Talk:First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:10, 12 May 2020

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

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

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

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

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 April 2020. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Rutenberg caricatured in Punch on 7 June 1922

... that only one hydroelectric plant was built on the Jordan River, out of fourteen planned by Pinhas Rutenberg (pictured)? Source: Reguer, Sara. “Rutenberg and the Jordan River: A Revolution in Hydro-Electricity” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 31, no. 4, 1995, pages 692 and 725; "He envisaged using all the water in the area - Litani, Dan, Hasbani, Banias, Yarmuk, and Yabok - to feed fourteen power stations on both sides of the Jordan down to the Dead Sea, into which all the water would flow through parallel canals, east and west, from the southern end of Lake Tiberias to Jericho... Yet as the years passed, progress was slow, and the original plan diminished to one power plant at Jisr al-Mujamieh/Naharayim."

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 23:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Christine Hayes

~~The article is currently at AfD JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Kept and ready for review. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is several unsolved issues in the article --Shrike (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed now. I would note that Shrike and one other editor have been in disagreement with me and two other editors about the inclusion of a quote in the body of the article from US diplomat Wells Stabler published in the FRUS. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not even remotely "fixed". There are multiple issues with regards to inappropriate use of primary sources , which have been thoroughly explained on the talk page, and met with stonewalling. There is no consensus for the material in the article as it currently stands. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the other editor I mentioned. The above comment contains hyperbole. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No hyperbole whatsoever, just a factual description of the situation: disputed material with no consensus for inclusion being reintroduced into to the article, and policy-based objections met with stonewalling . This is not ready for DYKs.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)

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 15:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full review needed now that sock's objections are moot. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently RSN discussion about the source [1] so not all problems were solved. --Shrike (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - Earwig has flagged a couple of passages in need of reworking

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: QPQ needed. Some rewording needed to avoid copyvio --evrik ^(talk) 16:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik: thank you for these comments. I will work through them. If you have time I would be grateful if you would comment at the RSN discussion, whichever way you consider appropriate. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been through the earwig output - I believe all the text it picked up were quotations, and are explicitly stated as such in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the QPQ above. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a rename discussion it should be resolved one way or another.I think we can wait another week --Shrike (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rename just closed. This can go forward. --evrik ^(talk) 04:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--evrik ^(talk) 17:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the image is coming up to its 98th anniversary, so let's run it on June 7! Yoninah (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. --evrik ^(talk) 19:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyed?

@Makeandtoss: have you seen anything in Jordanian literature about why the plant was never reopened after it was taken by the Arab Legion in 1948? Israeli literature often says the Jordanians “destroyed” the plant, which seems odd, unless perhaps they wanted to remove a motive for further Israeli attacks. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turbines were allegedly destroyed by the Iraqi Army. "The hydroelectric plant sits on Jordanian land, though climate change and diverting the water for agriculture has weakened the flow of the rivers to the point at which hydroelectricity would no longer be feasible." Makeandtoss (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From this map I believe the power plant was among the 1,390 dunams occupied by Israel on 28 August 1950. I could be wrong I am not sure. It was also apparently discussed at the UNSC. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read that about the Iraqis in another publication, but it seems odd since it was the Transjordanian Arab Legion which took the plant from the Israelis in the war. The Iraqi army were nearby though – they tried and failed to occupy Gesher. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Per this map - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naharayim#/media/File:NaharayimBaqura.jpg - the power plant was in Jordanian hands after the war. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like 1,390 dunums to me, judging from Rutenburg 6,000 dunums. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the dunums measure has to do with it, but the map clearly shows the power plant on the Jordanian side of the border. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like more than a sixth of the territory.. The 1949 armistice line is irrelevant, the territory was occupied in 1950. There's are conflicting information in the two sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what does the size of the overall territory purchased by Rutenberg for the PEC have to do with it? The power plant is a group of buildings, all of which are on the Jordanian side and in Jordanian hands , both before and after 1950. There is no conflicting information regarding this here, you just don't seem to be able to read a map.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be unable to read my arguments. The armistice line was drawn in 1949, 2 years before Israel occupied the territory, i.e. it could have occupied beyond the armistice line which is a plausible claim considering that: 1-Jordan's Atlas map does not correspond exactly with the armistice map 2-the Jordanian map shows the territory to be larger than the armistice map which makes sense since 1,390 dunums out of 6,000 account for 23% of the territory. Makeandtoss (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israel did not occupy any land beyond the armistice line, and could not do so without starting a war. Read the history of this area- there was a dispute between Israel and Transjordan about where the armistice line should have been drawn, vs where it was actually drawn, but no one disputes that the area you call "occupied" (i.e , the Island of Peace), was in fact on the Israeli side of the armistice line, and does not extend to the power plant, which is further south. Just look at the map. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The armistice line is about ceasefire and not borders. Israel militarily occupied the area. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didn't. read some history. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your rudeness somewhere else. Zero^talk 14:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post where I please, thanks. When you comment similarly on people telling me "You seem to be unable to read my arguments", Or "focus" or "please switch your brain on or else go away. " (all in discussions you were heavily and actively involved with,) I might take you seriously. Until then, I'll treat this comment the way it should be treated - partisan hackery. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The power station was on the Jordanian side of the armistice line and never occupied by Israel. The argument in the UNSC was over the correct location of the armistice line. During negotiations in the 1950+ time period the possibility of restarting power generation was discussed but that didn't happen (I forget where I read about those negotiations). Zero^talk 06:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide us with a source? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all the debate in the SC. See the section "1949 armistice line" in Naharayim. You can find the UN documents by searching for the document symbol (such as S/1824) at https://documents.un.org/prod/ods.nsf/home.xsp . Zero^talk 12:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an excellent explanation from the US State Department. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew source

