Talk:Emmaus Nicopolis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

This Site is in the palestinian West Bank! It had been occupied in 1967. Is does not belong to the territories of the staat of Israel.

annexed

If its in East Jerusalem at best you can say Israel has claimed it as its territory. If it is in the West Bank Israel hasnt even done that. Regardless, saying in Wikipedia's voice that it is in fact annexed, meaning a part of Israels sovereign territory, is a NPOV violation in that it promotes a minority claim as though it were fact. nableezy - 03:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It is well-known that the area in question doesn't even come under the Palestinian Authority's control, but is considered by all Israelis as lands now fully under Israeli hegemony. That is another word for "annexation." Davidbena (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Im sorry, but no, that isnt what annexed mean. Whether or not the Palestinian Authority controls the area isnt relevant, what is relevant is what side of the Green Line the area is. Annexed means within Israels sovereign territory, and if it is occupied territory that isnt in Israels sovereign territory. nableezy - 07:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It is occupied territory, a part of the West Bank and the Palestinian territories, and saying otherwise is a NPOV violation and is simply untrue. There is a similiar problem with Template:Roman colonies in ancient Levant that this article is listed under. Several sites in the Palestinian territories and one in the Golan Heights are said to be "in Israel". --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It's all semantics. Jews will say that it was "occupied territory" before the return of Israel's masses; a country settled and occupied largely as a result of Israel's expulsion from the land. But, in reality, many nations have governed "Palestine," while there has never been an independent Palestinian State, as hard as that might sound to my fellow co-editors. The Arabs living here, as well as all other peoples, were subject to foreign powers. Before Israel and Jordan, the British (1917-1948) were the custodians of the land. Before Britain, the Ottoman Turks (1517-1917) were the custodians of the land. Before the Turks, the Mamluks of Egypt (1253–1517) were the custodians of the land, and the Ayyubid dynasty being the custodians of the land before the Mamluks (which rule ended in 1253, and included all the areas of the country south of Nablus), and so forth, and so forth. Prior to them, the country had been governed at one point by the Seljuk Turks (1087 - 1099), and by the Egyptian Fatimids (969 - 1087). Prior to these, there were Nabataeans and Byzantines and Romans, etc. etc. You see, the list is long.Davidbena (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't "all semantics". Belligerent occupation is a legal term. You may argue if it belongs to the State of Palestine or not but it doesn't make it Israel's. Similiarly, Western Sahara is not a part of Morocco regardless what one thinks about the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Romans called the country "Palestina" after its old coastal inhabitants, the Philistines. The Syrians and Arabs who came to live in the country were often distinguished from other nationalities by calling themselves by the country's appellation, Palestine = Palestinians. Jews living in the country were also called Palestinian Jews. It is merely nomenclature with little meaning. The fact is, they never had sovereignty of their own, but were always under some other foreign power. Again, there has never been an independent Palestinian Arab State. So, what makes the Arab condition any different from what it has always been? Do Arabs consider themselves Jordanians? For there to have been an "occupation" as you call it, there would first need to have been an independent state.Davidbena (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. We follow what WP:RELIABLESOURCES say. What makes it an occupation is that Israel conquered the territory in a war and it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. This is the opinion of the international community and the vast majority of reliable sources. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this Talk page is not a forum. But since you raised the subject of "occupation," especially after Jordan lost lands to Israel after the Six Day war in 1967, let's just say that the issue is not a "Palestinian Arab" issue, but rather a Jordanian issue with Israel. Besides, many of the lands acquired by Israel in the Six-Day War have now been legally purchased from Arab peasants. A case in point is Betar-Ilit. Be well, my friend.Davidbena (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

