Jump to content

Talk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

United Nations

The text below was reverted from the article by No More Mr Nice Guy. He asked for secondary sources. The Government of Jordan considered it important enough to sumbit to the ICJ [1] (see page 12).

When Israel attacked the territory in the 1966 Samu Incident, the United Nations issued a resolution describing the area as the "territory of Jordan".[1]

Per the current ARBPIA ruling, we need consensus before this can be readded.

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You have to find secondary WP:RS that discuss it to put it on proper context.--Shrike (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Shrike. It not only needs a secondary source to explain what it means, it needs a secondary source to explain its significance. Moreover, it is UNDUE for the lead, even if one time the UN said something that Jordan interpreted as making the territory theirs.
Feels like an attempt to influence the RfC above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Shrike and NMMNG are both misunderstanding the rules about primary sources. There are tons of articles which cite Security Council resolutions directly and no rule against it. Moreover, SC resolutions (as creators of international law) have always been regarded as satisfying DUE assuming they are relevant. However, I think this shouldn't be in the lead and its relevance should be given in terms of what Jordan made of it. I suggest that somewhere later in the article, Jordan's position as provided by the ICJ submission should be spelt out more fully. Zerotalk 02:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, see WP:PRIMARY: primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. El_C 02:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Exactly and I think there is case of such "misuse"--Shrike (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
And this misuse pertains to...? El_C 09:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The misuse pertains to the fact that UN never recognized the annexation.And the misuse of primary source tries to show that it was indeed recognized.--Shrike (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
You keep repeating "UN never recognized the annexation" but you never justified the relevance of that. Why should the UN have recognised it and what examples can you provide of the UN recognizing an annexation? If you are describing a nonexistent process, your objection is empty. Your second sentence doesn't make sense to me; you have to argue on the basis of policy. Zerotalk 11:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The policy is WP:RS and WP:OR if this fact is important you surely will have no problem to find a secondary sources that discuss it.--Shrike (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it was completely obvious that both Shrike and I were talking in the context of the specific edit using a primary source to make a claim in the lead, not that there's a Wikipedia-wide ban on primary sources. But hey, Zero got his traditional dig in and the text is not in the lead so I'll call that a win-win. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Shrike: You ignored Zero's key comment and question: "Why should the UN have recognised it and what examples can you provide of the UN recognizing an annexation?". I assume therefore that you are unable to answer this challenge. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ wikisource:United Nations Security Council Resolution 228

Protected edit request on 12 April 2017

Going through Special:DoubleRedirects and trying to get uneditable redirects fixed (in this case, to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank or to whatever the merge discussion leads to). Booyahhayoob (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(Tried posting this to Jordanian rule of the West Bank's talk page, in case there's any confusion.) Booyahhayoob (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Booyahhayoob, since it was Drmies who protected Jordanian rule of the West Bank, perhaps you should ask him to fix the redir, Huldra (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Drmies; your attention is needed...Huldra (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 Not done @Booyahhayoob: this does not appear to be a double redirect, should it become one feel free to reactivate this request with details. — xaosflux Talk 01:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Don't worry, Neil got it done :P Booyahhayoob (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Move request

I propose that this article be moved to Jordanian occupation of the West Bank per this BBC article. If a single BBC citation is good enough to have a paragraph posted at the top of every Jewish town/village in Judea and Samaria claiming that they are illegal, then surely it is also good enough to state correctly that Jordan occupied the West Bank.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.68.164.77 (talk • contribs)

There was a lengthy discussion over that and there is a consensus for this name. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You should propose move discussion--Shrike (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
No, wrong advice. A move discussion was held recently and closed with a decision. It is much too soon to start a new one. Zerotalk 18:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Typo on first page

Fifth paragraph from the top:

"After Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War, the Palestinians there remained Jordanian citizens until Jordan decided to renounce claims and severe administrative ties with the territory in 1989."

Where it says "severe", it should be "sever".

Fixed. Thank you for finding and letting us know about the error. --Chewings72 (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Mount of Olives cemetery desecration

"and it was said that some gravestones from the Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives had been used to build latrines for a nearby Jordanian army barracks." This is quite an understatement. The Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives suffered extensive destruction in the years of the Jordanian occupation, as did the ancient Jewish cemetery of Hebron. Both were surveyed extensively by the Israeli Committee to Examine the Desecration of Cemeteries on the Mount of Olives and in Hebron (הועדה לבדיקת חילול בתי-עלמין בהר זיתים וחברון). Following is my translation of its findings, published in October of that year (see page 23): "1) Extent of damage A) The Jewish Cemetery at the Mount of Olives was desecrated and destroyed almost entirely. The number of graves and headstones damaged is close to 38,000, i.e. a damage rate of 70-80%. B) Acts of desecration most likely started during the war, but reached a peak in their size and extent in the end of 1961 and 1962 with the building of the InterContinental hotel and the paving of the road leading to it. In this period were also built the camps and military bases of the Arab Legion which used headstones for building material and fortification. C) Tens and possibly hundreds of buildings in Arab Jerusalem, its neighborhoods, outskirts, as well as other settlement points in the West Bank (Jericho)[sic] are built from headstones taken from the cemetery at the Mount of Olives. D) It can be assumed that these stones were used not only in private buildings, but also in the erection of government offices and other public buildings. E) The Jordanian army leadership used headstones and marble plates that were taken from the graves for the purpose of building and fortifying military bases and posts for the Legion in the region of Jerusalem. F) The committee has discovered eight such military posts: al-Eizariya base; the base on Mount Zion; a mortar battery at Ras al-Amud; a recoilless gun battery in the Abu Tor road; The police station at Ras al-Amud; the fortifications at the Tower of David; a post at the American Colony; a shelter at Batei Mahse; G) Although the committee has visited all military camps in Jordanian Jerusalem, the possibility can not be ruled out that headstones are to be found in other military sites.

