Talk:Huwara

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 13 September 2007 by reviewer Melsaran (talk · contribs).

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

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.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Jewish etymology

Needs expansion with the name of the village and the origin of its original inhabitants in 500-300bce who were Jewish. Salandarianflag (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?? You better bring some WP:RS for that, Cheers Huldra (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endless vandalism

There is no, and never has been a state of Palestine. All references to this on this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonelbutt (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we apply a restriction to this article which would prevent the endless vandalism? Misha Wolf (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that you call "endless vandalism, was the changing of the phrase "Jordanian Rule" to "Jordanain occupation". Having the article refer to a period of "Jordaian rule" followed by a period of "Israeli occupation violates WP:NPOV. My edit sought to restore that neutrality. Jordan and Israel should either both be described as "rulers" or both as "occupiers". My edit would be more accurate and consistent, yet you have removed it repeatedly and wrongly labeled it as vandalism. Please fix thus. Thanks. 2601:240:CC00:1150:7998:5F0F:BCCE:F057 (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely wrong. The article Jordanian annexation of the West Bank exists despite repeated attempts to change it to occupation. There was no UN resolution against it as is the case for Israel or Russia currently. Jordan held it in trust for Palestinians and indeed handed its rights over to them in 1988. There is no NPOV violation and nothing to fix. Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just pulled the following from your talk page. It agrees with me and contradicts what you are saying now. You were right then, and you are wrong now. Please fix the WP:NPOV violation. Thx

"@Zarcademan123456: The Israeli annexation of the Golan is not internationally recognized so it continues to be considered as occupied. The article Jordanian annexation of the West Bank could equally be called the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. The article title is not really the deciding factor in these things, you should read the article, it refers to the Jordanian occupation in the very first line and goes on to explain that the annexation was not recognized.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply" 2601:240:CC00:1150:7998:5F0F:BCCE:F057 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jordanian annexation of the West Bank could equally be called the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank It could be but it isn't? And all attempts to rename it are rejected as I said above. So nothing to fix. The Golan annexation is not recognized and there is a UN resolution to that effect so it is considered still as occupied. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument then was that the title of that article was not the deciding factor. Now your argument is that the title of that article is the only deciding factor even though the corpus of that article makes clear that the Jordanian annexation was indeed an occupation. In fact that is the precise point you made in 2020 and now seek to disclaim. What are your sources that Jordan was not an occupying force? I've never heard anybody try to make that argument before, and it's not what you said three years ago when you acknowledged the fact of the Jordanian occupation. I don't think you can make that argument stand here and now, and I don't see how denying prior Jordanian occcupation of Huwara adds value to this article. Please fix the WP:NPOV violation. Thank you. 2601:240:CC00:1150:7998:5F0F:BCCE:F057 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument then was that the title of that article was not the deciding factor. Now your argument is that the title of that article is the only deciding factor That's not my argument. No NPOV violation to fix.

As per the article (which you obviously have not read) "Military occupation concluded on 2 November 1949 via promulgation of the Law Amending Public Administration Law in Palestine whereby the laws of Palestine were declared to remain applicable." sourced to Quigley.

So we are done here, unless you have an equally reliable source saying the opposite. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly we are not done here yet. First, your angry ad hominem attack against me expressing your (incorrect) conviction that I had not read the article we are discussing was entirely inappropriate. Certainly by now you regret your intemperance; I accept your apology. As to your argument, your own source also supports me. Quigley understands that the 1949 "declaration" of the end of Jordanian military occupation was a unilateral Hasehemite declaration that was rejected almost unanimously by the international community which never recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the territories in dispute here. Here is Quigley in his own words: "On November 2, 1949, military rule was declared to be at an end by promulgation of the Law Amending Public Administration Law in Palestine. Under this law, King Abdullah assumed for Jordan the powers previously exercised by Britain as mandatory, and the laws of Palestine were declared to remain applicable. Thus, in the West Bank Jordan viewed itself as playing a role similar to that being assumed by Egypt in Gaza." Nevertheless, other than Great Britain and Pakistan, not a single country accepted this unilateral Jordanian declaration. All nations understood then, as they understand today, that Jordan -- not having sovereignty of the territory, was in fact occupying it. I'm afraid you misunderstand your own source. 2601:240:CC00:1150:7998:5F0F:BCCE:F057 (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely done here. There is an article for the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, whereas the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank is a redirect. Selfstudier (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. So three years ago you acknowledged Jordanian occupation in clear written Enlgish, and today you deny writing the words you wrote. To attempt to support your point you deliberately mmsquoted Quigley. You directed a nasty ad hominem attack against, and you lied to me about your prior writings. If you cannot find support for your anti-Jewish position in Quigley, you won't find it anywhere. He's an anti-Jewish bigot. I believe you are, too. 2601:240:CC00:1150:BC54:108E:E56E:29F2 (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It should be noted that during the violent revenge assault on the innocent Arab civilians of Huwara by extremist Jewish settlers, Israeli Soldiers came to the rescue of elderly and others whose homes were set ablaze.