If it is occupied or not is central to the question about annexation. It has nothing to do with making it to a forum discussion where one express personal opinions. No, I won't "just say that" because it is a conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Any conflict begins with the common people, such as you and I, on a personal level. I know that, both, Jews and Arabs have lived together in this land. Some of the Arabs here are vying for self-governance, something that they have never had. It is a difficult issue, but one which Arabs and Jews must begin to ask themselves, "Do we want to live together in peace, and with mutual respect?" I am ALL for co-existence with peace and mutual respect. Besides, the Arabs have contributed much to Israelite culture as far as linguistics are concerned, and preserving the names of historical places. We still say, zaatar, and ḥilbah, and kusbara, and karkum , and na’ana, and rayḥan, and chubeza, and maramiyya, and many other Arabic words in the modern Hebrew language. And Arabs have built the cities of Israel. I see our existence as being mutually beneficial on both sides.Davidbena (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Location of Emmaus-Nicopolis (Imwas)

Shalom, User:Zero0000. It's good to communicate with you again. I wanted to ask your opinion about the necessity of mentioning areas now fully under Jewish legal control and jurisdiction as being, formerly, under the control of the Arab Legion of Jordan from 1948-1967, in other words, what some call the "West Bank." Since the term "West Bank" implies that it was formerly under a different jurisdiction, but is no longer under that jurisdiction today, what good purpose is there in mentioning that a city is "in" (note present-tense) the West Bank? If we take Emmaus Nicopolis, for example, it is fully under Israeli law and jurisdiction, whereas not even the Palestinian Authority controls the region. It seems terribly misleading to write in that article: "The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." It tends to ignore current historical facts about the site's legal jurisdiction. As we know, the Arab village, Imwas, was a border-line village. The Arab legion occupied the nearby Latrun monastery during the war in 1948. The result of the campaign to expand the Jerusalem Corridor as far as the western foothills of the Judean mountains, freeing it from pockets of resistance, helped, in the final analysis, to determine the border of Israel with Jordan during the 1949 Armistice Agreement. See: Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, Zvi Dror (ed. Nathan Shoḥam), Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005, p. 273 (Hebrew). Remember what Ben-Gurion said during the War in 1948 about a region then occupied by the Egyptian army: "In the Negev we shall not buy the land. We shall conquer it. You forget that we are at war!" (See: Mêrôn Benveniśtî, Sacred landscape: the buried history of the Holy Land since 1948, p. 120). The Arabs, meanwhile, also vied with Israel over the control of territory by means of war, while the Jordanian Arab Legion had decided to concentrate its forces in Bethlehem and in Hebron in order to save that district for its Arab inhabitants, and to prevent territorial gains for Israel. Thus is it stated by Sir John Bagot Glubb, in his book, A Soldier with the Arabs, London 1957, p. 200. You see, the same principle applies today. Now that Israel has taken full-control of these territories after the Six Day War in 1967, there is no reason to insist on its former entities, since it is a way of politicizing what should be our intent as editors to remain neutral. IMHO.