2) Typical manner of desecration and destruction A) Roads - The Jordanians paved three roads that caused different levels of damage to the cemetery. The road to the InterContinental hotel passes in its entirety within the cemetery and over the graves. As a results of its paving hundreds of graves were completely destroyed and others were covered by batteries of rocks and dirt, and others were opened and exposed. The Jerusalem-Jericho road up to the Bethlehem junction was expanded into a two-way road. This expansion destroyed hundreds of graves on each side of the road. A third road, slimmer, was paved to the village of Silwad, and it too passes at its start next to the Tomb of Absalom, on the cemetery grounds. B) Parking lot and buildings within the cemetery grounds - The Jordanians designated a large area within the ancient cemetery for a spacious parking lot. On this ground is a gas station in its final stage of construction. Next to the Panorama hotel, in the Tzur area, a two-story building was erect which foundations stand on graves that were exposed. C) Buildings containing headstones within the mountain area - In five residential buildings on the mountain area were found headstones and headstone parts that were used in rooms, doorways, ceilings, yards and latrines, as well as constructions that served as stables, sheep pens and chicken coops. D) Desecrated headstones - The reoccurring image across the cemetery on the Mountain of Olives is that of thousands of shattered headstones showing different levels of destruction. E)Open and exposed graves - The destruction of graves has caused hundreds of them to be left open and exposed; some were used by the Jordanians as communication channels, trenches and shelters. Human bones are occasionally discovered having supposedly been tossed on the ground. F) Destruction of fences and utility roads - Most fences and terraces that separated different lots were destroyed as well as inner utility roads. G) General desolation - The entire area is neglected, ruined and desolate. Thorn and thistle have grown among the graves, between the graves and on them were planted trees. At certain points in the cemetery are large heaps of garbage and cattle dung. H) Legion camps and posts - The Jordanians employed a wide use of the headstones and their parts in military facilities. Headstones were used in the building of barracks, headquarters, storehouses and offices. As well as paving paths, stairs, walls, latrines and other facilities. In gun and mortar positions, bunkers, shelters and ammunition stores, watch towers, defense walls, and other fortifications were used headstones and parts thereof. The masons did not bother to removed the inscriptions and in case these were erased or blurred it was surely the result of their use and wear."

I do apologize for the lengthy post, but I feel most of it was relevant. I refrained from posting it again in the talk page of Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetery and instead left a link to this page. Kind regards --144.178.29.89 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I also added a reference to this page on the talk page of Seven Arches Hotel, which likewise lacks information. Kind regards --144.178.29.89 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Recognition by Pakistan

In the light of "Pakistan is often claimed to have recognized Jordan's annexation too, but this is dubious." (5th paragraph of Section 2.1 Jordanian control: Annexation) the "Recognition of Jordan's declaration of annexation was only granted by the United Kingdom, Iraq and Pakistan." (last sentence in the 2nd paragraph of the introduction) "The annexation of these territories was recognized only by Pakistan, Iraq and the United Kingdom." (last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of #3.2 Aftermath: Jordanian disengagement) need editing. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AWest_Bank%2FArchive_1#Pakistan.

The link to P. R. Kumaraswamy (March 2000). "Beyond the Veil: Israel-Pakistan Relations" (PDF). Tel Aviv, Israel: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University - (currently reference 33, the 2nd following "Pakistan is often claimed ...") is broken and should be replaced by https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/94527/2000-03_(FILE)1190278291.pdf.

Since I'm prevented from editing the article someone else needs to do so. Mcljlm (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Recognition by USSR

West Bank as part of Jordan is designated in all soviet maps and all soviet reference books. See this map of 1980 for example: [2] -- Nicolay Sidorov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolay Sidorov (talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

“Annexation” or “occupation”

