Talk:Sur Baher

socks

This edit was done by a banned sock, for me reverting POV-edits from banned socks *is* copy-editing. Huldra (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Occupied.

User:Debresser: The international community regards the West Bank as occupied by Israel. Calling it an "Israeli rule" is a white-wash: please stop. Huldra (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The consensus on Wikipedia is that if you want to go there, you have to show both sides. Like on the article of Israeli West Bank settlements, where it says "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.[5][6][7][8]". I preferred not to go there and keep it simple. In connection with this, I think "Israeli rule" is the most neutral formula. If you want, you can consider the word "rule" to allude to the fact that it is "only" rule, not sovereignty. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There are not "two stories that need to be told" here. There is a vast consensus that Israel occupies the area and that is how it has been presented here at Wikipedia too. That we now suddenly can't call it "occupied" is astonishing. If we are going to apply this logic, then we would say that Haifa or Ramat Gan is seen as "occupied" by some Palestinians and Arabs but we of course don't.

Jordan was also an occupying power so this should be corrected too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I wonder at your assertion that there is no "other side of the story". I am telling you there is, so apparently there is. Can't argue with facts.

Why would you consider Jordan an occupying power, if the Jordan rule over the West Bank was part a matter of international agreement? In addition, what were they occupying? Cant' occupy what never existed. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I said there is not two stories that need to be told. See WP:VALID. It would be astonishing if we suddenly can't call it an occupation because a very minor part of the world does not agree.

As Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank was never recognized, it was occupied territory. That a sovereign Palestinian state did not exist then does not matter, just like it does not mean Israel don't occupy the West Bank or that Morocco don't occupy Western Sahara. There is a reason we have the article Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

All places are “ruled” by someone, not all places are “occupied” by someone. “Occupied” implies certain things under international law, which “rule” does not. (I suspect Debresser knows this quite well). When Debresser wants to “keep it simple”, he takes the extreme minority view (“rule”) to represent the whole view.

Sorry, that will just not float.

As for Jordanian period: that is more complicated, as Jordan annexed the West Bank (in 1950). i.o.w., the people of say, Sur Baher had the exact same rights as the people of, say, Amman. When will the people of Sur Baher get the same rights as the people of Tel Aviv?

(And yes, I know: among the international community, some (a minority: UK & US), accepted the Jordanian annexation, some (the majority), did not. From what I have read: the population as a whole accepted it (same language, same religion, etc). In all: a rather more complicated situation than the clear-cut Israeli occupation. Huldra (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

While annexation makes a difference for the residents in that way, it does not change the legal status of the occupied territory. It is clear why: if you gain territory just by applying your laws there, then it would be a farce. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it: the status of Sur Baher in the Jordanian period was much like that of say, Nazareth since 1948: it was not supposed to be a part of Israel, but was conquered by Israel in 1948. The big difference, is of course that today the people of Nazareth have (at least in theory) equal rights as other Israelis, while the people of Sur Baher does not.

Anyway, we seem to agree on using the word "occupied" after 1967. Unless I hear new arguments in the nearest future, I will change it in the article. Huldra (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really, Israel's conquest was recognized by the international community, unlike Jordan's, so Nazareth etc. were accepted as a part of Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That one country´s military conquests were internationally recognised, and the other was (generally) not, only reflects the double standard of the international community, IMO. Huldra (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Jordan was basically alone in their view and the Arab League themselves did not recognize the annexation as it says on Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, look at the article history: that article was started (and mostly made) by some of Wikipedias most pro-Israeli editors, trying to make the Israeli occupation of the West bank equal to the Jordanian one..... Huldra (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There are obviously differences in policies (as it is with what Israel does to those living in East Jerusalem and those in the rest of the West Bank as different law systems apply) but when it comes to if it is occupied territory or not, there is not. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

(outdent): I have no problem with the word "occupation", as long as we make it clear that such is the point of most of the international community, while Israel has another point of view. Again, I recommend to see the Beitar Illit article for the accepted NPOV way to do this. For that reason I think the word is unfit for a header, and there is no reason why the word "rule" couldn't be used. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition, and not related to the point above, you can't use the word "aftermath" in this case. That word usually refers to a short-termed result of something, not to a situation which has been in effect for almost half a century.

In short, "Israeli rule" is the best choice for a header in all respects. Id you want to mention occupation in the paragraph itself, then also mention the Israeli point of view. Debresser (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this is far too much. While there is a consensus on how to phrase it regarding the status of the Israeli settlements, Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories (and the Golan Heights) is one of an occupying power and that shouldn't be stated with some type of disclaimer. There are articles that gives the Israeli view but that should not be something that is repeated in every article as there is a vast consensus that it is an occupation. It is not "most of the international community" but rather "the international community". WP:VALID should be read.

I also repeat this: "If we are going to apply this logic, then we would say that Haifa or Ramat Gan is seen as 'occupied' by some Palestinians and Arabs but we of course don't". --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's take this step by step. Can everybody live with a header "Israeli rule"? I can live with saying the West Bank was occupied in the paragraph itself. Without prejudice as to whether in a later discussion I will take the point of view that the Israeli point of view needs to be mentioned alongside. Debresser (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, as already have been stated: it is not acceptable to take one very small view ahead of a vast consensus. Generally I don't mind when I see articles saying "Israeli control" as long it is already clear that it is an occupation and not used to prefer the Israeli view.

The discussion is skewed. It is not a POV that the Palestinian territories or the Golan Heights are occupied. It is simply a fact accepted by nearly everyone. Even the Israeli Supreme Court and the Israeli government when arguing there have said that the West Bank (and Gaza before that) is occupied. An equivalent POV would be to say that for example Haifa is "disputed" or something similiar but no one here argues about that.

It is simply unacceptable that we have to have some sort of disclaimer when saying that it is an occupation. Here is a part from WP:VALID:

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

So that the Israeli-occupied territories are just that, occupied, should be stated without any disclaimer. There are articles that focus on the dispute where the Israeli view is presented. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with what IRISZOOM says. It is a minority within a minority which disputes/have allergic tendencies towards the word "occupied" when applied to the West Bank. The vast majority accepts it as occupied by Israel. So no, Debresser, your "Israeli rule" is not acceptable. Huldra (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand the problem. Whether you consider it legitimate rule or not, "rule" is a neutral term. I am not saying that we shouldn't mention the word occupation, but not in the header. It doesn't matter whether it is a minority or not, especially in this case, where the minority is party to the issue. Nobody can claim that the Israeli point of view is not important in this regard. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you think a compromise is to remove the word "occupation" because Israel has another view of it. I don't think their view should be repeated everywhere and in this case, actually be preferred as you yourself say that it would be "neutral" to say that instead of "occupation". We can't give a very small minority view more representation. You obviously don't do the opposite, with for example Haifa.

