Template talk:WikiProject Palestine
 | Palestine Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Flag edit
Hello all. Was there a purposeful decision not to include the Palestinian flag in the template? My only guess is that it shows solidarity with Palestinians outside the PA or something like that... nadav 00:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Nadav. I switched the flag to a picture on the project page template. The flag might be used to say that the project cannot add the template to pages that are not under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. I personally disagree with that potential objection, but thought it would be better to pre-empt that conflict by putting up a less overtly nationalistic symbol. Tiamut 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I should have seen that. Yes, that's wise. nadav 08:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Nadav. I switched the flag to a picture on the project page template. The flag might be used to say that the project cannot add the template to pages that are not under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. I personally disagree with that potential objection, but thought it would be better to pre-empt that conflict by putting up a less overtly nationalistic symbol. Tiamut 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Template is eliminating table of contents edit
This template is somehow eliminating the table of contents in the talk pages on which it appears. See Talk:Munich (film) for an example [1]. I've poured through the source, but I can't figure it out. It's possible embedded inside one of the inner templates. Ideas? -- MisterHand 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please edit
Do not change the picture on this template without garnering consensus for such a change. Thanks. Tiamat 14:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- You mean like Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs) did on 20 March 2009 when he added the Palestinian flag to the template and marked his edit as minor? If this Project is about Palestine the region, what is the flag of the Palestinian National Authority doing in it?—Biosketch (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- It isnt the flag of the PNA, it is the flag of Palestine. The WikiProject determines what they would like to have in the template, dont bring whatever misguided fight you want to have here. nableezy - 15:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Or how about this: I will continue to challenge edits that compromise the integrity of this Project and you will address me in a collegial tone regardless of your passions relating to the topic. It is assuredly not the flag of Palestine and assuredly is the flag used by the Palestinian Authority.—Biosketch (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is the Palestinian flag, not the flag of the PNA; it predates the PNA and will surely outlast it. You want to challenge things that compromise the "integrity" of the "Project", you can start by questioning why colonies in occupied territory have the Israeli flag on the talk page. Or you can do something useful with your time. You are arguing about something that appears only on talkpages, and in doing so betray your bias as you have yet, despite several questions from Sean about this at the NPOV/N (which you should have informed us of here), to show any problem with including the flag of Israel for places outside of Israel. But I forgot, you seem to want to define "Israeli" or "Israel" in different ways whenever it suits you, but Palestine, no that is only a region. nableezy - 18:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and the Palestinian flag is the flag of the Palestinian people, not of the region. The consensus-based formula for referring to the settlements is "settlements," not "colonies." You're welcome to your opinions, but you shouldn't be using them as arguments relating to Wikipedia content. The settlements – that's what they are – have the Israeli flag at their Discussion pages because editors chose to place the Template:Israel there. Template:Israel links to the State of Israel, which is a political entity that chose the blue-and-white flag as one of its symbols. Get it? Political entity→flag, not geographic region→flag.—Biosketch (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Biosketch, please, Wikipedia is not an authoritarian state/theocracy. You can't go around telling people that they can't call settlements "colonies" on discussion pages...well, you can but be prepared for them to say something very, very blunt or rude to you. There is no problem with people speaking openly. Look at Michael Ben-Yair who said
- "We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day."
