![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This Site is in the palestinian West Bank! It had been occupied in 1967. Is does not belong to the territories of the staat of Israel.
If its in East Jerusalem at best you can say Israel has claimed it as its territory. If it is in the West Bank Israel hasnt even done that. Regardless, saying in Wikipedia's voice that it is in fact annexed, meaning a part of Israels sovereign territory, is a NPOV violation in that it promotes a minority claim as though it were fact. nableezy - 03:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Shalom, User:Zero0000. It's good to communicate with you again. I wanted to ask your opinion about the necessity of mentioning areas now fully under Jewish legal control and jurisdiction as being, formerly, under the control of the Arab Legion of Jordan from 1948-1967, in other words, what some call the "West Bank." Since the term "West Bank" implies that it was formerly under a different jurisdiction, but is no longer under that jurisdiction today, what good purpose is there in mentioning that a city is "in" (note present-tense) the West Bank? If we take Emmaus Nicopolis, for example, it is fully under Israeli law and jurisdiction, whereas not even the Palestinian Authority controls the region. It seems terribly misleading to write in that article: "The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." It tends to ignore current historical facts about the site's legal jurisdiction. As we know, the Arab village, Imwas, was a border-line village. The Arab legion occupied the nearby Latrun monastery during the war in 1948. The result of the campaign to expand the Jerusalem Corridor as far as the western foothills of the Judean mountains, freeing it from pockets of resistance, helped, in the final analysis, to determine the border of Israel with Jordan during the 1949 Armistice Agreement. See: Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, Zvi Dror (ed. Nathan Shoḥam), Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005, p. 273 (Hebrew). Remember what Ben-Gurion said during the War in 1948 about a region then occupied by the Egyptian army: "In the Negev we shall not buy the land. We shall conquer it. You forget that we are at war!" (See: Mêrôn Benveniśtî, Sacred landscape: the buried history of the Holy Land since 1948, p. 120). The Arabs, meanwhile, also vied with Israel over the control of territory by means of war, while the Jordanian Arab Legion had decided to concentrate its forces in Bethlehem and in Hebron in order to save that district for its Arab inhabitants, and to prevent territorial gains for Israel. Thus is it stated by Sir John Bagot Glubb, in his book, A Soldier with the Arabs, London 1957, p. 200. You see, the same principle applies today. Now that Israel has taken full-control of these territories after the Six Day War in 1967, there is no reason to insist on its former entities, since it is a way of politicizing what should be our intent as editors to remain neutral. IMHO.
Writing about this place, in particular, that it is located in the "West Bank" is a contentious issue, and I think that we'd do best by avoiding it altogether. For one reason, on the "West Bank map," the village actually sits in a Gray Area, not clearly demarcated. For another reason, it is more of a political statement than a reflection of the reality, where Israelis recognize the area as under Israeli jurisdiction. Thirdly, Israelis themselves do not call this area by the name the West Bank. Davidbena ( talk) 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
A transcript of the treaty of 1868 made between United States government representatives, on the one part, and the Sioux Indian nation represented by their chiefs, on the other part, is available online. In that treaty, under Article 1, it states: "From this day forward all war between the parties to this agreement shall forever cease." Only eight years later, on the 25th of June 1876, the conditions of the said treaty were broken by the US Government, under General George A. Custer, and the 7th cavalry, who waged a war against un-molesting Sioux (Lakota) Indians encamped in the valley of Greasy Grass (Little Big Horn). Under the laws governing the validity of treaties or pacts made between parties, if a treaty or pact is breached in one part, it is deemed as though it had been breached in all parts and is, therefore, null and void altogether. From a legal standpoint, this brings us back to the status quo before committing themselves to that treaty. All subsequent legislation by the US Government in the Fall of that same year which forced the Sioux to sign away their right to the Powder River in He-Sah-Pah (the Black Hills) on account of US Government aggression and the indigenous people's right to defend themselves should be viewed as no more than extortion, which is and will always be illegal.
User:Huldra, On the contrary, as editors we are responsible for accurate and neutral editing. It is no secret that Arabs outnumber Israelis by a large number, but their view of the status of our country is no more important than that of Jews themselves who live here and govern this country. Israel, today, has the largest Jewish population of the world, even greater than that of the United States. Many here speak English, and resort to the English Wikipedia for basic information about places in Israel. To say that the ruin "Emmaus Nicopolis" is in the West Bank (present-tense), without designating that it was formerly under Jordanian Rule (West Bank), but now under Israeli rule, is misleading, besides being inaccurate (unless one simply means the country on the West Bank of the Jordan River which, of course, is Israel. You see, the problem here is that the current edit makes a non-neutral political statement and infringes upon WP:POV. The Government of the State of Israel is the only government with sole responsibility for the country's security apparatus and its border considerations (with relegated authority given by the State of Israel to the PA in select areas of the country, excluding the place whereon lies the ruin of Emmaus Nicopolis). To this day, Israel does not recognize a separate political state or entity called the "West Bank," nor do the Oslo Accords (perhaps now defunct) recognize the future territorial integrity of the State of Israel and Palestine as being already decided and finalized - since it only encourages a future settlement, but acknowledges that Israel is still the ultimate decider of the future status of territories now under its control and sovereignty. So far, Israel has not relinquished its control and sovereignty over any part of the country, excepting for Gaza alone.