This is referred to as an annexation while the Israeli annexation of the Golan is referred to as an “occupation” Both offer full citizenship, both faced limited recognition internationally (both even were recognized by one member of the UN Security Council), and both faced push back against sovereignty from parts of their respective populations (however, both were not conquered from a previous sovereign, as the West Bank had no sovereign while Golan did). I propose the name of this article changed to “occupation” or the Israeli occupation of the Golan henceforth be referred to as an “annexation” given the similarities between the situations. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move to any other specific title, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 03:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Jordanian annexation of the West Bank → Jordanian occupation of the West Bank – This is referred to as an annexation while the Israeli annexation of the Golan is referred to as an “occupation”. Both offer full citizenship, both faced limited recognition internationally (both even were recognized by one member of the UN Security Council), and both faced push back against sovereignty from parts of their respective populations (however, both were not conquered from a previous sovereign, as the West Bank had no sovereign while Golan did; if this is relevant though, then the current Israeli occupation of east Jerusalem ought to be characterized as an annexation (wouldn’t apply to the rest of the West Bank given Israel’s lack of claim at this moment to the area). I propose the name of this article be changed to “occupation” or the Israeli occupation of the Golan henceforth be referred to as an “annexation” given the similarities between the situations. This would harmonize terminology, as behooves any encyclopedia. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 18:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is now a historical event rather than anything currently relevant, I see little to be gained by a page move at this point. Annexation can follow occupation, whether it is generally accepted is another matter. See Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. As an aside, "not conquered from a previous sovereign" is an Israeli talking point of dubious legal value and along with the additional comments about the WB/EJ rather leads me to believe that this proposal is not really intended as an improvement.Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You make a very good point regarding the Russian annexation of the Crimea. That being the case, would you agree that Israel’s rule over the Golan would be more accurately characterized as an “annexation” and no longer an “occupation”? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there should be an article called Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem or Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, what do you think?Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
No, there should not be an article called the annexation, we cover the legal act at Jerusalem Law. The Israeli annexations were ruled null and void by the UNSC and the sourcing shows that they are referred to by super-wide margins as occupations. Wikipedia does not operate on feelings, the sources rule the day here. I dont really oppose moving this to occupation, but the idea that we should use a super-minority view of the status of either EJ or the Golan because of the title of this article is a non-starter. nableezy - 16:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Quite. I wasn't being serious:) Also Golan Heights Law. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok...just so I understand, what is the difference between the Jordanian rule over the West Bank and the Israel rule over the Golan...why should they be characterized differently?? Selfstudier, you also avoided my question... Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You are saying they are because you are just reading titles. Read the articles.Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Firstly, annexation is too technical a term for an article about Jordan's 20-year presence in the West Bank. Secondly, there can already be found a sub-heading in this article which specifically analyses the annexation aspect, whilst the article itself makes plain that annexation was a contested move on the part of Jordan. Any and all technical detail about the hows, whys and wherefores regarding the annexation, which remained controversial, should be discussed in that sub-heading. As far as the Crimea article is concerned, there should be a difference in nomenclature in a situation where the occupier is administering to a territory that contains its own nationals, and who do not seek independence from the motherland. The situation would be different of course should the Crimean Tatar diaspora decide to ingather itself. Havradim (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Does appear to be the common name in any case. Especially as it no longer applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Israeli/Zionist sources have always wanted to call the Jordanian era (1948-1967) as the Jordanian occupation, as that make their own Israeli occupation just appear to follow a "tradition". Nothing could be more false: the Jordanians did not have an apartheid system (which most non-Israeli now commonly call the system on the West Bank). Neither did the Jordanians confiscate a 1/3 of the area for the sole use by people not from the West Bank. Finally; Jordan formally occupied it for 2 years (1948-1950), then annexed it for the next 17 years (1950-1967). But you want those 2 years to "trump" the 17 year? Also, this was discussed at length here, please read that discussion before you vote, Huldra (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it is this move request that needs to be read? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank/Archive_3#Requested_move_23_March_2017 Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
It is not only about the two years; Jordan's control over the West Bank, while something more than belligerent occupation, was something less than full legal control. Jordan's role could be most accurately described as "trustee-occupier", which would still be considered an occupation, so the proposed title would be technically correct, and better than the current title, which should be referring to the act of 1950 only. Havradim (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see this move as being about the above analogy, and making it so seems pointy. The article is about the period of time that Jordan controlled the West Bank. Only for part of that time was the territory annexed, and this article is about the whole time period, not the act of annexation. Havradim (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Jordanian and the Israeli cases are in no way similar. There was a popular Palestinian opinion in favor of Jordanian annexation. Jordan’s annexation may have indeed been unrecognized but it did not contravene international law. And finally Jordan transferred its citizenship and treated the Palestinians equally. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The word 'occupation' has a legal meaning. After the armistice in 1949, Jordanian-controlled territory to the east of the Green Line was no more considered 'occupied' than Israeli-controlled territory to the west of it. The topic of this article is the attempt by Jordan to annex the West Bank specifically, which was considered illegitmate, as was the Israeli attempt to annex West Jerusalem. Territories taken by Israel in 1967 are considered to be occupied. Titles for articles should reflect what sources say. Personal opinions about equivalence are irrelevant.     ←   ZScarpia   17:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Let us not mix in post-1967 events, since the discussion is about pre-1967. A distinction must be made between much of the territory west of the Green Line, which was allocated to the Jews (Zionists) under the partition plan, and all of the territory east of the Green Line that was occupied by Jordan; the latter was supposed to have been allocated to the Palestinian Arabs, not the Jordanians. So it is fair to say that Jordan occupied the lands of West Bank Palestine under their control, while Israel at most could be said to have occupied the extra land not allocated to them that was conquered in the 1948 war. Havradim (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote carefully. The word 'occupation' has a meaning in international law. After the 1949 armistice: Jordanian-controlled territory was not considered 'occupied'; Israeli-controlled territory was not considered 'occupied'; Egyptian-controlled territory was not considered 'occupied'. However, despite the fact that those areas were not considereed 'occupied', that does not mean that they were considered to be the territories of the states concerned, hence the controversy when formal annexations were announced.
