Talk:Governorates of Palestine

Unexplained Rarelibra revert?

Hey Rarelibra. Why did you revert those recent changes? I guess I didn't know anyone was watching the article but the main change was suggested here on my talk page by User:Al Ameer son. He (?) thinks that the image I removed wasn't that great (he suggested I remove it.) Thus I removed it, but I was then unhappy with the formatting/layout of the article and thus I removed the overpowering Palestine Politics template. --Abnn 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The templates are nice and add to the articles they are on for all countries (see wikiproject for more). They also aid in quick navigation for the user, as many times it is confusing to find the administrative articles in the main. As for the map, I guess I am offended that it is supposed to 'not be that great'. If the other person is the creator of the existing image, he is rude to offer up such criticism. What do YOU think of the map I added? Why can't there be two of them? Many articles include two. ??? Thank you. Rarelibra 02:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you were the one who created the map I removed. I apologize and I should watch myself more carefully. It was my paraphrase to say that the image "wasn't that great", Al Ameer son's original criticism was that the other image preferred because it was "more accurate on the administrative borders and administative areas." I understand the templates are useful, but you have to admit that this article looks really pretty ugly in its current state and part of the reason was because of the template forcing us to left justify the images. Maybe the proper solution to the current ugliness of this article is to add more text in the article rather than removing images or the templates. I'll leave you and Al Ameer son to fight over the images as I don't have strong feelings either way and I do appreciate your hard work on the image, I couldn't have made it, that's forsure. --Abnn 03:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

{{combi}}! Neato! I learn something new every day. --Abnn 03:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rarelibra, I apologized if I offended you, but dont you think the map is unnecessary since the above map is more accurate on the administrative borders and Israeli/Palestinian areas. If you really want to keep it, what we can do is expand on the article like Abnn said, with text and then I guess it wouldn't be a problem keeping it there. - Al Ameer son

Two new Governorate templates

--Abnn 17:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. Rarelibra 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried incorporating these in the article, but they did not flow well. If someone knows how to incorporate them so they look good, they would be a good alternative or supplement to the current maps. The only advantage of the maps incorporating both West Bank and Gaza is that they show the distance and scale between the two territories. (actually, if they are being shown in accurate scale, showing Israel's borders too would be helpful) --JWB 22:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Last couple days of image play

So let me get this straight... JWB rearranged the maps back on 7/2/2007 at 17:01 to

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Governorates_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority&diff=142115776&oldid=142114687

then all this nonsense happened with making the images incredibly large for "14 and 15 inch screens", as well as placing them at the bottom of the article, then JWB rearranged the maps back on 7/2/2007 at 19:30 to

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Governorates_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority&diff=142143044&oldid=142142809

so why did we have all this nonsense about the incredibly large sizing and replacement to the bottom of the article in the first place? Next time, please discuss here before attempt such radical edits, Timeshifter. Thank you. Rarelibra 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think one valid issue is that the labels on the maps are hard to read at small sizes. One solution would be redoing the images with larger type. The Gaza labels would have to be outside the Gaza governorates themselves, but this is OK. --JWB 23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It would be nice if the label text was a little bit larger on both maps. Especially on the multicolor map. Then the 300-pixel-wide images would work better on the left side of the article, and not have to clicked and enlarged in order to clearly read them. --Timeshifter 18:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• To avoid duplication I copied the following talk below from User talk:Rarelibra. --Timeshifter 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority

Hi. Try narrowing your browser window to see the problem with putting the image in floating alignment with text and sidebars wrapping around to the right. It doesn't work. They overlap. That is why I moved the images down to the bottom of the page.

And since the images are farther down, there is no reason not to show one of them at a large enough size to be able to read the text on it.

By the way, I cropped your great image so that the horizontal scroll bar does not show up when the image is shown at larger sizes. --Timeshifter 01:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason - the images are way too large at that scale. They overtake the focus of the article. Leave them at the current size, thank you. Rarelibra 01:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your image uses much fewer kilobytes at medium-large sizes, and the text is readable at those sizes. So it should be at a larger size than the other one. The other image uses 77 kilobytes at only 300 pixels wide.

