Template talk:Cities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, this little navigation box was made to cover the cities and towns in the Palestinian Territories, it is not for cities and towns under Palestinian Authority control. Not for West Bank Towns, not for Palestinian towns. I had it down as Palestine first (mistake, changed to Palestinian Territories), think this is fairer? Please discuss rather than make big changes...Pockets23 09:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but Palestinian territories is a very WP:POV term... that's why Palestinian Authority isn't. Occupied territories also. West Bank is OK, if you want. Amoruso 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Because there are still Israeli settlements in the West Bank I included these and added Italics with a note to denote them as such. I also included East Jerusalem with a link to Positions on Jerusalem (these notes were lost in a previous edit so you may not have known they were there, I will restore them) The EU has said that East Jerusalem is not part of Israel, that it is occupied territory, subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Therefore, to use Palestinian Authority would be misleading because the PA does not govern East Jerusalem. A WP:NPOV would be to use Palestinian Territories. I think this creates the most neutral box possible.Pockets23 01:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What the EU said or not is irrelevant - Jerusalem in its entire annextion is a part of the template of cities in Israel, and pending further negotiation it might become partly palesitnian, but right now it isn't. Palestinian territories is highly POV and basically says Palestine. See my remarks below over the unnecessary italics, and understand that Jerusalem is not a part of the west bank per Israeli law and per general, it's another disputed issue, but it's seperate, and it's too controversial for it to be included in another template. Each city belongs to one template, no more. Amoruso 13:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How is what the EU, UN and most of the international community says irrelevant? As long as the template is as neutral as possible and gives links to articles about contentious issues such as Jerusalem then I think it gives the most neutral POV possible and people the chance to learn about these issues. Pockets23 19:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See below. Amoruso 00:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Palestinian Flag? Israeli settlements? 2 Changed to west bank per previous version 3 What's not disputed anyway 4 Template 5 Title of Template 6 East Jerusalem 7 Settlements 8 Translations

[edit] Palestinian Flag? Israeli settlements?

Anyone want to remove the flag? I was thinking of adding Israeli settlements to this also...Pockets23 10:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Added settlements in ItalicsPockets23 11:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And put an asterisk next to Jerusalem with a link to Positions on Jerusalem - hopefully this will prevent people getting upset about Jerusalem being here. Pockets23 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem is already in a template in cities in Israel. No need for a double template on this. Israeli cities in west bank aren't so it's a good idea to have this template for all, no need for asteriks, as this is NPOV and not a palestinian template.Amoruso 13:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed to west bank per previous version

Now it's possible to make another Gaza Strip one if you wish Pockets23. This is the best NPOV solution and accurate. Amoruso 00:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing back. See my other response to you above, I think the one you edited did not have the footnotes on settlements and East Jerusalem.Pockets23 01:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I did see it, and Jerusalem is not accepted ANYWAY let alone under this category. I'm moving it back again and I hope you accept that it's WP:POV and won't move again or it's tagged for deletion etc per norm. Amoruso 13:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific - what about Jerusalem is not accepted?

[edit] What's not disputed anyway

Don't move back the template, as this is the best name and i'm sure you realise this. If you have concerns like adding jerusalem , let's discuss. Amoruso 13:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

The main relevancy here is not that of geographic location, but of political jurisdiction. Al-Quds is claimed by the PA, and there is a Al-Quds province of the PA and there are Al-Quds mayors. Israeli settlements on the other hand would fall outside of the delimitation.

Another option would to have a joint Israeli-Palestinian template (with both national flags) including all urban centres of the areas of the British Mandate.

--Soman 14:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That is WP:POV since what PA claims doesn't merit this template. If this is changed again, I'm tagging it for deletion. Amoruso 15:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So, what is then the common denominator of say Jenin, Gaza City and Bethlehem? Do they exist in a political vacuum? --Soman 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

They exist in a very controversial political vaccum/forum which can't be described in a political template and maintain WP:NPOV. Amoruso 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So travel to either of those places and ask people there if about their national identity, and I believe the answer wouldn't be very ambigous. The general international consensus is to treat the areas as OPT, in other words there is no POV in saying that Jenin or Gaza in fact are palestinian cities. Israel might not recognize that, but on the other hand not all countries recognize the state of Israel (we do at wikipedia clearly state that say Tel Aviv is an Israeli city). If it is NPOV to say that Tel Aviv is Israeli then its also NPOV to say that Jenin is Palestinian, in the sense that regardless of international recognition or non-recognitition the city functions in a certain way and has a certain social structure. --Soman 12:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of Template

Hi, put your views here on what should be the title of the template because it seems to be constantly changing. Not Palestine as it is POV. I think a fair compromise is Palestinian Territories - to use West Bank and Gaza Strip is too fragmented. The territories are two parts of a single entity, people know this and for a small, extreme minority to try and seperate them is POV and vandalism. Pockets23 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"West Bank & Gaza Strip" is a neutral name. "Palestinian Territories", a political term, borderless and still to be negotiated is not neutral. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the current template is good and correct. East Jerusalem is too dispuetd to include (it's not a city/town, it's an area in a city which is seen as seperate from west bank according to many and templates shouldn't be used for controversies) so all other exist. It's an excellent template Pocket23. Please don't change it again , as that will be disruptive. If it's moved again, it will be proposed for deletion and that's sad, because it's a useful template in its current form and should stay that way. Amoruso 18:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Jerusalem

Why is this removed again? There was an asterisk next to it with a link to Positions on Jerusalem so that there would be no confusion or accusation of POV. To remove it altogether is POV Pockets23 19:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what other think. Templates should generally be not controversial. Now East Jerusalem is not a town, and we can't put Jerusalem. That's why I think it's problematic to put it.. it's another place claimed by the Palestinians, but it's not generally in the west bank or regarded like that. it's a seperate issue. Amoruso 00:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

East Jerusalem constitutes the Palestinian municipality Al-Quds. Perhaps we could move the template to 'Municipalities of the PNA', with a disclaimer on the status of the municipalities (i.e. that inclusion in the template does not necessarily signify that the PNA has de facto control over the area of the municipality). --Soman 08:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Common misconception. PNA has created a Palestinian municipality Al-Quds that has nothing to do with East Jerusalem. They created it for propoganda and for future usage. Right now it's pretty defunct. It has no control de facto or de jure over any part of East Jerusalem. Al-ram or abu-dis or bir-naballa aren't east jerusalem. Check the map [1] they have no control over any area inside the pink line. Amoruso 11:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You might be aware that in terms of de jure control, the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem is generally not internationally recognized. However, wouldn't the boundaries of the PNA municipality of Al-Quds clearly fall within the limits of East Jerusalem. The map you supplied marks the pre-1967 jordanian municipal border. Would the PNA municipality have a different delimitation that the old jordanian one? --Soman 12:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Settlements

Shouldn't settlements be in italics with a link to the main article because of their nature.

Maybe they should have a footnote if others agree, not sure. I mean they are cities even if they're settlements. Amoruso 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translations

I vote that the Hebrew/Arabic translations be removed. --Soman 08:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Amoruso 11:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I ask incredulously, why??? Pockets23 22:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

en.wikipedia.org. Amoruso 23:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If there was no political twist to it translations would be ok. But to put Hebrew translations of Palestinian towns gives the impression that the city in question would be bilingual. I think its best to leave out translations, and only have English names. --Soman 07:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)