The 1948 Arab–Israeli War article: "As a result of the war, the State of Israel controlled the area that UN General Assembly Resolution 181 had recommended for the proposed Jewish state, as well as almost 60-percent of the area of Arab state proposed by the 1947 Partition Plan." So Israel, was in control of most of what was supposed to have been an 'Arab' state under the partition plan. In your opinion, the West Bank was occupied, but the 60% of what should have been an Arab state which was controlled by Israel wasn't?
"A distinction must be made between much of the territory west of the Green Line, which was allocated to the Jews (Zionists) under the partition plan." A digression, but the partition plan divided Palestine into nominally 'Jewish' and 'Arab' areas. However, if you count Bedouin, half of the population of the 'Jewish' area was Arab. The Arab residents were supposed to have equal rights. Therefore, it is misleading to say that the partition plan "allocated" the area to the Jews.
    ←   ZScarpia   13:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Let us not bicker about semantics; allocated or not, you admit yourself that the plan divided Palestine into nominally 'Jewish' and 'Arab' areas. I suggest you also read carefully what I wrote above Israel at most could be said to have occupied the extra land not allocated to them that was conquered in the 1948 war. From where in those words do you conclude that I believe Israel not to be an occupier? All of this is a digression to the discussion at hand. Havradim (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I didn't notice that you'd also used the word 'occupied' in relation to Israel. However, your use of the words 'at most' is a bit peculiar (and also open to debate). Both Israel and Jordan were engaged on a land grab and Israel managed to snatch the larger share. From the Arab point of view, of course, the Zionists were the latest in a chain of 'occupiers', continuing on from the Crusaders, Ottomans, French and British, with League of Nations and UN window dressing. You haven't addressed my point that the word 'occupied' has a legal meaning. It differentiates the situation in Palestine pre and post 1967.     ←   ZScarpia   08:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I addressed it earlier in this thread, where I said that Jordan's situation vis a vis the West Bank was far from being one of full legal control, but could be more accurately described as being one of a trustee-occupier; and please refrain from opening up a full-blown Israel Palestine debate, which this is not the place for, and keep this discussion on the Jordanian West Bank. You may wish to create a separate article about the lands Israel occupied in 1948 outside of the UN mandate, but I don't know if a cohesive topic can be built around those from the sources. Havradim (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The personal opinions of me, you or any other editor on how Jordanian control of the West Bank could most accurately be described are irrelevant. The reason that the post-1967 position comes up is that, by describing the period of Jordanian control as occupation, you're טequating it to the later period of Israeli control, which, from a legal point of view, is incorrect. Your comment about "full legal control" misses the point. Viewed in legal terms, the West Bank was not under occupation prior to 1967; afterwards it was. If you want to describe Jordanian control as a trustee-occupation, produce evidence that that's a neutral representation of how sources describe it.     ←   ZScarpia   13:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The personal opinions of me, you or any other editor on how Jordanian control of the West Bank could most accurately be described are irrelevant. It is not my opinion; I provided a source above, and your attempt to portray it as such is disingenuous. Your comment about "full legal control" misses the point. Viewed in legal terms, the West Bank was not under occupation prior to 1967 Your words contradict themselves. If it was anything less than legal, then characterising it as an occupation is valid, and we are searching for a valid title for this article. In the lede it states, "Recognition of Jordan's declaration of annexation was only granted by the United Kingdom, Iraq and Pakistan". I do not think that we should be naming this article based upon the "opinion" of 3 nations. Viewed in legal terms, the West Bank was not under occupation prior to 1967; afterwards it was. I asked you to quit muddying the water by introducing ancillary information to this discussion, but you are projecting a tendency to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Havradim (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Havradim: I don't understand your logic. Jordan grabbed the West Bank (which was supposed to go the Arab state), while Israel grabbed eg Galilee, with Nazareth etc (which was also supposed to go to the Arab state). Do you want an article called Israels occupation of Galilee?...because that was as much an occupation as the Jordanian one. The argument that the annexation was accepted bt only 3 nations is really moot: Legally Jordan had as much right to the West Bank, as Israel had to, say, Nazareth. The fact that fewer countries accepted Jordanian rule (over the West Bank) than accepted Israels rule over Galilee, only shows you who had the most friends in the world.. Huldra (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not against an article, but it would have to include all the extra-partition territory, not just the Galilee, and the usual requirements of notability for the topic would need to be met. Havradim (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The argument cannot be resolved in legal terms. It is all bound up with with what the UN continues to refer to as the Question of Palestine. Since the legal status of the Palestine that was there at Mandate termination has never been conclusively determined, then it follows that all the subsequent events have also not been conclusively determined, for they depend on the first. The ICJ (in the wall judgement) decided that post 67 was an occupation subject to Geneva4, ",there being no need for an enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories." Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't care what the ICJ said about post 67 because this discussion is solely about pre 67 and how to name this article, not any other. Havradim (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
And I have just told you that there is no "legal" answer to that question. To put it another way, every title is as likely to be wrong as every other title (legally speaking). Which is why I said at the outset, there is little to be gained from a page move and nothing that you have said (and you have said a lot) has changed my opinion one whit.Selfstudier (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
A suggestion: recommend a new title which substitutes 'rule' or 'control' for 'occupation'.     ←   ZScarpia   19:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps, I am still quite interested to hear views from other editors on this one, though.Selfstudier (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Good idea; how about Jordanian rule in the West Bank. Havradim (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Jordanian rule in the West Bank, (or Jordanian rule of the West Bank?) would be my first choice, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
See French rule in Algeria and British rule in Burma. I also see no problem with the former title Jordanian West Bank, similar to British Ceylon. Havradim (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Jordanian West Bank would also be a good choice (I like short article names), Huldra (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
However it finally ends up, it really ought to be made clear that a title per se does not set a precedent for any other article title so that the type of argument initially made here (re the Golan) is simply inapplicable for the simple reason that the facts and circumstances are different. In other words, arguments along the lines of "this one is an occupation/annex/rule/whatever, so this other one one must be as well" are just invalid except in the unlikely event of the circumstances being identical.Selfstudier (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Fine by me. Would just have to figure out how to work it into the first sentence.     ←   ZScarpia   21:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
How about this for starters:

Jordan (formerly Transjordan) ruled the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. During the war, Jordan's Arab Legion took control of territory on the western side of the Jordan River, including the cities of Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron, Nablus and eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City. Following the end of hostilities, the area under Jordanian control became known as the West Bank.

Talk of Jordanian rule is already present in the succeeding paragraph, and the all-important annexation is mentioned there too. Havradim (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a significant improvement on the way it reads at the moment.     ←   ZScarpia   21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose since it feels like this is an attempt to mirror the allegations against Israel. "Israeli Occupation" -> "Jordanian Occupation". The question should be what is the article about. There's the annexation itself in 1950 and there's the entire 19 years under Jordanian rule. A better title would probably be something like "West Bank under Jordanian rule".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree with changing it to occupation. And while I am not that convinced about annexation either, it is true that Jordan attempted an annex (to extend sovereignty over the territory). They may actually have undone themselves because the 24 April 1950 resolution, as well as the "one state" part, also included a (very confusing) part about a future settlement in Palestine. It is entirely reasonable to ask why, if Israel could declare a state on Palestine, couldn't Jordan do the same? Perhaps there are some issues with the article itself (for instance it has a section Jordanian control that then has a subsection Jordanian control (duh) along with a subsection Annexation. Maybe if we fixed up the article a bit, it might become more clear as to what it ought be titled.Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems that "occupation" will not be achieving consensus (I also no longer consider it a viable option); could someone more senior here adjust or redirect this discussion to one or more of the other suggestions mentioned above? Annexation is not a good name for this article regardless, that seems almost certain. Havradim (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Not too clear about the bureaucracy, Zarc can withdraw it if he wants to, I think, by deleting the tags so it doesn't show up any more as a live RFC, leaving it instead as a discussion. Then we could either have a new RFC or continue the discussion.(a new RFC might get confusing if there is more than one, or several choices). Another idea might be to keep this article but confine its scope to the annexation and events around it, only. The rest of it can sit in the WB article.Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Possibly one of the reasons for the confusion here is that it was actually an attempted annex of a part of Mandate Palestine, the "West Bank" phrase only coming in as part of that annex process or afterwards.Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
See below section, there are quite a few sources that equate WB with "central Palestine" and even refer to the annexation of central Palestine so that is an alternative, at least it is not referring to the annex of something that wasn't even there to be annexed:)Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This contains a discussion of the different opinions about whether or not it can be said to have been an annexation Selfstudier (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Another idea might be to keep this article but confine its scope to the annexation and events around it, only. The rest of it can sit in the WB article. I would endorse this. It would be keeping with present consensus, and allow for a hashing out of the nature of Jordan's rule which, after all, seems to be the main point of having this article in the first place; it would also allow for the merging of the historical content to West Bank, with some possibly going to Jordan. Havradim (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Problem for me in commenting on which direction to go is that I have a pretty sketchy idea of what the structure of articles around the topic of the West Bank is. Looking back at how the current article developed, it looks as though the intention was for it to cover the whole period of Jordanian rule rather than just the annexation. Therefore we've somehow ended up with a title that doesn't fit the article well rather than an article that developed away from its initial topic. That suggests that the best course would probably be to select a new title rather than pulling material out. In any case, we could solve the immediate problem of an inappropriate title and then figure out afterwards whether it would be a good idea to change the arrangement of articles. Would you like to proceed, either yourself asking editors to comment on one of the suggestions above which no-one has currently raised objections to, or requesting Zarcademan123456 to do something similar?     ←   ZScarpia   15:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes and no, it depends how you like to look at the annexation, as an event (or a short time process) or as a description for the whole time until it was no longer annexed. The situations are not identical obviously but the Jerusalem and Golan annexations (they are similar in that both are contested or not accepted internationally) are dealt with as events and then the rest is in the respective article.Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
My initial agreement with this Rfc was only because I saw "occupation" as a way to reconcile what I thought was the wrong title for this article's content as it presently stands, and the above title suggestions were a valid attempt to correct it; but Selfstudier's idea to make the content fit the title is I think an easier way to achieve same. It makes no difference at all if the annexation was recognised or not because that question itself needs to be the whole focus of this article. At first glance, the only paragraphs to my mind that stand in the way of a coherent title are "Tensions", "Agriculture" etc, and the section "Access to holy sites". It would not be a big job at all to integrate those into West Bank and solve all of the above problems. The harder job would come next, explaining the essence of the annexation in-depth. It doesn't matter how this article started out if the focus might have been wrong to begin with; I think the essence of the Jordanian West Bank is less about the (rather mundane) events that transpired there-in and more about the definition of this time period. This scheme would serve to illustrate that purpose, while the history would not suffer if placed in the general article, where it would fit well. Portions of the history that could clearly be connected to the legal status of Jordanian rule could be retained. I would be interested to hear what Zarcademan123456 has to say about the above, even though it looks as though "occupation" will not be getting off the ground at this point. Havradim (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"West Bank of Jordan"?

