Jump to content

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/October/16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 16

[edit]

{{Richmond-ca-stub}}

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete


Not in use, not well-named, not remotely numerically viable, not popular when mooted at WSS/P.Alai 05:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Palestine-stub}}s

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Unclear nomination, neither proposal or status quo in line with stub-sorting practice, suggestions of vote-stacking on both sides. Please agree a scope for this type, and then revisit the naming issue


Category:Palestine stubs Should change to Palestinian National Authority stubs per WP:NPOV and policy, or West Bank and Gaza or something of the sort. Palestine as a country doesn't exist but only as a region which corresponds also with Israel and possibly Jordan, portions of Syria and Egypt etc. Putting a "Palestine" stubs on articles is extremely misleading and inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoruso (talk • contribs)

  • Oppose - keep as are. Palestine-stub deals with both the modern Palestinian Authority and the pre-1948 state of which it is the successor, as well as matters relating to Palestine and Palestinians which occurred in between these imes. To rename it would misrepresent what it is meant to deal with. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ehmm, there was no pre-1948 state called Palestine... --Leifern 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he mean western Jordan? What is called Palestine was in Jordan until 1967. Only if actually talking about Israel is 1948 meaning anything and there is already a name for that country.Opiner 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you're planning to nominate the Palestine (mandate) article as a hoax, then? Grutness...wha? 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For better or for worse, there has never been a modern state in the area known as Palestine, including the Palestine Mandate, with the exception of Israel, and the Jordanian and Egyptian occupations. TewfikTalk 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. AFAIK, the PNA has authority over the Gaza Strip and around 40-50% of the West Bank. Not counting (Trans-)Jordan, the remaining part of the old British mandate outside of Israel's 1949 border is - internationally speaking - not recognized as Israeli territory but as territory under Israeli occupation. These two things are not the same and to me the current name seems more neutral than having to find some way stub wise to refer to the rest of the West Bank as an "Israeli military zone on the West Bank" which would seem to be the logical conclusion. The text doesn't use the term "Palestine" as such, but "Palestinian" which is already a deviation from our standard practice. The current situation seems like the lesser of two evils to me. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Which Palestine? The region? Ottoman? British? Before? Jewish State? Arab State? Before 1917? After the Partition of Churchill? UN Partition? The territories? Transjordan? Modern-day Palestinians? It's all a different story. --Shamir1 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stub type is supposed to cover items relating to all of these. To give it the name of any one of these would be highly misleading.The fact that few of the items in here relate to anything other than current Palestinian issues is a problem relating to systemic bias in Wikipedia, not to any problems with the stub name. Does the proposed new name successfull cover such stubs as Malhis. Lubya, or Fadwa Toukan? Grutness...wha? 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Malhis and Fadwa Toukan, being from Nablus, would be covered. Lubya, being in Israel, is not covered by either tag. Palestinians are not the only group with a diaspora, and as such we can organise the articles in the same way as any other territory - if the subject in question isn't covered by the general stub template, then there is a good chance it wouldn't be covered if it instead referred to Botswana either. And if categories or other strategies can be employed to organise Botswana articles, we can do so here as well. TewfikTalk 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Isarig 05:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination --Leifern 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom; pray for a peaceful two state solution, but until then PA better than P.Elizmr
  • Support per nom. Beit Or 21:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Shamir1 -- Avi 23:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --tickle me 23:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.Opiner 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the current names were chosen after a long series of discussions with Wikipedia editors from both Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and were seen as the best and most politically acceptable names to use, given the coverage intended for the items. If there are any suggestions of pro-Palestinian bias in the name, check the history of the template (you will see that much of the early work on it was done by User:IZAK, for instance - a leading member of the team working on Portal: Israel and Portal:Judaism). Given that there was considerable debate before deciding on the name, and this was the one name that seemed to satisfy most people, changing it would create more, not less, problems. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counter-Comments to Grutness: You are misrepresenting me. Firstly, I have not been working on "Palestine" topics for over two years, in some instances going back three years and much has been discussed and changed. Could you please point to the exact places about anything you claim I may have agreed to? While I have not been actively editing in this area, a number of other anti-Israel editors seem to have been active (see examples below). I have nothing to say about this stub discussion/vote at this time, but I will clarify my views since you mention my name, and I will let others draw their own conclusions. Secondly, I seem to recall that the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) article was reserved solely for the entity by that name set up in recent years by the PLO as part of the Oslo accords, and was not meant to imply that it is the "successor" to anything and everything to do with "Palestine" or to all or anything in the History of Palestine article, which it isn't. For example, prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Palestinian Jews living in that place were called "Palestinians" so it is pure historical revisionism to now twist things around and say with a straight face that "oh, the PNA is now the "successor" to all things Palestinian, which it is not! Thirdly, about two years ago or longer, and when I last left this general area of discussion and its basic consensus, which was that there should be an article called Palestine (region) which was a NPOV solution designed to reconcile the various approaches to this disputed (geographic) area. Since then however, User:Zero0000 merged Palestine (region) into the plain Palestine article in Jan 2006 [1] which was even disputed by User:Leifern at the time. I knew nothing about this and would never have agreed to that merger. How much serious talk was there about that? Could someone revert that please! Zero0000 has destroyed an important neutral name for an article in a POV fashion favorable to the Arabs and against the Israelis, it's pretty obvious. If Zero0000 can do that, then there is nothing wrong in redirecting and merging the Palestine article to the Land of Israel article because the older and better known and established name is "The Land of Israel" (derived from the Hebrew Bible.) Fourthly, I once contributed to an article called British Mandate of Palestine, but in June 2006 User:Doright changed and redirected the name of the British Mandate of Palestine article (which is what it is universally called) to "Palestine (mandate)" when the name British Mandate of Palestine has most of the intra-wiki links to other articles [2]. This is another example of recent historical revisionism at work by an editor who decides that "British" & "Palestine" = "POV"! (a joke that we are supposed to take seriously): His "reasons" for the radical change : "The Mandate for Palestine is the proper legal name of the entity that is the subject of this article. British Mandate of Palestine is a POV term. No one in talk objected to proposed move)" [3] and changes it without worrying about past "consensus", how about if he took a look at how many other articles linked to that article's name/s [4] BEFORE making changes in such a volatile topic! How about reverting that please, because it is