"Occupation" is perfectly fine and it has nothing to do with neutrality. It is just a fact it is an occupation. We can discuss it if there is a dispute about that. It has been discussed many times before. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Since Sur Baher is part of the West Bank, let's have a look there. The West Bank article has a section called simply Israel, note not "Israeli occupation" or (the also otherwise inferior) "1967 war aftermath". Also see that section that it uses the word "captured" rather than "occupied" ("In June 1967, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were captured by Israel as a result of the Six-Day War"). Sorry guys, but in order to change a wide and longstanding consensus, you need to open a broader discussion than here. The section will be called "Israeli rule" (or "Israel" if you please, and if you want to say "occupied", you will have to show the other point of view as well (or avoid it by using "captured". What you guys need to learn from this conversation is to be really neutral, not to be influenced by your personal opinions. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I think you know very well that we don´t use Wikipedia articles as a source of anything, much less as a proof. Secondly, I frankly have trouble with following your logic. It is absolutely undisputed that the great majority of this world views places like Sur Baher as occupied by Israel, as mentioned above: even official Israeli sources names it so. But you want to use a "broader" concept, namely "Israeli rule".

By doing that, the text would be less accurate. This is simply not acceptable. And this is not a matter of "my personal opinion", it is a matter of what sources say. Huldra (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

True it is called, only "Israel" but it is not there to remove the word "occupied" and replace it with something you think is a neutral term. There are also plenty of articles that say Israel "captured" the areas, however, they usually say "Israel has occupied them since then". I think it is interesting that you don't take into account the many times "occupied" etc. is used in that article. The word "occupied" or similar versions are mentioned three times in the lead for example. So if you are going to base it on that article, it is clear that "occupied" can be stated.

It is really the opposite. The consensus is that the Palestinian territories (or the Golan Heights) is occupied and if you want to change that, it is you who have to open up a broader discussion. The evidence you have offered in the first case does not support your position and the other one contradicts you as "occupied" or similar versions is stated many times. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't bring the Wikipedia article as a source, and I don't understand how Huldra could even think that. I is obviously my intention to show how things are done on Wikipeda, not to bring any proof as to the facts of the matter.

Both of you are missing the point, namely, that I agree with mentioning "occupied" or "occupation". I only think that we need to add, at least at the first instance, that the Israeli opinion is different. That is the way it is done in other Wikipedia articles related to the IP conflict, as I have shown above from two articles, and that is the way it should be done to comply with all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Regarding the header, I can not agree with you. The word "Israel" or "Israeli rule" is perfect, being both neutral, short and to the point. As I already said above, I feel that the word "rule" even implies a certain measure of illegitimacy, which is an additional plus.

I feel we have reached a point in this conversation, where everything has been said. I can not understand how you can not agree with me, and you two must probably feel the same about me. Unfortunately, this is an inflammable issue, which is relevant for a lot of Wikipedia articles. If you do not agree with me, and think this issue is worth the trouble, perhaps raise the question at some relevant forum. Please let me know if you do. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I know what your point is and I answered you on that. I repeat that there is a vast consensus that it is occupied territory and it doesn't have to be written with some type of disclaimer. You have linked to an article about an Israeli settlement, which is about the legality of the settlements, not if it is occupied territory. See WT:Legality of Israeli settlements. Again, that the West Bank is occupied by Israel is not a point of view but a fact so it has nothing to do with neutrality.

I have also said that in the main articles about the occupation, the Israeli view belongs there, but in other articles, we should call it just what it is. You talk about complying with "policies and guidelines" and I have linked one of those: WP:VALID. You have not addressed that, nor have you addressed if we should describe Ramat Gan or other areas in Israel in the same way you want to give the Israeli view representation.

I am sorry but the burden is on you to open up a discussion if you think we can't state that it is an occupation without having any disclaimer. You can look for yourself and see tons of articles that mention the "Israeli occupation" etc. The material you have given haven't, as I describe above, supported your position. Additionally, it is two against one in this dispute.

It reminds me one issue we had back in January 2014 regarding Talpiot Tomb. You insisted on, among other things, saying it was "in Israel" but in the end, this was removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The situation is rather simple. You want to change the article, but you have no consensus. Two against one is no consensus. As I have said before, you'll need a lot broader discussion to make this change. Please also note that I have offered a compromise, which you have rejected. I have nothing new to say. Let me just warn you, that your next revert will force me to report you. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The "consensus" you talk about, has been between yourself and a banned sock-master (User:Wlglunight93): not very impressive, to say the least. Though I agree that the "numbers" here is not much of an argument (I have seen sock-games played out far, far too often for that), the *argument* is. Your "compromise" is accepting the language of right-wing Israelis, and not the international community. Again; sorry, that will not float. It *is* very simple: since *you* are the one insisting on a minority view-language, it is up to *you* to get consensus for that.

And please, *do* report me. But beware of WP:BOOMERANG, as I see you are presently involved in edit-warring all over the place ...I am not. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree. A "compromise" is not to stop calling the Israeli-occupied territories (there is a reason it is called like that) "occupied". It is obvious that if we have an article called like that, then you can start from there or in some other article's talk page or venue to open up a discussion if we can call it "occupied" or not. The one who don't and reverts edits which call it "occupied" should be worried himself, not threatening to file reports against others. The notion that we must accept a very minority view is astonishing.

Furthermore, I have still not received any response if we should apply this logic to Israeli cities like Ramat Gan or Haifa. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, You decided a bit of besmearing is in order, now that you are about to face your peers at WP:ANI? IRISZOOM, the minority view is relevant, since it comes from one of the involved parties. Also, I do not have to reply to your question regarding Haifa. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Debresser: What NPA? At presently the article is rather absurd: The Jordanian times, is called "occupied", while the Israeli times is called "ruled"! When in reality everyone in the international community calls it an Israeli occupation, while *not* everyone in the international community called it a Jordanian occupation (after the Jordanian annexation.) Well, this is the upside-down world of Wikipedia. Huldra (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That you don't want to respond if you want to apply the same logic to Israeli cities is telling.

After I read about the the latest annexationist from Likud, I looked on Herodium which is mentioned and also noticed the discussion there. It was the same type of issue there more than two years ago. You wanted it to say it was "in Israel" and then your "compromise" was to say it was in "the West Bank and Israel" or something similiar. So this seems to be some type of standard that has to be dealt with.