This paper in Cathedra is also available at JSTOR which unfortunately thinks there are two authors with the same name. NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PALESTINE ELECTRIC COMPANY CONCESSION by Michael Aran. Zero^talk 06:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archival Sources

These two files have interesting but rather frustrating information. For example there are several drafts and discussion of the 1927 Transjordanian law on the Rutenberg concession, but not, I think, the final version. Zero^talk 03:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zero^talk 03:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some dates and stuff in here Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blown up generators

Only one source tells that the workers blew up the generators and the source is on a verge of a primary source.This is not scholarly work.I didn't find any serous historian discuss it. I think its clearly undue and should be removed. --Shrike (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a high quality source which covers in detail the fate of the power plant in the 1948 war, we can discuss due weight. This report from the State Department is the most detailed source I have found on the topic. I note you are not questioning the reliability of the source. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, If the historians don't include this incident we shouldn't too we should use secondary sources not primary accounts.Which their accuracy is not clear per our policies.Also probably the long quote from the source should be removed it too. --Shrike (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obvious case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The source is reliable, and appropriately in-line attributed, yet you ask to excise the information.

As I said above, if you can bring other sources which cover this event in detail, then we can discuss. In the absence of that, your statement that "the historians don't include this incident" has no basis. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against using primary sources, only against interpreting them. In my opinion, the quotation enhances the article and it is in plain English with no interpretation required. If is no worse than the countless eye-witness reports from travelers that are all over the encyclopedia. Better, in fact, as the report is an official one. Zero^talk 11:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The plant is discussed in secondary sources including the battle for example Gelber and yet no one mention the generators.Proably RFC in order to clarify this issue --Shrike (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a cable from the US Chargé d'affaires is a primary source. Such a cable, made based on a visit to the site months after the event and relying on second hand info (at best) from an interested party (the Transjordanians who attacked the site and controlled it during the visit by the Chargé d'affaires), can't be used here without a secondary reliable source. I am removing it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need consensus first. There is no rush. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused. There is no consensus to include this, and WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. WP:ONUS is part of WP:V. We have established the source is a WP:RS, so ONUS has been achieved.

Your argument is about WP:PRIMARY, which is part of WP:OR. Two editors here are arguing that this primary source is appropriate in attributed form. We have been having a sensible discussion – there is no need to raise the temperature with edit warring. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is wrong on all counts. We have not established that this is a reliable source, and primary sources can't be used in the way you introduced them into the article per WP:RSPRIMARY: "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material ". Further, even if this was a reliable secondary source, per WP:ONUS " Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion"- and "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.". You do not have such consensus here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited by seven separate editors over the period that this text has been in the article. You need consensus to remove it. Please contribute to the discussion.

