[10] and Me. There has not been any new consensus to remove the occupied territories or their names. In this edit [11] TheCuriousGnome without any new consensus removed the names of the occupied territories and added names of proclaimed Israeli regions. The reader will now not see that some of these regions are outside of Israel. As the previous consensus still hasn't been overturned to remove mention of occupied territories or their names, I have added a disclaimer at the bottom and a mark at the occupied territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In vs Of.[edit]

The template is called National Parks of Israel. Even though for example the "Tomb of Samuel" is located in the West Bank it is in no way a national park of the West Bank. It is a national Park of Israel.--Fipplet (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


The subsection added here [12], implys that the occupied regions are a part of the State of Israel, how it was before is more neutral with separate sections. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to create a false impression as if these Israeli national parks are located in an area which is not under the control of the State of Israel. Yes, these territories have been conqured during the wars of the 20th century from Jordan and Syria, Nevertheless, since then, they have been located within an area which is under the control of The State of Israel. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with TheCuriousGnome. A similar issue was raised in WikiCommons, about photoes taken in Jerusalem and Ramat HaGolan (Golan Heights). The resolution was to include them under the scope, label and pages of Israel (since these photoes were taken by Israelis who accessed the disputed territories through Israel), with a disclaimer that "This page also includes depictions of sites and locales in the West Bank and the Golan Heights which are fully administered by, and accessible from Israel." This is reasonable compromise. When listing Israel's national parks - we must include those that are in the disputed territories, because this is a fact, even if we don't agree with it. Suppose some one wants to count the number of Israeli national parks - of course he will include in the count parks in the Golan or the West Bank. Therefore, the template must include these. You want to put a disclaimer? It can be discussed, but I don't think it is neccessary. MathKnight 08:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The comment above from MathKnight is a result of canvassing/votestacking: [13][14] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
He didn't tell me what to write and I never checked his contributions nor I know him. Moreover - this is a talk not a vote. What I expressed was reason alone. Please relate to the content and not Ad hominem. MathKnight 15:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Canvassing.. "Inappropriate canvassing" - "Audience-Partisan" a little bit down "Inappropriate canvassing" "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.".. now I'm pretty sure anyone who looks at your and Gilabrands userpage see clearly that he know what "side" that person will support. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I asked these two Wikipedians to participate in this discussion simply because they have a lot of knowledge about Israel and have been contributing a lot to Wikipedia and therefore I assumed that they would be able to help us reach a better result. I do not wish to have a big dispute about this with you. It might be better to involve the administrators in the decision making in this case in order to reach the best results. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
SD, this is lame. WP:Canvassing allows 'Friendly notices' neutrally worded. --Shuki (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bet Yerah[edit]

Isn't Bet Yerah a national park, too?--Sreifa (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