We can't have users that don't accept that the West Bank is occupied territory and places there are not in Israel, nor should it be that we can't say it is occupied as a fact and without some type of disclaimer. More remarkable, you obviously don't want to apply this logic to Israeli cities. So I am afraid a WP:NPOVN won't solve this and other steps have to be taken. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Break

I have asked editors at WP:DR to comment here. I'd like them to consider both the issue at hand, as well as the behavior of all editors involved, in view of the pertaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The West Bank and Gaza Strip are referred to as the Palestinian territories or Occupied Palestinian Territory. Arguing to this degree on using "Israeli rule" is a forceful WO:POV. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying it is not. I am saying two other things: 1. "1967 aftermath" is not a good header, as explained above. 2. If we mention Israeli occupation, then we should also mention the Israeli point of view, which is capture. It may be a minority point of view on world wide scale, but in the area of conflict it is 50% of the point of view, so very notable. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, we could say "1967-present"; that is the one alternative to "Israeli occupation". "Israeli rule" is not acceptable, we can say that about the Palestinian/Arab places *inside* Israel. But we all know that the conditions for Palestinians on the West Bank, under occupation, is totally different from that of the conditions of the Palestinians *inside* Israel. The Israeli point of view is extensively covered in the article Israeli-occupied territories; we should not duplicate that over hundreds and hundreds of articles about places on the West Bank/Gaza. (There are 275 articles in the villages on the West Bank-category, alone.) Huldra (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I can live with "1867-present", although I prefer "Israeli rule", and fail to see what the problem is with "Israeli rule". After all, Israel rules there, so "Israeli rule" is a term that we should be able to use without problem. Moreover, as I have said before, the word "rule" even implies a lack of legitimacy. Would you mind to try and explain to me again what you see wrong with that term? Debresser (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh?? Firstly, I assume 1867 is a typo for 1967? But if so; you first state that you "can live with" "1967-present" header (though you prefer "Israeli rule"); while I and others have stated why we will *not* accept "Israeli rule"-header. When I change the header to "1967-present"...a header which none of us love but all of us can live with, (if my understanding of the discussion is correct).....then you revert, saying "Header is unacceptable, as per talk page". Huh???? I just don´t follow your logic here, or have you changed your mind?? What is wrong with the term "Israeli rule" is what I have said above: it is the sort of language you could use for Palestinian/Arab places inside the 1948-borders, who have a totally different legal status from the West Bank inhabitants. Huldra (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with your claim that we can not repeat the Israeli point of view in every article about the West Bank. It is what we do on every article about an Israeli settlement. But here as well there is compromise to be found. We could simply link to Israeli-occupied territories. I propose to link the word "occupied" or "occupation" there. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you want to get the word "occupation" and similiar removed because Israel prefers another term. A consensus have been reached regarding how to phrase the Israeli settlements under international law. That we can't call Israel an occuping power without mention Israel's view is very problematic. WP:VALID says:

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. ...

As there is a vast consensus that it is occupied territory, this should be stated without any type of disclaimer. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

IRISZOOM, you misunderstood me or misrepresented my stand. I do not want to remove the word "occupation". I am fine with the word "occupation". I am not fine with your proposal not to mention the Israeli point of view, which is very relevant here. You do not need to repeat your argument, that it is a minority point of view. That is agreed upon. Please address my argument instead of repeating your own. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You have made seven reverts so far to get the word "occupation" removed. I have also mentioned several times why it is unacceptable to include some type of disclaimer when mentioning that word, amongst others by mentioning WP:VALID five times now and what it says. So it is not me who have to "adress" your argument and stop "repeating" the same thing. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just seen this at WP:NPOV/N so thought I'd drop in. Some things I'll note:

• There's a clear attempt to imply that the Israeli presence is illegitimate, immoral or illegal. Most obvious is the blunt declaration that Sur Baher is simply "under Israeli occupation". Though referring to the Jerusalem Municipality as "Israel's Jerusalem Municipality" is a also subtle way of implying that Israel is not the legitimate ruling entity.
• We have a "Ottoman era" and a "British mandate era" and the title "1967-present" is both jarring and a obvious attempt to wish away the results of the 1967 war. Also missing is information about the Jordanian period.
• The term "like the rest of Palestine" needs clarifying as to which Palestine it refers to, as there have now been several entites named "Palestine" throughout history. Its inclusion looks gratuitous and it may be an attempt to imply misleadingly that it's part of the State of Palestine.

I've gone through and boldly made some changes in the spirit of what I have written above. Also removed some emotive language about "ancestral lands". Hope this helps. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well then: firstly, while we are all of course entitled to our opinions, User:AnotherNewAccount is hardly a newcomer in the I/P area... I think we had all hoped for more "fresh eyes" from WP:NPOV/N. As to the points s/he raises:

• • Well, sorry to disappoint you, but the view that "Israeli presence is illegitimate, immoral and illegal" is in fact quite wide-spread ......which is why the international community as a whole condemns the occupation. End of story.
  • I agree that the Jordanian era is *quite* underrepresented, the only good source I know of, is the 1961 Jordanian census, which I am sure you know. You could perhaps add the data for Sur Baher from it?
  • It would be extremely easy to "clarify" "like the rest of Palestine" ...just try linking Palestine...and it is done. As for the word "ancestral" if that, or similar wording is in the source (I cannot see it), then we use it. If not: we don´t. Huldra (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a factual statement that it is under Israeli occupation. If you have more to add, add it. The Jerusalem Municipality is the Israeli one. No matter if it is viewed as annexed or not, it is clearly an administrative step they took to include so much occupied land from the West Bank as possible in the suddenly vast area of "Jerusalem". Israeli sovereignity of Jerusalem has not been recognized, much less over East Jerusalem.

That's because we can't call it the "Israeli era". The title seems fine now.

It refers to the region, which is well-defined, and nothing of that you suggested is implied. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked now in The 1967 Census on Levy Economics Institute of Bard College's website. In this document, it says "Sur Bahir, Um Tuba (and Arab el Subeira)" had 4,012 inhabitants in 1961 and 4,710 in 1967. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I´m at two minds having the years of the rule in the heading: it looks "cluttered". I also mostly make a point at linking to what is in the headline at the start of the section...therefore you typically see as the first sentence under "British Mandate era": "In the 1922 census of Palestine, conducted by the British Mandate authorities".....so that the reader easily can find out more about Mandatory Palestine.