Writing about this place, in particular, that it is located in the "West Bank" is a contentious issue, and I think that we'd do best by avoiding it altogether. For one reason, on the "West Bank map," the village actually sits in a Gray Area, not clearly demarcated. For another reason, it is more of a political statement than a reflection of the reality, where Israelis recognize the area as under Israeli jurisdiction. Thirdly, Israelis themselves do not call this area by the name the West Bank. Davidbena (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Davidbena: The position of the Green Line was determined in the armistice agreements and Imwas was on the Jordanian side. I really don't see what else there is to say; it is in the West Bank and nobody disputes it. It is definitely not a "contentious issue". So we should say it is in the West Bank. It isn't our job to help Israel annex the West Bank by pretending that facts are not facts. I also don't think you are right that it is "fully under Israeli law and jurisdiction"; actually it is in Area C, which is under Israeli control but not sovereignty per Oslo agreements and the international law of occupation applies according to Israel as well as everyone else. Zero^talk 23:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, User:Zero0000, and let me thank you for your reply. Let's just say it was on the Jordanian side. But today's Israeli border is NOT the 1948 border. Today, the village is in Israel. Can we then compromise on this issue and write instead, "The site today is inside Canada Park in what was formerly Jordan (i.e. West Bank), but now in Israel and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada."??? Does this sound better? The reason why I'm asking is because the current edit ignores current political facts. It's like saying that "The city, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is in the Sioux Indian Nation," rather than in the United-States. To this very day, many Lakota native American Indians do not recognize the sovereignty of the United-States over their ancestral homeland, but it does not change the fact, does it? Israel has sovereignty over Emmaus-Nicopolis, and it should be mentioned as in the State of Israel. IMHO. One more thing: The Oslo Accords did not give full sovereignty of lands to the Palestinian Authority, but was only a means to achieve administrative cooperation between the Palestinian Arabs working in conjunction with and under the auspices of the Jewish State. As for its current status, see Oslo Accords#End of the interim period. Davidbena (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not in Israel, so we don't write that it is in Israel. Israel does not claim that it is in Israel, so we don't write that it is claimed by Israel. I don't know why this logic is difficult. Zero^talk 00:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean, "it is not in Israel"? It is, indeed, within the territorial bounds of the State of Israel, just as all of Jerusalem is in the State of Israel, even though it too was divided until 1967. Ask any Israeli citizen, or check maps published by the Government of Israel, the village of Emmaus is NOT listed as being in another State or country, nor in the West Bank (a term rarely used by Israelis). Furthermore, to deny this fact is very strange to me. We're talking here about Israeli sovereignty (military or otherwise) over this territory. The Oslo Accords were meant to settle the final status of the territory, but it did NOT, as yet, settle the final status. Meanwhile, the place (Emmaus) is still in Israel. Article X (IX), Annex II, in the Oslo Accords specifically states:

"It is understood that, subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal, Israel will continue to be responsible for external security, and for internal security and public order of settlements and Israelis. Israeli military forces and civilians may continue to use roads freely within the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area." Davidbena (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding of the issue of sovereignty is bizarre. I mean really bizarre. This place is in the West Bank and was never in Israel. Please show us the law by which Israel annexed this place to the State of Israel. The Oslo Accords do not grant sovereignty of any territory to anyone. The part you quote doesn't do that and doesn't even apply to this place, it is about the Israeli military withdrawal from the "Gaza Strip and Jericho area", i.e. Area A, not Area C. If a Palestinian is arrested for a crime here, he/she will be tried in a military court. The status of this place under Israeli law is nothing at all like the status of Jerusalem. Btw, no need to write on my talk page—I am watching this one. Zero^talk 11:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, most Israeli government maps don't show the green line at all, but those that do show this location as no different from the rest of the West Bank, see here for example. Zero^talk 12:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