While many Western governments might view Israel's hold of territories in what was formerly called the West-Bank as being "illegal," or as "occupied territory," Israel (since 1967) sees its hold on these territories as legal, the legal prize of the victor in armed conflict, just as the outcome of war defined the border in 1948. Proof of which can be seen in last week's EU and US State Department's decision to condemn Israel's appropriation of some 234 hectares (579 acres) of unclaimed land near Jericho as property of the state. Why should the EU or the USA take offense at this? The process of declaring unclaimed land as property of the state is a process that has been going on since the Ottoman Turks who governed Palestine, as also during Mandatory Palestine under the British, and, now, under the legitimate government of Israel that inherited from Britain its land tenure laws, as defined in the book, "The Survey of Palestine under the British Mandate: 1920–1948," British Mandate government printing office, Jerusalem 1946, vol. 1, pp. 226–227, of chapter 8, section 1, paragraph 6, and which book states explicitly the rights of the government over vacant State land (Miri), as well as dead and undeveloped land (Mewat). What was done under previous ruling entities is being done now, hence: Israeli sovereignty. Nothing to be upset about. Without realizing it, such irresponsible denunciations coming from the EU and USA only encourage resistance among local Arabs, and make co-existence between Arabs and Israelis all the more difficult. In conclusion: The matter of designating this Second Temple archaeological ruin as being in the "West Bank" today, without saying that it is located in what was formerly the "West Bank," is a biased political statement that ignores its current status. Davidbena ( talk) 19:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I received a friendly notice on my talk page about this issue, and I think that the simplest and least contentious issue would be to write:
The sentence, as constructed above is 100% accurate regardless of the status of Canada Park, and makes no statement as to under whose jurisdiction the actual land remains. The interested user can go to the Canada Park article if he or she is interested in the political status of the land, and we do not have to get into the pretzel-like contortions needed to make sure that Wikipedia is not perceived to be annexing the area for either Palestine, Jordan, or Israel. If we start making these contortions, no matter which we way we twist, we may be implicitly making Wikipedia show a preference one way or the other, which is certainly sub-optimal, regardless of each one of our own personal points-of-view. -- Avi ( talk) 16:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
By saying either "West Bank" or "Israel" we start entering the zone of implication as to who controls what. We have to handle that in Canada Park—whose ownership is disputed (see that article)—we do not have to bring that dispute here as long as we say the completely factual and neutral statement "The site today is inside Canada Park and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." User:Zero0000, if you (or anyone) would please explain why leaving the term "in the West Bank" and not mentioning Israel's claims as regards Canada Park is a more neutral point of view, it would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Avi ( talk) 04:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Examples of alternative factual, neutral and even more informative statements for the readers of this and every article about locations in the West Bank would be to replace 'West Bank' with 'occupied West Bank' or 'Israeli occupied West Bank' or 'Israeli occupied West Bank claimed by the State of Palestine' so that these highly notable facts about these locations are made available to readers in every single article in a consistent way. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Avraham: This site is in Area C of the West Bank. To clarify: it is not in the "Latrun Salient", even though much of Canada Park is. So the issue of who has sovereignty in the Latrun Salient is not relevant here. According to Palestine it is about 3km inside the West Bank and according to Israel it is about 500–700m inside the West Bank. Area C is not claimed as part of Israel by the Israel government, so to state that it is in Israel would be going even further than the Israeli government goes. The only correct and neutral statement is that it is in the West Bank but under Israel control (like all of Area C). There is absolutely no reason to treat this location differently from the rest of the West Bank. Zero talk 08:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
And all of the above is exactly my point. We can dispense with ALL of the posturing and geopolitical friction by saying it is in Canada Park and stopping there. We don't need to implicitly support the Israeli position; we don't need to implicitly support the Palestinian position, we do not take any position as to what the status is in this article. It's in Canada Park, and that is it. We will have to go through the tortuous dance to get NPOV in that article, but I disagree with User:Sean.hoyland; we do not have to force the pretzel in every article. If anything, we should do what we can to minimize I/P conflicts in articles as best we can, and finessing it here by writing a 100% accurate statement that does not take a position on Canada Park will, IMO, serve NPOV the best. Is it the best from the perspective of the Israeli position? No. Is it the best from the perspective of the Palestinian position? No. Those two positions have a vested interest in perpetuating their view of the conflict, and, by extension, framing the identification of the location, as much as possible. However, NPOV requires us to work to minimize these conflicts. One of the best pieces of advice for writing with NPOV is for a person of position A to write the article from position B, or even not A. Davidbena, how would you want to see the article written if it could only be written by someone with a Palestinian POV. User:Huldra, how would you like to see the article written if it could only be written from an Israeli point of view? I posit that the way I suggested a few score lines above would be acceptable to side B from the side A perspective; an agreed upon minimally mutually acceptable option as it were (tangent: Wikipedia politics as a maximin exercise may make for a good paper for a statistically-minded sociologist somewhere). I think leaning any further to one side or the other increases the net NPOV balance. -- Avi ( talk) 14:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:NPOV. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
We dont shy away from saying Nazareth is in Israel. Avi, with all due respect, your proposed solution ends up with Wikipedia accepting Israeli sovereignty over all of Israel proper, despite the various Palestinian factions that claim all of Israel and the occupied territories, while keeping all of the West Bank in a grey area. There are undisputed facts here, undisputed among serious sources at least. Among those are excepting East Jerusalem the area east of the Green Line and west of the Jordan River is the West Bank. Id add EJ but there at least is a claim by an involved party that it isnt part of the Palestinian territories. For the rest of the West Bank, which this site is in, that claim doesnt even exist. If a committed Palestinian activist kept removing Israel from the article Nazareth that user would be rightly topic banned. Regardless of whether they just replaced "Israel" with "Palestine" or if they tried more creative approaches like saying approximately 100 km north of Jerusalem. I dont agree that NPOV requires us to minimize these conflicts, it requires us to examine the sources and not engage in the blatant OR (and besides it being OR it is also completely misinformed) to try to delete the common place of a territory for strictly nationalist reasons. Cmon, there are actual disputes that can be resolved, this one should just be shut down as the dispute is only on this page and not the sources. This place is, on a frickin map, in the West Bank. Why exactly should that not be included, and when answering keep in mind that there are any number of people that think Nazareth is in Palestine. nableezy - 18:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Since Avi, Sir Joseph and myself have all agreed to a neutral edit, while some of our friends here have been borderline (I mean, Zero0000 and Sean.holyland), I would like to appeal to our two friends to be more forthcoming and decisive in their approach to a satisfactory resolution of this edit dispute, and to tell us if they would agree, in principle, to a neutral edit (or, conversely, not agree), so that we can proceed one way or the