As to the first part of your statement above, you are correct that there should be no “interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources”. Where do you see such things in the article?

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

. This article only came out of AfD today - one of the 7 editors you are referring to nominated it for deletion almost immediately, so there was clearly no consensus for anything in the article back then. Another one of those "7 editors" was a bot, yet another merely removed the AfD tag, after closing the Afd, and yet another added a category. Other than you, there are exactly two editors who can plausibly be seen as implicitly agreeing with the content, and two editors objecting to it. The specific block of text in question was added by you just 5 days ago - there was no consensus for it when you added it, and there is no consensus for it now. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The report of Wells Stabler is obviously noteworthy. The only question is of whether to present the information in the report as fact. JungerMan's claim that Stabler's information came only from the Jordanians is based on nothing and should be ignored. The solution is to reword it as what Stabler reported, after which I don't believe any valid reason for censoring it would remain. Zero^talk 05:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:TENDENTIOUS nature of these editors' edit warring is now proven by the nature of their deletions. Both editors have tried to edit war out only the part of the quote that goes against a particular point of view. Yet they chose to retain the rest of the quote. And neither have brought any source which supports their deletion. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with your violation of WP:NPA.The WP:ONUS is on you to keep the material. --Shrike (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is disgraceful to argue that a source is unreliable and then keep all but the part one doesn't like. Consensus has been met because the argument against has no substance. Get over it and look for an alternative narrative if you want to balance this one. Zero^talk 10:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, If it was noteworthy like you claim than historians would mention it I didn't found any mention of this at Morris or Gelber or anyone for this matter.In my opinion we shouldn't use such source at all.I think we should use only secondary WP:RS --Shrike (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every eye-witness account is a primary source and Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of them. Every time a journalist reports something they saw, that's a primary source. So this primary/secondary argument has no value. In addition there are plenty of cases where only one eye-witness reported something. That only makes it fringe if there is something extraordinary about it, but this claim is in line with Israeli practice elsewhere and not surprising at all. The only question here is whether the source is reliable and that is the easiest question to answer: a trained diplomat of a neutral country who investigates in person and then reports in confidence to his government is about as reliable as one can get. Much more reliable than an official spokesperson of Israel, Jordan or Iraq. I reworded the section to attribute it to the source rather than present his report as fact, which is more of a compromise than it really deserves. Zero^talk 11:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Stabler's reports are very often cited as reliable. Also, we seem to be forgetting that Foreign Relations of the United States is a secondary source. It isn't like Onceinawhile dug into a dusty archive to unearth this material; it was published in a high profile series with an editorial board of serious historians. Zero^talk 12:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The FRUs, as a collection of original material, are primary sources. If this wasn't t obvious to you, other administrators have made that clear at WP:RSN: [2] JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT is also a collection of original material. An academic journal is also a collection of original material. Enjoy yourself purging Wikipedia of all those naughty primary sources. Zero^talk 15:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies regarding primary and non-primary sources before continuing to comment here, and read the specific WP:RSN discussion regarding the FRUs iI pointed you to. They are clearly a primary source.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule, and there has never been a rule, that primary sources can't be used in Wikipedia. There are only rules about how they can be used, and those rules are satisfied. I won't bother replying to you again on this. Zero^talk 15:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you've learned enough to move the goalposts from the utterly fallacious claim that "Foreign Relations of the United States is a secondary source." to recognizing it is in fact a primary source, but supposedly being used properly. This assertion that this primary source is used properly is still false, as I've described elsewhere. You have no consensus to include this material in the article, and simply refusing to engage further is just fine with me - it will result in the removal of the contested material per WP:ONUS. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)

@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: just a reminder about this. If you are not familiar with what this means I will be happy to explain. Please be careful to avoid WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. And note that in this discussion a majority of editors continue to support retaining the information in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I remind you of the same , since you violated WP:QUO by reinserting material I had just reverted? Spare me your sanctimoniousness. Consensus is not a numerical vote, and 3:2 is not consensus to include disputed material. Start an RfC if you want to include it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)

