The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article 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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This was changed from the incorrect "Jordanian era" to "Jordanian occupation and annexation" on December 9.
[1] It was reverted today, and I undid that revert, as the longer header is more correct, more informative, and in line with the next header in that section which reads "Israeli occupation". I remind my colleagues of the restrictions of WP:ARBPIA.
Debresser (
talk)
15:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)reply
To repeat what I have said on my talk-page: "My objection to it, is that he is
WP:CHERRYPICKING info out of the
Jordanian annexation of the West Bank article. I could of course cherrypick info out of, say the
Israeli occupation of the West Bank, but I think we agree: (I hope we agree!) ..that controversial info should be in as few articles as possible (where all the info regarding any controversy can be presented)...and then we can link to those articles."
This is an issue relevant for all the hundreds of articles on Palestinian West Bank places. If we want to change that, then please have a RfC.
Huldra (
talk)
22:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
No Rfc is needed, since I am not planning to change 100 pages, just this one. There is no cherrypicking involved, as I said: this is a major clarification.
Debresser (
talk)
12:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Geographic areas are 'annexed', villages in them are not, except by implication. But, as I said, you need a source for that, and none, certainly not the one proffered, exists. Indeed that source introduced, was introduced under false pretenses since it governs the whole sentence about 'Battir' being annexed, giving the reader the impression that this is to be found in the source.
Nishidani (
talk)
21:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Agree with Nishidani. The ONUS is on those who seek to add that. And per
WP:QUO the longstanding version should be implemented during the dispute until there is a consensus to change.--
SharʿabSalam▼ (
talk)
00:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
This argument was refuted at the Rfc, since what holds true for the larger entity holds true for the parts asa well, and that is not synthesis rather simple logic. Not to mention that the same has been done, on the insistence of editors like you, on all articles regarding Israeli settlements. Please cut out the hypocrisy. In addition, there is a source for Battir. And there is a majority of editors in favor of this change.
Debresser (
talk)
11:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Mixing Apples and oranges is a common error. International law states that all Israeli settlements are illegal. There is no analogy here. Jordan's rule/annexation of the West Bank did not consist of setting up illegal settlements of Jordanian carpetbaggers, and it was not recognized in International law. Indeed, the opposite of what occurred with Israel's occupation took place, massive movement for employment to Jordan. The attempt to coordinate paradigmatically the situation of Israeli rule/annexation and Jordanian rule/annexation is therefore POV pushing with no correlation in the factual record. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to try and endlessly set up analogies between what Israel does and (hence the activism recently here) intends to do in the West Bank with what Jordan did, and therefore seed in readers' minds the idea, 'Hey, what Israel does is what Jordan did, guys and gals, so there's an Arab precedent, and it's just anti-Semitic to single Israel out'. That is the subtext of the little 'arrangement' being organized over multiple articles by an editor or two perhaps excited by recent news that Wikipedia's I/P articles have to be re+written to re-establish the honour of Israel.
Nishidani (
talk)
12:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"This argument was refuted at the Rfc"- Um, it's still going on so I don't think you can say that. The best outcome for you will be if Nableezy suggestion gets the consensus, best thing is just to wait for the result.
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I never said the Rfc was closed. But the argument was refuted there in detail. Those are two separate statements, and one can be true without the other. Sigh.
Debresser (
talk)
17:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@Selfstudier By the way, you may have noticed, that I have accepted and even thanked you for both your last edits. Which I say only to show that I am not fixed on any specific text, as long as it differentiates between rule and annexation.
I do think we should change "administration" back to "rule" as being the term used in most sources, and which IMHO expresses more clearly the situation, while "administration" sounds a bit like obfuscating the situation to me.
Debresser (
talk)
18:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
That sounds rather like you are fixed on a specific text, the central RFC is still going on and I am thinking that I might suggest "administration" as being better than "rule" in the Nableezy formulation not because of Battir in particular but because I think that might be a good alternative to the debate around whether to rename
Jordanian annexation of the West Bank (which presently includes pre and post annexation material). It is not an attempt to obfuscate, the situation there is not as clear cut as you are trying to make it seem.
Selfstudier (
talk)
10:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"That sounds rather like you are fixed on a specific text", really? I agreed to both your edits. Now if there is one word I think is more essential than others, that does not mean I am fixed on a specific text.