other with this issue, based on a solid consensus. Davidbena ( talk) 21:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue Nishidani ( talk) 22:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Nableezy, of course I would not support replacing Israel in Nazareth, because that is the country wherein the city lies, just as Emmaus Nicopolis lies in Israel. You are grossly misled when you write of me that I seek "to suppress one of the most basic facts about a place, that being in what territory it is located," and mean to say by that that Emmaus Nicopolis lies in the West Bank, yet you are the one who suppresses its current status of being in the State of Israel (which, by the way, is obvious to all). Tell me, though. If you were to seek out the legislative body in the so-called "West Bank," who would you go to? You'd go to an Israeli legislative body. If you wanted to build a house in or near the archaeological site of Emmaus Nicopolis, or excavate the archaeological site, where you say is currently in the "West Bank," who would you go to for a building permit or excavation permit? You'd go to Israeli authorities. You see, the site today (though technically it was formerly a part of Jordan's "West Bank") is now an integral part of the State of Israel. There's no reason for you or anyone else here to twist the facts here. If so, we might as well call the American State of Texas by its former entity, "Mexico." You see, The State of Texas belonged formerly to Mexico, but because of American settler encroachment which culminated in the Battle of Alamo (1836) and the massacre of US citizens there, the US Government took control of the Texas territory by wrestling it from the hand of Mexico shortly thereafter. This led to the State’s annexation in 1844 and Statehood in 1845. This prompted the Mexican-American War in 1846-1848, in which the US was victorious. Later, the US and Mexico agreed on terms of reparations for America's "annexation" of Texas. Although the circumstances here in Israel are different, I still think you can appreciate the fact that borders change. Tell me, do you still call Texas by the name of "Mexico"? Davidbena ( talk) 19:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment Noticed this discussion on my watchlist weeks ago and it's gone on in circles for too long and unnecessarily so. There's no need to suppress a basic and uncontroversial fact here. Emmaus-Nicopolis is located on the West Bank side of the Green Line, so obviously it's in the West Bank. It wouldn't be neutral to say otherwise. It's not on the Israeli side and it's not in the Latrun salient (no-man's land). This is not a matter of debate. Israel has not annexed the West Bank and has not claimed the West Bank as part of Israel, like they have with East Jerusalem. If you want to add an extra sentence mentioning that it's part of Area C (full Israeli control), I wouldn't be opposed, but to say it's not in the West Bank is simply not true. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 19:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
As far as your suggestion, no. The term is Israeli-occupied, as in Israeli-occupied territories. It isnt a quintessential Arab view that Israel occupies the West Bank, thats the position of Israels closest ally (eg here), the position of the United Nations (eg [1] here and every page it links to), the ICRC (eg here). nableezy - 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
To All Concerned: When I sought advice about the content dispute from an experienced editor, this is what he wrote to me: "At present the Emmaus Nicopolis article does not mention any political controversy about the place of the site. That article is mostly addressed to history and archaeology. It might be best to describe the site's location in the most non-committal fashion possible. If you can manage to omit both West Bank and Israel from the article lead, that might be best. If a dispute occurs, consider an WP:RFC. There is more political stuff in Canada Park and that might be a better place to mention political issues. It appears that Canada Park actually straddles the Green Line. If people consider this an important issue, maybe somebody can create a map showing how that works. It is WP:UNDUE to make an archaeological article political if reliable sources don't emphasize that aspect in their own coverage of the site." Davidbena ( talk) 23:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I go out of town for a business trip for a couple of days and seem to have missed a ton of action
. I do have to read a lot of what I missed, but one quick point is that as of how I remember, there has been as of yet no consensus to change the lede—whether that means to mention Israel, West Bank, or anything. Hopefully, the RFC will show a consensus for something. --
Avi (
talk)
14:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, events that preceded the war and which culminated in the eviction of Palestinian Arabs can be read about by the British contemporaries of that period; I mean Sir John Bagot Glubb, in his book, A Soldier with the Arabs (London 1957), who mentions there the incitement of Arabs against Jews by Haj Amin Husseini, as also as described in the book, A Survey of Palestine (Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry), vol. 1, chapter 2, British Mandate Government of Palestine: Jerusalem 1946, pp. 17 – 24:
April, 1920 (Easter Sunday).
“Savage attacks were made by Arab rioters in Jerusalem on Jewish lives and property. Five Jews were killed and 211 injured. Order was restored by the intervention of British troops; four Arabs were killed and 21 injured. It was reported by a military commission of inquiry * that the reasons for this trouble were:
(a) Arab disappointment at the non-fulfillment of the promises of independence which they claimed had been given to them during the war.
(b) Arab belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self-determination and their fear that the establishment of a National Homeland would mean a great increase in Jewish immigration and would lead to their economic and political subjection to the Jews.
(c) The aggravation of these sentiments on the one hand by propaganda from outside Palestine associated with the proclamation of the Emir Feisal as King of a re-united Syria and with the growth of Pan-Arab and Pan-Moslem ideas, and on the other hand by the activities of the Zionist Commission supported by the resources and influence of Jews throughout the world.”
24th September, 1928
“The Jews attempted to introduce a screen to divide men and women during prayers at the Wailing Wall on the Jewish Day of Atonement. This was contrary to the status quo ante and on this account led to objections by the Arabs; orders were given for its removal, the Jews did not remove it and it was forcibly removed by the police in the course of prayers at the Wall. This incident engendered high feeling and was a prelude to the disturbances of the following year. Haj Amin Eff. Husseini and the leaders of the Arab Executive made much of the incident and set themselves to bring about a revival of nationalist agitation throughout the country; branches of Moslem societies were established by them in the provincial towns.”
August, 1929
“On 15th August a Jewish demonstration was held at the Wailing Wall, and on the following day the Arabs held a counter demonstration. From 23rd to 29th August murderous attacks were made on Jews in various parts of the country. The most violent attacks were those against the old established Jewish communities at Hebron and Safad; there were also attacks in Jerusalem and Jaffa and against several Jewish rural settlements. There was little retaliation by Jews, of whom 133 were killed and 339 wounded. Order was restored with the help of British troops rushed up from Egypt; 116 Arabs were killed and 232 wounded, mostly by troops and police.”
“The breach between the two races was widened by the events of 1928-1929, first by the emergence of the religious factor and then by the outbreak of murder and pillage. Reciprocal boycotts of Arab and Jewish trade were organized. All possibility of cooperation, even in the economic field, was eliminated for some time to come and the High Commissioner, returning in haste to Palestine after the outbreak of the disturbances, issued a proclamation announcing the suspension of discussions on the constitutional issue.”
“As it was felt necessary that an Arab body should represent the Arab case in an enquiry into the cause of the disorders, Government recognized the Arab Executive Committee for the purpose.”
October-December, 1929
“A Commission of Inquiry under Sir Walter Shaw visited Palestine and reported, in March, 1930*, that "the Arab-feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future" was the fundamental cause of the outbreak. The findings were very similar to those of the Haycraft.”