Anyone know if there ever was an entity/administrative area called "West Bank of Jordan" or is that just a manner of speaking? Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably not what you're after, but Cisjordan was used as an alternative, general name for the area between the Jordan and Mediterranean, as Transjordan was used for the area to the east of the river, of course. My impression was that the term 'West Bank' came in to use round about the time of the 1949 armistice.     ←   ZScarpia   14:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The Cis and Trans make sense. I asked because the WB dab page has the entry "West Bank of Jordan" (redirect to this article) and calls it an Administrative Area. (at the top of the BB page it says "For administrative area of Jordan 1948–1967" and again to here. Seems a bit misleading on the face of it.Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know when the divisions were actually established (by the early 1960s at least) but the WB was divided into three governorates: Nablus, Al Quds, and Al Khalil. I don't think that WB as a whole was ever an official Jordanian unit, but don't trust my fuzzy memory on this. Zerotalk 00:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The phrase shows up surprisingly often in a Google search. After rooting around, I have come to the conclusion that the phrase means .."West Bank" of Jordan.. (dating from the annex with what is now Jordan being the "East Bank" and as still expressed even now on occasion by Jordanians and Israelis possibly in a propaganda type of way) rather than some unit or entity called "West Bank of Jordan" (of which I can find no evidence anywhere up to now) and this is perhaps where the term "West Bank" on its own originated? If someone finds a source for this interpretation that would be nice, meantime I think I will just change the dab.Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
According to John Quigley (6 September 2010). The Statehood of Palestine: International Law in the Middle East Conflict. Cambridge University Press. pp. 118–. ISBN 978-1-139-49124-2. the area was called "central Palestine" and "denominated by Jordan as the West Bank of the Jordan river",Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Suleiman A. Mourad; Naomi Koltun-Fromm; Bedross Der Matossian (26 October 2018). Routledge Handbook on Jerusalem. Taylor & Francis. pp. 351–. ISBN 978-1-317-38539-4. also refers to "central Palestine", "Jordan ultimately annexed central Palestine, including East Jerusalem"Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I did some searching to try to establish how rule of the West Bank was organised. Except for a reference to a governor of West Jerusalem, I pretty much drew a blank. I suspect that the phrase "administrative area" implies more than the editor intended.
With regard to the usage history of the term "West Bank", the ebook version of Daniel Pipes' "Greater Syria, The History of an Ambition" (1992) says [p80 (91 / 257)]:
"Only in March did he [Abdallah] replace military rule with a civilian authority in the conquered areas. In April, Jordanian nationality was offered to all non-Jewish residents of mandatory Palestine.Just as 'Abdallah had brought Lesser Syrians into the Transjordanian government three decades earlier, he brought Palestinians from the West Bank into the Jordanian cabinet. In May, a cabinet was formed which included three Palestinians in important positions, and a fourth was soon added; a year later, six of eleven ministers came from the West Bank. In June 1949 the name of the kingdom was changed from Transjordan to Jordan. A Jordanian stamp with "Palestine" superimposed was issued in August. Customs and travel restrictions across the Jordan River disappeared in November. 'Abdallah invested in himself all the authority of the British mandatory power in Palestine in December. In March 1950, a royal decree banned the word Palestine from government documents; Transjordan and Palestine were henceforth replaced by the new terms, East Bank and West Bank. Finally, in April 1950, the conquered territories were formally incorporated. Jordanian dinars became the only legal currency on the West Bank in September."
The most salient point there is that, in Jordanian usage, the term West Bank appears to have been applied to the whole of Palestine, not just the area ruled by the Jordanians.
    ←   ZScarpia   10:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
If you are deducing this from the word "Palestine" in the bolded sentence above, remember that Palestine in 1920 meant all of what today comprises Israel and Jordan. The presumptive way to read that sentence is that it was referring to that part of the proposed Arab state (presumably which was going to be named Palestine had same been accepted) which remained in Arab hands. We wouldn't include Jaffa in an article about the West Bank, and certainly not Tel Aviv. If your proof is that, since all of Transjordan, not just the part of it on the actual bank of the Jordan, was refererred to as the bank, so therefore the entire opposite land-mass must be the bank too, that would only be true if Jordan had actually controlled all of the west side as they did the east. Havradim (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
It is not a great idea to analyze the word of Daniel Pipes too closely. Zerotalk 09:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I did feel compelled to check whether the book was written by Richard, the father, rather than Daniel, the son. It was, though, the most detailed of the sources about Jordanian rule which I found.     ←   ZScarpia   09:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Creation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Unification of the Two Banks Leave this one here as well if we maybe start editing the article at any point.Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I think I once offered to change the name to West Bank under Jordanian rule. What do you think?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you proposed that in the just closed PM discussion but it didn't get any traction. Neither did anything else really, although, as I said below there was some support for trimming the article so that it covers only the annexation and the time frame around that with the rest being moved into the WB article. Whatever it is called, we still should describe the event itself and the fact of its non-acceptance internationally. The situation is problematic because the ICJ decided not to address the prior status of territories (we know that it was the Mandate territory and that's it) when they had the chance, saying it wasn't necessary in order to determine the wall question. So there are a variety of views on that (see the pdf link I gave in the PM discussion).Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I read the closure of the previous move request as there being no consensus for renaming the article from "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank" to "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank" specifically. It did look as though there were alternatives which might be acceptable, but the discussion petered out without any explicit proposals being made.     ←   ZScarpia   12:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I haven't suggested it previously, the least troublesome description that I can think of is "administered" or "administration" which sidesteps everything (and would probably get objected to because of that:)Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Suggest it!     ←   ZScarpia   20:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Why? First it was rule, and sources say so, then it was annexed, and sources say so. Not the mention the double standard in comparison with Israeli rule and annexation of territories. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't waste your energies with the "double standard" nonsense, the only commonality is in the international non- acceptance.Selfstudier (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
That same non-acceptance is true for the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. So, again, double standard applies when you insist on calling the same thing by different names. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I think you must not have read what I said.Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
If you want to apply a common standard then shouldn't you also be referring to all the territory Israel was in control of west of the Armistice Line, the part outside the Partition Plan boundaries at least, as 'occupied'?     ←   ZScarpia   12:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Jordanian annexation of the West Bank → Jordanian occupation and annexation of the West Bank – This name covers Jordanian rule pre and post annexation, while clarifying the difference between the two. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep I understand the desire to adduce an equivalence between the Jordanian actions and the Israeli actions in respect of the same space. However, it is simply not the case that such an equivalence exists. To begin with (there are other distinctions that it is not necessary to dwell upon here) there is no evidence that there ever existed a military occupation, if the usual details are forthcoming, date started, name of military administration, name of commander and so on, I will be the first to set up an article entitled "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank" to cover the period prior to the annexation period. There are no UN resolutions referring to any Jordanian occupation and actions were taken during the alleged period of occupation that do not square with a military occupation, for example, granting every Palestinian in February 1949, Jordanian citizenship.Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the way it was. While the new proposal is technically accurate, it is not a concise enough title; also a few problems have been raised with the word occupation applied in this context. Havradim (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