not "POV" to state that the British (and no other world power) had a mandate to GOVERN (or RULE) Palestine - it's about their role primarily, not just about what did or did not happen to "Palestine" - the British are as much "the subject" as is "Palestine" and it is very much POV to attach "(mandate)" to "Palestine" (neutering it of its British connection) and to deliberately swing the article, via its more "neutral sounding name" in the direction of a "build up" or "boost" for "Palestine" in general and the Palestinian National Authority in particular, but somehow not for the State of Israel. Prior to 1947/8 the BRITISH had all the power in Palestine and, after the 1947 UN Partition Plan, they handed over Palestine to BOTH the Jews and the Arabs - proof that the word, name, history and entity of "Palestine" does not belong to Arabs "only" but to the British, and before them the Turks, and before them the Mamluks, and the Crusaders, etc - and in 1947 it was handed back again to the JEWS (and to some local Arabs as well, after the greater part of Palestine aka Transjordan had been given to the Hashemites from Saudi Arabia after the Churchill White Paper, 1922 and not to the Jews as promised by the BRITISH in the Balfour Declaration, 1917.) Finally, c'mon anyone with a brain in their head can see that some anti-Israel editors on Wikipedia wish to delegitimize Israel's claim to anything associated with "Palestine," and hence its very right to exist, by stripping-down anything with the name "Palestine" on Wikipedia, be it the ancient history of that area, or as a complex region, or as the British mandate and thereby deny it as a legitimate homeland and base for the State of Israel. Formulations and presentations that falsely depict the Arabs in the so-called Israeli-occupied territories seem the "only" heirs of the word and historical entity known as "Palestine" are just a ploy and must be rejected because the facts of history, religion, and politics should not become the playthings of anti-Israel editors and apologists for the Arabs. To do so goes against Wikipedia:No original research as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thank you. IZAK 07:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and my comments above, TewfikTalk 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Grutness above.These names are loaded with POV issues. --- Skapur 03:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per nom. Kuratowski's Ghost 05:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always nice to see so many new faces at SFD. :/Now, if anyone can explain to me the nomination they're strongly supporting:if the category is being proposed for renaming, why is it not tagged, but the template is?What precisely is the proposed new name?(Hint:some lip service to the stub naming guidelines would be nice.)The parent category is Category:Palestine:is that to be renamed too?Is it anticipated that this rename would involve a scope, and reparent?If so, to precisely what, in each case?Alai 06:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would propose that the most neutral way to deal with the Categories is to change xyz of Palestine to Palestinian xyz, a convention already in place for more than half of them. Cheers, TewfikTalk 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Palestine is/was there for more than a thousan year. Temporary occupation doesn't change a thing. Also, if you say "there's no palestine" how can you say about "palestine territories"? Please note that many countries(most of the Israel's neighbors) do not think that "there's a country named Israel". They call it "occupied palestine". So, if someone starts removing articles start with Israel, what do you say to him/her? Please refine your POV, as it seems totally strange and agressive. In wikipedia we should assume good faith, unless it's obviously visible that it's not.

Hossein.ir 12:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose Palestine has existed for the milleniums whether the 10-12 editors that give Wikipedia its Likudnik slant continue to rule. As the founder of Citizendium opined, Wikipedia articles are often not by consensus but by the most persistent posters. And I would add organized. Are you listening, just look at the familiar names above? Best Wishes Will314159 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: Solicited vote.
    • I find your comments about other editors to be offensive and to lack WP:AGF, as well as being extremely ironic given your public calls for meatpuppets. Only if we focus on edits and not editors will we actually accomplish anything here. To the topic at hand, there is currently no state called 'Palestine,' nor has there ever been one. There is however a culture that identifies as Palestinian, as well as a quasi independent entity (PNA). Lets then try to reflect what is, as opposed to what we might think should be. TewfikTalk 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find your taking offense at my call for more people to become involved and counterbalance your invidious POV not surprising Tewfik, the man of the thousand edits, and the owner of the July War article. For now, WP is your POV's playpen and you gang up on every article andhit people with the 3RR instead of reaching for valid, fair, and neutral positions. How many 3RR's have you done this month Tewfik? Best Wishes Will314159 15:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure when making 1,000 edits became something to be ashamed of, nor when enforcing policy became something to be censured. However, the types of comments that you've made about other editors and myself are not OK, nor are they making this a conducive atmosphere for collaboration. Please limit discussion to the issue at hand, and avoid further violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. TewfikTalk 17:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For millennium Palestine has referred to a region with constantly changing borders. In this day in age it is a wholly ambiguous term. Does it refer to the area including Israel, Jordan, Syria? If it is to refer to the West Bank & Gaza, Category:Palestine stubs is inappropriate, as a sovereign entity named Palestine doesn't exist. Chesdovi 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if rescoped to be something like, "places and matters under the control of the PNA", approximately how often does that change?Several orders of magnitude faster, it appears to me.Alai 17:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose What a provocative anti-Arab move. This is a very aggressive suggestion. To delete this stub is to delete any existence of Palestine. I find this whole suggestion very Israeli-Zionist orientated, If the Palestine Stub is to be deleted then the Israel Stub is to be deleted too. Palestine has existed for Millenniums and this threat of deletion to the Palestine stub shows the kind of place wikipedia is becoming. An outright POV is the proposal of deletion itself. So far I haven’t seen any neutral names that support this deletion. All the names supporting the deletion are from the usual pro-Israeli band wagon. A sad day it would be if this continuous unchecked.Palestine48 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness gracious, this isn't about deleting Palestine, it’s about changing it to Palestinian National Authority Chesdovi 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt that everything that fits under the template "Palestine" also would appropriately go under "Palestinian National Authority." BhaiSaab talk 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I have a hard enough time trying to guess at the right stub name for a new or unstubbed article as it is. There's a {{Korea-stub}}, even though there's no such place either. There's even a {{Taiwan-stub}}, even though a billion Chinese know there's no such place. And they'd be right, its actually called the Republic of China. There's also no such place as Lebanon (it's the Republic of Lebanon), but if {{Lebanon-stub}} was red-lined I'd be puzzled as to why.. Similarly, everytime someone takes a road trip through Palestine, I hope they don't actually need three footnote laden paragraphs about semi-Autonomous privisional governing authorities to explain where they've just been. -- Kendrick7 17:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Kendrick7. --Sa.vakilian 18:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and oppose the general principle that decisions of this sort be taken by small armies of Wikipedians with similar views who simultaneously appear to vote the same way on them, whatever the topic.Palmiro | Talk 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The stub should be used to include all topics relating to historical Palestine in all its forms, as per Grutness' comment above. As a result, the flag icon should be replaced.