The www.levyinstitute.org is a great source, a direct link to the Jordanian 1961-census is even better. It is on the net; but I´m not quite sure about copyright-issues. Huldra (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If it just a link to view it, I think it is okay. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty content with the present version. I think it is neutral and to the fact. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it looks awful; I don´t se any other place on Wikipedia where we both name and date an era in the headlines; basically sending the message that we think the readers of this article are morons, who cannot manage to find that out by themselves. Huldra (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the dates could be removed and keep the names? --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn´t. Using the same wording for the Israeli time, as for the Jordanian, implies that they were/are equal. Now, try telling a Palestinian from the West Bank that they are equal, and they will take you for either being insane or being an idiot. In any case they would not take anything from you seriously again. (I´m not defending the Hashemites; clearly they did what they did in order to further the interests of the Hashemites, not to defend the Palestinians. That does change the fact that the Jordanian times is looked upon as heaven compared with the Apartheid hell presently under Israeli occupation.) If we want to leave the West Bank Palestinian with event the remotest of trust in Wikipedia; then we have to indicate that these two periods in their history are vastly different for the inhabitants. Huldra (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that gaining people's trust is not on the Wikipedia agenda. Debresser (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. But WP:V still holds, I believe. I was quite surprised by the latest rv: the Ottoman and British period were *not* disputed, by anyone. The two latest periods have been, by different numbers; the Israeli by everyone except the Israelis, the Jordanian by most (except some major players, like UK & USA). To me that makes a good argument for treating *both* the Jordanian and the Israeli eras, as different from those pre-1948. Huldra (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the headings suggest they were equal and as said before, both were occupying powers so it doesn't matter. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

After only 2 years, Jordan annexed the West Bank, that is, giving them equal rights with the rest of the country. That is a huge difference from the Israeli apartheid occupation. Huldra (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You should really avoid using Wikipedia for venting your POV. I am referring to the usage of the word "apartheid occupation". All sources agree that Sur Baher has developed significantly under Israeli rule. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You forget; Wikiedia isn´t Israel, you cannot arrest people here for calling it "apartheid occupation", [1] get used to it, Huldra (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, please do not try to turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEFIELD and really, make an effort to keep your POV out of discussions. In this connection, please take into account the Miranda warning, which applies on Wikipedia as well. Debresser (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Lol, no, Miranda warning does not apply here. When a large part of the world use the word apartheid about the Israeli occupation, then it can also be used here. Wikipedia IS "NOT CENCORED".....etc Huldra (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I have added now about the population in 1961 and 1967. Huldra, could you look on the Jordanian census and see what Arab el Subeira exactly is? Thanks. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

IRISZOOM, I think the Levy institute added the localities up; it is not in the original. I have found on the bottom of p. 14 in the Jordanian census; it says Sur Bahir had 1,213 females and 1,222 males; a total of 2,335 people. Huldra (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Then that could be added and the statement I added can be clarified. However, it wasn't the Levy Institute who did the comparision but Israel. See XII in this document. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I´m still not sure how we should refer to the census in the biblio, it seem to have been published in 1965 (At least it has a section "Methods Report (1965)"), perhaps we should file it under "Talhouni and Dajani, 1965, "Jordan Census 1961" (Talhouni was "Director of Statistics and Census" from 1963, Dajani was the same up to 1963.) Huldra (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't got the census so I don't know how it should be cited. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I´ll email it to you... Huldra (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Check your email, Huldra (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Great. I think it should be okay to link to a copy of the census so here is a link: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/yabber/yabber_census.html. If you still are unsure about how to cite it, tell me. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

East Talpiot

Re: "This is not what the source says. Also, other parts of East Talpiot are from another village." Debresser, you are correct that the source doesn't say "East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land." What it says is "...East Talpiot, which was built on the bulk of the expropriated land." Copyright prevents me from using the books exact words unless I quote them. You have apparently made a mistake and should self-revert. If you are unable or unwilling to do that for some reason, I will do it for you. If you have sourced information about the other village you refer to in your edit summary then you can add it to the article with the source rather than make a content decision using yourself as a source. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The thing is like this. East Talpiot is a large borough of Jerusalem, consisting of several neighborhoods. The first of these was, in all likelihood, and based on this source, build on a large part of territory that used to belong to Sur Baher. Later neighborhoods were build on other territories, including of Jabel Mukaber. If you have a look at the source, it only claims to be accurate as to the situation in 1980 ("Then in 1970 ... Ten years later"), so it stands to reason that this information is outdated, precisely as I just told you.

By the way, I'd appreciate it if you'd try to keep the discussion to the facts, and not try to belittle me in passing. I know very well how to self-revert when I think I made a mistake. The fact that I disagree with you, does not necessarily constitute a mistake on my part. Possibly even the other way around. So let's stay civil, okay? Debresser (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, whatever happened to WP:BRD? If you change an article, and are met with opposition, you are not supposed to threaten with undoing, and most certainly not supposed to undo and start an edit war. You are supposed to discuss first! On a sidenote, but very much connected, there was no reason to undo my capitalization fix. Please respect other editors' work. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with a source. Without RS based evidence it doesn't matter. You are not a source. Once again, you have not produced a policy/RS based reason for your changes, so they will be reverted in due course. The statement "East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land" based on the sourced statement "East Talpiot, which was built on the bulk of the expropriated land" will be restored. I understand what you are saying about the growth of East Talpiot over time but without a source it isn't relevant to content decisions/consensus. The situation you describe and the sourced statement are not mutually exclusive. "East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land" does not imply "All/most of East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land". If you can find a source that can be used to make the statement more precise in time and space then you can change the statement and add the source to the article. What you can't do is remove sourced information using yourself as a source, in the first instance by making the false claim that the RS published by Harvard University Press in 2001 did not support the statement, and now by misunderstanding the temporal and spatial implications of the sourced statement. The capitalization I used is from the source. I didn't notice that you had changed it. The letter case does not change the information content in this instance so it is of no interest to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the source. I am saying that the information in the source is outdated. I have added the words "Part of" to the sentence to remedy this. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Then you have to provide a source that shows the info is outdated and as Sean.hoyland said: "the situation you describe and the sourced statement are not mutually exclusive". Your addition changes the meaning of what the source say and will be reverted now because of that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not need to show proof that since 1970 new parts have been build to a Jerusalem neighborhood. This is a good case of WP:IAR. However you want to explain this according to Wikipedia rules, this information is so obviously outdated, that either the whole sentence has to be removed, or my small change to the text needs to be accepted. Any further reverts will force me to seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page. Debresser (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, what you describe does not contradict the source. It does not matter if so East Talpiot's area had grown tens of times since then because this is what happened to most of Sur Baher's expropriated land. You have not offered more than your own view on it so that is not a good reason to ignore all rules. Your "small change" changed the meaning of what the source said and you said on your edit summary that "Yes, and that is precisely the intention, see talkpage yourself". But we must report what sources say and "Part of East Talpiot was built on that expropriated land" is not a proper description of "East Talpiot, which was built on the bulk of the expropriated land".