- If he can do it in a newspaper, editors can do it here. It's okay for people to speak freely and use the words they want to use (within reason of course). It's a good thing and it's necessary. If you try to control language like this on discussion pages it will end in tears for you. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am free to call colonies in the occupied territories whatever I wish, and I certainly wont be bowing to your dictates on that issue. The flag is also designated as the flag of the State of Palestine, a state recognized by over 100 other states. But you, seemingly on purpose, miss the point. You claim elsewhere that this template should only be used in places in the Palestinian territories because of this flag, but apparently reject the equivalent argument that the flag on the WPIsrael template should not be used for its colonies outside of the state. Thank you for demonstrating my point. nableezy - 13:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Biosketch, please, Wikipedia is not an authoritarian state/theocracy. You can't go around telling people that they can't call settlements "colonies" on discussion pages...well, you can but be prepared for them to say something very, very blunt or rude to you. There is no problem with people speaking openly. Look at Michael Ben-Yair who said
- Yes, and the Palestinian flag is the flag of the Palestinian people, not of the region. The consensus-based formula for referring to the settlements is "settlements," not "colonies." You're welcome to your opinions, but you shouldn't be using them as arguments relating to Wikipedia content. The settlements – that's what they are – have the Israeli flag at their Discussion pages because editors chose to place the Template:Israel there. Template:Israel links to the State of Israel, which is a political entity that chose the blue-and-white flag as one of its symbols. Get it? Political entity→flag, not geographic region→flag.—Biosketch (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is the Palestinian flag, not the flag of the PNA; it predates the PNA and will surely outlast it. You want to challenge things that compromise the "integrity" of the "Project", you can start by questioning why colonies in occupied territory have the Israeli flag on the talk page. Or you can do something useful with your time. You are arguing about something that appears only on talkpages, and in doing so betray your bias as you have yet, despite several questions from Sean about this at the NPOV/N (which you should have informed us of here), to show any problem with including the flag of Israel for places outside of Israel. But I forgot, you seem to want to define "Israeli" or "Israel" in different ways whenever it suits you, but Palestine, no that is only a region. nableezy - 18:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Or how about this: I will continue to challenge edits that compromise the integrity of this Project and you will address me in a collegial tone regardless of your passions relating to the topic. It is assuredly not the flag of Palestine and assuredly is the flag used by the Palestinian Authority.—Biosketch (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- It isnt the flag of the PNA, it is the flag of Palestine. The WikiProject determines what they would like to have in the template, dont bring whatever misguided fight you want to have here. nableezy - 15:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Wait a minute, Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs). Did you just threaten me? What exactly do you mean by "it will end in tears for you"? Do clarify that remark. Furthermore, this is already the fourth time you've intervened in a discussion between Nableezy (talk · contribs) and myself in a manner that's beginning to irritate me. Once it was at your Talk page, so that can be forgiven. Your repeatedly patronizing tone, however, cannot. If you have something insightful to contribute in relation to the content of this discussion, your input is welcome. If you're searching for a platform for soapboxing and quoting Israeli Attorney-Generals as though they're the supreme authority on linguistic conventions involving the settlements, do it on my Talk page or yours, not here where it's irrelevant and unconstructive. And since we're expected to restrict our comments to edits and not editors, allow me to point out the glaring double standard in this comment of yours: in User:Nableezy's reply to my initial comment above, he rather bluntly told me to take a hike and not continue to express any criticism of the Template here. Somehow that failed to strike you as authoritarian and tyrannical. Yet when I tell Nableezy he shouldn't cite his personal opinions regarding the settlements as though they mean something in the context of this argument, that to you is "authoritarian state/theocracy." On what planet does that make any sense? Lastly, I'll thank you not to attribute arguments to me in a manner that mutilates what I said. I never told Nableezy he couldn't refer to settlements as colonies. He can call them popsicles too if he wants. But if he calls them colonies or popsicles, he shouldn't expect me respond to his argument as though it were neutral in nature. I'm interested in having a debate about solid facts, not about personal convictions; and about this Template, not about Israeli settlements and what Nableezy or an attorney-general thinks of them.—Biosketch (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- @Nableezy (talk · contribs), show me where I ever said the flag "should only be used in places in the Palestinian territories." Don't make things up that I never said – it's not a substitute for being incapable of responding to my arguments above. There's a region called Palestine and there's a political entity called the Palestinian territories. If this Template links to the latter, it can keep the flag. If it links to the former, it's embracing a fringe POV by claiming that the flag is a symbol of the entire region of Palestine, which it assuredly isn't. Don't straw-man me by making this about where the Template goes. It's about what goes in the Template, as I'm sure you know very well.