I compromised and made your image a little smaller. 450 pixels wide (54 kilobytes) is about as small as it can get and still be readable without expanding it. It does not overtake the focus of the article, because it IS the focus of the article. And when it is placed at the bottom of the page, it is not the first thing seen anyway. The other image is a bonus image, and so it should be left at default thumbnail size, where it uses only 37 kilobytes.--Timeshifter 01:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like JWB came up with a solution. JWB narrowed the tables and sidebar enough so that the 300-pixel-wide images do not cause an overlap problem at laptop screen sizes. And if people squint they can read the text on the maps. :) --Timeshifter 01:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No compromise was necessary when you stop and consider that maps are ACCESSORIES to the articles. The article, in this case, is about the governorates of the Palestinian National Authority. The maps help give the reader a 'picture' to see things more clear. Don't ever confuse the article for the map - as your statement of "it IS the focus" suggests. Rarelibra 02:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are missing my point. Images do not overtake the focus of an article when the image is about the article. The images were not too large for the article at any of the sizes I was using. There is no rule against using an image at larger than the 300-pixel-wide setting you used.

And you are not paying attention to my point about the kilobytes used. That is very important to dialup users. It is better to use your image at an adequate size to begin with. Then the dialup users do not have to click and enlarge that image. That makes for even longer load times for them, and multiple clicks. The other image should be left at thumbnail size, because of the kilobyte problem, and because it truly is an ACCESSORY to the other image.

Please try understanding the points of those communicating with you, rather than sounding so condescending. It grates, especially when the person you are talking to has been editing at wikipedia for a couple years. --Timeshifter 13:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who started with a condescending approach. Making the image 700px IS too big. It becomes bigger than the article itself. Also, it is not inconsiderate to dial-up users to have thumbnail images - rather, it is in keeping with the layout of the article. Trust me on this one. If you go around making images 700px, there is a 99.99% chance that the same images will be reduced back in size (and I haven't checked your history). I don't wish to argue with you on the semantics of dial-up. Thumbnail images are meant to be clicked on for better detail - if someone is dialing up I'm quite sure they understand this. It is not in the design of an article to make images so large as to perfectly load just for dialup users - in context, imagine the many more broadband users who see this gigantic image that overtakes the entire article. Not good. Rarelibra 20:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"gigantic image". Please ease up on the hyperbole. A 450-pixel-wide image is hardly gigantic. That was one of the last images I used. You eliminated that too. How is your 300-pixel-wide image much smaller? Your argumentation borders on the ridiculous. It is not condescending to use a larger image. It is just a larger image. Oftentimes the full-size image or the medium-size image uses nearly the same kilobytes (or close) as the 300 pixel-wide images. Whereas having to click through a couple images to get to the larger image uses more kilobytes and download time. It is not rocket science. Why can't you acknowledge this? Sometimes the full-size image is actually much smaller in kilobytes than the reduced-size image. It is the nature of image resizing and resampling. By the way, mapmakers such as yourself are much appreciated at wikipedia. So don't take any of this personally. We just have a difference of opinion. --Timeshifter 16:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You changed the image to 700px. Here is the diff:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Governorates_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority&diff=142128688&oldid=142115776

So maybe you are a bit lost in your perception? Either way, it came full circle around to the original placement of the images, regardless of the attempts you made at image sizing and placement. Rarelibra 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why so touchy? I tried various sizes and ended up at around 450 pixels wide for the image placed after the text. Once JWB narrowed the width of the table and the sidebar it was possible to place the 300-pixel-wide images in floating alignment with the text running around the right side of the images. You had nothing to do with that. JWB fixed the problem. Now the page is viewable without overlap problems. Even in laptop computer with 14 and 15 inch screens. Please give credit where credit is due.

Did you read JWB's suggestion higher up to increase the text size slightly on the images so that the text is readable on the 300-pixel-wide images? I agree with that suggestion. --Timeshifter 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then - knock yourself out. Rarelibra 20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I want to have to wade through all the flack you might give me for changing the text size on the image. Considering all the flack you gave me for changing the image size in the article. I will let you change the text size on the image if you want. Then you can give yourself a hard time. :) --Timeshifter 21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave you flack at the time when I checked the changes to the page and saw a gigantic image (size 700px) that YOU changed. Go figure. Rarelibra 00:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems you got stuck in time at that moment, and stopped paying any real attention to anything said here. But hey, that is your right. Go figure. --Timeshifter 18:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Too bad you lack comprehension of the facts. The current settings are fine, so go on and happy editing. Rarelibra 19:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to be uncivil. Just because you refuse to acknowledge any of the points made by others in this discussion. Must be an ego thing, Sarge. --Timeshifter 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardly uncivil at all, in keeping with the level of civility which you, yourself, display. As far as ego, it is one thing to discuss, another to do some 5-minute glance at my English user page and attempt to come back with some kind of contrite, shortened (and affectionate) synonym for position or rank as a possible slander or indirect insult (by insinuation, even). It is another to be borderline WP:CIVIL by issuing such an insult. Don't get personal with me - as I haven't with you. Keep it professional, shifter. Rarelibra 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Touchy, touchy, touchy. I see that you can dish out the uncivil statements, but can't take it. What do they say about the kitchen... Let us declare a truce and avoid even the minor snide comments. Agreed? --Timeshifter 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The minor ones I can handle. You know as well as I do what I speak about. It seems we are approaching an amiable solution on Commons. Let's concentrate positively there. :) Rarelibra 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Population figures – include Israeli settlers?