Secondly, you have several times violated the WP:1RR, including on this article, but I have not reported you. Now I think you did violate the WP:1RR and as you are insisting to forcing your view on the article without any source (including by saying "Any further reverts will force me to seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page), I will have to report you. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I usually edit only once a day, in the evening, so when I had a break this morning at work, I forgot about the 1RR restriction. I have self-reverted for the time being, but I do think we need to work this out.

As usual, you just repeat old arguments and completely ignore mine. You can not argue with the fact that information that was correct as of 1980, only 13 years after the 1967 war in which Sur Baher came under Israeli control, is not correct now, another 35 years later.

The only other source I found so far mentioning the fact that East Talpiot was build on expropriated land,[www.jiis.org/.upload/jerusalem%20the%20contested%20city.pdf] mentions no qualifiers like "most", just says that East Talpiot was one of a few neighborhood build on expropriated land. Sur Baher is also not mentioned in this connection.

If you look at a map, you can see that East Talpiot also borders on Jabel Mukaber. I have it from one of the Arab citizens of Jabel Mukaber, that the main hill of East Talpiot used to be their land. Geographically, that claim makes imminent sense, since East Talpiot and Jabel Mukaber are situated on the same hill, while Sur Baher lies on the hill opposite them.

I agree that I can not back up that information with written sources, at this time - still working on that, but in view of the two arguments above, it is obvious that the present text is incorrect, and should indeed read, as I corrected it, "Part of". I think WP:IAR can safely be used in view of these strong arguments. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, I found another, rather unexpected source from 18.11.1986, saying the same as the present source. In high-court case 704/85 it says "שטח נרחב של 2240 דונם, שעל רובו של שטח זה ."נבנתה עם הזמן השכונה, המוכרת היום, כתלפיות מזרח (an area of 2240 dunam, on the majority of which in time the neighborhood that is now know as East Talpiot was build). Being that this is from 1986, that can hardly surprise us.

Another source is The Politics of Planting: Israeli-Palestinian Competition for Control of Land in the Jerusalem Periphery by Shaul Ephraim Cohen, The University of Chicago Press, 1993. There is says clearly "The land expropriated in 1970 was in the valley floor, named Wadi Zeitoun or the Olive Valley." The valley floor is not a residential area at all, to this very day. In view of this clear contradiction, we now have strong arguments to disregard the old information and at least add the word "in part". Debresser (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

<-Debresser, edits that don't comply with policy have to be reverted. It's pointless to make them or try to justify them here. All you need to do is to find a reliable source that can make the information more precise. Then you can make a change that is explicitly supported by the source. The Politics of Planting is a high quality source so there is nothing stopping you from adding something based on the sentences that say

"The land expropriated in 1970 was on the valley floor — named Wadi Zeitoun, or the Olive Valley. Land was also taken to the west of the built-up area of the village, on the slope and crest, and on land beyond groves on the far side of the valley bottom."P. 137

and

"The original expropriation of 2,240 dunams of village land was made in 1970, and was designated for the construction of the Jewish neighborhood of East Talpiot, just across the valley from Sur Baher. Each year between 1970 and 1985 the construction of East Talpiot covered more of the expropriated area..."P. 133

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I copy from my last sentence at WP:AE: "A 1RR violation can happen by mistake as you describe but combined with a refusal to mention any source and write what you did about "any further reverts...", I saw no other way than to write here. Now the situation is different".

I did not ignore your arguments, in fact, I responded to both of them. Of course I will keep repeating things when the argument is the same and you were not offering any sources, which did not change until now in your last paragraph.

The book was written in 2001. Even if the book is outdated as you say, we should instead use better sources and not keep that one if it is not going to be cited properly by saying "it was like that" or "as of that year it was like that" and not change the meaning of what the source wrote, namely that "... East Talpiot, which was built on the bulk of the expropriated land". So if it is not longer relevant, rather don't use the source than cite it as "Part of East Talpiot was built on that expropriated land", which is not a proper representation of what is in the source.

Unfortunately, what you have cited in Hebrew (it looks to come from http://www.hamoked.org.il/files/2012/115640.pdf), is too short that I can see exactly what it says and it doesn't work well to look on it on Google Translate. However, they have translated it to English I found: http://www.hamoked.org/files/2012/115640_eng.pdf. "1960" should be "1970" as obviously Israel can't have done something like that seven years earlier before the occupation and they do mention "1970" in another paragraph. They do say in the top that "The following is a non-binding translation of the original Hebrew document" and continue on that. From it:

2. The expropriation of the land was executed by the Minister of Finance, by virtue of the authority vested in him by the Land Ordinance (Acquisition for Public Purposes) 1953, and was published on 30 August, 1960. It included a large area of 2240 dunam. Over time, the neighborhood now known as East Talpiot was built on most of this area.

In chapter 8 (from page 133) of the book you mention, "The Village of Sur Baher" is described. From the second paragraph:

The original expropriation of 2,240 dunams of village land was made in 1970, and was designated for the construction of the Jewish neighborhood of East Talpiot, just acroos the valley from Sur Baher. Each year between 1970 and 1980 the construction of East Talpiot covered more of the expropriated area, but no work or afforestation was carried out in the valley immediately adjacent to the village. Plans existed...