As far as categories go, to be consistent, Category:Palestine should cover the same topics, with a subcategory (Category:Palestinian Arab People, or something like that) which will include all topics relating to the modern Palestinian Arabs, the PNA, and their conflict with Israel.
Actually, this would mean that Category:Israel should be in Category:Palestine (yikes! what have I got myself into?).
However, categories such as Category:Xxxxx of Palestine should be renamed to either Category:Palestine xxxxx or Category:Palestinian xxxxx, on a case-by case basis. For example, Category:Palestine geography but Category:Palestinian education. In general, Category:Palestine xxxxx would go under Category:Palestine but Category:Palestinian xxxxx would go under the "Modern Palestinians" subcategory. --Eliyak T·C 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A major split and/or restructuring is somewhat problematic to address in the context of this stand-alone nomination, since it'd mean rearranging assorted other categories, which would have to be done separately (and from our perspective preferably first), and because there's only 130ish articles to play with (aside from the locations), and the stub guidelines argue against creating lots of itsy-bitsy stub-cats, so separate sorting of "Historic Palestine" (much less one for Roman, one for Ottoman, one for British...), an "ethnic-Palestinian", a PNA, and a Palestinian-territories-not-under-PNA-control would be a bit much, to put it mildly.OTOH, a Category:Palestinian-bio-stub is probably inevitable sooner or later, though strictly speaking it would be applied only to people who are PNA "citizens", or otherwise-stateless Palestinians.(Cf. the issue of applying {{Albania-stub}} on an ethnic basis.)Alai 20:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that this stub tag should be for general Palestine topics (with an appropriate icon). --Eliyak T·C 23:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some possible alternate pics: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --Eliyak T·C 23:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose If i would choose one to call non-existent, it would'nt be Palestine. --Striver 20:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Solicited vote.
    • Again, this isn't a place to register opinions on what we'd like to be, but on what exists in reality. I don't think anyone here contends that there is a state called "Palestine" today (or in the past, for that matter). There is an autonomy called Palestinian National Authority - hence I'm puzzled by the opposition. Anything that wouldn't be covered under the new template probably doesn't belong under the current one anyways (things dealing with the Palestine Mandate for example, should be marked separately). TewfikTalk 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • New template?I ask again, what's being nominated (and what are you supporting) for renaming?The template?The category?Both?In either case, to what, precisely?And see my comments above about the several different types of non-PNA "Palestinian" topics, which there's not currently, and little prospect of, any means of 'marking separately'.How do you suggest we tag locations in the 60% of the West Bank (m.m., Judea and Samaria) not under PNA control, that's in international law not part of any state (much less a Palestinian one)?(I suppose there's always the Kosovo, or suggested Hong Kong 'solution', of tagging with the mysteriously non-specific {{MEast-geo-stub}}.Alai 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologise if I wasn't clear, but I am in favour of renaming at the very minimum, to "Palestinian." As an aside, I believe that upwards of 95% of Palestinians in the West Bank (excluding Jerusalem) are under PNA control, and I've yet to come across an entry that pose a problem. Cheers, TewfikTalk 23:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid that's still not being at all clear, or answering most of the above questions.{{Palestinian-stub}} and/or Category:Palestinian stubs don't follow the stub naming guidelines, and would have no logical permanent category parent.Your carefully-phrased statement about the Palestinians in the WB is true, as I understand it, but only addresses the biographies, and not the remainder of the scope of the stub type, and its child cat, Category:Palestine-geo-stub.(As to "reality", I suppose that depends if you're applying a definition from international law, or a more Maoist one.)Alai 02:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't quite understand your point. I would obviously (I think it may be obvious, but perhaps I'm missing something?) support changing the appropriate categories to be in line with whatever we rename the stub/s. As far as I can tell, everything in the Category:Palestine geography stubs would fit under a "PNA" template, and most of Category:Palestine stubs would as well, though all of them would certainly fit under a "Palestinian" template. As for "reality," I'm not sure what you meant about the Maoist position, but I don't believe that it is the position of international law that there is a state called "Palestine," nor that Israel doesn't exist (which is what my comments were directly responding to). Cheers, and let me know - TewfikTalk 04:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let me try again.You can't (trust me on this) call a stub template {{PNA}} or {{Palestinian National Authority}}, nor a stub category Category:PNA or Category:Palestinian National Authority; thus I ask you to clarify (without reference to "per nom", which is as clear as mud, and takes about a "category", after tagged a template, and fails to include use of the word "stub" or "stubs" in the renaming proposal (I use he term loosely)) exactly a) which of them you're arguing be renamed, and b) to what?Tagging individual Palestinians with a {{PalestinianNationalAuthority-stub}} (let us say) seems a bit like tagging a (hypothetical) article on me with a {{Ireland-gov-stub}}, on the basis of where I live.The Maoist ("from the barrel of a gun") position would be that it doesn't matter what the status in international law of the WB&G, it matters whose guns are where, and thus we might as well call the portion of the WB under Israeli civil or military control "Israel" (or some other term of choice of the Israeli government), rather than in any sense being "Palestine" (or variations thereon).