You see, there is a long history of hostilities. Davidbena ( talk) 19:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am turning to you for your unbiased and professional opinion about an edit on this article which concerns the archaeological site, Emmaus Nicopolis, a place in Israel, and where I have suggested a more neutral edit so as to read: "The site today is inside Canada Park and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada," as opposed to the current edit that reads: "The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." As it stands, people who espouse to the view that "Israel is an illegal occupant" have joined in on the Talk-Page discussion to voice their general disapproval at implying that the archaeological site is in Israel, while Jewish participants (including myself) have wanted to omit the words "West Bank" in the article, that is to say, to keep it neutral, without mentioning Israel, neither the West Bank. What do you think we should do with respect to this edit? Can you give your advice on how we ought to proceed and to reach a compromise? Simply put, is it wise to mention areas now fully under Jewish legal control and jurisdiction as only having been held by the Arab Legion of Jordan from 1948-1967, in other words, what some call the "West Bank", and with no mention of Israel? Emmaus is situated in the very center of Israel, the heart of Israel. In government circles, there is no discussion at all, no dialogue, to make the place negotiable for a return under Arab-rule or hegemony, since "Area C" in the Oslo II Accords (where the site is located) is clearly defined as remaining under "full Israeli civil and security control." It's non-negotiable. Any emphasis on "West-Bank" as being the location of this place would, in my mind, conjure-up an editor who wants to relive the past, but forget the present status of the place. A neutral edit, I think, would avoid any misconceptions about the current status of the place.
Davidbena (
talk)
00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Collapsing all comments beyond the nom, since the debate is pretty long -
Tigraan
Click here to contact me
15:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
Keep West Bank for the simple reason that it's in the West Bank (not in no-man's land and not in Israel). Like I said to David in the thread above, there's no problem with an additional sentence mentioning that it's in Area C of the West Bank and what that entails i.e. Israeli military and civil control. This has nothing to do with making an archaeological site a political football. If this article were to be nominated as a GA, A or FA-class, one would think that the geographic facts of the site's current location and status would be a basic requirement. But yes it's really a shame that everything with the slightest relation to the I/P conflict becomes an exhaustive shit-show that drains editors' time. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 17:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep West Bank As stated in the rules, WP:NPoV doesn't mean 1 minute for Hitler and 1 minute for the Jews. This reminds that the pov's have to be weighted according to their relevance and legitimacy.
Let's just say that we keep the words "West Bank." As far as country status is concerned, anyone reading this article from abroad and who might wish to visit this archaeological site in the "West Bank," where will he go to find the "West Bank Embassy" in his own country to receive a visa to visit the place? Who is the President or Prime-Minister or King of the "West Bank" (and, for that matter, what is his legal title withal!?) so that a person who wishes to write him might be able to do so, or send him an embassage to represent their own nation? Of course, this is all said in jest, but it underscores the point that I want to make, and that is Israel is a major contender here, in all that concerns Emmaus Nicopolis, and we, as good editors on this noble venue, should be willing to uphold the policies of Wikipedia and accord due weight WP:Weight in our recognition that Israel controls the country, and cannot be slighted by the editorial of POV-pushing editors. There is no reason to expunge this fact. Davidbena ( talk) 20:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep "West Bank" in the description because that's where it is. No other reason is needed. The description "Canada Park" is correct but insufficient as Canada Park straddles the Green Line and it matters which side this point is on. A correct precise description would be "in the part of Canada Park that lies in the West Bank". Zero talk 22:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I can still see that our friends are repeating old arguments. I have already agreed to let "West Bank" stand, but that we ought to also mention its current administrative status, namely: "The site is in the Israeli-controlled West-Bank, near the Latrun Monastery." This will give some balance to the whole picture, and avoid the appearance of bias (especially when the vast majority of Israelis see the place as de facto annexation, and they, too, can present their own Reliable Sources). As for the accusation that I have been "canvassing," I wish to remind our friend that this page, with the sub-title: "Request for Comment," is still pending, and therefore requesting an opinion here is within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 13:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Keep West Bank. Not a word more. This is a lead, the description is precise and a commonplace, and if someone wants to tinker with it, that can go in the relevant section below, on the post 1967 period. I might add that a Zochrot poll of park visitors revealed that 75% of the visitors were laboring under the false impression that the park was in Israel, all the more reason to get this datum in. Nishidani ( talk) 14:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Davidbena, from the Palestinian perspective, saying "Israeli-controlled West Bank" would probably be an NPOV violation, just like calling it "Israeli-controlled Palestine" would be an NPOV violation from the Israeli perspective. What I am sensing, is that the following may be mutually acceptable:
This way, the text remains acceptably neutral to all parties, yet factual with regard to geographic location and geopolitical status. The reader interested in further exploration of the West Bank and I/P issues can click on any of those links. -- Avi ( talk) 16:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:OpenFuture, here, I could tell you that in Israel’s ancient constitution, drafted by Moses our lawgiver, it explicitly mentions Israel’s settlement in this land in Numbers 33:53, but do not use that as proof. Look rather at the long history of the people of Israel in its own land, during the late Bronze Age until the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, during the period of Roman and Byzantine conquest. Still, if that isn’t sufficient proof, look at Jewish immigration to Palestine throughout the long period of foreign rulers in the country. Then, look at the history of modern warfare (from 1948 – 1967) and consider the military exploits of the people of Israel (the IDF) to ensure its freedom of access to all places in the ancestral borders of the Land of Israel. It would be quite easy to provide you with the references in books (published by the Israeli Government) showing Israeli legislation to the effect of its having inherited the land tenure laws (tabu) from the British and how it has implemented these laws in its hold of territories acquired through war, but this will be no more than a vain effort to convince you of Israel's legal hold of the land of its ancestors. Be well. I have no more to say here. Davidbena ( talk) 17:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Getting back to the matter at hand, Nishidani has a point. While "Area C" is factually correct, it may open up a can of worms wherein every individual location in the West Bank is going to be "decorated" with its area. So for geographic purposes, perhaps "Area C" can be left out. Davidbena's main concern seems to be the lack of any indication that this area is under Israeli control, which I believe is fact (whether a desired or reviled fact may depend on one's point of view of course). Whereas most others with an alternative perspective feel that David's edits may give more weight to the POV that the West Bank is Israel proper, which, at this point, is not accepted by most of the world, and should not be Wiki's POV. Perhaps we can compromise as so. The lede remains something like "The site today is in the West Bank, near Canada Park." Later on in the article, we have the history section end something like this: "However it was conquered by Israeli forces during the Six Day War of 1967, and its mixed Muslim and Christian Arab population left. The area, similar to nearby Canada Park, remains under Israeli control". Or instead "part of Area C" or something like that. This way, we have the factual statement of the control in the article, but separated from the location, so we finesse Nishidani's concern about rampant re-statement of various "West Bank" entries to frame one side or the other. Would that achieve consensus, perhaps? -- Avi ( talk) 05:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This Site is in the palestinian West Bank! It had been occupied in 1967. Is does not belong to the territories of the staat of Israel.