So construction did take place there. There is more on the expropriation in that book. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I must have missed that. Thank you. But my point remains, that we should add "part of". Because the East Talpiot neighborhood was build not exclusively on those lands. Can we agree on that, or should we take it to WP:DR? Debresser (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

How does it matter if East Talpiot was built on other land too? This is about what happened to most of Sur Baher's expropriated land. The source does not say all or most of East Talpiot was built on the land expropiated from Sur Baher, only that most of the land that was taken from Sur Baher was used to build East Talpiot. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I won't agree to any wording that isn't explicitly supported by a reliable source. We are obliged to avoid original research/interpretation. Editors don't need to engage in discussions based on original research/interpretation or respond to statements based personal opinion or interpretation. Editors can't agree to proposals that don't comply with policy. Consensus is only valid if the change complies with policy. Without a source that says "part of" or the equivalent, there is no policy/source based dispute to be resolved. And as IRISZOOM says, this article is about Sur Baher, not East Talpiot, so it is not clear why this "part of" matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM It matters, because the sentence presently doesn't say "Most of the land was used to build the then new Jerusalem neighborhood of East Talpiot". By the way, I would be perfectly happy with that phrase. The sentence says that "East Talpiot was build on most of the land", which implies that the whole of East Talpiot was build on most of that land. Which is simply not true. If all agree to a rephrase to avoid that incorrect implication, then I would be satisfied. I propose the sentence I used above. @Sean I am not proposing to say something that is not in the source. I propose to use our own prose, as we are expected to do per WP:PARAPHRASE. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't see how "East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land" implies "the whole of East Talpiot was build on most of that land". The rest of the paragraph makes it clearer that was not the case:

In 1970, Israel expropriated land around the village used for livestock grazing and harvesting olive and citrus groves from its owners.[18] East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land.[18] According to Isabel Kershner, a fifth of Sur Baher's land was expropriated for East Talpiot, ...

I would not though object to phrasing it in the way you suggested but make it shorter like "Most of the land was used to build East Talpiot". --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The sentence "East Talpiot was built on most of the land" doesn't imply that the "whole of East Talpiot" was built on most of that land. The first sentence doesn't actually contain any information about how much of this spatial thing called East Talpiot was built on the land. To conclude that the whole, or half, or 10% of it was built on the land is an inductive fallacy. These kind of sentence constructions are typical of situations where a writer either doesn't know a quantity or doesn't regard it as pertinent. "whole" is coming from your mind Debresser, not the language or a source, although I can't blame you for reading it way. There is no information so you fill it in yourself. It seems like a reasonable conclusion, but it isn't. It isn't paraphrasing, it's weak induction. We have to stick to sources rather than add information that doesn't come from sources. There is probably a source out there that clarifies this issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It may be wishful thinking, but now that IRISZOOM agrees with a rephrase, and even Sean admits he understands where I am coming from, I'll go ahead and rephrase the sentence. Especially since Sean is wrong about sticking to sources too much, and we should definitely make an effort to say things in our own words, if that makes the issue (including any sourced statements) clearer in the context of the encyclopedic article that Wikipedia is. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I said I think your suggested phrasing should be shortened. That is because East Talpiot is viewed as more than a "Jerusalem neighborhood" but should that be there, expand it.

It is a settlement too, built for Jews, which is highly relevant. There are many sources describing that one and other areas in Jerusalem as "settlements" even if Israel and some others like to see them as different. The source describes it as "the new Jewish neighborhood". --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I have changed it to "Jewish neighborhood" in Jerusalem. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, edits that are not based on what reliable sources say will be reverted because those kind of edits do not comply with mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Last Word? Or is there a reason you are stating the obvious after a few days of quiet? Debresser (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason. It is because it is evident from several statements you have made on this page and edits to this article that you either do not understand the rules or you do not think they apply to your edits. You say "I'll go ahead and rephrase the sentence"...okay, but if the change is not directly supported by what a reliable source says it will be reverted. So, for example, if you were add the words "Part of" to the sentence without citing a source it will be reverted because, without a source to support the statement, it obviously does not comply with mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I object to your belligerent tone. I know policies and guidelines quite well, thank you. I will not even react to the second half of your assumption. As I had chance to tell somebody on Facebook just yesterday: the fact that I disagree with you, does not mean I don't know my stuff. In any case, your repeated reminder is again duly noted. Any other last words...? (sigh) Debresser (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Name of the area

The article has a road sign giving its English name as Tsur Baher. I understand that this may be more consistent with the Hebrew pronunciation than the Arabic, but if its official local spelling is Tsur, perhaps the article should be renamed. Joe in Australia (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"Sur Baher" is much more common in English. Zero^talk 05:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with "Sur" as most common, but it is a good idea to add the official spelling as well. Debresser (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think Tsur is the official spelling? Why do you think there is an official English spelling at all? Road signs in Israel use spellings all over the place, the English transliterations they give aren't even consistent let alone official. On government websites I also see "Zur Baher" and "Tzur Baher" as well as "Sur Baher", plus all of those with "Bahar" instead of "Baher". At best, "Tsur" is a transliteration of the Hebrew name. Zero^talk 12:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally the English name given on the signs for the main road through Sur Baher is "Sur Baher St". Zero^talk 13:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it is on the roadboard, but even without that, it is in common use. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't see that it hurts to give the most common transliterations as alternatives, particularly one that appears on the photo used to illustrate the article. I'm not suggesting that we need to go overboard, of course, but someone looking up the village should be able to find it by referring to any commonly-used name, certainly ones that appear on local signage. Joe in Australia (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with how it is just now. Mostly I objected to the word "official". Zero^talk 08:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to record my agreement with Zero0000. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hebrew

I object to Hebrew being ok on an article about a place under Israeli occupation. It makes it sound like it is Israeli, while no-one in the world (except Israel) sees it like that. Comments?

And don´t fool yourself: there was never any “consensus” for calling it “Israeli control”… I just got tired of Debressers intransigence, and started working elsewhere, Huldra (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't justify removing useful information from the article. There are people who don't recognise the existence of Israel *at all*; would that justify deleting all the articles on Israel, and every Hebrew term from related articles? Joe in Australia (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It is standard practise that *all* places in Israel should have the name in both the official languages of Israel, that is Hebrew and Arabic; I would argue the same should be for Israeli persons, at least persons in public office. This is something completely different from using Hebrew in a place which is occupied by Israel. Yes: occupied. To me, this is a way of underhand trying to let it appear as if this place is Israeli, too. Which is not the view of the international community. I therefor suggest we remove it, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I would hope we could discuss it here, and not spread this "edit-war" over at other articles, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The place is under Israel control; Hebrew is on the road board at the entrances to these places. Ergo, it is relevant. Nothing to discuss here. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For crying out loud, it is a neighborhood of Jerusalem. How can Hebrew not be relevant? I mean, politics aside here, please, and be realistic. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anything like that is implied and adding the name in Hebrew is relevant. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Occupied again

The name of the Israeli and Jordanian control over the area in which this town is located is called "occupation". That is a simple statement of fact backed up by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. The section titles shouldn't dance around that simple statement of fact. nableezy - 21:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

See above that this has been discussed before. To rehearse. The word "control" is in the section headers to avoid POV edit wars, while the texts of the sections explain the type of control. Also, "control" already implies less than official authority. No need to go back to those discussions. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No, its been discussed with you alone, except for a comment by the honestly named anothernewaccount, arguing against several other users. Control implies no such thing, and occupation is actually an official authority anyway. Why exactly should the specific form of control exercised over the territory not be used in the section title? For both Jordan and Israel. nableezy - 23:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we need some broad discussion to address this question. Somebody would like to suggest an appropriate location for this. Perhaps we should open a project page for the IP conflict? Debresser (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we "need some broad discussion" for this. It is as clear it could be that Israel, like Jordan did, occupies East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is equally correct to say that the West Bank (and Sur Baher) is "under Israeli military control". Which is why I propose to keep "control" in the headers. That is also less POV, because saying "occupied" ignores the Israeli stance on this issue, which is noteworthy.

