Template talk:Energy in Israel

Wrong info in this template
Presently the Golan Heights is included in this template, named "Energy in Israel".

This is not acceptable, as the international community does not recognise the Golan Heights as part of Israel. We have two possibilities: Either change the title, (eg to "Energy in Israel and the Golan Heights"), or remove "Golan Heights" from the template. Comments?

User:CLalgo; I am very interested in hearing your justification for keeping the Golan Heights in a template nemed "Energy in Israel"? Huldra (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The international recognition of Israel's control over the Golan is irrelevant, as this template is about Israel's energy sector, not its borders. The Israeli Golan Heights are objectively part of the Israeli power grid. We do not "take sides" in Wikipedia whether this is good or not. It just is. Per WP:TITLECON: "titles for the same kind of subject should not differ in form or structure without good reason". There is no example in Category:Energy by country of an occupied\annexed region stated in the title of a country's "energy in" title, be it article, template of category. Israel, or any other country with border disputes, mustn't be singled out. In conclusion: Currently, the energy produced and consumed in the Israeli Golan Heights is part of Israeli energy market, and should be included in the relevant categories and templates based on this objective fact. As for the broader, not Israel specific change of naming conventions for articles regarding countries with border disputes, I suggest you start a discussion at a relevant project or guidelines page. Perhaps WP:NCCST will do. As of now, if you won't provide a specific reason why the parts of the Israeli power sector located in the Golan shouldn't appear in template, they would be reinstated. This isn't the place or the scope to discuss changing of naming conventions. CLalgo (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is that while you claim you do not "take sides"; in reality, you are doing just that; you are presenting this in a pure Israeli fashion. If you look at other templates (like Template:National parks of Israel, or Template:Nature reserves of Israel) they have at least a clarfication that something is in occupied territory, Huldra (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * First, even if I were Israeli, I wouldnt know on wich side of their political spectrum you claim I am as I "take sides" and "presenting this in a pure Israeli fashion". Second, the examples you've provided are a clear case of politicizing Wikipedia. Let us look at Nature reserves of Israel: Every singe side listed under Golan Is marked as located in the Golan Heights, and every singe side listed under Judea and Samaria is marked as located in the West Bank. Well, of course they are. The Golan Heights are the Golan Heights, while Judea and Samaria is the hebrew name for the West Bank. These markings are redundant at best and Politically motivated at worst. As to National parks of Israel: The same problem shows here, as well as mislabeling of sites such as Hippos. Moreover, listing sites under "Occupied" makes it seems as if the national parks were captured by Israel, instead of established by it over captured land. In a template titled "National parks of Israel", there is no logic in linsting some parks under Israel and some under anouther title. Every site in the template is one recgnized and maintained by Israel as a naional park. Listing only some of the sites under "Israel" Is either redundant, political or misleading. CLalgo (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I never intended to imply anything about you nationality; most of the people I have known who have been arguing for the Israeli POV, have neither been Israeli or Jewish. (And frankly; to me your nationality is totally irrelavant.)
 * Secondly; I do not understand the logic of your argument. On one hand you say that that we should not "politicize Wikipedia"; on the other hand you argue that only the Israeli view should stay in the template, when that is not the view of the international community. How is that not "politicizing Wikipedia"?
 * Thirdly, I doubt if I can convince you (and I know you cannot convince me), therefor I will start a RfC about this, Huldra (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC
Should the wind-farm on the Golan Heights be represented in this template? If yes, how? Like now, without any caveats? Or with caveats like Template:National parks of Israel, or Template:Nature reserves of Israel? Huldra (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * A: Golan Heights  should not be represented in this template,
 * B: Golan Heights should be represented without caveats (like present)
 * C: Golan Heights should be represented with caveats (like Template:National parks of Israel, or Template:Nature reserves of Israel)

Comments

 * C, Israeli possession of the region could be considered to be disputed, even though the wind farm itself provides energy to the Israeli state. I'd say we should probably standardize it to fit those other templates. However, since in this case it's just one item that's in the occupied territories, it could be done differently. Perhaps make that caveat something like:
 * Located in the Israeli-occupied territory of the Golan Heights
 * ...without putting it into a separate subgroup within the template. Russia, for comparison, has occupied Crimea since 2014 and has integrated it into its economy, yet there isn't wide international recognition, and both the integration and dispute is noted in related articles. FelipeFritschF (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * C since Israeli possession of the region is disputed. I see no reason to depart from the standard set in Template:National parks of Israel. The template has scope to grow when other occupied territories might be represented. Fix it once therefore. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * C, for example Located in the contested territory of the Golan Heights. Alaexis¿question? 10:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B, As there is no separation between the energy market of the Golan Heights and Israel as a whole. I see both National parks of Israel & Nature reserves of Israel as politicized templates whos example shouldn't be followed, but that should be changed themselves. Could anyone provide an example of other "Energy in STATE" templates where those kind of caveats appear? If so, lets discuss it. Otherwise, consistency with other template and irrelevance to the energy sector caveats shouldn't appear. Moreover, the caveat is as redundant as can be. Will someone miss the fact the the wind farm name "Golan Heights" is in the Golan Heights without the caveat? CLalgo (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * C or A; no country in the world, except Israel (and possibly the US?) accepts that Golan is a part of Israel. Would Wikipedia accept Crimea as part of Russia, just because "there is no separation between the energy market of the Crimea and Russia as a whole"? If not, why should we accept Golan as part of Israel? Huldra (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there no separation between the Crimean power grid and the Russian one? For example, their water systems are separated. Could you provide examples, even a single one, of other countries with territories in dispute that are caveated like this proposal suggests? CLalgo (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B Would seem to be the least confusing to the lay reader, and also the most neutral... or, "laïc" perhaps ;-). It's about energy not international relations or border/territorial disputes. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * B, C (as a lesser option). The Golan Heights are de facto part of Israel. The templates mentioned list them, and the article itself is in the Israel category tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 7:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unsigned, de facto here means occupied by, not part of (the annex is not recognized).Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * C is self evident by virtue of Israeli occupation and non recognition of annexed territory. It is usual in lists and templates everywhere to distinguish these cases.Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide examples of such templates that are not Israel related. CLalgo (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * C agree with other votes. Additionally, pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_the_Golan_Heights specifically mentions international agreement that this is Israeli-occupied territory.  Separation between energy markets is irrelevant to the status of the land. Quetosfh2489 (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)