My friend, User:Zero0000, there is no need for the Oslo Accords (that aim at a final solution) to grant sovereignty to any of the two parties involved in the land dispute, since sovereignty over the land was already in Israel's hands, and the so-called Oslo Accords were only meant to decide the FUTURE status of these lands. Secondly, when you say, "This place is in the West Bank and was never in Israel," I think you can appreciate it that the word "was" is only a relative term, and is used in relation to time. This place was also in Canaan; it was also in Judea. Now it is in Israel, which is also the opinion of 99.9% of all Israelis. By "Israel" I mean the modern-day State of Israel, and under the laws of the State. There is no reason to deny this political fact, my friend. Granted that most of our fellow Jews in America are overwhelmingly very liberal, and they tend to take political issues differently from those of us in Israel who are more conservative in views, still, this should not be an issue of contention at all, since here we are talking about the current status of this place (not its past status), although I think that we can also mention its former status. Would you agree to receive another opinion about the proper wording for this edit, say, from User:Avraham, or if you should insist on the old edit (which I think is grossly misleading), would you agree on a dispute resolution? By the way, the Israeli government has annexed all conquered territories, whether this fact is worded in a document or not. The use of this word is actually irrelevant after the fact. As for judicial proceedings in conquered territories of the State of Israel, this has no bearing on the fact that the State of Israel is the sole responder to violations of these laws when they are committed in the region, except where Israel relegated responsibility to the Palestinian Authority working under the auspices of the Jewish State. As you are certainly aware, many judicial laws and special cases differ within a sovereign country. Sincerely, Davidbena (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry David, but you are badly misinformed. Since 1967 Israel has passed laws that, by common interpretation, annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. (Of course, neither of those actions are accepted by the international community.) Israel did not ever claim to annex the West Bank as a whole. The status of the West Bank in Israeli law is that it is held in "belligerent occupation", which is a standard phrase in international law for an occupation by military force of a region that is not sovereign to the occupier. You can find multiple proofs of that by searching for the phrase in rulings of the Supreme Court. For example in case HCJ 8414/05 the court wrote "The military commander's powers [in the West Bank] stem from the rules of public international law regarding belligerent occupation". Occupation does not imply sovereignty; actually it is the opposite of sovereignty. I don't know if you are right about what "most" Israelis believe, but the Israelis I know are quite aware of the facts, even those who believe Israel should annex the West Bank. You are simply wrong about this, I'm 101% certain. Feel free to ask someone else. Zero^talk 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, my friend, the reality is not exactly as you portray it. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 declared the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security." It also uses the word, "occupation." Note, that the resolution was passed after the Six-Day War, meaning, the said resolution is to be understood as applying in retrospect. If so, the same standard and law would also apply to all nations, including the United States' illegal control of Sioux Indian territory in 1876.

Click to see brief review of treaties between the United States Government and the Sioux Indian Nation

A transcript of the treaty of 1868 made between United States government representatives, on the one part, and the Sioux Indian nation represented by their chiefs, on the other part, is available online. In that treaty, under Article 1, it states: "From this day forward all war between the parties to this agreement shall forever cease." Only eight years later, on the 25th of June 1876, the conditions of the said treaty were broken by the US Government, under General George A. Custer, and the 7th cavalry, who waged a war against un-molesting Sioux (Lakota) Indians encamped in the valley of Greasy Grass (Little Big Horn). Under the laws governing the validity of treaties or pacts made between parties, if a treaty or pact is breached in one part, it is deemed as though it had been breached in all parts and is, therefore, null and void altogether. From a legal standpoint, this brings us back to the status quo before committing themselves to that treaty. All subsequent legislation by the US Government in the Fall of that same year which forced the Sioux to sign away their right to the Powder River in He-Sah-Pah (the Black Hills) on account of US Government aggression and the indigenous people's right to defend themselves should be viewed as no more than extortion, which is and will always be illegal.

You see, my friend, to view Israel's control of conquered territories in 1967 as "illegal," many of which were legally purchased from Arab peasants after the Six Day war (such as the lands whereon is now built Betar Ilit, etc.) would mean that all nations would necessarily have to relinquish lands conquered in war (including Russia's vast territorial expansion under the Cossack Yermak Timofeyevich in the 16th century, during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, when it took control of lands belonging to the Mongols). Israel, today, quietly disagrees with the UN declaration (although Yitzchak Rabin seemed to have wanted to accommodate it). In any rate, United Nations Security Council resolutions are not always binding upon nations, including those who are signatories to the UN treaty. Since the matter is disputed between Israel and the nations, it is therefore a contentious issue. Wouldn't it just be better to avoid it altogether, and to remain neutral on this point? I have suggested replacing "in the West Bank" (something that might infringe upon WP:POV), with a more neutral edit, "near the Latrun Monastery." After all, the country known as the State of Israel, in its entirety, is today under Israeli law, even though there is some diversity in Israeli law for its diverse population and its security considerations.

