Talk:Auja al-Hafir: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 82: Line 82:
:::::::::You are seriously mistaken as to which one of us has the onus to support the sentences h=they have added to the article. And you have just basically admitted to lying when you claimed that Morris p.356 supports the sentences you added to the article, as you do not have the book in your possession and could not check it. I think [[WP:AE]] is next for you. [[User:Here come the Suns|Here come the Suns]] ([[User talk:Here come the Suns|talk]]) 22:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::You are seriously mistaken as to which one of us has the onus to support the sentences h=they have added to the article. And you have just basically admitted to lying when you claimed that Morris p.356 supports the sentences you added to the article, as you do not have the book in your possession and could not check it. I think [[WP:AE]] is next for you. [[User:Here come the Suns|Here come the Suns]] ([[User talk:Here come the Suns|talk]]) 22:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::I gave you the source that was in the article. Again: have you checked the Morris source today? Yes or no, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 22:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::I gave you the source that was in the article. Again: have you checked the Morris source today? Yes or no, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 22:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::The source was in the article to support a different claim ("The first name given to this Nahal outpost was Giv'at Rachel.[21])" You claimed it also supported the stuff about 108, obviously without checking if it did, since you do not possess the book, as you admitted. I did not and do not need to check anything - the onus is on people making claims to support them. You claimed Morris supports it, without looking at Morris. Simply put: you lied, and your editing needs to be looked at at [[WP:AE]]. [[User:Here come the Suns|Here come the Suns]] ([[User talk:Here come the Suns|talk]])

Revision as of 22:26, 28 December 2019

WikiProject iconIsrael Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Content

I belive that this Neutral zone should be better described, with an appropriate template. If you belive that some other template should be used, feel free and create it. Also it is highly unacceptable to remove my editing as false simply because I used the content of "today" sources to better describe the article. The place carried four names al-Auja, Al-Auja al Hafir, El Audja el Hafir and El Audja. There also exist more Egyptian like names. When I tryed to find El Audja this article was not found. Etc. -- Imbris (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language

Auja al-Hafir is located in Israel
Auja al-Hafir
Auja al-Hafir (Israel)

I do not see any problem with my editing, Palestinian Arabic is official in Israel. And if we are talking about a historical location we can use the orriginal language. -- Imbris (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was completely incorrect. I'm not sure you understand which Auja is referred to (there are several of these in the Middle East, and at least two on the former Mandate of Palestine territory), so I have provided a location map for your convenience. Moreover, there is no such place as 'History of Palestine', so please comply with WP:NC/WP:NCGN/WP:PLACES. The village was located in the British Mandate of Palestine territory, and it was eventually abandoned in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. There is also no 'd' in the name (عوجة الحفير), I'm assuming you can read Arabic, and any Arabic transliteration method you care to use will not have such a 'd'. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem in using just the title El Audja el Hafir without the sufix history of Palestine. I disagree that the El Audja was lastly mentioned in the context of the British Mandate of Palestine. I think that it would be better to lastly mention that location in the context of the DMZ between Egypt and Israel. I am aware of different places that are named in simmilar fashion but I do not see any reason to use al-Auja when El Audja is accurate enough. Using al-Auja is dubious because it is could be mixed up with Al-Awja, Al-Auja, or Al-Ouja is a poverty stricken village east of Tikrit, in Iraq. Nevertheless all names should be listed. -- Imbris (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imbris, Wikipedia has certain policies and guidelines regarding place names, some of which I have linked to above and you should take the time to read. For example, a completely incorrect transliteration ('al-Audja') should not be used because of possible confusion. It is not 'accurate enough', and the WP:MOSAR guideline doesn't leave much space for ambiguity. In cases like this, the name is used, followed by the geographical entity it is located in. For example, the village Kabul is in Kabul, Israel in order not to confuse it with the city in Afghanistan. The argument here is strictly policy-based, and not content-based. I realize that you might not be familiar with many Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and again ask you to take the time to read them. I will revert your changes if no policy-based counter-argument is made. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content wise is more important

Your attempt to drag the policies of Wikipedia into a content dispute is not a good way to solve anything. El Audja is a valid name and could be used. As a compromise I used El Auja. But there can be no compromise between using a false mentioning of the British Mandate in Palestine because the British left and chaos started. Before the DMZ was integrated into Israel (by an agreement of Egypt and Israel) it was a Demilitarized Zone and not the British Mandate in Palestine. You have not offered any comment on the "content" of the title but keep insisting I read policies. This can be a good advice but not a good way to solve anything. Also I do not see any reason for not including the el Hafir part of the article's name. Your thoughts please. -- Imbris (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The demilitarized zone isn't even notable. There were at least 5 distinct DMZs after the war, and we can further divide that into smaller ones to create at least 7 DMZs. There's nothing to say about them though. What can you write about a DMZ? Cross-border problems should go into other articles named completely differently, for example an article called Israel–Egypt relations. There's nothing content-based in this argument because there is no content related to the DMZ. The article is about the village, which existed before the State of Israel, in the mandate, and did not exist after the creation of the state. It can't really be any more clear, and I'm sorry that you ignored my previous statements.
So, again, this is entirely a policy-based and not content-based argument. It's also about consistency with other similar articles. Articles where disambiguation is needed are written as the place named, followed by the district or country name. For exmaple, Al-Nabi Rubin, Acre is another former Arab village in the mandate. I'd add the district to this article too, but am unsure what district it belonged to.
About Auja vs. Auja al-Hafir—again policy-based (WP:ENGLISH). All English maps refer to the place as al-Auja or a variation thereof, without the 'al-Hafir' (for example this one, as much as I hate to bring PR.com into this). I neither know nor care about this point, but it's again a policy-based argument. The al-Hafir seems to be something that is only used in Hebrew and Arabic, not in English.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