If its in East Jerusalem at best you can say Israel has claimed it as its territory. If it is in the West Bank Israel hasnt even done that. Regardless, saying in Wikipedia's voice that it is in fact annexed, meaning a part of Israels sovereign territory, is a NPOV violation in that it promotes a minority claim as though it were fact. nableezy - 03:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Shalom, User:Zero0000. It's good to communicate with you again. I wanted to ask your opinion about the necessity of mentioning areas now fully under Jewish legal control and jurisdiction as being, formerly, under the control of the Arab Legion of Jordan from 1948-1967, in other words, what some call the "West Bank." Since the term "West Bank" implies that it was formerly under a different jurisdiction, but is no longer under that jurisdiction today, what good purpose is there in mentioning that a city is "in" (note present-tense) the West Bank? If we take Emmaus Nicopolis, for example, it is fully under Israeli law and jurisdiction, whereas not even the Palestinian Authority controls the region. It seems terribly misleading to write in that article: "The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." It tends to ignore current historical facts about the site's legal jurisdiction. As we know, the Arab village, Imwas, was a border-line village. The Arab legion occupied the nearby Latrun monastery during the war in 1948. The result of the campaign to expand the Jerusalem Corridor as far as the western foothills of the Judean mountains, freeing it from pockets of resistance, helped, in the final analysis, to determine the border of Israel with Jordan during the 1949 Armistice Agreement. See: Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, Zvi Dror (ed. Nathan Shoḥam), Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005, p. 273 (Hebrew). Remember what Ben-Gurion said during the War in 1948 about a region then occupied by the Egyptian army: "In the Negev we shall not buy the land. We shall conquer it. You forget that we are at war!" (See: Mêrôn Benveniśtî, Sacred landscape: the buried history of the Holy Land since 1948, p. 120). The Arabs, meanwhile, also vied with Israel over the control of territory by means of war, while the Jordanian Arab Legion had decided to concentrate its forces in Bethlehem and in Hebron in order to save that district for its Arab inhabitants, and to prevent territorial gains for Israel. Thus is it stated by Sir John Bagot Glubb, in his book, A Soldier with the Arabs, London 1957, p. 200. You see, the same principle applies today. Now that Israel has taken full-control of these territories after the Six Day War in 1967, there is no reason to insist on its former entities, since it is a way of politicizing what should be our intent as editors to remain neutral. IMHO.
Writing about this place, in particular, that it is located in the "West Bank" is a contentious issue, and I think that we'd do best by avoiding it altogether. For one reason, on the "West Bank map," the village actually sits in a Gray Area, not clearly demarcated. For another reason, it is more of a political statement than a reflection of the reality, where Israelis recognize the area as under Israeli jurisdiction. Thirdly, Israelis themselves do not call this area by the name the West Bank. Davidbena ( talk) 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
A transcript of the treaty of 1868 made between United States government representatives, on the one part, and the Sioux Indian nation represented by their chiefs, on the other part, is available online. In that treaty, under Article 1, it states: "From this day forward all war between the parties to this agreement shall forever cease." Only eight years later, on the 25th of June 1876, the conditions of the said treaty were broken by the US Government, under General George A. Custer, and the 7th cavalry, who waged a war against un-molesting Sioux (Lakota) Indians encamped in the valley of Greasy Grass (Little Big Horn). Under the laws governing the validity of treaties or pacts made between parties, if a treaty or pact is breached in one part, it is deemed as though it had been breached in all parts and is, therefore, null and void altogether. From a legal standpoint, this brings us back to the status quo before committing themselves to that treaty. All subsequent legislation by the US Government in the Fall of that same year which forced the Sioux to sign away their right to the Powder River in He-Sah-Pah (the Black Hills) on account of US Government aggression and the indigenous people's right to defend themselves should be viewed as no more than extortion, which is and will always be illegal.
User:Huldra, On the contrary, as editors we are responsible for accurate and neutral editing. It is no secret that Arabs outnumber Israelis by a large number, but their view of the status of our country is no more important than that of Jews themselves who live here and govern this country. Israel, today, has the largest Jewish population of the world, even greater than that of the United States. Many here speak English, and resort to the English Wikipedia for basic information about places in Israel. To say that the ruin "Emmaus Nicopolis" is in the West Bank (present-tense), without designating that it was formerly under Jordanian Rule (West Bank), but now under Israeli rule, is misleading, besides being inaccurate (unless one simply means the country on the West Bank of the Jordan River which, of course, is Israel. You see, the problem here is that the current edit makes a non-neutral political statement and infringes upon WP:POV. The Government of the State of Israel is the only government with sole responsibility for the country's security apparatus and its border considerations (with relegated authority given by the State of Israel to the PA in select areas of the country, excluding the place whereon lies the ruin of Emmaus Nicopolis). To this day, Israel does not recognize a separate political state or entity called the "West Bank," nor do the Oslo Accords (perhaps now defunct) recognize the future territorial integrity of the State of Israel and Palestine as being already decided and finalized - since it only encourages a future settlement, but acknowledges that Israel is still the ultimate decider of the future status of territories now under its control and sovereignty. So far, Israel has not relinquished its control and sovereignty over any part of the country, excepting for Gaza alone.