I understand that some may not think a broad discussion necessary, but in view of the fact that 1. "control" has been the consensus version for half a year 2. said consensus was not just implied but actively reached after discussion on this talkpage 3. the proposed change is not neutral 4. the sensitivity of this issue, I do insist this must be discussed at some central place. Now, does anybody have a suggestion where to do this? WP:CENTRAL? Debresser (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

As Nableezy said: "The section titles shouldn't dance around that simple statement of fact" and "Why exactly should the specific form of control exercised over the territory not be used in the section title?". So why not use the exact terms for what only the Israeli government and a few others dispute? It isn't "less POV" but as I wrote back in May: "'Occupation' is perfectly fine and it has nothing to do with neutrality. It is just a fact it is an occupation...". What you are proposing creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

A consensus was never reached here but editors rather became tired, especially after another dispute arose here.

What are we meant to discuss? If the international community and vast majority of reliable sources view the West Bank as occupied territory? If we can't call it "occupation" because Israel disputes it? --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I know your POV is that there is nothing to discuss. In any case, so I'll post at WP:CENTRAL, by lack of other suggestions. Debresser (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually asked you questions to know what you want to discuss. It doesn't matter where you post if you won't tell that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

IRISZOOM, I apologize for misunderstanding your intentions. So what I want to discuss is using "control" or "occupation", and that specifically in the header of the sections for Jordan and Israel control. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, you arguing against everybody else is not a "consensus" in your favor. People got tired of arguing with you on this point, they never agreed to "control", as the recent statements make clear. You want to argue this elsewhere go ahead, nobody is stopping you. But arguing that there is a consensus in your favor is nonsensical. nableezy - 17:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nableezy Your claim is not supported by the facts. The facts are that there was a broad and active discussion on this talkpage, and that afterwards the version that stuck was "control", which was one of the versions that was discussed there. I agree that the discussion does not come to a clear conclusion, but the above-mentioned fact in itself constitutes consensus. Enough of it, in any case, that anybody claiming otherwise will have to prove so. In any case, I am going to post about this a WP:CENTRAL, and will put a link to it on this page. Debresser (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I read that broad and active discussion, and you prevailed in using control by sheer determination, people got sick of arguing with you. Huldra specifically said that above. Unfortunately for you, I can also be very stubborn, and I wont just get annoyed having to deal with the same bogus argument over and over again, so determination wont be enough for you this time. nableezy - 17:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if they got tired of arguing with me, that proves they hadn't convinced me. There must be a better reason for that than assuming I insist on some POV.

By the way, I can live with "occupation", as long as it is used equally for Jordan and Israel. I see that most of my fellow editors do not agree with me that the word "control" is less POV, and am willing to bow to the majority in this issue. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree it should be used for both section titles and I did so. If you agree to that now then I think we can put this behind us. nableezy - 18:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want to stress that I agreed with this in the original discussion as well, from the very beginning. I do not disagree with the fact that most of the world sees it as an occupation. Even if not in the everyday sense of therm, then at least in the legal sense of the term. I still think, as I did then, that the word "control" is more NPOV and more fit for the header. But yes, I am willing to accept the fact that most of my fellow editors think otherwise, and support "occupation" for both Jordan and Israel. With the caveat that if new voices would arise at any future time to use the word "control", then I am still to be counted with that opinion. Debresser (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree it should describe both as occupations because they are viewed like that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

POV changes

This edit introduced some statements that can't stand in view of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS.

1. Ever since the first usage of {{Infobox settlement}} it was as {{Infobox Israel municipality}}.
2. {{Infobox Palestinian Authority municipality}} is actually a redirect to {{Infobox Palestine municipality}}, so should not be used.
3. The Hebrew name was removed for unclear reasons, even though both {{Infobox settlement}} and {{Infobox Palestine municipality}} allow for the Hebrew name, and File:SurBaher.jpg clearly shows the Hebrew on the road board, next to the Arabic and English versions, as usual in Israel.
4. The edit removed the sourced fact that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was not recognized by the international community. See Benveniśtî, Eyāl (2004). The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press. p. 108. ISBN 0-691-12130-3. This purported annexation was, however, widely regarded as illegal and void, by the Arab League and others, and was recognized only by Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.
5. The edit decided to introduce a difference between the Jordan and Israeli occupation in the section headers.
6. The edit broke the half year long de facto consensus of having "control" in the headers of both the Jordan and the Israeli section, even though 1. that version was the result of a long discussion on this talkpage 2. discussion about whether any change is to the section headers is desirable, is still ongoing on this page.

I have therefore ondone these edits, and expect my fellow editors to refrain from re-doing them till such time as consensus has been established. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