(Thus, the current tagging of Ma'ale Levona, Revava, etc, which cuts straight to the chase.)You weren't responding to any comment about Palestine as a state, nor obviously did I make one, either.Alai 05:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm sorry if I wasn't clear above, but I'm not suggesting that every entry be covered by some variation of PNA (obviously in the proper form), but rather only most. There would seem not to be any problem, for example, with changing "{{Palestine-geo-stub}}" to some variation of "{{Palestinian-Authority-geo-stub}}," since geography is in fact very specific to government. And while I believe that most of the articles tagged with the "{{Palestine-stub}}" would fit into a "{{Palestinian-Authority-stub}}," if you don't think that people/miscellaneous articles currently in {{Palestine-stub}} fit, and that they don't merit their own sub templates ("{{Palestinian-bio-stub}}" for instance), then a "{{Palestinian-stub}} would also do the job. I would not suggest putting you under {{Ireland-gov-stub}}, but if there was no {{Ireland-bio-stub}}, then {{Ireland-stub}} would make sense (Of course, I'm not sure why the name of the current Palestinian entity wouldn't be appropriate; East-Germans are listed under the modern Germany stub, and Soviets under the modern Russia stub - if Ireland changed its name, you would be listed under it, but this is all moot). As for the West Bank & Gaza Strip, they are the West Bank & Gaza Strip. They are not internationally held to be a state, nor is there "on the ground" a state. Palestine = [at minimum] the West Bank, Israel, & Gaza Strip. And while I didn't say you made the comments, I was certainly responding to them

(see Striver's comments directly preceding mine). I hope that I was sufficiently clear, but I appreciate how this could be complex - let me know if you require further clarification. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                  • The lack of clarity isn't related to the complexity of the subject, but to me asking one set of questions, and you giving a set of answers to different ones.And I did see Striver's comments, hence my description of them, and hence my italicision of the key "as a state" predicate, that you were making out of whole cloth.(I'll make sure to use bold, too, next time.)If someone asserts "Palestine exists", and you respond "there is no state of Palestine", you've not refuted the original claim, you've reframed it as a different one.And you then proceed to do the same to me:I made no statement about WB&G as a state, but quite the reverse.In international law, no part of the entirity of the West Bank (and Gaza) is part of any state.(Come to that, the situation isn't especially different for these purposes in Israeli law, as I understand it.)Thus I'd like to see an argument as to why we should scope part of the state-free West Bank as "PNA", and part of it as "Israel", that in any sense meets the criterion of WP:NPOV.We do at last get some acknowledgement, though, that this isn't just a rename, it's a rescope:thank you.(One I thought there might have been some nuance to, but given the tagging of the settlements, clearly not.)The point of my Ireland-gov-stub example is this:you're proposing to classify people without an established citizenship with the (quasi-)governmental entity they live under the (semi-)jurisdiction of, as distinct from either the citizenship they'd assert or claim, or the legal status of that territory, and the larger context in which it exists, which is indeed analogous to listing a non-Irish citizen with a "Government of Ireland" category.(BTW, Soviets are tagged with {{USSR-bio-stub}}, for the very good reason that they're not all "Russians", in one sense or another, though we're many digressions deep by that point.)Your re-suggestion of {{Palestinian-bio-stub}} only tells me you didn't avail of my earlier hint that would might want to read WP:WSS/NG:we don't have {{Israeli-bio-stub}}, {{Irish-bio-stub}}, or {{Panamanian-bio-stub}} (though if I say that loudly enough, SPUI will create redirects at all of them).A broader reading of "Palestine" than Palestinian territories is remarkably far-fetched, given the prevailing climate on wikipedia:are you going to tell me that there's some sort of occasion of sin for revert wars on Haifa between {{Israel-geo-stub}} and {{Palestine-geo-stub}}?Alai 07:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • A broader reading of Palestine than the West Bank & Gaza Strip would be far-fetched? Since when was the term limited to those areas? In the absence of the proposed state by the same name in those areas, the term only means those areas + Israel (and often more), and that yours is an original understanding of the term. And why must we ignore that there is a Palestinian autonomous entity that has jurisdiction over all the Palestinians in those areas (repeating the caveat about E. Jerusalem) - even if you deny their legitimacy for some reason, we are trying to represent what is, and not to engage in our own analysis of int'l law to state what should be (though I don't see how any of its statements preclude the PNA from operating)? And no, it isn't really a rescope, its a rename of a stub whose current name doesn't accurately represent its scope (there are minimal, if any articles, that deal with Mandatory Palestine, or with the "historical" region). As for the rest of your comments, I assure you that I read WP:WSS/NG several times, but it does not say that in the absence of a country name that fits the proper conjugation, we should make one up (as for the East German and Soviet - and I suggest you reread Striver's comments). Correct me if i misunderstand you, but it seems to be that you propose that "Palestine" is somehow the name of the "country" in which the Palestinian population/territory exists - this is simply nonfactual. TewfikTalk 14:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • A broader reading of Palestine than the West Bank & Gaza Strip would be far-fetched, in the context described.I repeat (I seem to have to do a lot of that in this thread), do you think that the naming of a template as "Palestine-geo-stub" makes it like people will apply it to locations in "Israel proper"?Or Benjamin Netanyahu as a Palestine-stub/Palestine-bio-stub?The imagined misapplication is ridiculous on its face (and besides, that's what template and category scoping text is for).I ask you once again to acknowledge in which direction the current cross-border template march is occuring.It's certainly much clearer in applicability than PNA-stub (do click, please), or PalestinianNationalAuthority-stub, which would be a prime example of using extra characters to make something less clear.I'm not suggesting Palestine can only be read as WB&G (that would be as absurd as your claim it's not a feasible one, which most assuredly flies in the face of the "reality" of the use of language), I'm simply saying it's not a problematic one when used in this way.The argument has nothing to do with the "legitimacy" of the PNA, or its status in law;the question is, how do we scope and describe that area between the eastern border of Israel, and the western border of Jordan?