There is little point in further discussion of this here, Battir is just a specific instance of the general case. I have made a comment at the central RFC. If it turns out that there is a central decision to use rule, then this particular case will also change. Note that it is yourself that persists in treating this particular case as some sort of exception rather than waiting for a central outcome.
Selfstudier (
talk)
11:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I must be blind, where is it? And even if there is, provided that there was no contradiction, it should not affect a central consensus.
Selfstudier (
talk)
22:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Ancient period at lead
Hi @
Huldra, I'd be happy to know do you keep removing the earlier history of the village from lead. Yes, we do have a dedicated article for
Betar, so I agree there is no reason to expand on it in this article. However, Betar is an of course notable part of the village's history, the site of one of the most decisive battles of the
Bar Kokhba revolt. I believe that removing the reference to Betar from lead creates a false impression that the village was founded only during the Byzantine period, while it can be traced back to much earlier. How is it possible that Battir has an ancient irrigation system, praised for being 2,000 years old, if it was only established during the Byzantine period?
Tombah (
talk)
06:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)reply
If you actually read the page there is no trace of any 'false impression that the village was founded only during the Byzantine period'.
Nishidani (
talk)
17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)reply
As Nishidani says. In addition, the UNESCO page
[2] says nothing about Betar, nor anything about the Byzantine period. It states that "The village of Battir, which developed on the outskirts of this cultural landscape, and was inhabited by farmers who worked and still work the land, attests to the sustainability of this system and to its continuation over at least a millennia",
Huldra (
talk)
21:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)reply
There are plenty of sources, with the earliest ones written during the 19th century, that identify Battir with ancient Betar, and it is only logical that the farmers who had built the famous terraces were then residents of Betar, because that was the villages name two thousand years ago!
It is correct that UNESCO does not mention it, and I really don't know why. In any case - it means that Battir's history can be traced back to an earlier period than the Byzantine period, and I believe that should appear on lead. Starting Battir's history with the Middle Ages is ignoring a part of history the village is today notable for, even if it had another name back then.
Tombah (
talk)
05:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article 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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This was changed from the incorrect "Jordanian era" to "Jordanian occupation and annexation" on December 9.
[1] It was reverted today, and I undid that revert, as the longer header is more correct, more informative, and in line with the next header in that section which reads "Israeli occupation". I remind my colleagues of the restrictions of WP:ARBPIA.
Debresser (
talk)
15:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)reply
To repeat what I have said on my talk-page: "My objection to it, is that he is
WP:CHERRYPICKING info out of the
Jordanian annexation of the West Bank article. I could of course cherrypick info out of, say the
Israeli occupation of the West Bank, but I think we agree: (I hope we agree!) ..that controversial info should be in as few articles as possible (where all the info regarding any controversy can be presented)...and then we can link to those articles."
This is an issue relevant for all the hundreds of articles on Palestinian West Bank places. If we want to change that, then please have a RfC.
Huldra (
talk)
22:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
No Rfc is needed, since I am not planning to change 100 pages, just this one. There is no cherrypicking involved, as I said: this is a major clarification.
Debresser (
talk)
12:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Geographic areas are 'annexed', villages in them are not, except by implication. But, as I said, you need a source for that, and none, certainly not the one proffered, exists. Indeed that source introduced, was introduced under false pretenses since it governs the whole sentence about 'Battir' being annexed, giving the reader the impression that this is to be found in the source.
Nishidani (
talk)
21:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Agree with Nishidani. The ONUS is on those who seek to add that. And per
WP:QUO the longstanding version should be implemented during the dispute until there is a consensus to change.--
SharʿabSalam▼ (
talk)
00:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
This argument was refuted at the Rfc, since what holds true for the larger entity holds true for the parts asa well, and that is not synthesis rather simple logic. Not to mention that the same has been done, on the insistence of editors like you, on all articles regarding Israeli settlements. Please cut out the hypocrisy. In addition, there is a source for Battir. And there is a majority of editors in favor of this change.