not yet. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


Small (1) mark is better viewable then the (*) mark. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the marks. The footnote borders on being obtrusive to the reader at best and flat out obnoxious at worst. Explanation of either "side" is not possible in a template. The subject is not about politics. No where in the template is it asserted that the parks are "in" Israel. Some might be "in" occupied territory but it is clear that they function as part of Israel's park system.Cptnono (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You had no right to remove the marks. The name of the template is "National parks of Israel" so the reader would believe that the places are in Israel, many which are not, so we must specifically point out which ones are in occupied territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Please address the reasoning I provided.Cptnono (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
What "sides" are you referring to? The "Israeli side" that they "aren't occupied" but "part of Israel" ? Imagination is not needed here. The marks has nothing to do with politics but reality. We can ad a "*" mark instead of the small "1" if you find it obnoxious. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"of" does not mean "in". Reality is that the parks function as Israeli regardless of location.Cptnono (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
And? This is not a pretext to pointing out which ones are located in occupied territories.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Clearly the current wording gives the view that it is related to Israel and it must be stressed that it's not in Israel but in occupied territories controlled by Israel. So having it included is one thing but removing the disclaimer is wholly different. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
As stated above "of" does not mean "in". The current title tells us all we need to know about the relationship to Israel - these are park set up by and managed by the Israeli parks authority EscEscEsc (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
As I said, it is not clear that this is not in Israel, as many certainly could think it is by being included in a template that lists "parks of Israel". --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I kind of get what you are saying, IRISZOOM. Unfortunately, It reads that way to you but not others. I don't know why there is a difference in interpretation but so far the argument has been: "Hey, it says it is in Israel... or maybe looks that way" vs "Hey, it doesn't say it is in Israel and there are other issues". I was fine not reverting your revert but you this will spiral into a edit war if we don't keep our cool. Can you answer my reasoning line by line?
It doesn't say it is in Israel. "Of" and "in" mean completely different things.
There is an emphasis on politics in a template that
a) should beabout parks and not politics
b) doesn't have room (by nature) to discuss the concern.
Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's correct to have it like it is until it's discussed because this is standard notes. "Of Israel" doesn't necessarily means it is inside it but as this is a very unusual situation (there are few occupations today), many can assume there is nothing unusal here - that the template doesn't include occupied territories. Surely if the vast majority of such templates don't got this issue, it can be expected that this isn't different, but it is and must be noted. Same thing with "cities of Israel" etc.
It is as much about legality as politics, if not more. It is just reflected in a little note and smarks.
There is room for such a little note and when there is a big consensus that this is occupied territory, it must be stressed. If it were something else, such a note may not have been needed but now it is about a thing that is rejected by basically the whole world. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Way must it be stressed? You understand that my concern, right? Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Cptnono, you have no consensus to remove the marks, please stop your disruption immediately. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Because it can give the view that this is in Israel and I have said why. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 :It does not say it is "in" Israel, so no I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't talk to me about disruption. T editors have reverted 3 editors a total of 4 times. Knock it off.Cptnono (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Template:Largest cities of Israel also talks about cities "of Israel" but it is still noted that it includes occupied territory. There is an ongoing RfC there, which is not finished but right now, there seems to be a consensus that such a note should keep being there. I don't think it's the right thing to remove such a thing here, when it's a fact it's occupied territory, without consensus for that.
By the way, Cptnono, that figure include I invented "it's not you, it's me" who is reverting on several articles while not having taked part of the discussion or atleast in a meaningful way. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Cptnono, remove the marks one more time and Ill move the entire template to "National parks of Israel and the occupied territories", your choice. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Title issues[edit]

The title of this template is so biased and unacceptable, as it contains many sites in the West Bank, which is considered by international law (and the US) as occupied by Israel, not disputed. Atubeileh (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you have two accounts? The title is a compromise. Some people had an issue with the title National Parks in Israel because there is a dispute whether some parks are 'in Israel', so the title was changed to 'of Israel' since these parks are Israeli but the title does not necessarily assume explicit location. --Shuki (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This title is not a compromise, its Israeli pov. They are not "of Israel", it should be "of Israel and the occupied territories" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no entity called 'occupied territories' that has compiled a list of parks and I have not found where you have created a Template:National parks of the Palestinian National Authority either. For all intents and purposes, so you can understand clearly, beyond doubt, if Jordan had a national park on its WB before 67, than that would be a park of Jordan. If Syria had a national park in the Golan before 67, that would be of Syria, even though it is not administering it anymore. --Shuki (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

@Debresser:, @Shuki:, and to whom it might concern: Perhaps the footnote in the Template should be updated to read: "Under joint Israeli-Palestinian Authority control, based on the Oslo Accords."

Upon second thought, I don't think that the Palestinian Authority would have anything to do with these parks. Still, the edit would be better than writing "Occupied Palestinian territories."Davidbena (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Parks located in the Golan Heights[edit]

A few of the parks like Hermon and the Hexagonal Pool are located in the Golan Heights and not in the Palestinian Territories. YaLindaHadad (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually , "Occupied Territories" is also the Golan Heights, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)