(By whichever definition you prefer for the former border for the purposes of this discussion;we can largely ignore East Jerusalem, or come to that the Golan.)Your analysis, while repeating "not a state!" at regular intervals, fails to apply the legal boundaries of recognised states with any consistency.Given that none of this area is part of any state, why does it make sense, under the "by states" principle, to sub-divide it into a one non-state, and one state that doesn't legally exist in said area?(Applying whichever body of the law you selected in earlier choice.)That has nothing to so with division into states, that's switching criteria to "facts on the ground".A systematic division into states within their generally recognised borders would leave several such in the area, surrounding one non-state "hole", which it makes sense to me to scope and tag as such, much as we do with {{Antarctica-stub}}, or {{WesternSahara-stub}}.Your statement about not being a rescope flatly contradicts your previous one, and all evidence that's plain to see at the template.Merely excluding subjects from a stated scope before attempting to formalise such a change does not make it "not a rescope".And the rescoping is key:I'd rather see some neocon euphemism for Category:Palestinian territory stubs (I'm not sure what the currently prefered one would be in those circles) than to see an arbitrarily different scope.(Historical Palestine is not the key issue here.)OK, having read /NG, you might try applying it.Using an adjective, or an ethnic descriptor in a stub template goes against every precedent for such.Using the name of a quasi-governmental body of a non-sovereign and arbitarily-designated piece of territory as if it were the name of a "country" makes no logical or linguistic sense, even as metonymy.There's no need to "make up" a term:we're already oversupplied with them, it's just unfortunately the case that each protagonist in the political dispute naturally despises the other's preference."Palestine" is the only term that's at all suggestive and applicable with any concision appropriate for a template name, but there's ample scope for squabbling about the category name between the assorted descriptors.(Fans of ridiculous template names are free to argue in favour of {{PalestinianTerritories-geo-stub}}, {{IsraeliDisputedTerritories-geo-stub}}, {{JudeaandSamaria-geo-stub}} etc, of course, to match whatever category name they're shooting for, but I don't really see it, myself.)And yes, you misunderstand me:there's no such country, as I'd have thought I'd have made more than clear several times now.That does not make "Palestine" a non-applicable descriptor for the described non-state.It most certainly doesn't make "mostly Israel now" an applicable one, which I can only conclude is your desired outcome, absent any statement to the contrary as to how the "excluded middle" should be tagged.Alai 18:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Being that users on this very page have suggested putting Israel in the "Palestine" category, I think it is not far-fetched to be wary of that option. To your suggestion that calling WB&GS Palestine would be legitimate, I will again say "not a state" - Palestine refers to WB + GS + IL (at minimum, and/or the Mandate which is not really relevant) - and popular usage is not a substitute for reality. And considering the POV that there is an entity called "Palestine" (take a look at the Arabic-language Wikipedia), I don't understand how you wouldn't see the current name as being extremely confusing at best. As for the legal boundaries of states, I also repeat that it isn't for us to become interpreters of int'l law [despite your claim not to be doing so, that is exactly what any type of original formulation is], as while simply labelling everything in WB&GS as "WB&GS" might be technically factual, it seems ridiculous to ignore the autonomy of the Palestinian Authority over the vast majority of towns/people/institutions (and most everything included in the category), which is how the template/category is currently scoped (the only contradiction is between the current scoping and name of the template). So yes, "Palestine" is not an applicable descriptor for the described non-state, which is called "Palestinian National Authority." As an aside, after all your insinuations about my motivations here, I would hope that you would consider reexamining the attitude with which you've approached this matter to see if they are really necessary and conducive to a constructive discussion. Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which state or country is this template associated with? TewfikTalk 06:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. No country there. It could, however, be used to associate either the State of Palestine or the region historically known as Palestine. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 06:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case please explain why does it carry the Palestinian Arab Flag? ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not take responsibility for the content of the stub, after all I did not make it. That flag can be changed. It is just that the name needs no conflict, as I have said before. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 17:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - intentionally or not, some users prefer to create the confusion between the geographic region (which includes Israel) and the PNA/proposed Palestinian State. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • People can have an unintentional preference?Sounds a little like an assumption of bad faith, with an AGF fig leaf attached.Your comment also appears to elide the distinction (or if you prefer, maintains the confusion) between a) whatever territory the PNA controls this week, b) the territory of a proposed Palestinian State (depending on whose/which proposal, of course), and c) the Palestinian territories (liberally tagged with {{Israel-geo-stub}} at present, as noted above, lest it be unclear in which direction the scope-creep is trending).Alai 10:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why don't we let the facts on the ground guide the organization of the encyclopedia rather than vice-versa???