@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: Correct, policy states that "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Your argument is twofold: (1) an incorrect assertion that primary or semi-primary sources are disallowed (see WP:PRIMARY, which states "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia"); and (2) an original research speculation that there must be implicit contradiction through silence. Unfortunately, these arguments are not policy based, and therefore don't qualify. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misrepresent my arguments, it is dishonest in addition to being disruptive. I did not say WP:PRIMARY sources are not allowed, I said it is not allowed to use them in the way you are doing. The argument, once more (with relevant citations to policy) is as follows: The Stabler cable is a primary source. In it, he makes a claim no other reliable source has made. WP:OR, in discussing WP:PRIMARY sources, says that if they are used, it should be used with caution, and has an explanatory footnote that says that any such source making an exceptional claim requires exceptional sources. In WP:EXCEPTIONAL "exceptional claims" are then further defined as, among other criteria, "Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" - which this surely is, and "Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest" - which also fits this situation. In summary: policy is clear that you may not use the Stabler cable (alone) to support the claim that the dynamos were initially blown up by the plant's workers, as that is a challenged exceptional claim supported purely by a primary source. In addition, you have provided a lengthy (1500 char) quote from that source, which again runs contrary to WP:RSPRIMARY: "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. Finally, even if this was a reliable secondary source, per WP:ONUS. "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion"- and "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.". You do not have such consensus here.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: this is now the third time you have pivoted your argument on what looks like WP:Policy shopping. For the first time, after dozens of comments, you have decided to base your argument around WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Unfortunately your interpretation is incorrect. We are not saying here that the Israelis blew up the dynamos. We are saying that an American diplomat said that they did. Not only is that not exceptional, but we are using the best possible source to confirm it. You cannot deny that an American diplomat said that the Israelis blew up the dynamos, so WP:EXCEPTIONAL – which is about verifying the statement – is entirely irrelevant. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to misrepresent arguments, I see. Read up to the very first post in this thread, which Shrike wrote: "the source is on a verge of a primary source.This is not scholarly work.I didn't find any serous historian discuss it. I think its clearly undue and should be removed." Then read my first argument here, on 4/17: "a cable from the US Chargé d'affaires is a primary source. Such a cable... can't be used here without a secondary reliable source.". Shrike's argument as well as mine are based on clear policy which excludes this use of a primary source. Accordingy, I will be removing this non-consensus material shortly, you may start an RfC if you'd like. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no OR here, if the primary source can be verified as saying x, it doesn't even matter if x is true or not. I think the onus is on you to demonstrate a consensus that this particular primary source, a very good and reliable source on the face of it, should not be used. There might be an argument against over quoting from it, I am not sure about that but the bit about Israeli complicity in the destruction is only a small part of it anyway.Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted to you from WP:PRIMARY, which is part of WP:OR- you need secondary sources for such a claim, else it's OR. alternatively, if you just want to say "a diplomat said this" - it would be excluded based on WP:DUE- why would we care, if no other source reported on it? And that not how WP:ONUS works -the onus to show consensu is on those seeking to include contested material. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your interpretation of the applicable policies and mine differ, as I see it there is nothing to disallow this primary source per Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. Zero is an admin and thinks it is OK, if you are still doubtful then could you not ask another admin to weigh in? Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've quoted the relevant policy that explains why you can't use a primary source for an exceptional claim. You can go discuss it on a relevant board, or start an RfC here - because there's no consensus for that material. Zero also thought the FRUs are secondary source, which is clearly wrong per the WP:RSN discussion I linked to. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not every primary source that may be reliable or not should be included please read WP:DUE --Shrike (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that the only way to justify exclusion of this material would be if no claims were made at all in respect of culpability for damage caused to the plant. I note that the large majority of Israeli sources alternately blame Jordan or Iraq for the damage while more neutral sources note the damage but refrain from assigning blame for it. This source, which is a pretty good source, allocates blame to Iraq and Israel while letting Jordan mostly off the hook. This seems reasonable, why would Jordan destroy the plant in their control when it could be of benefit to them? Isn't it more plausible that Israel would seek to deny that benefit? Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy property is routinely destroyed during war. Your speculation on motive is amusing in its naivety (the plant was supplying Israel with around 1/3 of its electricity, now why would its war-time enemies want to destroy it, hmm?), but irrelevant to what scholarly sources say - which is that the Iraqis destroyed it. The cable is a primary source that can't be used this way in the article - find a secondary source to support this claim, or consensus on this page to include the material - so far you have done neither. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the only way to prevent electric flow to a particular place is to blow up the generator, then yes, you are certainly naive. As for the, rest, you are free, as usual, to commence an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was 'the only way' (have a read: Straw man), but it is a way, and a simple answer to a question that seemed to elude your naive mind - why would you want to destroy your enemy's power plant). You , too, are confused regarding the RfC - there is no consensus to include this material, and the WP:ONUS for seeking consensus is on those wishing to include disputed material that was removed from an article. Get to it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is broken. The plant was in Transjordanian territory and it would have been obvious to the Israeli operators that Israel was going to lose control of it and that it was about to become a Transjordanian asset. Of course they would seek to deny that asset to Transjordan; most countries in a war do things like that. Zero^talk 04:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You either did not read my argument, did not understand it, or are also engaging in a strawman argument . My logic above explains why the Jordanians or Iraqis would have an incentive to destroy the plant, and there's nothing broken in it. Read it again, carefully. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case here, where no credible argument has been brought, only two editors support deletion (and the deletions both made strongly suggest tendentiousness), against three supporting the WP:STATUSQUO. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Credible arguments have been brought against the use of a primary, non-authoratative source that contradicts multiple secondary reliable scholarly sources. This is not a numerical vote, and 3:2 is not consensus. You should really read what WP:STATUSQUO actually sasy, not what you imagine it says: "if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit ". You made an edit, I reverted it in good faith - and you simply reinstated it, in clear violation of what WP:QUO says . Start an RfC if you want to include this contested material. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One needs a valid reason for removal in the first instance and seems to me there isn't one.Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason has been given several times- it is a primary source not collaborated and contradicted by reliable, secondary, scholarly sources. pretending you did't see that stated, many times over, is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JungerMan, above you wrote that Stabler's quote “ contradicts multiple secondary reliable scholarly sources”. Please could you bring those sources which contradict it? I am quite sure you are wrong here. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One source is already in the article- Gelber's account of Iraqis looting the premises, and makes no mention of the alleged damage by the plant workers. Gelber is an academic historian specializing in this subject matter, and his book was published by an academic press (Rooutledge). Another is S. Ilan Troen, a professional historian at Brandies University, with expertise in Israeli social and political history, who in "The price of partition, 1948: The dissolution of the Palestine potash company", (published in the peer-reviewed academic journal "Journal of Israeli History") says "The workers were taken captive and both Iraqis and Jordanians engaged in wholesale looting of machinery". Yet another is Prof. Samuel Willner, of the University of Haifa, "Hydropower and pumped-storage in Israel – The energy security aspect of the Med-Dead Project", in "Negev, Dead Sea and Arava Studie"s 6 (4), 1–9 (2014), who says "The power station was destroyed by the Iraqi forces in 1948 during Israel's War of Independence", and provides 2 additional sources for this statement - (Ben-Arieh, 1965 and Gelber,1997).