re the first one, it shouldnt be Israel municipality. It isn't in Israel as the alt text incorrectly says, it is in East Jerusalem, which is in the occupied Palestinian territories. As far as the last point, I responded to the claim of a consensus above, and regardless there are now 3 users agreeing it should say occupied and you alone saying it is POV, without referencing how it is POV according to Wikipedia's definition of POV. Nobody agreed with you in the long discussion, they just got tired of dealing with the obstinate refusal to accept occupation without cause. nableezy - 17:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Tsur Baher is under de facto Israeli control, in that it is being actively governed by Israel. In addition, Israel claims to have the right to govern it. It is true that the State of Palestine claims to have that same right, but that claim has no bearings on the question who is actually governing the neighborhood. As such, there is no logic in changing this template. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, the problem with that is that you are elevating the Israeli claim over what nearly the rest of the world agrees. Now I dont agree with the changes over the past months of saying something is in the state of Palestine, to me it should still say in the Palestinian territories, but we cant have in Wikipedia's voice a statement of fact that something in East Jerusalem is in fact in Israel. Not controlled, occupied, administered, but in. Meaning within its sovereign territory. And that is the result of using that infobox. nableezy - 18:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I do see your point. But using {{Infobox Palestine municipality}} is even less desirable, per the above. There is an interesting way out of this, I think, and that is to use the original {{Infobox settlement}}, upon which both these infoboxes are build, and use our own text, like e.g. "de facto Israel, claimed by the State of Palestine". I have seen such a text in some place, although probably not in an infobox. By the way, another reason to choose that solution, is that Sur Baher is actually not a municipality, but a settlement of lesser order, and therefore both templates are not really fit. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually care what is used, I care about what is shown. I'm fine with the alt text saying in East Jerusalem, I wouldn't even stress it saying in the Palestinian territories. I need to think about which map I'd want to use. nableezy - 00:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Nableezy, that sounds like a nice compromise. I think the present map is fine, being that it shows both Israel and Palestinian areas, and the location of Sur Baher somewhere on the border between them. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This is another iteration of the "If it's illegal than it's not real" argument regarding Israeli control of East Jerusalem. This source demonstrates that Sur Baher is administered by Israel. Do you have any sources that say it is not administered by Israel ? It's not about giving Israeli position preference, it's about giving the reality preference. Of course it should be mentioned that under international law East Jerusalem is considered occupied, but it cannot be said not to be de-facto part of Israel only because de-jure, according to a some people, it isn't. “WarKosign” 15:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And you once again come with this argument. As said before and also now: no one is disputing Israel is occupying Sur Baher or the rest of East Jerusalem. However, no matter how much Israel claims and manages the area, it isn't theirs according to the world. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet you want to write that it's not in Israel while it really is. We have two facts, well supported by sources:

1. De-facto it is part of Israel.

2. De-jure it is considered occupied.

No matter how strongly one believes in 2, 1 remains a fact on the ground. It doesn't matter that one believes that it should or shouldn't be part of Israel: at the moment it is, maybe sometime in the future it won't be. “WarKosign” 16:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That Israel occupies the city doesn't make it to be in Israel. It is only a fact that Israel is in East Jerusalem, not the other way around. Same goes for the rest of the occupied territories. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are saying any of this. Who has said that Israel does not control East Jerusalem? That isnt what is at issue here, so I really dont see a point responding to that. nableezy - 17:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to mention a third option: have no infobox at all. Nableezy, in continuation of the above discussion, what map would you prefer, if we do decide to use {{Infobox settlement}}? Debresser (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

I had actually never noticed that this place had "Infobox Israel municipality", that is not correct, IMO. It simply has to go. The alternative "Infobox Palestinian Authority municipality" is not ideal, either, any suggestion? Huldra (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, see section above. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sight, Yeah, I saw that. But that section discussed many, many things; I thought it would be clearer if we had a sub-section for each specific issue we disagree about. I suggest using "Infobox Palestinian Authority muni" here (it is also used, at say ash-Sheikh Sa'd.) Comments? Huldra (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, that discussion is really in the section above. As you can see, of all the subjects I posted about, this is the subject the discussion is concentration on. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well. it was precisely due to "all the subjects" you posted there, that I had hoped we could have one specifically for the infobox, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

..and it went as I suspected, the discussion got "lost" among so many other issues. And a biased info-box remains. Huldra (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

General information, which does not mention Sur Baher

I see no justification, what so ever, for this edit. There are a zillion sources, discussing the West Bank; we cannot cherry pick any we like (which does NOT mention Sur Baher) and add that to the article. I thought this was pretty basic? Huldra (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As I already said in the edit summary: cherry-picking has nothing to do with providing some relevant, I'd even say important or crucial, background information. I don't understand what your problem is here. Debresser (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Two other editors", heh, heh, heh; yeah, User:Lancidre has exactly 3 edits; 2 edit-warring. Why do you side with every Nocal-sock eh, "new" editor which comes along? I really thought you were better than that. Silly me. And everything you want to add is already spelled out in shis shitty article, which is linked from from the Sur Baher-article. You know I can easily find some RS which condemns the apartheid conditions under Israeli occupation of the West Bank; I assume you will not object then, when I include that, as " important or crucial, background information"? What is good for the goose, is good for the gander, as they say, Huldra (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You are just being nasty. I refuse to discuss this issue further with you till such time as you strike the nastiness or apologize.

Regarding your threat to add non-relevant information, WP:REICHSTAG comes to mind. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are not allowed unilaterally to decide what is relevant or not. Any general info about the Israeli occupation is obviously relevant....*if* the general info about the Jordanian annexation which you added is relevant. I would have thought that was rather obvious. Huldra (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the part is relevant and other periods are defined in a similar way here. It doesn't matter if Sur Baher isn't mentioned in the source as we know it is a part of the West Bank, which Jordan occupied and annexed, though never recognized by the world. Of course nearly all sources mentioning a certain region was annexed will not list all cities and villages that were part of that region. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don´t follow you. That it was not recognised by the majority of states is mentioned in this article, which is presently linked from the Sur Baher page. If we are opening up for including all sorts of information, not mentioning "Sur Baher", then we are really opening a can of worms... Huldra (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So the many articles that mention that Palestine became a part of the Ottoman Empire list all those cities and villages? That Jordan annexed it and that it wasn't recognized by the world is significant. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if that is significant, you would also have to mention which countries *did* actually recognise it, would´t you? Again, all that is in the linked article, Huldra (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the text. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with IRISZOOM, obviously.

One more thing, Huldra, if you think that every time you post here you can push your edit in the article, that is wrong. You should wait till the discussion ends. Especially since already two other editors disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser: Look at those time-stamps: I posted here, on the talk-page on 22:25, 20 October 2015‎. Nobody answered me for three days. Then on 22:07, 23 October 2015‎: I reverted. You, Debresser then falsely accuse me, both here, and in a edit-summary, no less: of "You mean that every time you post on the talk, you can change the article? No way!". In fact, yes: when I raise something on a talk-page, and no-one shows up to argue against it for days (even though they do other edits): yeah, I think I can change the article.

Secondly; about the issue; the problem is that this is cherry-picking: why not mention that Jordan gave them equal rights with other Jordanian citizens? *That* was after all a heck of a lot more important to the average person. The reason why this is not included is of course that would show the huge, fundamental difference between the Jordanian era, and the Israeli occupation presently; where locals are treated like a sub-human specie by the occupants. Huldra (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not have to repeat my disagreement when all you do is repeat the same thing in other words. You were aware of opposition to your opinion, both from the talkpage and from the actual edits on the page, and you reverted nevertheless.

The section is not about the average person, but about the legal status of the territory. Please stop your POV-pushing. Debresser (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)