        • Facts on the Ground are the cause of problems. I again repeat my cries of POV behind this deletion vote. This deletion vote is backed heavily by long established Israeli-Friendly members. I see no harm in the continuation of the Palestine stub and all stubs relating to it. If this deletion is carried then it will affect many articles and will decrease the quality of Wikipedia not increase it. Facts on the Ground has long been official Israeli policy. --Palestine48 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please make up your mind: if this is about the geographic region, then the PNA flag only is inappropriate; if this is about the PA/proposed Palestinian State, then rename and use the template only where it applies - in articles related to the PA/PS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Humus sapiens, I don’t know where you got the idea that the Palestinian Flag is the PA flag. You suggest it as if the flag only represents the PA. The Palestinian Flag represents the Palestinian People within Palestine and the Diaspora. The flag was there before the PA and certainly older than the State of Israel! The Palestinian people raised it as the flag of the Arab National movement in 1917. As for the Stub, It represents Palestine. Please stop your Palestinian bashing.--Palestine48 09:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong opposeThe parent category is simply Category:Palestine and I strongly suspect the nomination was made purely for POV purposes, perhaps hoping that by gaining a foothold here for a particular POV, it might then be carried across to other parts of the Wikipedia. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per user:Palmiro above --khello 18:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that Palmiro was part of that group of solicited special-interest votes he decried, will you be changing your vote now? Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly reject your claim. I am happy to be told about move or deletion proposals I may be interested in. I have no objection to anyone telling anyone about relevant issues. What we have here is a case where a large number of voters seem to have formed part of a voting bloc, and seem to frequently form part of such a voting bloc, and if another concerned user thought the best way to deal with this was to inform other users with an interest in the area of the vote, that was a fair and valid course of action. What we don't know, of course, is whether the initial small army of support voters had been notified by less open means. What I strongly object to is this sort of caucus-style voting where any votes on certain issues, particularly national issues, seem to elicit an instant reaction from a relatively large number of voters. This turns the decision process into a question of "who can muster the biggest team". That is no way to write an encyclopaedia and certainly no way to ensure a neutral point of view, and if anyone - such as the person you condemn for "soliciting votes", takes action against it, they are absolutely right to. Palmiro | Talk 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I haven't been checking here for a while! My vote stands as it is: oppose. I don't see this particular stub as confusing at all- I actually think it contributes to a more organized wikipedia! All the articles categorized refer to either people identified as Palestinians or issues/organizations relating to Palestinians. So in this case, I don't think any alternatively named stub (Palestinian Authority for example) can serve the same purpose, since the people/issues/organizations categorized aren't necessarily affiliated with the PA. As such, the category "Palestine" best describes these "Palestinian" people/issues/organizations.--khello 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the whole vote soliciting issue, I've come to learn that it is an unfortunate and inevitable consequence of the nature of these votes, especially when they concern such controversial topics! I just think that it's a bit unfair that such a vote can be decided on who happened to be active on wikipedia during this particular vote, only for the whole scenario to be repeated when the "other side" mobilize! --khello 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose stub type is valid as any other.--Ben 20:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename according to the type of stub; Palestine geo stub: Palestinian terrotories geo stub; Palestine bio stub: Palestinian bio stub; Palestine politics/govt stub: PNA stub; etc. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The scope of the stub seems to be the only thing to be at any odds with here. My main question is - are there any other disputed territories in the world that are referred to by; firstly names (kashmir?) by different groups of people, do any of these have stubs. The issue seems very clear to me. This is a disputed territory. The territory has different names based on different peoples point of view. It's a bad idea to use one of those names as the name for the stub, you can't get away from the fact that it's inherently POV to do so, unless it has been agreed upon by an oranisation that is not biased in any way shape or form. The stub title is very different from a country title, make no mistake. You should call the stub name 'Disputed Territories of the middle East' and include other disputed territories of the middle east. Or perhaps, create a 'Disputed territory' stub and refer to those around the world. JHJPDJKDKHI! 05:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there aren't any others like this. No other disputed territories have the numbers of stubs which would require stub types. if they did have, the same course of action would have been taken as here - i.e., discussion with editors on all sides of the dispute, followed by the adoption of a politically neutral term which most nearly suited all of those sides. That has already been done with this case, and Palestine-stub and its subtypes are the result. The current debate is merely an attempt to overturn that discussion and the decision that was reached in it. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Whether or not Palestine exists, the concept of Palestine exists. This stub-template identifies whether or not a stub is related to the concept of Palestine. And I also agree that this was a bad faith nomination. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Yes, it's supposed to. The problem with the stub and there seem to be some people who want to ignore the fact that Palestine has nothing to do with a political entity. Somebody might put this stub in an article concerning the Jewish Roman wars or Cannan or Edom-Assyria or the Crusaders articles. But if one does so he will see a flag next to it that represents the PLO or the Palestinian National Authority. It doesn't in any way represent Palestine of course. It might be wishful thinking if we assume WP:AGF, but it also might be extreme delusional behaviour or WP:POV behaviour that confuses readers and users and puts wikipedia into shame, using a term for something that doesn't exist in a very inappropriate inaccurate and perplexing way. Amoruso 19:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose what will be done to articles related to the former mandated land and who lie outside Israel's internationaly recognized borders. The Palestine-stub is NPOV since the area was part of the Mandate of PALESTINE. Robin Hood 1212 19:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Solicited vote.
    • Comment that might be true if they dealt with articles about the Palestine Mandate, but the vast majority of entries are instead about places within the Palestinian Authority or people from them, which have as much to do with the mandate as Israel does. TewfikTalk 01:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment this vote will only occur on the English wikipedia which shows a trend of historical amnesia and selective referencing, the tide of rapid posting and POV tags against anything remotely critical of Zionism or Israeli extremism is extraordinary. But for those who are still interested in a few points: 1.The British Mandate was called the British Mandate of PALESTINE (not Israel). The area was always been referred to as Palestine through out unrevised history even in the Bible. The State of Israel is a recent creation of the 20th century. 2. Before anyone start the Kingdom of Israel speech (that was very ancient history by the way) and a relative flash in the history of the region. 3. Most importantly, the Palestine stub refers to the People, Area, Future State, Current State and People. Palestine48 14:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ignoring for a minute that this is a total assumption of bad faith:
    1. The vast majority of entries covered by this template have nothing to do with the British Mandate of Palestine.
    2. The historical term "Palestine" refers both to Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip (at minimum), and there is no justification for the novel approach that it now means the WB & GS exclusively (again, the vast majority of items covered by this temp are exclusively related to WB & GS). The area has not "always been referred to as Palestine," [and especially not in the Bible,] though when it was, it was roughly defined as what I said above (and not as the WB & GS, or somehow to the exclusion of the Jewish presence). As for the point about the modern Israel, that is irrelevant for the reasons I stated before, though the idea of an Arab "State of Palestine" is equally novel (as are all nation-states).
