Talk:Naharayim

Clarify notability?

I have tagged this article with the {{notability}} template because it is not clear from reading the page what makes this a notable site. Can someone explain and possibly expand the text of the page slightly?

I am sorry if this seemed like a drive-by tagging. I came to this via New Page Patrol, which often involves adding cleanup templates to new pages. It did not seem to be a controversial request. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a source, and will hopefully add more info. I think the place is notable enough. -- Nudve (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Land ownership

My understanding - per the peace treaty - and this source is that the entire 820 dunam stretch referred to in the peach treaty is Israeli owned - harking back to the PEC purchase of 6000 dunam in 1927. This 820 dunam piece had the distinction of being under the control of Israel during 1950-1994 (and the border itself was disputed until 94). Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: This is useful information, but doesn't settle the issue yet. I have a detailed map of the armistice line (Survey of Israel, 1954) that shows approximately 820 dunums which is east of the international border but controlled by Israel. That much agrees. However, that region did not include the site of the power plant or the site of Tel Or. It corresponds roughly to the area called "Peace Island" on this map. The power plant is south of it and Tel Or was near where "Ecolodges" is marked. A detailed description of the region is supposed to appear in Appendix IV to the peace treaty, which I am still looking for (seems to be a map). Zero^talk 00:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The map is here. I'll check it against a print copy of the UN Treaty Series soon. There is a dark line surrounding the Peace Island portion. We can accept a good source that this part has private Israeli ownership under Jordanian sovereignty, but we can't imply that all of the Naharayim area is like that. The spot marked as Naharayim on maps lies outside Peace Island. Zero^talk 01:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the 820 dunams in the peace treaty is "peace island". The confusion in terminology is that the peace treaty refers to "peace island" as Naharayim (and not "peace island"). The rest of Naharayim was owned by PEC (Israel electric company) / private Israelis - but was placed under the Jordanian trustee for enemy holdings and the special provisions (access, protection of Israeli propery rights) does not apply there. Note also that "lease" or "reverse lease"is incorrect - it was used by media at the time, but the peace treaty itself and academic aources describe something different (and state lease is incorrect) - private Israeli ownership under Jordanian law/control - Israeli rights are protected by the treaty for 25 years whcih renew automatically forever (there is an opt-out with a one year notice - that trigeers renegotiation of the treaty).Icewhiz (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. Tomorrow I will add more about the armistice agreement and a dispute that arose over it. Zero^talk 13:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Today November 10th 2019, Jordan recover the Baqoura lands from Israel. Which ocuured by the termination of the rental 25 years agreement last year by Jordan. Sfrhan (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Israeli

please change ((Israeli)) to ((Israel))i

OK done, thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Zionists

Jordanian government has notified the Zionists government that Jordan want the land back according to what is called the treaty of peace. هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Title Name Change

Please change the title of the article from "Naharayim" (Hebrew name) to "Baqoura" (Arabic name) ; reflecting the end of the land lease given to Israel from Jordan as of the 10th of November 2019 in accordance with Annex I (B) of the 1994 Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty . 82.44.32.145 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This request would appear to be valid, in fact it would likely have been valid even before the latest developments, the site is in Jordan not in Israel so there is no reason to have a Hebrew designation, the Arabic name is given in the existing lead.Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is (and was) in Jordan. The only obstacle is COMMONNAME, since English sources more commonly follow the Hebrew name. Maybe it needs an RfC. Zero^talk 21:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Israeli English sources more commonly use the Hebrew name, while Jordanian English sources more commonly use the Arabic name. International English sources tend to reference Baqoura or more commonly both names depending on the context which does not suggest Naharayim to be the status quo COMMONNAME. Leograce (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

There are two different sites. According to google maps, there is a Naharayim in Israel where a memorial for the 5 Israeli school girls killed in 1997 lies. There is also the Baqoura village in Jordan which is a couple of kms away from the site meant by this article. So considering the site meant by this article is in Jordan and the fact that there are two interchangeable names for it, both names should be used, exactly like how it is referred to in the 1994 peace treaty, "Naharayim/Baqoura". But now considering the site is under full Jordanian sovereignty, it should be just "Baqoura" perhaps to be merged with the non-existing village article. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a note; for the other place under discussion, Al Ghamr, is called just that (and Tzofar is a redir), Huldra (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. We did not change the article called Macau to Oumún when it was handed back to China, and we're not going to engage in this silly , politically-driven POV-pushing here, either. As Zero0000 notes, WP:COMMONNAME is the policy. Here come the Suns (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody suggested it being renamed because it was handed back. Read the arguments first before accusing us of “nonsense” and POV-pushing.Makeandtoss (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read before commenting. Here's what the OP gave as his reason, I bolded the part you missed: "Please change the title of the article from "Naharayim" (Hebrew name) to "Baqoura" (Arabic name) ; reflecting the end of the land lease given to Israel from Jordan" Here come the Suns (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok maybe someone suggested that, but that doesn’t change the fact that you haven’t read the rest of the arguments. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to mark this as done, clearly this needs a WP:RM consensus to be formed before moving forward. Anyone can place that if they feel it appropriate. — IVORK _Talk 21:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Suggestion re name

Perhaps the issue (to the extent that there is one) could be resolved by having 3 pages:

1)Baqoura (the current one, renamed)

2)Naharayim (new)

3)Baqoura Naharayim Lease, treaty, whatever.(new)

Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)