Template talk:Palestinian nationalism

Proposed merger

Moved from Template talk:Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people

I do not understand why you insist on keeping the older version of the template (by copying the old version to a separate template). Is it because you prefer that we'll have only one template covering topics related to the historic region of Palestine and topics related to the Palestinian people rather than having two separate templates with expanded coverage of the these two separate topics? Is it because you believe these topics would be better represented with the additions of maps? Is it because you believe there is no need for extensively expanded templates for these two separate sensitive topics?

In my opinion, only the two separate templates covering now these two topics extensively (this template and this template) should be kept, while the older version of the template, which the user Oncenawhile restored into a new different name (this template), should be removed for the following reasons:

1. The old version of the template, which the user Oncenawhile restored into a new different name, covers in very little detail, the same two topics which this template and this template cover now separately and in much more detail. In general, I believe we should refrain from keeping two versions of templates that cover the same topics – instead, we should choose the template or templates that better cover those topics and keep only this/those templates.
2. The old version of the template, which the user Oncenawhile restored into a new different name, attempts to cover topics related to both the historic region of Palestine and topics related to the Palestinian people in the same template in an biased and unbalanced way by presenting the information in a way that suggests the historic region of Palestine belongs exclusively to one population group, namely the population group known today as the Palestinian people (which prior to the mid 20th century was mostly known as the Arab population of the region of Palestine). In my opinion, this nationalistic approach has no place in an encyclopedia – in my opinion, we should instead cover these two separate sensitive topics extensively in two separate templates.
3. The old version of the template, which the user Oncenawhile restored into a new different name, will most likely incite many non-Palestinian readers and editors, particularly when this template would appear at the bottom of Wikipedia articles that cover topics related to the historical region of Palestine which do not focus on specifically on the history of the Palestinian people (for example, the user Oncenawhile previously added the template to the bottom of the articles Time periods in the Palestine region and Palestine). I believe that our Palestinian readers and editors would be just as incited if a similar template was to be created under the same name ("Palestine topics") which would have presented the flag of the state of Israel in the header and would only cover the topics related to the Israeli-Jewish population next to a coverage of topics related to the historical region of Palestine and maps of the entire region of the historical region of Palestine. These are very sensitive topics and should be treated accordingly.

Either way, for now I suggest that we wait and see what the rest of the community thinks we should do and eventually act in accordance with the consensus. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, first some comments on your post. Your repeated references to "The old version of the template" falsely suggests that your template is a modernisation of Template:Palestine topics when they are actually totally different templates, and factually it is only the older version because you broke the rules by replacing it with a new template without building consensus in advance. Anyway, I wholly agree that now we are back to square one we should let the community decide.

If i understand you right, you have two questions:

A) "Is there any POV implied by Template:Palestine topics?"

I do not see how you can possibly conclude that the template suggests "that the region of Palestine belongs exclusively to one population group". In my opinion no sane reader could ever reach that conclusion. Can you explain in more detail why you think this? On a separate point, please remember that the world's 11 million Palestinian people define their whole identity by reference to the historical region of Palestine - you may wish there was no connection between them but it is an incontrovertible fact. "Exclusivity" is not mentioned or implied anywhere.

B) "Is it better to have (i) one summary template on Palestine as a whole; (ii) two very detailed templates on the historical region and the current PNA; or (iii) all three templates?"

The concept of Palestine is complex - it means one thing when talking about history, another when talking about modern geography, and another when talking about politics. As examples, for each of the phrases "the history of Palestine" or "the border in to Palestine" or "the President of Palestine", what regions are they referring to? It is different each time. This complexity is unique, and so navigation around Palestine-related topics needs a particularly clear structure. To understand Palestine properly, readers have to navigate all three of these related topics - Template:Palestine topics tries to do this in a helpful way. If you have constructive improvements they would be gratefully received.

With respect to the two other templates (historical region and current PNA), while I think there is some work required to remove the POV from these, I overall think they are helpful additions to wikipedia, and importantly they are complementary to the summary Template:Palestine topics which brings them together.

