Template talk:Mosques in Israel

East Jerusalem mosques

The mosques themselves are under the control of the Palestinian waqf authority headed by Adnan al-Husayni and are occupied by Israel according to international law. I don't know about the Marwani Mosque, but the al-Aqsa Mosque is under Palestinian administration/Israeli sovereignty. There's no harm in adding them to mosques in the "Palestinian territories". The Sultan Ibrahim Ibn Adham Mosque is in a village completely controlled by Israel, but the village is Palestinian and in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The template doesn't say "Mosques in Palestinian Authority areas", but the all of the territories (West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip). I'm reinstating it, because I have now clarified. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that while the mosques are indeed considered occupied by Israel they are not considered to be within the palestinian terreitory either. The UN has never passed a resolution stating that is suppose to be within a palestinian state(unlike the west bank). They have only said that it is supposed to be an international city, but they probably will accept whatever is agreed upon during the peace negaotiation between palestinians and Israel. So now the area is under disputed sovreignity. Not Israeli or Palestinian.--Fipplet (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's true, but even so, it is fact that the al-Aqsa Mosque and most of the structures of the temple mount are under the administration, and responsibility of the Palestinian-led Waqf. Under the logic that East Jerusalem is neither truly Israeli or Palestinian, then the mosques are in a state of limbo. I think its just safe to keep the East Jerusalem mosques in the template, also since al-Aqsa is the national mosque of Palestine. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes that was very well put: "neither truly Israeli or Palestinian, then the mosques are in a state of limbo". Limbo is a good word to describe it. And that is the reason why I don't think it should be in the template. Just cause palestininians administrate it doesn't mean that it is part of the palestinian territory. But how about we keep it in the template and also write that East Jerusalem is under Israeli de facto control but under disputed sovereignty?

Excellent idea. I agree and I see you have already made the necessary changes. It was nice discussing with you. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It was nice discussing with you too! --Fipplet (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The situation with the mosques in East Jerusalem is complicated, this is why they are mentioned separately and addressed with a note.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Template

I liked the first template with mosques in the palestinian territory and Israel. Since both parties claim east Jerusalem it is better to have both Israel and Palestinian territory in the same template and there won't be any disputes. You can then also include more mosques. What do you think? --Fipplet (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me, however, the second footnote seems rather unnecessary and slightly POV. Also, how could we transfer the footnote(s) into the template, instead of outside of it? --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with you. Israel actually claims parts of the mosque, but it is maybe unnecessary. I don't know how we could transfer them, i have tried it already a little bit but it didn't look too good. I'll try a bit more. I'll also change it to mosques in the palestinian territories and Israel. --Fipplet (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a foot-note under "East Jerusalem": "Under Israeli control, disputed sovereignty, claimed as the capital of a future Palestinian state and by Israel as part of its capital." I suggest that we remove this foot-note completely...A foot-note in a template is certainly not pretty...and is it really neccessary now, when Mosques in Israel + Palestinian territories have been joined in one template? Regards, Huldra (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. I removed the footnote but put East Jerusalem between Israel and the Palestinian territories.--Fipplet (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks, Fipplet...but the template as a whole doesn´t look that good, now, though, does it? There is such a lot of empty space around "Gaza"-part, if you see what I mean. (I´m all for compact templates...they tend to get sooo bloated after a while.) Huldra (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I think the pictures are too big. I'll try to find some better pictures, maybe just have one picture or something.--Fipplet (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you think now? --Fipplet (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it is better, but I´m still not very happy with the picture-part. It would be nice if there wasn´t any "white space" in the "picture area" (if you see what I mean). Also, the picture there now really isn´t the most attractive I have seen. But personally I would leave that choice to, say, Al Ameer son. Tjenare, Huldra (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Discrepency

The original template was redirected. Necessary pages should be updated, i.e. Umm al-Naser Mosque still has the old template. Chesdovi (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Image

I'm replacing the image on the template with a nearly identical one of significantly higher resolution and quality. It this is a problem, please revert my edit and just let me know. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)