The name "Huwara" is often used by those protesting against radical changes to Israel's judicial system, following the pogrom type of attack. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets demonstrating against the attempt of the Netanyahu government to "reform" the country's judicial system. They wish to maintain Israel's Democracy and oppose the idea of turning the Jewish State into a Dictatorship with a weakened judicial branch. Therefore they chant towards riot police: "איפה הייתם בחווארה" or "where have you been in Huwara" suggesting that the settlers who attacked the Arabs were not met with such an intense police presence. 70.16.142.63 (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Unclear what edit is required. No sources provided. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2023 (2)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is no "State of Palestine". Huwara is located either in "Samaria" or the "disputed territory." Please make this correction. Many thanks. 2600:4040:926E:E300:705B:AFB2:9F51:5A84 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV

@Poliocretes: Not only does your reversion displays "mocking" in Wikipedia voice, but also implies, from Wikipedia perspective, that demolishing that Pizzeria was a "response". This is POV in blatant terms and will not remain on this article. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: Neutrality means displaying the different opinions reflected in our sources, not removing facts which we feel are inconvenient to one party or another. All the sources provided expressly describe the ad as mocking and describe the demolition as a response. Not a single source described the ad as "about" the hostage, which obfuscates rather than clarifies what the event is about. Poliocretes (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove anything, I rephrased to give attribution and avoid talking in Wikipedia voice, which you reverted with no good reason. Give attribution to this point of view so that it is not reflected in Wikipedia voice, this is per MOS:LABEL. It is not that difficult nor outrageous. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli official calls for "erasure" of Huwara

on Feb 22, 2023 israel finance Minister Bazalel Smotritch said

"“I think the village of Hawara needs to be erased. I think that the state of Israel needs to do it. God forbid that regular people should do it,”

In light of all the settler violence in the west bank, as well as the fact that he is an administrator of the west bank. I think this should be added to the article.

source vap (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zvi Sukkot provocation

From the "News Roundup 6th of october 2023" by JStreet:

A 19-year-old Palestinian was shot and killed in the early hours of Friday in the West Bank town of Hawara. The IDF said the man was shot after throwing a large rock towards an Israeli vehicle, though the Palestinian Health Ministry claims he was shot by a Jewish settler. The clashes began when a group of Israelis, including far-right lawmaker Zvi Sukkot, arrived in Hawara to set up a Sukkah in response to a shooting by a Palestinian at an Israeli vehicle.

https://jstreet.org/news-roundups/news-roundup-for-october-6-2023/

Haaretz original source: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-06/ty-article/.premium/one-palestinian-killed-after-settlers-enter-west-bank-town-of-hawara-to-set-up-sukkah/0000018b-0200-df89-a7bb-9e691b0f0000

It seems this provokation meant parts of the Gaza Division of the IDF had to be deployed to Hawara in order to protect Zvi Sukkot, thus leaving the border open for the attacks on 7th of october 2023 / Shemini Azeret/Simchat Torah.

The article should be included. Perhaps somebody could check Israeli sources whether parts of the Gaza Division indeed were redeployed? Even if not, it is IMO important to clarify the rumour. --2003:C8:473B:3400:B84C:75E9:FEBE:6E30 (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]