Which brings us back to question (A), which I suspect is the core reason for your proposal here. Is it really POV to draw a connection between the historical region of Palestine and other common uses of the word Palestine today? I think you have simply made a mistake in the heat of the moment. Let's try to go with a middle ground.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't endorse either the "new" nor the "old" version, but I see another problem with these changes. There is one template "Palestine topics" (the three map division is interesting) and another one "Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people" - here is the problem, this template includes links to many different articles, including some historical ones or such that aren't strictly related to the PNA or aren't related at all to the PNA. Strangely it doesn't include a link to the Palestine Liberation Organization - quite important entity, internationally recognized as representative of the Palestinian people (see here). Also, arranging and naming the template in this way it seems like the PNA is the only entity and disregards the PLO and SoP. That's why I think that it's better the two templates to be merged (that with the many links can come below the other with three maps/columns). Alinor (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is one example (I also added the missing links that are related to PLO and SoP):

I'd just like to add a note that User:TheCuriousGnome engaged in canvassing by posting messages ("POV template needs to be balanced or merged") at WP:ISRAEL and WP:IPCOLL. Although I had hoped TheCuriousGnome would do so, in the end it was left to me to post a neutral message at WP:PALESTINE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not do any canvassing! because so far we haven't had many participants in this discussion, and because I do want both Palestinians and Israelis to participate in the conversation to help balance this template - I posted a message in BOTH WP:ISRAEL and WP:IPCOLL (which I assume has many Palestinian participants) inviting people, with knowledge on the subject matter, to participate in the conversation in order to help balance the template. I am glad you posted a message on WP:PALESTINE as well. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Template name changes

the control over the region of Palestine has been in dispute for millenniums and unfortunately is still ongoing. The current dispute over the control of the region, which has been going on since the early 20th century, is between Israel and the Palestinians.

We can not resolve this age old dispute here on the English Wikipedia (and are not supposed to either) by suggesting that the control of the region of Palestine should belong to the Palestinian-Arab side or the Israeli side exclusively (this has currently been done by using the all inclusive namespace "Palestine topcis" with the header that links to an article about the historical region of Palestine, with a Palestinian-Arab flag and having only topics relating to Palestinian Arabs).

This is factually wrong and misleading.

Because of this, in order not anger or incite any of our readers we need to change the name of the template to a less POV title.

Because the all inclusive namespace "Palestine topcis" is factually wrong, FOR NOW, I am changing the name of the template to the more accurate and balanced name "Template:Palestinian nationalism and the region of Palestine". If anyone have any better suggestions for template name, please bring them up. the namespace "Palestine topics" would have a redirect to the "Template:Historic region of Palestine topics" instead. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time you have unilaterally tried to change the name of this topic. Please let's have a proper discussion here first. I will respond to the points you make above in due course. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Using the all inclusive namespace "Palestinetopcis" or "Palestine topics" only for Palestinian-arab related topics is factually wrong and misleading. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

By renaming twice within 24hrs you have just violated WP:1RR. Please self-revert immediately. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this debate appears to be spiralling downwards. Please note the templates have been added at WP:RPP. I have not undone TheCuriousGnome's 1RR violation - it seems better to leave this situation to the admins to decide the best course of action. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile (talk · contribs), do you recognize that identifying the region called Palestine with the Palestinian flag is a POV problem? If so, how do you propose to reconcile that problem, or what specifically to you take issue with vis-a-vis TheCuriousGnome (talk · contribs)'s proposal?—Biosketch (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that "Palestine topics" is more NPOV name than "Palestinian nationalism".

I think that a combined template as shown in the example in my comment in the merge discussion is better than the current two templates "Palestine topics"/"Palestinian nationalism" + awfully-titled "Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people".

In any case "Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people" title of the other template is problematic, because it disregards the PLO and the State of Palestine. If the templates are to remain separate (I don't see any benefit in separating these, but anyway) - I suggest a name such as "Palestinian politics and society" for the second one (that with the more links). Alinor (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Biosketch, thanks for your question. I think TheCuriousGnome has made some valid points - as I said above, I will respond to the user's points in due course. Unfortunately, the user has temporarily knocked this debate off course due to some unacceptable behaviour (see discussion here WP:ANEW). Once the admins have sorted the situation out (i.e. by returned us to the WP:STATUSQUO), I will respond to the points and we can move forward in the discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oncenawhile (talk · contribs), CuriousGnome may have acted impulsively in this particular case. I'd prefer to avoid judging anyone, though, and focus instead on the issue of the template. Not having any suggestions of my own to offer, I really just wanted to hear what your ideas were.

Alinor (talk · contribs), if your suggestions are okay with Oncenawhile and CuriousGnome and no one else has a problem with PLO, sure I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. I don't know what ARBCOM policy is "State of Palestine," though. Someone should probably check what's been decided in the past in that respect.—Biosketch (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I just propose that we don't split the template - see above an example of a template combining both - or alternatively, if the template is to remain split I propose to use a more general title such as "Palestinian politics and society" for the many-links-template. I'm not aware of ARBCOM decision that prevents us from doing that. Alinor (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)