If I might ask your indulgence for this one moment, I would like to point out one other thing. In Marxist theory, interpellation is an important concept regarding the notion of ideology. According to Althusser, every society is made up of Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) and Repressive State Apparatuses (RSAs) which are instrumental to spread the dominant ideology of that given society. You are, obviously, influenced by your society, and I by mine. Israelis rarely use the term "West Bank." Instead, they will use the words Judea and Samaria, which words remind the people of the Jewish connection to the land, whereas, the term "West Bank," for them, was invented by Jordan when they occupied Judea and Samaria from 1948 to 1967, and is mostly used in the Western and Arab leftist press. Sadly, today, some Israelis that live in the USA have picked up its use from the Western media. When Israelis refer to regions of the country, they say, “Galil, Shomron, Ha-Bik'ah, Gush Etzion, Gush Dan and the Negev.” Almost never will they say the "West Bank," unless they specifically wish to refer to places held by the Jordanian army before the Six Day war. As editors of articles touching on the Arab-Israeli conflict, I think that it is helpful to understand this distinction. Looking forward to reaching a compromise with you.Davidbena (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There is really nothing to discuss here; this is English Wikipedia, not some "Israelipedia". NO other country has recognised Israels annexations of parts of its 1967 territory. (But show me which country does NOT recognise that Sioux territory is now part of the US?) We follow what the international community say, and that is that Emmaus Nicopolis is on the West Bank. As for ownership: firstly, lots of those socalled land-contracts for sale on the West Bank have been forged. (Some have been "signed" by people long dead!) But secondly, and most importantly: ownership is not vital. Take the case of, say Germans or Scandinavians who own large parts in certain areas of Spain. That does not make those areas any less "part of Spain." Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Huldra, On the contrary, as editors we are responsible for accurate and neutral editing. It is no secret that Arabs outnumber Israelis by a large number, but their view of the status of our country is no more important than that of Jews themselves who live here and govern this country. Israel, today, has the largest Jewish population of the world, even greater than that of the United States. Many here speak English, and resort to the English Wikipedia for basic information about places in Israel. To say that the ruin "Emmaus Nicopolis" is in the West Bank (present-tense), without designating that it was formerly under Jordanian Rule (West Bank), but now under Israeli rule, is misleading, besides being inaccurate (unless one simply means the country on the West Bank of the Jordan River which, of course, is Israel. You see, the problem here is that the current edit makes a non-neutral political statement and infringes upon WP:POV. The Government of the State of Israel is the only government with sole responsibility for the country's security apparatus and its border considerations (with relegated authority given by the State of Israel to the PA in select areas of the country, excluding the place whereon lies the ruin of Emmaus Nicopolis). To this day, Israel does not recognize a separate political state or entity called the "West Bank," nor do the Oslo Accords (perhaps now defunct) recognize the future territorial integrity of the State of Israel and Palestine as being already decided and finalized - since it only encourages a future settlement, but acknowledges that Israel is still the ultimate decider of the future status of territories now under its control and sovereignty. So far, Israel has not relinquished its control and sovereignty over any part of the country, excepting for Gaza alone.

While many Western governments might view Israel's hold of territories in what was formerly called the West-Bank as being "illegal," or as "occupied territory," Israel (since 1967) sees its hold on these territories as legal, the legal prize of the victor in armed conflict, just as the outcome of war defined the border in 1948. Proof of which can be seen in last week's EU and US State Department's decision to condemn Israel's appropriation of some 234 hectares (579 acres) of unclaimed land near Jericho as property of the state. Why should the EU or the USA take offense at this? The process of declaring unclaimed land as property of the state is a process that has been going on since the Ottoman Turks who governed Palestine, as also during Mandatory Palestine under the British, and, now, under the legitimate government of Israel that inherited from Britain its land tenure laws, as defined in the book, "The Survey of Palestine under the British Mandate: 1920–1948," British Mandate government printing office, Jerusalem 1946, vol. 1, pp. 226–227, of chapter 8, section 1, paragraph 6, and which book states explicitly the rights of the government over vacant State land (Miri), as well as dead and undeveloped land (Mewat). What was done under previous ruling entities is being done now, hence: Israeli sovereignty. Nothing to be upset about. Without realizing it, such irresponsible denunciations coming from the EU and USA only encourage resistance among local Arabs, and make co-existence between Arabs and Israelis all the more difficult. In conclusion: The matter of designating this Second Temple archaeological ruin as being in the "West Bank" today, without saying that it is located in what was formerly the "West Bank," is a biased political statement that ignores its current status.Davidbena (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