You are attempting to supplant these high quality sources with an uncorroborated claim from a non-scholarly primary source. Editors object to that, with good reason. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked Morris his 1948 war doesn't mention it either. Shrike (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone point me to the contradiction? I don't see it. Nothing in Stabler's quote is inconsistent with those sources. He simply provides more detail. Which is not surprising as neither of the sources you mention above were focused on this incident - both remarked on it only in passing. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, Please read WP:DUE.If the sources doesn't mention it we shouldn't too. --Shrike (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Stabler is not a historian, and was not present at the event. When professional historians cover the event, describing who caused the damage and don't make any mention of this extraordinary claim, we don't add such uncorroborated statements from primary sources. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, Also there are sources(for ex. [3],[4] ) that discuss the power station including the whole history and yet it doesn't mention the blown up generators Shrike (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I interpret from the answers above that we are agreed that there is no contradiction, since both of you have chosen not to repeat JungerMan’s claim. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When scholarly historical sources describing the incident including who is responsible and don't mention the plant workers, any source who comes and gives a different account is contradicting them, at least implicitly. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:OR. Speculation about implicit contradictions is just that, speculation. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is allowed on talk pages, in determining how to use sources. And there's no speculation here at all - if all reliable academic historic sources say something happened one way, and one non academic source comes and says 'no it happened this way', it contradicts them. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, as to the other sources, I will look through them. It would be great if we really have a source that addresses this incident in detail, with citations to their underlying sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frustratingly Meiton does not give a source for his sentence on the incident. Footnote 92 leads to an August 1948 letter about the employees held by the Jordanians. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pesach Malovany (16 June 2017). Wars of Modern Babylon: A History of the Iraqi Army from 1921 to 2003. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 48–. ISBN 978-0-8131-6945-3. This UP says the Iraqi forces captured 40 armed Israelis? I am not that clear on timings, is it that the Legion went there on 14th May, left the next day and replaced by Iraqi forces?Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Palestine Post reported 40 prisoners from Naharayim on May 25, 1948, p1. I think Meiton's count of 38 is more reliable as it is based on contemporary documents. Zero^talk 02:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, still can't get the timings tho, I know the Legion came out of Palestine then went back in (at midnight, I guess) and they handed over to Iraqi force (because then Iraqi force attacked over the river at same time). Do you know any good source for these events at this time? Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: only you and Shrike oppose the inclusion of Stabler, versus me, Zero0000 and Selfstudier who support it.