—Biosketch (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Really? but it's important that this Template be kept NPOV and the flag, which is a political symbol, not be superimposed over the entire region of Palestine and instead be used only in reference to those areas designated as the Palestinian territories. The article Palestine makes clear that "Palestine" is also a reference to either the territories or the state. You are not in a position to say what can and cannot happen, as you clearly do not have consensus for your position. You are free to continue with this waste of time, but dont expect others to pay you much attention. nableezy - 13:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Biosketch, I've just realized you asked me a question "Wait a minute, Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs). Did you just threaten me?" No, it wasn't a threat. If I had threatened you it would be absolutely crystal clear and it would refer to a policy. I would say things like, if you do X again I will do Y because of Z. There would be no ambiguity. You are wasting your time telling me what you think about me or what you regard as irritating, patronizing or a double standard. It won't change anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- @Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), there was a time when I still cared and your explanations meant something to me. I guess I've outgrown that. Sorry to wax cynical, but that's the raw truth.—Biosketch (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think you have grown in a way that benefits the topic area. You told someone that they couldn't use an entirely reasonable and accurate word in a discussion because you don't like it. The word represents a solid fact. It's no different from calling an apple an apple and yet you can't tolerate its use. You explained, in effect, that in order for you to participate in discussion the terminology used must meet your requirements. Not helpful. Apparently you are unable to see how this attitude might be seen by others who do not believe that trying to control the words people use (within reason) is acceptable at all. I find it extraordinary to hear such things here. I provided an example of a very brave man speaking freely, as is his and everyone's right, using the term to show that it's okay. You assumed I was soapboxing or that I agreed with what he said when in fact I was simply demonstrating its usage in an RS by a respected Israeli. I don't care about what he said, that wasn't the point. I care about the ability to say it because it's important. Of course you had no reason to do that but you are apparently so conditioned that you just did it anyway. You think that my criticizing your intolerance is a double standard because I didn't criticize someone saying "dont bring whatever misguided fight you want to have here". These are not equivalent. The fight is misguided. It's a product of your inability to reliably identify symmetries, a common feature of many editors in the topic area who I can only assume have been raised to not see symmetries given that they are usually so obvious to others who come from all sorts of different kinds of societies. I told you that it will end in tears. This was for your own good. Editing Wikipedia is supposed to be about doing something enjoyable that builds an encyclopedia and yet you assumed it was a threat. That is an extraordinary mistake but it's the kind of mistake I've got used to in this topic area. I suggested a long time ago that you are focusing too much on personalities and yet you continue to do it, perhaps more than ever and inevitably there is conflict. You are the product of decades of conflict. Everything about you is connected to that in some way. I'm not a product of or part of the conflict. Like many other editors you are bringing the conflict here. Editors must be able to work together to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources without interference from people whose ability to think rationally about a conflict has been compromised by that conflict. Editors can't be criticized and badgered because they follow policy and say what sources say. Issues can't be manufactured simply because an editor sees the world in a certain way. So, you can continue as you are or you can change. I don't care either way, it's your life, but I know which one is better for the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- "You told someone that they couldn't use an entirely reasonable and accurate word in a discussion because you don't like it." That's a blatant lie. No two ways about it. My words were, and I quote, "You're welcome to your opinions, but you shouldn't be using them as arguments relating to Wikipedia content." I've already asked you not to attribute arguments to me in a manner that mutilates what I said. What about that request haven't you understood? It's beneath me to waste any more of my time responding to comments that are dishonest and an insult to my intelligence.