 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2018
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request that the line "Gaza Strip, an Arab-inhabited region on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea" be changed to "Gaza Strip, a small Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea" to better reflect the same description that is found on the linked page. Tissn (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Per WP:DABNOT, the text of the link and the description needs only to be specific enough to direct the reader and does not need to summarize the linked article. Per WP:ARBPIA2, and WP:ARBPIA3, maintaining the most-neutral description for Palestine-Israel articles is preferred to avoid nomenclatural conflicts. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Considering that Palestine's statehood is recognized by the UN, and 136 of it's member nations, it's hardly neutral to refuse to call Gaza a Palestinian territory. I certainly hope Wikipedia hasn't adopted a policy of ignoring international law and opinion to appease an illegal occupant. Tissn (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia does not really care what the UN and "136 of it's [sic] member nations" have decided. Wikipedia has its own policies, including a policy of WP:NPOV, which your edit above shows an obvious lack of. Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, which issues binding remedies for content disputes, has also had no less than three separate arbitrations dealing with terminology for Palestine-Israeli topics. Before tossing around words like "appease" and "illegal", you should really read those. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Funny how you can simply claim to be neutral, while ignoring an obvious international consensus on the matter and take the side of what the International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council refer to as an "occupying power" and "an affront to international law". How exactly is it neutral to ignore these basic facts, and refuse to call Gaza a Palestinian territory? And how exactly am I not being neutral by calling Israel an illegal occupant, when this is demonstrably an indisputable fact that even Israel's own Supreme Court agree with? Please provide a direct link to where Wikipedia's Arbitration Committe has ruled that Gaza should not be referred to as a Palestinian territory, and that such a "nomenclature" is considered non-neutral.Tissn (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Links are already provided. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, none of the provided links state that Gaza should not be called a Palestinian territory. You have yet to provide any arguments that your position in this case (refusing to call Gaza a Palestinian territory) is even remotely neutral.Tissn (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:DR. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Stating Gaza is Palestinian, with many claiming continuing Israeli occupation despite disengagement, the Hamas / PLO mess, and possible Egyptian developments - is taking a POV. This might be a widely accepted POV, but it is still a POV. Arab inhabited is factual, and skirts around any geopolitics.Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- That is a non-argument, considering that refusing to refer to Gaza as a Palestinian territory can equally (more so, in fact) be said to constitute a POV. Therefore I believe it should be obvious that the most widely accepted and internationally recognized term should be given priority. Tissn (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is, in fact, the essence of the argument. The status of Gaza Strip is not a subject for either the disambiguation page nor its talk page. It is a subject for the Gaza Strip page, were it is extensively discussed. Any reader landing on this page will find that link where they will also find the status discussion. That's all that the disambiguation page is needed for and that's what the editing guideline on disambiguation pages asks for. If you want to challenge that editing guideline, then you should be discussing this at the correct talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm growing tired of going in circles with your disingenuous attempts to claim neutrality here. Again: refusing to call Gaza a Palestinian territory is not a neutral position. You seem very eager to ignore the fact that Gaza is unambiguously defined as a self-governing Palestinian territory in the introduction on the linked article (and pretty much everywhere else). It makes no sense not to use that same definition on the disambiguation page, especially if the reason for it is supposed neutrality. Additionally, the editing guidelines you've repeatedly referred to also states that "a short description of the common general meaning of a word" is appropriate. The common general meaning of the word Gaza is precisely "the self-governing Palestinian territory" - not some vague "Arab-inhabited region". Tissn (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any international body, or any country (including Israel) that does not consider the Gaza Strip to be a Palestinian territory. Considering Icewhiz's list: "Israeli occupied": both an occupied Palestinian territory and a non-occupied Palestinian territory are still Palestinian territories, so that is irrelevant; "the Hamas / PLO mess": both Hamas and the PLO claim to be and are accepted as Palestinian organizations; "possible Egyptian developments": pull the other leg. Would we list Israel on a dab page as a "Jew-inhabited region"? Get a grip and find something valid to argue over. Zerotalk 00:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for stepping in Zero, I completely agree. Thanks also for reverting the article, and even though the current wording is an improvement, I still feel that "Palestinian region" remains unnecessarily vague compared to the linked article. I request the wording be changed to "Gaza Strip, a self-governing Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea". Tissn (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- self-governing is under dispute between Hamas and the Palestinian authority. De-facto this is the case. De-jure not.Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. The dispute is over who the territory's current administrator is, not whether or not the territory is self-governing. Never the less, that is an argument to make on the linked article, not on this disambiguation page. Tissn (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- "Self-governing" is a detail that should be left to the article on the subject. Actually Icewhiz is correct about this. If the PA is the legal authority, then it is governed together with the West Bank, which would contradict "self-governing". On the other hand, the text I went back to just says "Palestinian territory" is bland and uncontroversial. Zerotalk 09:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- In that case I would appreciate it if you changed the current wording "Palestinian region" to "Palestinian territory". Tissn (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- "Self-governing" is a detail that should be left to the article on the subject. Actually Icewhiz is correct about this. If the PA is the legal authority, then it is governed together with the West Bank, which would contradict "self-governing". On the other hand, the text I went back to just says "Palestinian territory" is bland and uncontroversial. Zerotalk 09:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. The dispute is over who the territory's current administrator is, not whether or not the territory is self-governing. Never the less, that is an argument to make on the linked article, not on this disambiguation page. Tissn (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- self-governing is under dispute between Hamas and the Palestinian authority. De-facto this is the case. De-jure not.Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for stepping in Zero, I completely agree. Thanks also for reverting the article, and even though the current wording is an improvement, I still feel that "Palestinian region" remains unnecessarily vague compared to the linked article. I request the wording be changed to "Gaza Strip, a self-governing Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea". Tissn (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any international body, or any country (including Israel) that does not consider the Gaza Strip to be a Palestinian territory. Considering Icewhiz's list: "Israeli occupied": both an occupied Palestinian territory and a non-occupied Palestinian territory are still Palestinian territories, so that is irrelevant; "the Hamas / PLO mess": both Hamas and the PLO claim to be and are accepted as Palestinian organizations; "possible Egyptian developments": pull the other leg. Would we list Israel on a dab page as a "Jew-inhabited region"? Get a grip and find something valid to argue over. Zerotalk 00:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm growing tired of going in circles with your disingenuous attempts to claim neutrality here. Again: refusing to call Gaza a Palestinian territory is not a neutral position. You seem very eager to ignore the fact that Gaza is unambiguously defined as a self-governing Palestinian territory in the introduction on the linked article (and pretty much everywhere else). It makes no sense not to use that same definition on the disambiguation page, especially if the reason for it is supposed neutrality. Additionally, the editing guidelines you've repeatedly referred to also states that "a short description of the common general meaning of a word" is appropriate. The common general meaning of the word Gaza is precisely "the self-governing Palestinian territory" - not some vague "Arab-inhabited region". Tissn (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is, in fact, the essence of the argument. The status of Gaza Strip is not a subject for either the disambiguation page nor its talk page. It is a subject for the Gaza Strip page, were it is extensively discussed. Any reader landing on this page will find that link where they will also find the status discussion. That's all that the disambiguation page is needed for and that's what the editing guideline on disambiguation pages asks for. If you want to challenge that editing guideline, then you should be discussing this at the correct talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- That is a non-argument, considering that refusing to refer to Gaza as a Palestinian territory can equally (more so, in fact) be said to constitute a POV. Therefore I believe it should be obvious that the most widely accepted and internationally recognized term should be given priority. Tissn (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Stating Gaza is Palestinian, with many claiming continuing Israeli occupation despite disengagement, the Hamas / PLO mess, and possible Egyptian developments - is taking a POV. This might be a widely accepted POV, but it is still a POV. Arab inhabited is factual, and skirts around any geopolitics.Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:DR. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, none of the provided links state that Gaza should not be called a Palestinian territory. You have yet to provide any arguments that your position in this case (refusing to call Gaza a Palestinian territory) is even remotely neutral.Tissn (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Links are already provided. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Funny how you can simply claim to be neutral, while ignoring an obvious international consensus on the matter and take the side of what the International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council refer to as an "occupying power" and "an affront to international law". How exactly is it neutral to ignore these basic facts, and refuse to call Gaza a Palestinian territory? And how exactly am I not being neutral by calling Israel an illegal occupant, when this is demonstrably an indisputable fact that even Israel's own Supreme Court agree with? Please provide a direct link to where Wikipedia's Arbitration Committe has ruled that Gaza should not be referred to as a Palestinian territory, and that such a "nomenclature" is considered non-neutral.Tissn (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia does not really care what the UN and "136 of it's [sic] member nations" have decided. Wikipedia has its own policies, including a policy of WP:NPOV, which your edit above shows an obvious lack of. Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, which issues binding remedies for content disputes, has also had no less than three separate arbitrations dealing with terminology for Palestine-Israeli topics. Before tossing around words like "appease" and "illegal", you should really read those. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Considering that Palestine's statehood is recognized by the UN, and 136 of it's member nations, it's hardly neutral to refuse to call Gaza a Palestinian territory. I certainly hope Wikipedia hasn't adopted a policy of ignoring international law and opinion to appease an illegal occupant. Tissn (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
People of Gaza
editPlease add Vitalis of Gaza (d. 625, Egyptian hermit-saint). 70.27.84.88 (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)