So it seems as if the question is whether or not “occupation” is used in physical or governance sense, as @selfstudier mentioned on RFC page on Israel-Palestine collaboration talk page. Is there any guidelines that can be made to resolve this dispute? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest only using “occupy” in the governing sense, not physical sense? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, if we were out in the world somewhere, this distinction would not be an issue for the majority of folk. But in here, in WP, and in particular in the IP area, occupy(ied/ation) only has one meaning (take a guess which one). The custom is to use capture (or some equivalent euphemism) when you mean the physical sort of occupationSelfstudier (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep. The article title will in the end depend on what exactly the article is about. As it stands, I read the article as discussing the timeline during which the West Bank went from British Territory to being annexed by Jordan. Given this, the current title is succinct and covers the content, as the occupation is clearly presented as a step that led to annexation. It might be possible to have two separate articles at some point, one on occupation which might perhaps go into detail about how Jordanian troops entered the territory and then established control, and one about annexation which might perhaps deal with the legal process and its impacts (such as citizenship). However, on the merits of the content of this article as it stands, the current title makes sense and fits WP:TITLE. CMD (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

RFC: Name of article: Jordanian West Bank?

From the discussion above, how about moving this article to Jordanian West Bank? Huldra (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No - - turning an article about an illegal annexation not recognized by the international community into 'Jordanian" territory? Never going to fly. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Huldra: Can you please explain why you started an RfC instead of following the procedure in Wikipedia:Requested moves? --Bsherr (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably a bit too soon for another page move discussion, although there was no consensus for a move in the recently closed discussion, there was some weak approval (and no outright disapproval) for article editing to make it fit the title better, perhaps moving some of it into the WB article.Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

How about one of the others options which were suggested, but not discussed much, during the move request, "Jordanian rule in the West Bank" or "Jordanian rule of the West Bank"?     ←   ZScarpia   12:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Why nutpick about "in" or "of", when the problem is with the word "rule", which I agree is not going to fly. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
What is your objection to the word 'rule'? The reason I highlighted the words 'in' and 'of' was so that the difference between the previously made suggestions could be seen more easily. That choice is one of style not meaning.     ←   ZScarpia   12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Calling annexation "rule" is being less informative than an encyclopedia should be. I'd even go as far s to say it is misleading. These are completely different statuses. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Jordanian rule in the West Bank will not work. The 20-year time period involved did not generate enough unique material to warrant an article similar to the one discussing British rule in Burma, for example, which covers a 100-year period chock full of history, battles, an invasion, culture etc. This is without even getting into the problems of how to define the nature of Jordanian control there. Selfstudier has in the meantime boldly edited this article to let it focus on the annexation, a subject that warrants not a small amount of scrutiny itself, to match the much-bickered-over article title. Havradim (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"occupied from"

Uh, yes, you can in fact say "occupied from" a country. See for example these sources: [5], [6]. I am restoring that language. nableezy - 02:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