    3. There is no "current state" of Palestine, nor should/does the stub deal with a future state (crystal-balling & NPOV come to mind). The temp does organise the culture/people identified as "Palestinian" and the territory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip under autonomy of the Palestinian Authority. It is precisely the reasoning which you employed that makes the current name so non neutral as well as confusing. TewfikTalk 08:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"1. The British Mandate was called the British Mandate of PALESTINE (not Israel)". It was actually known as The British Mandate of Palestine (Eretz Yisrael). Chesdovi 09:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail see to understand how a "pro-Israeli bias" is considered to be a valid reason for your opposition. I don't contest the fact that Palestine is usually used to refer to the state, of course. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but if you recognise that "Palestine" is being used in this context to refer to a nonexistent state, then why do you think that is neutral, and why do you oppose renaming to refer to the presently existent autonomous entity - the Palestinian Authority? TewfikTalk 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that popular usage attributes it to the PA, I mean, sorry. I am somewhat left in the loop concerning the political situation in the Middle East. Amendments done per your highlights. Furthermore, I don't oppose a renaming, only the deletion. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 17:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick7 put my objections down pretty well. The word "Palestinian", one would suppose, would be just as biased. But it refers to the Arabic speaking people there. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick7's argument was that "Palestine" is the same as the Koreas or Taiwan in that controversy surrounds it, but the latter are independent states, while a "State of Palestine" does not exist, and thus a short name implying it does is non neutral (which may have been his point about Lebanon, which is also an independent state). What does exist is the Palestinian National Authority, as well as a culture and people that identify as Palestinian. Why not describe what is instead of what may one day be (sorry to be repetitive, but this is a crucial point). TewfikTalk 18:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This CFD has been tainted by a huge amount of vote solicitation, as the arguments of those solicited show.This will have to be taken into account when the final decision is made. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, given your vigorous deployment of condemnatory footnotes to the votes of all the "solicitees", it will be hard for whoever takes the final decision to miss it. You might want to reflect on whether this really shows respect for the opinions of others or not, though. Palmiro | Talk 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re comment - Since when this has been taken into account Jay? -- Szvest 12:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"As the arguments of those solicited show"? They do, do they? In what way? And how do we know that other voters weren't "solicited" as well, but in a less open way? There are seven or eight voters, none of whom strike me as regular cross-topic participants in stub-type-for-deletion discussions (I'm not one myself, which is the main reason why I welcome being informed of such discussions when they pertain to my areas of interest), all of whom appeared here tovote in favour of the move in a very short period of time. We certainly cannot say that we know "vote soliciting" happened on one side only. On the other hand, we can indeed say, I think, that a political bloc vote appeared in support of the move. That I heard of this vote thanks to another user telling me about it hardly disqualifies me from expressing concern at the frequency of this phenomenon. I think your attempt to cast doubt on the motives of oppose voters here is unfair and disappointing. Palmiro | Talk 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The name Palestine is the best to describe this group. All proposed names are more POV. The name Palestine here does not refer to a country but it is a general name of land, people, and culture. Other proposed names do not do the job as good as the word Palestine. --Thameen 10:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • small armies of Wikipedians with similar views who simultaneously appear to vote the same way on them, whatever the topic. Very well said Palmiro . Thank you --Thameen 10:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeAgree with Thameen and WikiSlasher, refers to the cultural region, its people and history. If anything, its the most NPOV as the other proposed stub names reflect Israeli bias. Afghan Historian 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would someone like to explain how it is an "Israeli bias" to deny that there is a political entity known as "Palestine," or how it is biased to affirm that the template instead deals with the political entity known as the "Palestinian National Authority"? If you believe that the renaming process is in error, then please reference or make an argument that deals with the specific facts of this case. TewfikTalk 06:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1)Many nations that have unclear/transitional/confusing political status are in Wikipedia, e.g. Kurdistan. 2)If you look in the index of any books covering this area of the world the territory that we are talking about is listed as Palestine, why should Wikipedia vary from the internationally accepted norm? Sorry , forgot to sign my name(just getting used to this)Puddleman 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine is a region that contains Israel also in the internationally accepted form. Currently, Palestine is a region. Stubs relate both to the region and to a palestinian national authority , which will possibly name itself as Palestine too when that state arrives - don't you see the problem here ? Amoruso 20:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a problem to deal with if it arises... chances are the name will be something like 'Republic of Palestine'...and there will simply be a disambiguaton page. It could end up being similar to the page America. This doesn't seem like a sound reason to change the name that is recognised and known world-wide. Puddleman 09:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Can anyone really look at the Emile Habibi article and say this would be a sensible change? I can only repeat my comment above, that this is an ill-thought out move which has nevertheless had the support of a large number of people for what look like purely emotional political/nationalistic motives. This is exactly the same pattern as with the proposed move of Great Uprising to Arab Revolt (Palestine 1948) where a large group of voters immediately appeared to support the move undaunted by the fact that the revolt in question had actually taken place between 1936 (or arguably 1935) and 1939. I'm surprised that User:Jayjg isn't thanking me, rather than making attacks on me whose unpleasantness is surpassed only by their pompousness, for taking a stand against such ill-thought-out proposals, considering that it was my remarks on the latter vote that resulted in a a slightly better-justified proposal which he felt he could support... Palmiro | Talk 01:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a couple of scoping questions at issue here:what definition of "Palestine" is intended (or should be intended) in the scope (the broader region, the territories, or the area the PNA supposedly controls at any given moment in time);and whether it designates a place at all, or an ethnicity.We've as a rule tried to avoid getting into that latter can of worms for stub types.So basically we have the worst of both worlds at the moment, as far as trying to follow recognised states and recognised borders for stub-sorting purposes, where places not in Israel get tagged with {{Israel-geo-stub}}, and ethnic Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are tagged with {{Palestine-stub}}.