What definition of consensus are you using to continue your edit war here? Please remember that ARBPIA discretionary sanctions apply to this matter, and reverting against consensus is an enforceable offense. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one: Wikipedia:Consensus. Stop your empty threats - you are the one trying to edit war material w/o consensus into the article. Read WP:ONUS, and consider WP:DR or an RfC. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: perfect; per that policy we have consensus to keep the material so the tags will be removed. If you mean something else, please explain what exactly would satisfy your interpretation of consensus? I suspect 100 people in support would, but it seems three does not. How about four, five, or ten? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, per that policy there is no consensus to add this material. It makes it clear that consensu is not a numerical vote, which you obviously know. It would satisfy me if a supermajority (i.e, at least 2/3) of editors who are generally uninvolved in the I-P area would say that the primary source making such exceptional claims could be used in the manner you are attempting to add to the article, and give the policy based reason to do so. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self evident high quality source, nothing wrong policy wise with primary if we quote it for a fact, I don't really get all this WP wikilawyering but I guess V trumps ONUS, that the way it works? So we have V (and at least 3 editors versus 2). So if 2 want it out then they should set up the RFC and make their case that their 2 policy based opinions outweigh the other 3 policy based opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a primary source, used to make an exceptional claim not mentioned by any other reliable secondary source. This is against policy, as explained in detail, above. When you actually read WP:V you'll find that verifiability is a required, but not sufficient condition for inclusion, and it most certainly does not trump WP:ONUS, which was written explicitly for such situations where something is verifiable, but editors have policy-based reasons to object to its inclusion JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I heard you the first time and I don't agree. You have policy reasons to object and we have policy reasons to support. The material might need rearranging a bit so that we don't imply that Gelber said it.Selfstudier (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you like. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not much of an argument. We all have reasons, but the WP:ONUS to demonstrate consensus is on those wishing to include contested material, and you have not met that onus yet. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to you. According to us, we have. And we are 3 and you are 2.Selfstudier (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarize yourself with policy, please. Consensus is not a numerical vote. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It IS a numerical vote if it is based on policy arguments.Selfstudier (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it simply is not. Familiarize yourself with policy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. You familiarize yourself with policy. See, I can do that too. I don't understand your reluctance to start an RFC asking whether the material should stay, if your policy argument is better than our policy argument then an RFC will draw in outside editors and we can see who has the better case.Selfstudier (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second line of WP:CONSENSUS is 'Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote". I bolded the relevant part for you. My reluctance to start an Rfc is that it is not my job to do so, per WP:ONUS. It is yours. Now explain your reluctance. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already said, 3 vs 2 based on policy arguments so it's down to you to show that 3 are more wrong than right and 2 are more right than wrong (the thing about numerical votes is for people who just "vote" and say nothing or "vote" and give the wrong policy, that sort of thing).~I keep reading all these different policies and coming to the same conclusion every time, that there is so much flexi in them that a lot of the time an RFC is the only way to clarify consensus. Depressing but it is what it is.Selfstudier (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to try that wikilawyering at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus and see if people agree with it. I think you'll be in for a surprise. Indeed, an RfC is one of the ways to clarify consensus- so you should open one.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more to discuss here. You tried to censor a relevant source and you failed. As for "primary sources", you have two problems. One is that there is no policy against using primary sources. The other is that we don't use any primary sources. Stabler's memo is a primary source but our source is FRUS. The historians who edit FRUS selected and cross-referenced the memo out of a far larger body of material at their disposal; it is no different from what other historians do. Very many articles contain quotations from primary sources that have been selected by historians. Zero^talk 04:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