—Biosketch (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think you have grown in a way that benefits the topic area. You told someone that they couldn't use an entirely reasonable and accurate word in a discussion because you don't like it. The word represents a solid fact. It's no different from calling an apple an apple and yet you can't tolerate its use. You explained, in effect, that in order for you to participate in discussion the terminology used must meet your requirements. Not helpful. Apparently you are unable to see how this attitude might be seen by others who do not believe that trying to control the words people use (within reason) is acceptable at all. I find it extraordinary to hear such things here. I provided an example of a very brave man speaking freely, as is his and everyone's right, using the term to show that it's okay. You assumed I was soapboxing or that I agreed with what he said when in fact I was simply demonstrating its usage in an RS by a respected Israeli. I don't care about what he said, that wasn't the point. I care about the ability to say it because it's important. Of course you had no reason to do that but you are apparently so conditioned that you just did it anyway. You think that my criticizing your intolerance is a double standard because I didn't criticize someone saying "dont bring whatever misguided fight you want to have here". These are not equivalent. The fight is misguided. It's a product of your inability to reliably identify symmetries, a common feature of many editors in the topic area who I can only assume have been raised to not see symmetries given that they are usually so obvious to others who come from all sorts of different kinds of societies. I told you that it will end in tears. This was for your own good. Editing Wikipedia is supposed to be about doing something enjoyable that builds an encyclopedia and yet you assumed it was a threat. That is an extraordinary mistake but it's the kind of mistake I've got used to in this topic area. I suggested a long time ago that you are focusing too much on personalities and yet you continue to do it, perhaps more than ever and inevitably there is conflict. You are the product of decades of conflict. Everything about you is connected to that in some way. I'm not a product of or part of the conflict. Like many other editors you are bringing the conflict here. Editors must be able to work together to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources without interference from people whose ability to think rationally about a conflict has been compromised by that conflict. Editors can't be criticized and badgered because they follow policy and say what sources say. Issues can't be manufactured simply because an editor sees the world in a certain way. So, you can continue as you are or you can change. I don't care either way, it's your life, but I know which one is better for the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- @Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), there was a time when I still cared and your explanations meant something to me. I guess I've outgrown that. Sorry to wax cynical, but that's the raw truth.—Biosketch (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- @Nableezy (talk · contribs), I really don't know what shtick it is you're trying to pull here. I've said repeatedly that I don't care where the Template goes. "[I]n reference to those areas designated as the Palestinian territories" means that the language of the Template shouldn't be referring to "Palestine" as though that area corresponds to the Palestinian flag. Do you think the region of Palestine corresponds to the Palestinian flag? Answer the question as a Wikipedia editor, not as a person.—Biosketch (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ive replied to the rather funny assertion that accurately quoting you is "shtick", so Ill ignore that here. The flag can be applied to nearly everything covered by most things related to "Palestine". Quoting from what I wrote at NPOV/N: The template is meant to be used on talk pages related to all of the following: Palestinian people, both their history and individuals, villages in what is today the Palestinian territories and in Israel, or historical Palestine, Palestinian organizations, structures in Palestine, nearly everything involving the British Mandate, books, …, so it would be inappropriate to limit that to Palestinian people. (and Ill now add it is also inappropriate to link it to Palestinian territories for the same reason). The word Palestine means more than the territory from the river to the sea, and the article Palestine makes that clear. nableezy - 07:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Scope edit
Shouldn't "articles related to the Palestine on Wikipedia" be "articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian territories, and the Palestinian people on Wikipedia". This Wikiproject isn't just about the region, it's both about the region and the "nation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 20:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- On second thought I'll just implement this, I doubt it will be controversial. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikiproject flag edit
Unlike other countries, the Palestine Wikiproject doesn't have a flag, but does have a barely related picture of residents from Ramallah during the Ottoman era. Now, there was some argument that Palestine is also a region and a people, which is a reasonable argument, but so are many other countries. Once we have the State of Palestine from 2013 (and earlier Palestinian National Authority), we can pretty much talk about Palestine, as representing the UN non-member state Palestine (together with its geography, people etc.) and related issues - including wider Palestine region, Palestinian Arab diaspora and more. I herewith propose to switch from a photo as this Wikiproject's illustration to the flag Palestine administration, recognized as UN observer state, similar to most other country wikiprojects.GreyShark (dibra) 17:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Due to 2015 change of Palestine->Palestine (region), i think we can certainly now use the flag of the State of Palestine on this Wikiproject. Thoughts?GreyShark (dibra) 18:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)