(Perhaps we can get a Wikipedia provision in the next set of Camp David agreements.)Alai 03:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There already is a Palestine-geo-stub, which perhaps explains why at least half of the articles sporting the main palestine-stub seem to relate not to the OPT but to the Palestinian national movement. I suppose creating a Palestine-bio-stub that could cover the likes of Habibi (though it's disgraceful that he only has a stub...) might be one way of tidying up some aspects of this, but as for the more sensitive elements, I fear you're right in thinking it'll take an international agreement before we're through with them. Palmiro | Talk 00:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Palestine can refer to a historic region (which includes modern Israel), to the ~25 year British Mandate, or the yet to exist modern political entity. Very few of the stubs currently tagged refer to these ideas. The vast majority deal with those who identify as the Palestinian people, or places within the West Bank and Gaza Strip; as of now those places are also exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority, a nonstate autonomous entity. Simply arguing that an adjective ("Palestinian") isn't the proper convention for stub naming is not a good reason for keeping a misleading title. Again, I'm inclined to suggest some flexibility for "Palestinian-stub" and/or "Palestinian-bio-stub," and due to the overlap of territory with the political entity, some variation on "Palestinian Authority" for the geo stub, though "Palestinian-geo-stub" would probably also be acceptable to all. If there are other suggestions that are in line with the naming convention and both avoid the confusion of "Palestine" and still recognise the unique Palestinian culture, then we should certainly discuss those, but so far such formulations have not been forthcoming. Let me know what you think, TewfikTalk 06:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there are any possible subcategorizations that could be used, and there is in fact already a palestine-geo-stub. But I think we are probably going to have to keep this stub as well, both as a supercategory in line with all other nationality stub categories, and as a default for stubs that don't fit into any of the other categories.
As regards the Palestinian National Authority, it has no territorial jurisdiction over large areas of the West Bank, including all areas that come under the jurisdiction of the extended Israeli Jerusalem municipality, so it would not be an appropriate reference. Palmiro | Talk 12:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But how do you deal with the difference between what this is scoped to and its name? How would you feel about Huldra's potential "Palestinian" compromise? TewfikTalk 19:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually see any such proposal below. What precisely do you have in mind? The current stub actually says "This Palestinian-related article...", not "This Palestine-related article..." Maybe you can clarify below in your conversation with Huldra so as to keep as much as possible of this dialogue in one place - I already have a headache! Palmiro | Talk 21:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The stub is called {{Palestine-stub}}, that is what this page is all about. Huldra suggests naming the bio stub "Palestinian," so if we can both compromise on that position across the board, then we should have no problem (even though I think it would be more useful and logical to name after the Palestinian Authority entity). TewfikTalk 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Four points:
    • Facinating, that the question about wethervotes had been solicited via email was never answered here,("On the existence of cliques"), in spite of direct questions to Slim and Jay. Hmmm.
    • Also, arecent arb.com ruling found 5 messages soliciting votes "reasonable"
    • Some of the "solicited votes" above only show diffs pointing to a messages on portals/project....does this mean that in the future I can just leave a notice on one of the Israel/Judaism/Zionism project/portal, informing people that a vote is in progress somewhere on WP..and anybody (who is registered with that portal/project) showing up to vote will get a"solicited vote" attaced to their vote?? Great!!
    • Finally, I´m very dissappointed that nobody have solicitated my vote....I feel left out!! ;-D Regards, Huldra 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you strongly oppose renaming? Do you perhaps have any suggestions for how reconcile the gap between what the stub is called and how it is scoped? TewfikTalk 07:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I oppose it because the suggestion renames it to a much smaller entity, leaving many articles (of interest to anybody with an interest in Palestine) "outside". I think the only way forward is to create several "sub-categories" of "Palestine", making sure that all articles that are covered by the present cat. is also covered by some new cat. We could start with"Palestinian-bio-stub," (that should not be too controversial, should it?). Regards, Huldra 07:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with you that "Palestinian" is a good compromise across the board. So far the only opposition has come from the position that it is not in line with the naming convention. While I appreciate that point, if both sides concerned with content are willing to be flexible, then this would probably be a good place to utilise WP:Ignore all rules. TewfikTalk 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Aside from the fact that there's no expressed consensus for it at all, that I can perceive, and that it's against all stub-type guidelines, precedent and practice in scope, as well as name, for the reasons I mention, perhaps.Alai 23:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm puzzled as to why you are so inflexible on this point. You must certainly believe that the stub name must be factual - and I don't believe Catalan or Basque stubs are tagged as "European." Anyways, if Huldra, Palmiro, and I can agree, then that would pave the way to consensus. TewfikTalk 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per nom.--Mantanmoreland 11:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story thus far":
    • Oppose: 26
    • Support: 15
    • Rename/other: 2
  • Just for the record. Pegship 22:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

By-decade country song stubs

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge


Unproposed, and seriously undersized:the largest is a mighty six, and some are actually empty).There's no present need, as the parent would be around stubs even if these were all upmerged, which I recommend we do.Alai 00:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2006/October/16&oldid=1088036441"