While many Western governments might view Israel's hold of territories in what was formerly called the West-Bank as being "illegal," or as "occupied territory," Israel (since 1967) sees its hold on these territories as legal, the legal prize of the victor in armed conflict, just as the outcome of war defined the border in 1948. Proof of which can be seen in last week's EU and US State Department's decision to condemn Israel's appropriation of some 234 hectares (579 acres) of unclaimed land near Jericho as property of the state. Why should the EU or the USA take offense at this? The process of declaring unclaimed land as property of the state is a process that has been going on since the Ottoman Turks who governed Palestine, as also during Mandatory Palestine under the British, and, now, under the legitimate government of Israel that inherited from Britain its land tenure laws, as defined in the book, "The Survey of Palestine under the British Mandate: 1920–1948," British Mandate government printing office, Jerusalem 1946, vol. 1, pp. 226–227, of chapter 8, section 1, paragraph 6, and which book states explicitly the rights of the government over vacant State land (Miri), as well as dead and undeveloped land (Mewat). What was done under previous ruling entities is being done now, hence: Israeli sovereignty. Nothing to be upset about. Without realizing it, such irresponsible denunciations coming from the EU and USA only encourage resistance among local Arabs, and make co-existence between Arabs and Israelis all the more difficult. In conclusion: The matter of designating this Second Temple archaeological ruin as being in the "West Bank" today, without saying that it is located in what was formerly the "West Bank," is a biased political statement that ignores its current status. Davidbena ( talk) 19:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I received a friendly notice on my talk page about this issue, and I think that the simplest and least contentious issue would be to write:
The sentence, as constructed above is 100% accurate regardless of the status of Canada Park, and makes no statement as to under whose jurisdiction the actual land remains. The interested user can go to the Canada Park article if he or she is interested in the political status of the land, and we do not have to get into the pretzel-like contortions needed to make sure that Wikipedia is not perceived to be annexing the area for either Palestine, Jordan, or Israel. If we start making these contortions, no matter which we way we twist, we may be implicitly making Wikipedia show a preference one way or the other, which is certainly sub-optimal, regardless of each one of our own personal points-of-view. -- Avi ( talk) 16:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
By saying either "West Bank" or "Israel" we start entering the zone of implication as to who controls what. We have to handle that in Canada Park—whose ownership is disputed (see that article)—we do not have to bring that dispute here as long as we say the completely factual and neutral statement "The site today is inside Canada Park and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." User:Zero0000, if you (or anyone) would please explain why leaving the term "in the West Bank" and not mentioning Israel's claims as regards Canada Park is a more neutral point of view, it would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Avi ( talk) 04:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Examples of alternative factual, neutral and even more informative statements for the readers of this and every article about locations in the West Bank would be to replace 'West Bank' with 'occupied West Bank' or 'Israeli occupied West Bank' or 'Israeli occupied West Bank claimed by the State of Palestine' so that these highly notable facts about these locations are made available to readers in every single article in a consistent way. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Avraham: This site is in Area C of the West Bank. To clarify: it is not in the "Latrun Salient", even though much of Canada Park is. So the issue of who has sovereignty in the Latrun Salient is not relevant here. According to Palestine it is about 3km inside the West Bank and according to Israel it is about 500–700m inside the West Bank. Area C is not claimed as part of Israel by the Israel government, so to state that it is in Israel would be going even further than the Israeli government goes. The only correct and neutral statement is that it is in the West Bank but under Israel control (like all of Area C). There is absolutely no reason to treat this location differently from the rest of the West Bank. Zero talk 08:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
And all of the above is exactly my point. We can dispense with ALL of the posturing and geopolitical friction by saying it is in Canada Park and stopping there. We don't need to implicitly support the Israeli position; we don't need to implicitly support the Palestinian position, we do not take any position as to what the status is in this article. It's in Canada Park, and that is it. We will have to go through the tortuous dance to get NPOV in that article, but I disagree with User:Sean.hoyland; we do not have to force the pretzel in every article. If anything, we should do what we can to minimize I/P conflicts in articles as best we can, and finessing it here by writing a 100% accurate statement that does not take a position on Canada Park will, IMO, serve NPOV the best. Is it the best from the perspective of the Israeli position? No. Is it the best from the perspective of the Palestinian position? No. Those two positions have a vested interest in perpetuating their view of the conflict, and, by extension, framing the identification of the location, as much as possible. However, NPOV requires us to work to minimize these conflicts. One of the best pieces of advice for writing with NPOV is for a person of position A to write the article from position B, or even not A. Davidbena, how would you want to see the article written if it could only be written by someone with a Palestinian POV. User:Huldra, how would you like to see the article written if it could only be written from an Israeli point of view? I posit that the way I suggested a few score lines above would be acceptable to side B from the side A perspective; an agreed upon minimally mutually acceptable option as it were (tangent: Wikipedia politics as a maximin exercise may make for a good paper for a statistically-minded sociologist somewhere). I think leaning any further to one side or the other increases the net NPOV balance. -- Avi ( talk) 14:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:NPOV. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
We dont shy away from saying Nazareth is in Israel. Avi, with all due respect, your proposed solution ends up with Wikipedia accepting Israeli sovereignty over all of Israel proper, despite the various Palestinian factions that claim all of Israel and the occupied territories, while keeping all of the West Bank in a grey area. There are undisputed facts here, undisputed among serious sources at least. Among those are excepting East Jerusalem the area east of the Green Line and west of the Jordan River is the West Bank. Id add EJ but there at least is a claim by an involved party that it isnt part of the Palestinian territories. For the rest of the West Bank, which this site is in, that claim doesnt even exist. If a committed Palestinian activist kept removing Israel from the article Nazareth that user would be rightly topic banned. Regardless of whether they just replaced "Israel" with "Palestine" or if they tried more creative approaches like saying approximately 100 km north of Jerusalem. I dont agree that NPOV requires us to minimize these conflicts, it requires us to examine the sources and not engage in the blatant OR (and besides it being OR it is also completely misinformed) to try to delete the common place of a territory for strictly nationalist reasons. Cmon, there are actual disputes that can be resolved, this one should just be shut down as the dispute is only on this page and not the sources. This place is, on a frickin map, in the West Bank. Why exactly should that not be included, and when answering keep in mind that there are any number of people that think Nazareth is in Palestine. nableezy - 18:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Since Avi, Sir Joseph and myself have all agreed to a neutral edit, while some of our friends here have been borderline (I mean, Zero0000 and Sean.holyland), I would like to appeal to our two friends to be more forthcoming and decisive in their approach to a satisfactory resolution of this edit dispute, and to tell us if they would agree, in principle, to a neutral edit (or, conversely, not agree), so that we can proceed one way or the