This category is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This category was nominated for merging on 3 February 2024. The result of the discussion was rename.
"Category:Mandatory Palestine people by occupation"?[edit]
How could the "Category:Mandatory Palestine people by occupation" be applied? The category "Early photographers in Palestine" covers the late Ottoman period as well. Arminden (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Category:Early photographers in Palestine" had a very precise raison d'etre: Palestine is now a politically highly charged concept. Pre-Israel by far less so. There is no way in hell to get consensus on what constitutes Palestine after 1948. Plus, since 1948 and especially in the last 60 years, every tourist in Jerusalem and for sure any journalist is a photographer: the "early" vocable is needed and was very well thought through! Now this turns into a useless, because huge, bottomless mega-category. Bad.
"Palestine region", apart from becoming too vague once applied to current realities, includes several modern states and territories with their very divergent own reality re. photography: firstly, Israel, a news magnet etc. and with a mature and specific photo art scene. The Palestinian territories with a very different reality. Western Jordan - same. Southern Lebanon - same. No way to treat them together. As I kept on saying: the "Palestine (region)" syntagm is only useful on Wiki for calming down the crusaders of the Israel-Palestine conflict. In any reasonable context it complicates things, rather than being helpful.
The discussion was at least balanced, if not outright in favour of KEEP. What gave anyone the authority to move? Also: why was the discussion erased from the talk-page? Where can it be found? This looks terribly fishy to me!
The Commons category is still called, as it should, "Early photographers in Palestine". This too creates unnecessary confusion. But please don't go and change the Commons category!!! Arminden (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What steps need to be taken?
Has the discussion be preserved anywhere? Why has it even been deleted in the first place? Is it even "legal"?
I start having my doubts. It makes zero sense to try to communicate if one's messages either aren't comprehended, or aren't taken into consideration. And that's not Wiki work. But I'll try again.
Did you ever contribute to this category or any of its items? This goes to: understanding its existence.
Did you peruse through the listed articles to see how they create a unit, a category? Did you read any of them, look at the photos, read about the styles and currents?
What on earth brought you here? Arminden (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of logic vs nonsense and editors who enter topics they don't know even the basics of:
You've added "See also: Category:Palestinian photographers and Category:Israeli photographers."
Do you realise that, according to your move (won't say logic), those categories should be removed, annulled, obliterated? Because both Israelis and Palestinians live in the Palestine (region), unless they're expats. Or are those categories only meant for expats?
I was good in physics in high school and in my couple of years of geology studies. I know the basics, but I'd never dream of restructuring a Wiki project on physics against the opinion of physicists creating and writing them. I'd ask, maybe at the most suggest; but not try to impose my "sense for how I feel it should be". And that's not only valid for hard sciences, but for all knowledge. 'Cause Wiki should never be about egos. Arminden (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read. READ. Understand the basic idea here. Don't interpret my style and try to psychoanalyse me. Read and try hard to comprehend. That's all. Arminden (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster (@Marcocapelle ) could you point @Arminden in the right direction for an appeal. Arminden stop implying that anyone who disagrees with you lacks reading comprehension. Mason (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I will note that usually User:JJMC89 bot III adds {{Old CfD}} to the talk page. Not sure why this did not automatically happen here, but I have manually added it.Rereading the discussion, I still see rough consensus for the rename. Dimadick said their region of activity is defining, and the proposed rename kept the region of activity. Besides yourself, all other editors supported a rename.You have three options to "appeal" my close:
You can ask that an admin summarily undo my close per WP:NACD (such a request should be made at WP:AN)
You can open a new CfD, requesting that the category be moved back
Let me know if you have any questions—I would be happy to answer them. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: do you get the FACTS? What is this categ for? Why is it here? What makes it of any use, and what changes make it useless, i.e. only confuse users & editors alike?
PROVE you understand by entering a discussion. By answering to the point. By offering sensible opinions and arguments.
You set the move in motion. You insist on editing in elements which enter in conflict with the rest, who lack logic, and editing out such that patch back up a bit the logical holes created. It has nothing to do with owing it, and all with understanding it. Understanding what this here is. Add smth constructive, and I'll thank you publicly and you'll never hear of me again. Deepen the mess in a tool which I am often working with (and not just me, for sure), and I will try to bring sense back into it. Not to bring myself into it, but SENSE AND LOGIC. Arminden (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in re-entering this discussion. The discussion closed, as rename the category, not move the category. I shifted the parent categories because they implied that photographers had to be either Palestinian or Israeli, when that's obviously not the case. I tried to make it clearer that anyone regardless of nationality could be a photographer in the region. But that people looking at the category might actually be looking for Palestinian or Israeli photographers. I *AM* trying to direct you towards any of the avenues that could get your voice heard. Writing on a bot's talk page OR here, will not change the situation. But appealing the close could. Mason (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"every tourist in Jerusalem and for sure any journalist is a photographer", this is not relevant at all because we should only add articles about people who are known as a photographer according to reliable sources.
You seem to have a problem with the tree of Category:Palestine (region) in general. This is an established tree though and I think few people would agree with you that it is inappropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a rhetorical way, granted, of pointing out to a reality: notable early photographers according to the definition are few; post-48 ones are legion. You picked a phrase and didn't address the issue.
Wrong. "Palestine region" is a useful consruct for certain contexts, specifically: the I/P conflict. There it avoids warring between supporters of Land of Israel, Israel, Judea and Samaria, ancient Israel etc, and those of State of Palestine, West Bank etc., not to mention Promised Land and Holy Land. There are contexts where it is highly needed; here, qua definition (pre-48), it's not, largely not. That's precisely why the timeframe is given in the definition as it is: from invention of photography to 48, plus for clarity: Ottoman and British/Mandate periods only. I thought it through.
Back to Mason's posting: indeed, where can I apply for reversal? Thanks to him & whoever can point me towards that. Arminden (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you HouseBlaster, I hadn't even seen your post (poor signal, sometimes things arrive with some delay). Arminden (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