Debresser (
talk)
11:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Mixing Apples and oranges is a common error. International law states that all Israeli settlements are illegal. There is no analogy here. Jordan's rule/annexation of the West Bank did not consist of setting up illegal settlements of Jordanian carpetbaggers, and it was not recognized in International law. Indeed, the opposite of what occurred with Israel's occupation took place, massive movement for employment to Jordan. The attempt to coordinate paradigmatically the situation of Israeli rule/annexation and Jordanian rule/annexation is therefore POV pushing with no correlation in the factual record. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to try and endlessly set up analogies between what Israel does and (hence the activism recently here) intends to do in the West Bank with what Jordan did, and therefore seed in readers' minds the idea, 'Hey, what Israel does is what Jordan did, guys and gals, so there's an Arab precedent, and it's just anti-Semitic to single Israel out'. That is the subtext of the little 'arrangement' being organized over multiple articles by an editor or two perhaps excited by recent news that Wikipedia's I/P articles have to be re+written to re-establish the honour of Israel.
Nishidani (
talk)
12:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"This argument was refuted at the Rfc"- Um, it's still going on so I don't think you can say that. The best outcome for you will be if Nableezy suggestion gets the consensus, best thing is just to wait for the result.
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I never said the Rfc was closed. But the argument was refuted there in detail. Those are two separate statements, and one can be true without the other. Sigh.
Debresser (
talk)
17:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@Selfstudier By the way, you may have noticed, that I have accepted and even thanked you for both your last edits. Which I say only to show that I am not fixed on any specific text, as long as it differentiates between rule and annexation.
I do think we should change "administration" back to "rule" as being the term used in most sources, and which IMHO expresses more clearly the situation, while "administration" sounds a bit like obfuscating the situation to me.
Debresser (
talk)
18:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
That sounds rather like you are fixed on a specific text, the central RFC is still going on and I am thinking that I might suggest "administration" as being better than "rule" in the Nableezy formulation not because of Battir in particular but because I think that might be a good alternative to the debate around whether to rename
Jordanian annexation of the West Bank (which presently includes pre and post annexation material). It is not an attempt to obfuscate, the situation there is not as clear cut as you are trying to make it seem.
Selfstudier (
talk)
10:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"That sounds rather like you are fixed on a specific text", really? I agreed to both your edits. Now if there is one word I think is more essential than others, that does not mean I am fixed on a specific text.
There is little point in further discussion of this here, Battir is just a specific instance of the general case. I have made a comment at the central RFC. If it turns out that there is a central decision to use rule, then this particular case will also change. Note that it is yourself that persists in treating this particular case as some sort of exception rather than waiting for a central outcome.
Selfstudier (
talk)
11:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I must be blind, where is it? And even if there is, provided that there was no contradiction, it should not affect a central consensus.
Selfstudier (
talk)
22:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Ancient period at lead
Hi @
Huldra, I'd be happy to know do you keep removing the earlier history of the village from lead. Yes, we do have a dedicated article for
Betar, so I agree there is no reason to expand on it in this article. However, Betar is an of course notable part of the village's history, the site of one of the most decisive battles of the
Bar Kokhba revolt. I believe that removing the reference to Betar from lead creates a false impression that the village was founded only during the Byzantine period, while it can be traced back to much earlier. How is it possible that Battir has an ancient irrigation system, praised for being 2,000 years old, if it was only established during the Byzantine period?
Tombah (
talk)
06:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)reply
If you actually read the page there is no trace of any 'false impression that the village was founded only during the Byzantine period'.
Nishidani (
talk)
17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)reply
As Nishidani says. In addition, the UNESCO page
[2] says nothing about Betar, nor anything about the Byzantine period. It states that "The village of Battir, which developed on the outskirts of this cultural landscape, and was inhabited by farmers who worked and still work the land, attests to the sustainability of this system and to its continuation over at least a millennia",
Huldra (
talk)
21:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)reply
There are plenty of sources, with the earliest ones written during the 19th century, that identify Battir with ancient Betar, and it is only logical that the farmers who had built the famous terraces were then residents of Betar, because that was the villages name two thousand years ago!
It is correct that UNESCO does not mention it, and I really don't know why. In any case - it means that Battir's history can be traced back to an earlier period than the Byzantine period, and I believe that should appear on lead. Starting Battir's history with the Middle Ages is ignoring a part of history the village is today notable for, even if it had another name back then.
Tombah (
talk)
05:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)reply