other with this issue, based on a solid consensus. Davidbena ( talk) 21:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue Nishidani ( talk) 22:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Nableezy, of course I would not support replacing Israel in Nazareth, because that is the country wherein the city lies, just as Emmaus Nicopolis lies in Israel. You are grossly misled when you write of me that I seek "to suppress one of the most basic facts about a place, that being in what territory it is located," and mean to say by that that Emmaus Nicopolis lies in the West Bank, yet you are the one who suppresses its current status of being in the State of Israel (which, by the way, is obvious to all). Tell me, though. If you were to seek out the legislative body in the so-called "West Bank," who would you go to? You'd go to an Israeli legislative body. If you wanted to build a house in or near the archaeological site of Emmaus Nicopolis, or excavate the archaeological site, where you say is currently in the "West Bank," who would you go to for a building permit or excavation permit? You'd go to Israeli authorities. You see, the site today (though technically it was formerly a part of Jordan's "West Bank") is now an integral part of the State of Israel. There's no reason for you or anyone else here to twist the facts here. If so, we might as well call the American State of Texas by its former entity, "Mexico." You see, The State of Texas belonged formerly to Mexico, but because of American settler encroachment which culminated in the Battle of Alamo (1836) and the massacre of US citizens there, the US Government took control of the Texas territory by wrestling it from the hand of Mexico shortly thereafter. This led to the State’s annexation in 1844 and Statehood in 1845. This prompted the Mexican-American War in 1846-1848, in which the US was victorious. Later, the US and Mexico agreed on terms of reparations for America's "annexation" of Texas. Although the circumstances here in Israel are different, I still think you can appreciate the fact that borders change. Tell me, do you still call Texas by the name of "Mexico"? Davidbena ( talk) 19:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment Noticed this discussion on my watchlist weeks ago and it's gone on in circles for too long and unnecessarily so. There's no need to suppress a basic and uncontroversial fact here. Emmaus-Nicopolis is located on the West Bank side of the Green Line, so obviously it's in the West Bank. It wouldn't be neutral to say otherwise. It's not on the Israeli side and it's not in the Latrun salient (no-man's land). This is not a matter of debate. Israel has not annexed the West Bank and has not claimed the West Bank as part of Israel, like they have with East Jerusalem. If you want to add an extra sentence mentioning that it's part of Area C (full Israeli control), I wouldn't be opposed, but to say it's not in the West Bank is simply not true. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 19:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
As far as your suggestion, no. The term is Israeli-occupied, as in Israeli-occupied territories. It isnt a quintessential Arab view that Israel occupies the West Bank, thats the position of Israels closest ally (eg here), the position of the United Nations (eg [1] here and every page it links to), the ICRC (eg here). nableezy - 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
To All Concerned: When I sought advice about the content dispute from an experienced editor, this is what he wrote to me: "At present the Emmaus Nicopolis article does not mention any political controversy about the place of the site. That article is mostly addressed to history and archaeology. It might be best to describe the site's location in the most non-committal fashion possible. If you can manage to omit both West Bank and Israel from the article lead, that might be best. If a dispute occurs, consider an WP:RFC. There is more political stuff in Canada Park and that might be a better place to mention political issues. It appears that Canada Park actually straddles the Green Line. If people consider this an important issue, maybe somebody can create a map showing how that works. It is WP:UNDUE to make an archaeological article political if reliable sources don't emphasize that aspect in their own coverage of the site." Davidbena ( talk) 23:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I go out of town for a business trip for a couple of days and seem to have missed a ton of action
. I do have to read a lot of what I missed, but one quick point is that as of how I remember, there has been as of yet no consensus to change the lede—whether that means to mention Israel, West Bank, or anything. Hopefully, the RFC will show a consensus for something. --
Avi (
talk)
14:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, events that preceded the war and which culminated in the eviction of Palestinian Arabs can be read about by the British contemporaries of that period; I mean Sir John Bagot Glubb, in his book, A Soldier with the Arabs (London 1957), who mentions there the incitement of Arabs against Jews by Haj Amin Husseini, as also as described in the book, A Survey of Palestine (Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry), vol. 1, chapter 2, British Mandate Government of Palestine: Jerusalem 1946, pp. 17 – 24:
April, 1920 (Easter Sunday).
“Savage attacks were made by Arab rioters in Jerusalem on Jewish lives and property. Five Jews were killed and 211 injured. Order was restored by the intervention of British troops; four Arabs were killed and 21 injured. It was reported by a military commission of inquiry * that the reasons for this trouble were:
(a) Arab disappointment at the non-fulfillment of the promises of independence which they claimed had been given to them during the war.
(b) Arab belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self-determination and their fear that the establishment of a National Homeland would mean a great increase in Jewish immigration and would lead to their economic and political subjection to the Jews.
(c) The aggravation of these sentiments on the one hand by propaganda from outside Palestine associated with the proclamation of the Emir Feisal as King of a re-united Syria and with the growth of Pan-Arab and Pan-Moslem ideas, and on the other hand by the activities of the Zionist Commission supported by the resources and influence of Jews throughout the world.”
24th September, 1928
“The Jews attempted to introduce a screen to divide men and women during prayers at the Wailing Wall on the Jewish Day of Atonement. This was contrary to the status quo ante and on this account led to objections by the Arabs; orders were given for its removal, the Jews did not remove it and it was forcibly removed by the police in the course of prayers at the Wall. This incident engendered high feeling and was a prelude to the disturbances of the following year. Haj Amin Eff. Husseini and the leaders of the Arab Executive made much of the incident and set themselves to bring about a revival of nationalist agitation throughout the country; branches of Moslem societies were established by them in the provincial towns.”
August, 1929
“On 15th August a Jewish demonstration was held at the Wailing Wall, and on the following day the Arabs held a counter demonstration. From 23rd to 29th August murderous attacks were made on Jews in various parts of the country. The most violent attacks were those against the old established Jewish communities at Hebron and Safad; there were also attacks in Jerusalem and Jaffa and against several Jewish rural settlements. There was little retaliation by Jews, of whom 133 were killed and 339 wounded. Order was restored with the help of British troops rushed up from Egypt; 116 Arabs were killed and 232 wounded, mostly by troops and police.”
“The breach between the two races was widened by the events of 1928-1929, first by the emergence of the religious factor and then by the outbreak of murder and pillage. Reciprocal boycotts of Arab and Jewish trade were organized. All possibility of cooperation, even in the economic field, was eliminated for some time to come and the High Commissioner, returning in haste to Palestine after the outbreak of the disturbances, issued a proclamation announcing the suspension of discussions on the constitutional issue.”
“As it was felt necessary that an Arab body should represent the Arab case in an enquiry into the cause of the disorders, Government recognized the Arab Executive Committee for the purpose.”
October-December, 1929
“A Commission of Inquiry under Sir Walter Shaw visited Palestine and reported, in March, 1930*, that "the Arab-feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future" was the fundamental cause of the outbreak. The findings were very similar to those of the Haycraft.”