no it isnt lol. These two books are, unsurprisingly, by non-native English speakers, whose first language is Hebrew, and they had poor editors for those books. In Hebrew (and I imagine other semitic languages), the semitic root כ־ב־שׁ is used for both "occupy" and "capture " or "take over" (and some other related terms), and they carried that over, ungrammatically, into English. In English, you don't "occupy form a country". JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Cambridge University Press, that well known outlet of ungrammatical English and poor editors. Silly me, I should have listened to JungerMan Chips Ahoy. nableezy - 17:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Simply not grammatical English, no matter which press published it. Even Cambridge slips up. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Anything that supports that besides some random person on the internet? Because Oxford University Press seems to think its fine too. Another from CUP, Wiley-Blackwell. So I have these sources, written by actual experts, published by some of the top academic publishers on the planet, using a certain phrasing. Then on the other hand we have you. Which of those should carry the day on Wikipedia? I wonder ... nableezy - 17:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, wait, theres even more. CSM, Routledge, more from OUP, The Economist, NY Times. All these sources are wrong on a question of grammar, and JungerMan Chips Ahoy is right here yall. Wrap it up, we solved it. nableezy - 17:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Nableezy, please engage in this discussion in a less-confrontational way. You can disagree with an editor without taunting them. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
An article talk page is for discussing article content, not editors. If you have something to say about me or to me, theres a place for that. nableezy - 18:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Now I know what this is about, I will look into it some more, you may both be right. There is no question that "occupy from" sounds very odd (to these English ears) but it may be OK depending on the exact context in which it is being used, in all the WP articles re IP (that I have seen) it is unnecessary because the context is usually clear.Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Ahah! So that's the reason, that has been driving me up the wall (Zarcademan, too, lol).Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
English has no rulebook; there is no authority for what is and isn't "grammatically correct"; but either way, I agree that construction is awkward af and should be avoided. Maybe it's an engvar thing. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)'
Reliable sources of the highest quality seem to dispute your notion that it is "awkward af". We follow sources here, not preferences of random Wikipedia editors based on nothing but their own imaginations. nableezy - 18:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It is as awkward af, no doubt about it. I looked at 5 of those sources you put up and the context there is entirely different. Let me also explain another way, if you google "Israel occcupied the Golan Heights" (with the quotes) I get 12k hits but if I google "Israel occupied the Golan Heights from" I get 82 hits total (38K and 42 if you use West Bank instead). Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Im sorry, what? The context is different? Hwhat? CSM: This distinction gives support to the PLO content in that the West Bank and Gaza district should form part of an independent Palestinian state and are not to be equated with other Arab territories, such as Sinai or the Golan Heights, occupied from Egypt and Syria. OUP: These included the Golan Heights occupied from Syria, the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip occupied from Egypt, and the West Bank occupied from Jordan. NYT: Israeli withdrawal from almost all the land occupied from Egypt, Syria and Jordan, another book from OUP: The farms compose a disputed borderline area that, according to Lebanon and Syria, belongs to Lebanon, or, according to the UN, is part of the Golan Heights, which Israel occupied from Syria in the 1967 war. What exactly is different about the context? That you, or anybody else, are unfamiliar with a usage does not make it "awkward af". "occupied from some country" is used in plenty of sources. What exactly is different about the context of those sources? nableezy - 20:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, we can agree to differ on this and it actually does not matter because if I had to use one of those sources for a fact about occupation in one of the articles we have been discussing here on WP (which is a different context to that in the sources you are showing), I can guarantee you that my prose (we don't just copy from sources) would not under any circumstances include the use of the expression "occupied from (some country)". I changed another one earlier today, instead of "Israel captured and occupied a majority of the Golan Heights from Syria" I put "Israel occupied the Syrian Golan", simple, correct and not awkward at all. And if I were to see redundant usage while on my travels I would not hesitate to delete the offending material. It's up to you if you want to copy from sources, I am not telling you what to do, I am giving you my opinion and it is valid because I am in no way misrepresenting any source.Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I asked you how the sources have a different context. Can you answer that? Just proclaiming something is awkward based on your own personal feelings doesnt really answer that for me. nableezy - 21:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I just answered you. The context in our articles (WP articles) is clear and so the from wherever bit is not necessary (you can put in if you want to, that's up to you). If I take the OUP source, for example, it is an explanatory footnote in a book about host states and diasporas (so that is already 2 contextual differences to a WP article and apart from that if I were using that as a source for an article here (unlikely) I would simply omit the "from Syria" part with no loss of meaning (because the context here would be Syria/Golan and even if that wasn't the case I still would find another way of phrasing it rather than use the clunky "from.." construction.Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Uh, where did you answer me? What is different about the context of the sources I listed and how it was written in the article? You very much did not answer me, you asserted something, and when asked for evidence asserted it again. Thats cool I guess, but sources from top quality publishers all find "occupied from" to be acceptable usage. Your limited experience with that phrasing does not trump that, sorry. nableezy - 16:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I have answered you twice now, I am not going to do it again because you don't like the answer (nor am I asserting that it is bad grammar, I am saying it is awkward, clunky and that no native English speaker would ordinarily speak or write like that and I stand by that statement, your sources notwithstanding. I know without even looking that I can find far more that do not use that construction.Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Well then direct me to where the answer is? Because in everything you have written there is not one word about how the context in the sources is different than the context of what the article said. You have asserted something and then when asked for evidence repeated your assertion. Im sorry, that is not an answer, and I dont really see the point in arguing with people who refuse to actually respond to requests that they back up their opinions with something other than restating their opinions. You say it is awkward, I say well here are several sources that use this formulation and they do not consider it awkward. You repeat it is awkward and pat yourself on the back for proving it so. Well great, but you never actually did. The game of I already answered you when you very much have not is I suppose amusing for the one playing it, but it isnt on this end. nableezy - 18:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Continuing this conversation is pointless, you put "from.." as often as you wish and I will put it not at all, end of.Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't even bother. I have been there many times with this editor. He will continue to claim he didn't get an answer. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
lol, ok pal. Ill eat my hat if anybody shows where anybody showed how the usage found in any number of sources is of a different context than we had here. I very seriously doubt Ill have to break my fast, as nobody has. Glad to see I dont need to adjust my views on the quality of arguments found on these pages though. nableezy - 22:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
For curiousity's sake, I traced that footnote back, it is itself sourced to Norris 2007 (which is a journal article, The Role of Hezbollah in Lebanese Domestic Politics by Augustus Richard Norton) and that source does NOT use the construction "from Syria" and simply refers to "the still-occupied Shebaa farms".Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I agree that the "from"-construction sounds awkward. The only reasons I didn't intervene is that its meaning is clear. Nableezy, I think that "proclaiming something is awkward based on your own personal feelings" is perfectly in line with Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#How_to_write_acceptable_content and basic principles of editing. Debresser (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
That actually quite literally has nothing to do with anything. People are arguing that it is not valid grammar to say "occupied from". I show sources from some of the most prestigious English language publishers using that phrasing. And the answer? It sounds weird to me. Well maybe open a book and it wont be as weird. nableezy - 16:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
As an aside, the opening sentence of this article reads "The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was the occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) by Jordan"; assuming we were to use the "from" construction, who would that be in this case?Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

We are talking at cross purposes here, the article currently says: "During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel captured and occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Jordan, although Jordan, despite not continuing to be the actual sovereign" OK, there are some different points here:

1) "from Jordan" is not necessary (here, in this article).

2) "captured and" is not necessary (occupation implies capture).

3) Jordan did continue to be sovereign (via disputed annex) until 31 July 1988 when Jordan renounced its claims (whatever they were) to the West Bank in favor of the Palestinians.

So I changed it to this language.

"Following the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem although Jordan continued to...."

Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I just happened to be at this also, and after an edit conflict made a few minor changes. Nothing that should be controversial. Please notice that I asked for a source that Jordan continued to pay salaries to civil servants. By the way, did those civil servants continue their jobs as well? Debresser (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree, needs a source.Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It was a result of a policy known as "open bridges" (best of enemies? frenemies?), I gave a cite two cites for it.Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Very interesting information. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank/Archive_4&oldid=1136854637"