If we have to decide on the most appropriate title of this article (which best describes a former village in Palestine) we must ask ourselves:

  • Would adding more identificators make it easier to find?
  • Why disputing a name which "better describes" the article's content?
  • Why claiming that a shorter variant is better when it is just one of the variants?
  • Why claiming that a speaker of the English language would be better suited with a shorter name?

There are other villages in former Palestine that have articles on this Wikipedia in the form XXX al-YYY

As a compromise I suggest we use Auja al-Hafir as the main part of the title.

As a sufix of the title we could use a former District name to which Auja al-Hafir belonged but we should also mention the fact that it was a DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) in Palestine before it was attached to Israel. It was not the part of the British Mandate of Palestine before the attaching it to the State of Israel but was a part of the Palestinian territories in the time of creation of the State of Israel and then it was a DMZ in Palestine.

Some sources:

Imbris (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a comment that it is just this fact of a DMZ in Palestine which makes the village worthy of analysis thus mentioning the DMZ is of great importance towards correct representation of the village. The DMZ's are not a set of the "same stuff" but each and every is different and only a subset in the DMZ set. -- Imbris (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is named Auja al-Hafir, there doesn't need to be a suffix. Not sure what the point of the above sources was (other than to prove my point that the place is called primarily al-Auja in English), but I am willing to compromise on simple Auja al-Hafir. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 01:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Auja al-Hafir, Beersheba is a good title. -- Imbris (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there is no reason to disambiguate if 'al-Hafir' is added, simply because it's the only place named Auja al-Hafir. I will move it to Auja al-Hafir if there are no objections. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 02:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was your idea to add the former district name, and it would be prefferable because of the smallness of that village, counting only 48 Arabs by one source's account. -- Imbris (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the argument here is policy-based, it has nothing to do with the village's population. Obviously the article cannot be named simple 'Auja' or 'al-Auja', because another article by that name already exists, so according to Wikipedia naming conventions, the region/country it's located in should be appended. However, when there is no article by the same name, the appendix is not needed. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then. -- Imbris (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution 108

"Calls upon both parties forthwith to take all steps necessary to bring about order and tranquillity in the area, and in particular to desist from further acts of violence and to continue the cease-fire in full force and effect;" is not the same, or even similar to "Despite [108] Israel re-militarized the area on September 21, 1955." That part is still unsourced, and not supported by the text of UNSCR 108. Here come the Suns (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, I can hardly understand you with all your spelling mistakes.
Anyway "and in particular to desist from further acts of violence and to continue the cease-fire in full force and effect; (my bolding): obviously Israel did not follow this, when it established a fortified settlement in the zone.
That Israel wanted to take over de-militarized is not unique to the Auja zone; they did the same in the DMZ with Syria, see eg Al-Hamma Incident: there the Israel soldiers were disguised as policemen: needless to say, the Syrians were not fooled. (Neither was the UN) Huldra (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion that establishing a Nahal outpost in the DMZ is an "act of violence" or a violation of the ceasefire is of no interest to me nor is it of relevance here. If you want the article to make that claim, you need to find a source that says that, and UNSCR 108 does not. Here come the Suns (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Check Morris: Israel's Border Wars, Huldra (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here to do your homework. If you want the article to say what I had removed, bring a specific source. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source is in the article: Morris: Israel's Border Wars, p. 356. Huldra (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is the source for the original name of the outpost, not for anything related to UNSCR 108. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked that? I don't have the book presently, but I read it when I was working on the Al-Hamma Incident and Al-Hamma, Tiberias. Morris have a lot about the covert way the Israelis worked to take over the de-militarized zones. (Hmm. I think I will get hold of that book, again) Huldra (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - did you just say that you don't actually have the book, after confidently telling me that page 356 supports what you added to the article? You just made that up? This kind of editing should be taken to WP:AE. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the Morris source today? Yes or no, Huldra (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are seriously mistaken as to which one of us has the onus to support the sentences h=they have added to the article. And you have just basically admitted to lying when you claimed that Morris p.356 supports the sentences you added to the article, as you do not have the book in your possession and could not check it. I think WP:AE is next for you. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you the source that was in the article. Again: have you checked the Morris source today? Yes or no, Huldra (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source was in the article to support a different claim ("The first name given to this Nahal outpost was Giv'at Rachel.[21])" You claimed it also supported the stuff about 108, obviously without checking if it did, since you do not possess the book, as you admitted. I did not and do not need to check anything - the onus is on people making claims to support them. You claimed Morris supports it, without looking at Morris. Simply put: you lied, and your editing needs to be looked at at WP:AE. Here come the Suns (talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Auja_al-Hafir&oldid=932906521"