Template talk:Nature reserves of Israel

Regions

Mount Hermon is not a nature reserve in Israel. Do we have a source that says that its a nature reserve at all? Gamla is not in Israel, it should be explained in the template or removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Hermon nature reserve" is located in the northern Golan Heights, an area under Israeli control since the June 1967 Six-Day War, which was declared a nature reserve on December 6, 1974. The reserve includes the entire area of the mountain which is located on the Israeli side, except for the Hermon ski resort, Neve Ativ and the Nimrod Fortress. The "Gamla nature reserve" is located at the center of the Golan Heights, an area under Israeli control since the June 1967 Six-Day War. Even though the territory in which these nature reserves are located at have been conqured during the Six-Day War from Syria, Nevertheless, since then, they have been located within an area which is under the control of The State of Israel. I do plan to create new articles for the reserves themselves though. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Gamla is indeed a natural reserve [1]. The Hermon reserve is written as a natural reserve in Wikipedia (including the Hebrew one), but I didn't find it the Natural Reserves and National Parks Authority website, which includes probably only packed natures and not entire (large)-area reserves. There is, however, Hermon Stream Reserve (Banias stream). MathKnight 09:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither Gamla, or Hermon or any other region in the Golan Heights are in Israel, they are in territory that the entire world recognizes as Syrian territory under Israeli occupation. So as long as these regions are in the template, the template should show this. The Hermon article should be deleted if no source can verify that a "Hermon reserve" exists. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with changing the name of this template to "Nature reserves of Israel" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Of Israel is better, especially for the West Bank. gidonb (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Emphasizing which nature reserves are located in occupied Israeli territories in the template

I am not sure that the current way of pointing this fact out is the best way to do so or if this really is necessary to point out in the template itself. Anyone else besides Supreme Deliciousness believe it is necessary to do here? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is necessary because there are regions that are internationally recognized as in Syria in this Israeli template. Either these regions that are internationally recognized as in Syria are removed from this Israeli template, or there must be information (one sentence) pointing out that these regions are not in Israel, so we don't mislead the reader into believing something that isn't true.

At the other template there was Golan and West bank sections separate from the State of Israel section, and you removed them and added the Israeli proclaimed pov regions: [2] so you can see this version of a sentence explaining the situation as a compromise, which I will also be adding to the other one soon. Or do you want separate Golan and Westbank sections?

And please remove your "Citation needed" tag that you added, there are tons of sources in the Golan heights article to confirm this and also this is a template and not an article, you don't see me adding "Citation needed" tags after everyone of these nature reserves you added in the template. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So this emphasis on the status of each territory continues to be a focus of an editor, even though there clearly was no consensus about it above. I should add that there is no consensus for very good reasons. The statuses of these territories differ and are complex: they are occupied, annexed or not, there is some international recognition for annexation if at all annexed, some territories were previously also occupied, or annexed, or widest recognized as a the previous country's sovereign territory such as only in the case of the Golan. All this is much better discussed in the linked articles. That's why we have wikis. Where there's no absolute need to politicize templates, we shouldn't. gidonb (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The template pointed out the occupied territories for 10 years before you came here and forcibly removed them without discussion or consensus. The name of the template is "Nature reserves of Israel", so the reader would think that the reserves are in Israel, when infact, several of them are not. So that is why we need to point out which ones are occupied by Israel so not to mislead the reader. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I see an earlier complaint from the creator about the excessive emphasis on status. This status is already discussed in the linked articles such as the Golan Heights so no consensus here. You do change edits by others within a day and seem to be politicizing this template during the 10 years that you mention, from days after creation. For the most part. There were a few good actions that I acknowledged on this page. For example, "Nature reserves OF Israel" aren't necessarily IN Israel, that's why you changed the title in the first place. That was a change for the better. You solved a problem and now raise it nevertheless. I believe that there should be an indication of where a National Park or Nature Reserve is, however, once we have that built into the template we do not need to spell it out again. I personally put several locations outside Israel proper because you apparently weren't checking this so well. For East Jerusalem we will need notes, the rest is part of a major geographic hierarchy and makes sense to add to the left-hand side of the template. From there run wikis to articles that have the status better explained than the notes that you insert. gidonb (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

How is it npov to have a template with the name "Nature reserves of Israel" and with an Israeli flag, and then have several areas in the template in occupied and disputed territories without pointing out to the reader that these areas are occupied? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I explained that already but will summarize for you. [1] Because these are designations OF Israel. You fixed that yourself upfront. Services of a country can be provided outside the area for which sovereignty is (uniformly) recognized. For example, every country has embassies outside its territory. Hence your change from IN Israel to OF Israel. That was a change for the better and solved ahead of this discussion most of the problems you now raise. [2] Because the status in the case of the Golan and Westbank is that of the entire region (on the left-hand side), not specific to the nature reserve or national park. Where it is specific to a location, because it does not follow from the Israeli region system, the footnotes would still be justified. This is the case for locations in Jerusalem that were controlled by Jordan from 1948 to 1967 because on the left-hand side they belong to the Jerusalem District. The footnotes must add something to the information that is already conveyed. An entirely new and important dimension. Footnotes should not rehash or merely emphasize information that already follows from the categories. That would be condescending to our readers, well beyond, in this particular case, the unnecessary politicization. gidonb (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If someone reads "Nature reserves of Israel" then the reader would believe the reserves are in Israel, when they are not, so the footnote is needed to point out which ones are not.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope, because nature reserves OF Israel are void of the claim that these are IN Israel PLUS, in abundance, the status of these territories always follows from their categories in the nature reserves case. You can claim credit for fixing the first part yourself. I'll take credit for the second part. What we did was a very welcome and much-needed depoliticization and factual clarification of this template. Now do not cancel the improvements you introduced yourself! gidonb (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Your wrong, "Of" and an Israeli flag implies to the reader that it is in Israel. The footnotes are needed for clarification.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

As explained above, the footnotes do not clarify anything. OF is something entirely different than IN. OF can be anywhere. Hence the regions explain where these locations are. Only where a footnote would add information, it would be justified. gidonb (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

If they do not clarify anything, how would the reader know which ones are in Israel or occupied? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Divisions

Since the division given by the parks authority is North-Central-South-Eilat - I would like to change the template to reflect this. Any objections? --Sreifa (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Extremely strong objections! But does it help 10 years later? This ruined the template and in the meantime other Wikipedias have at large copied this nonsense! Anyway -- fixed. Please always use the conventional WP regions even if this or that organization uses something else. gidonb (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Marks

Small (1) mark is better viewable then the (*) mark.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Better? I don't know, since there's no "2", but whatever... I don't think italics at template size are easily viewable. --Sreifa (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You could barely see the (*) marks, so how is it not better? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

From a technical perspective: It's not strictly conventional to number a note when there is only one note. Also you said "better viewable", but the font size used in templates is not "better viewable"(/more easily readable) when italicized. Sreifa (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(1) numbers are used in other templates when there is no (2), its to make it noticeable different from the others, see how its made in other templates: [3][4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

then at least remove the italics --Sreifa (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the "1" superscript to a "†" because there's never a "2" and de-italicized because one indicator is sufficient.—Biosketch (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that using a cross for Israeli nature reserves is a great idea. Numbers are consistent with the national parks template, where two numbers are used. gidonb (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)