we've been through this. There is policy against using primary sources in the manner it is being dome hre - to make an exception claim unsuppored by any other reliable sources . The FRUs are a primary source, as has been established in WP:RSN.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy. WP:PSTS does not say any of what you just wrote. Your argument is based on WP:EXCEPTIONAL, to which this does not qualify. The only fact we are stating is that a US diplomat said something. There is no doubt that he said it; FRUS is a highly reputable source. WP:EXCEPTIONAL is not intended to capture obviously verifiable statements. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is such policy, and it has been explained in detail, above. I'll repeat it here, for the hard of reading: it is not allowed to use WP:PRIMARY sources in the way you are doing. The argument, once more (with relevant citations to policy) is as follows: The Stabler cable is a primary source. In it, he makes a claim no other reliable source has made. WP:OR, in discussing WP:PRIMARY sources, says that if they are used, it should be used with caution, and has an explanatory footnote that says that any such source making an exceptional claim requires exceptional sources. In WP:EXCEPTIONAL "exceptional claims" are then further defined as, among other criteria, "Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" - which this surely is, and "Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest" - which also fits this situation. In summary: policy is clear that you may not use the Stabler cable (alone) to support the claim that the dynamos were initially blown up by the plant's workers, as that is a challenged exceptional claim supported purely by a primary source. In addition, you have provided a lengthy (1500 char) quote from that source, which again runs contrary to WP:RSPRIMARY: "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. Finally, even if this was a reliable secondary source, per WP:ONUS. "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion"- and "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.". You do not have such consensus here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we do but feel free to test that by way of an RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mistaken as to who has the WP:ONUS to demonstrate such consensus for disputed material, via RfC if needed. It is not me nor Shrike - "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is that we have do so already. Thanks for your concern. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't, and asserting you do is unlikely to convince anyone but you. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not go around in circles. 60% support is clear. There is no rule on consensus requiring editors "uninvolved" in a topic area, as you suggest above. But it would be good to have this consensus strengthened, so I would be very supportive if you wish to invite in new editors via an RfC. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3:2 is not consensus, and consensus is not a vote. Feel free to start an RfC. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: I, together with the majority of the editors here, remain very happy with the current state of the article. So I have nothing to start an RfC about. I have enjoyed collaborating with you here, hope to continue our work together soon. Bye for now. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I and others are not happy with it, and declaring victory and walking away is not going to work, as you will find out. You do not have consensus for this, and the onus is on you to get it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 :::::::::::3:2 is not consensus, and consensus is not a vote. Feel free to start an RfC. [[User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!|JungerMan Chips Ahoy!]] ([[User talk:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!|talk]]) 16:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 {{od|::::::::::::}}{{ping|JungerMan Chips Ahoy!}} I, together with the majority of the editors here, remain very happy with the current state of the article. So I have nothing to start an RfC about. I have enjoyed collaborating with you here, hope to continue our work together soon. Bye for now. [[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 17:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
+:And I and others are not happy with it, and declaring victory and walking away is not going to work, as you will find out. You do not have consensus for this, and the onus is on you to get it. [[User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!|JungerMan Chips Ahoy!]] ([[User talk:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!|talk]]) 18:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)