You see, there is a long history of hostilities. Davidbena ( talk) 19:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am turning to you for your unbiased and professional opinion about an edit on this article which concerns the archaeological site, Emmaus Nicopolis, a place in Israel, and where I have suggested a more neutral edit so as to read: "The site today is inside Canada Park and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada," as opposed to the current edit that reads: "The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." As it stands, people who espouse to the view that "Israel is an illegal occupant" have joined in on the Talk-Page discussion to voice their general disapproval at implying that the archaeological site is in Israel, while Jewish participants (including myself) have wanted to omit the words "West Bank" in the article, that is to say, to keep it neutral, without mentioning Israel, neither the West Bank. What do you think we should do with respect to this edit? Can you give your advice on how we ought to proceed and to reach a compromise? Simply put, is it wise to mention areas now fully under Jewish legal control and jurisdiction as only having been held by the Arab Legion of Jordan from 1948-1967, in other words, what some call the "West Bank", and with no mention of Israel? Emmaus is situated in the very center of Israel, the heart of Israel. In government circles, there is no discussion at all, no dialogue, to make the place negotiable for a return under Arab-rule or hegemony, since "Area C" in the Oslo II Accords (where the site is located) is clearly defined as remaining under "full Israeli civil and security control." It's non-negotiable. Any emphasis on "West-Bank" as being the location of this place would, in my mind, conjure-up an editor who wants to relive the past, but forget the present status of the place. A neutral edit, I think, would avoid any misconceptions about the current status of the place.
Davidbena (
talk)
00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Collapsing all comments beyond the nom, since the debate is pretty long -
Tigraan
Click here to contact me
15:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
Keep West Bank for the simple reason that it's in the West Bank (not in no-man's land and not in Israel). Like I said to David in the thread above, there's no problem with an additional sentence mentioning that it's in Area C of the West Bank and what that entails i.e. Israeli military and civil control. This has nothing to do with making an archaeological site a political football. If this article were to be nominated as a GA, A or FA-class, one would think that the geographic facts of the site's current location and status would be a basic requirement. But yes it's really a shame that everything with the slightest relation to the I/P conflict becomes an exhaustive shit-show that drains editors' time. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 17:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep West Bank As stated in the rules, WP:NPoV doesn't mean 1 minute for Hitler and 1 minute for the Jews. This reminds that the pov's have to be weighted according to their relevance and legitimacy.
Let's just say that we keep the words "West Bank." As far as country status is concerned, anyone reading this article from abroad and who might wish to visit this archaeological site in the "West Bank," where will he go to find the "West Bank Embassy" in his own country to receive a visa to visit the place? Who is the President or Prime-Minister or King of the "West Bank" (and, for that matter, what is his legal title withal!?) so that a person who wishes to write him might be able to do so, or send him an embassage to represent their own nation? Of course, this is all said in jest, but it underscores the point that I want to make, and that is Israel is a major contender here, in all that concerns Emmaus Nicopolis, and we, as good editors on this noble venue, should be willing to uphold the policies of Wikipedia and accord due weight WP:Weight in our recognition that Israel controls the country, and cannot be slighted by the editorial of POV-pushing editors. There is no reason to expunge this fact. Davidbena ( talk) 20:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep "West Bank" in the description because that's where it is. No other reason is needed. The description "Canada Park" is correct but insufficient as Canada Park straddles the Green Line and it matters which side this point is on. A correct precise description would be "in the part of Canada Park that lies in the West Bank". Zero talk 22:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I can still see that our friends are repeating old arguments. I have already agreed to let "West Bank" stand, but that we ought to also mention its current administrative status, namely: "The site is in the Israeli-controlled West-Bank, near the Latrun Monastery." This will give some balance to the whole picture, and avoid the appearance of bias (especially when the vast majority of Israelis see the place as de facto annexation, and they, too, can present their own Reliable Sources). As for the accusation that I have been "canvassing," I wish to remind our friend that this page, with the sub-title: "Request for Comment," is still pending, and therefore requesting an opinion here is within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 13:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Keep West Bank. Not a word more. This is a lead, the description is precise and a commonplace, and if someone wants to tinker with it, that can go in the relevant section below, on the post 1967 period. I might add that a Zochrot poll of park visitors revealed that 75% of the visitors were laboring under the false impression that the park was in Israel, all the more reason to get this datum in. Nishidani ( talk) 14:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Davidbena, from the Palestinian perspective, saying "Israeli-controlled West Bank" would probably be an NPOV violation, just like calling it "Israeli-controlled Palestine" would be an NPOV violation from the Israeli perspective. What I am sensing, is that the following may be mutually acceptable:
This way, the text remains acceptably neutral to all parties, yet factual with regard to geographic location and geopolitical status. The reader interested in further exploration of the West Bank and I/P issues can click on any of those links. -- Avi ( talk) 16:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:OpenFuture, here, I could tell you that in Israel’s ancient constitution, drafted by Moses our lawgiver, it explicitly mentions Israel’s settlement in this land in Numbers 33:53, but do not use that as proof. Look rather at the long history of the people of Israel in its own land, during the late Bronze Age until the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, during the period of Roman and Byzantine conquest. Still, if that isn’t sufficient proof, look at Jewish immigration to Palestine throughout the long period of foreign rulers in the country. Then, look at the history of modern warfare (from 1948 – 1967) and consider the military exploits of the people of Israel (the IDF) to ensure its freedom of access to all places in the ancestral borders of the Land of Israel. It would be quite easy to provide you with the references in books (published by the Israeli Government) showing Israeli legislation to the effect of its having inherited the land tenure laws (tabu) from the British and how it has implemented these laws in its hold of territories acquired through war, but this will be no more than a vain effort to convince you of Israel's legal hold of the land of its ancestors. Be well. I have no more to say here. Davidbena ( talk) 17:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Getting back to the matter at hand, Nishidani has a point. While "Area C" is factually correct, it may open up a can of worms wherein every individual location in the West Bank is going to be "decorated" with its area. So for geographic purposes, perhaps "Area C" can be left out. Davidbena's main concern seems to be the lack of any indication that this area is under Israeli control, which I believe is fact (whether a desired or reviled fact may depend on one's point of view of course). Whereas most others with an alternative perspective feel that David's edits may give more weight to the POV that the West Bank is Israel proper, which, at this point, is not accepted by most of the world, and should not be Wiki's POV. Perhaps we can compromise as so. The lede remains something like "The site today is in the West Bank, near Canada Park." Later on in the article, we have the history section end something like this: "However it was conquered by Israeli forces during the Six Day War of 1967, and its mixed Muslim and Christian Arab population left. The area, similar to nearby Canada Park, remains under Israeli control". Or instead "part of Area C" or something like that. This way, we have the factual statement of the control in the article, but separated from the location, so we finesse Nishidani's concern about rampant re-statement of various "West Bank" entries to frame one side or the other. Would that achieve consensus, perhaps? -- Avi ( talk) 05:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
|