Does anyone know if the figures from the Palestinian statistics office includes everybody who lives in the governates, or just those subject to PNA authority, or if they exclude inhabitants that the PNA would consider illegitimate (i.e. Israeli settlers)? This would make a big difference, particularly in the Jerusalem governorate. --Jfruh (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority → Governorates of Palestine – Per the article, PNA officially became Palestine a few years ago Sepsis II (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Yes, the title is out of date now that the PNA has been absorbed into the State of Palestine. Neljack (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support, considering the broad recognition of the State of Palestine, it makes change to update the article names. --Soman (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment:I don't oppose the move, I think it's probably valid in terms of WP:AT, but none of the arguments above seem relevant, frankly. Andrewa (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 8 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Governorates of Palestine → Governorates of the State of Palestine – Per official name of the State of Palestine, and not to confuse the object subject with such multi-valued term as Palestine. Comment: it's also worth to think how to attract more editors and to add more time for discussion, than it happened during last renaming "Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority → Governorates of Palestine". (Attn: Jenks24, Neljack, Soman, Andrewa + Shhhhwwww!!, Khestwol, WarKosign, Oncenawhile, Pluto2012, DrKiernan, Elspamo4, Glen Spearleat mentioned in the Requested move 5 August 2015 "State of Palestine → Palestine Palestine → Palestine (region)") Igorp_lj (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose redundantly long title. The current title is more WP:CONCISE, yet unambiguous and clear. Khestwol (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  My reply to Glen Spearleat: "(does not apply to you personally!) Maybe it will flatter to someone from editors or corresponds to his desire, but we have to consider that such renamings are in fact a contribution of Wikipedia in promotion of idea that "the word "Palestine" is nowadays usually used to refer to the State of Palestine. IMHO, this is a not-NPOV". --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support matching the title with State of Palestine delayed until the current move discussion completes to avoid redundant moves back and forth, if this will be the case.“WarKosign” 17:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Rename to Governorates of Palestinian Territories. The article doesn't deal only with territories managed by the State of Palestine - some of the governorates are managed by Hamas, and territory of some is mostly controlled by Israel. The Governorates have little to do with State of Palestine, they are a subdivision of the Palestinian Territories, the first sentence of the lead says so explicitly. “WarKosign” 20:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "Governorates of the Palestinian territories", because Pt is not a valid entity - this is a territory administered in the past by the now defunct Palestinian National Authority (which now names itself State of Palestine). "Palestinian territories" is not officially utilized term by neither UN or Palestinians.GreyShark (dibra) 14:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that the first and main part of the nominator's rationale Per official name of the State of Palestine is completely contrary to policy, see WP:official names and of course the policy at WP:AT. Now of course it's possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, but it would really save a lot of time if people would follow the very, very clear instructions which ask that you spend just a few moments studying WP:AT before raising or contributing to an RM. See also WP:correct. Andrewa (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• As you know: can I edit my request now, e.g. to "Per To use official name..." ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would discourage that. It is generally seen as poor etiquette to edit a post to which people have already replied, as makes it difficult or impossible to make sense of the dialogue. And the other thing is, this change doesn't help. The rationale would still be in violation of policy. I would suggest that instead you try to make a new and valid case, based on WP:AT, and that you also read and try to understand the essay at WP:official names. It specifically addresses this aspect of policy, and tries to explain why we have a policy on official names that causes so much confusion, even disbelief. WP:correct touches on it too. Andrewa (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's exactly what I've thought about. Any way, I hope at the moment it'll be enough that it was mentioned in my question to you to understand what I mean. Thank you. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Support per the result of my other nomination. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

??? Your nomination was the opposite of this proposal as that proposed the title "Palestine" only for the modern country. Khestwol (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, oppose. I don't really care either way. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Governorates of the State of Palestine, to be inline with State of Palestine.GreyShark (dibra) 14:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Governorates of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714162009/http://www.geohive.com/cntry/palestine.aspx to http://www.geohive.com/cntry/palestine.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024163927/http://www.geohive.com/cntry/palestine.aspx to http://www.geohive.com/cntry/palestine.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Population and area tables

We need to find live sources for these tables since the links to geohive doesn't work anymore. ImTheIP (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)