David, Israel considers its occupation of the West Bank to be legal, but it does not consider the West Bank to be part of Israel. This is your basic mistake. You are also making two other serious mistakes. One is to confuse Arab opinion with the near-unanimous opinion of the international community. The other is to confuse land ownership with sovereignty. It is true that this place was under Jordanian control for 1948–1967 and Israeli control since 1967 (and I have no objection to that information being in the article). However, it is not true to say that Israel annexed it. Annexation is a legal process that has not happened. This place has never been part of Israel under Israeli law; I've written that before and I repeat it again with absolute certainty. It is a plain fact that you cannot argue away. The West Bank is not yet a dead concept even though Israel works hard to make it one. Zero^talk 23:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

First, User:Zero0000, let me thank you for your reply. Rather than belabor this issue, perhaps we can agree to make the change in edit to read: "The site today is inside Canada Park, a place under Jordanian control for 1948–1967 and Israeli control since 1967." There's no reason to overburden our readers with more than this. For the record, however, and with your permission, I would like to say a few more words about this complex issue of Israeli "sovereignty" and/or "occupation." You say that Israeli law has never applied to the West Bank. Betar Illit is a Jewish town built in what was formerly the "West Bank." If any Jew commits a crime in that city, he is judged in Israeli courts and under Israeli law. As for your claim that Israel has never annexed the lands comprised of the West Bank, I wish to reiterate here that annexation of territory can be done either formally or informally. If informally, it is called de facto annexation and requires no proclamation, although Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2012 wished to avoid the “appearance of annexation” in the territories in the face of strong international opposition, and therefore orchestrated that members of Israel’s Parliament would overturn a motion to publicly extend Israeli law to the settlements. Our Prime-Minister's rationale was that such a public declaration wouldn't actually change anything anyway, but could actually do more harm than good. Israel's annexation of and sovereignty over conquered territories in 1967 is reflected by its ability to pave public roads anywhere in the country, to levy taxes among Jews and Arabs alike, to regulate building permits all throughout the country, to regulate the import and export of goods in the country, to allocate water and electricity according to the needs of its population (Jews and Arabs alike), but where both civilian and military administrations interplay in the governance over the people. By the way, there is no military occupation of the biblical ruin, Emmaus Nicopolis. The Government of Israel issues work permits for Arab citizens living in hostile regions of the country and who wish to work in Israeli populated areas ("the Green-line"), but they are denied voting rights in State elections in order to ensure the Jewish majority, and, by extension, the perpetuation of the Jewish State. This, mind you, is a special security consideration, a thing that is perfectly legitimate under our system of government, insofar that a Jewish State takes precedence over a democratic State, and where formerly Jewish kings (from king Saul to king Agrippa) also ruled over non-Jewish subjects.

Purely from a legalistic standpoint, under section 80 of the United Nations Charter we learn, “nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as affecting directly or indirectly in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the Organization may be parties.” Clearly, this means that the UN is committed in 1945 to protect the legitimacy of the Jewish land rights established by the League of Nations, and which gave its blessings for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, heretofore a country comprised of different peoples governed by the British (1917–1948), and who before them were governed by the Ottoman Turks (1517-1917), and before them by other foreign powers, and whose subjects were never independent, including the Palestinian Arab population. By extension, it means that Israeli settlements in any part of the country known as Israel/Palestine are legal, but have wrongly been judged as “illegal” by Israel’s antagonists. As someone else once worded it: “Judea and Samaria… are definitely not occupied territories under international law, but [are] rather the national patrimony of the Jewish People in whose name the State of Israel acts.” (Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law, Jerusalem 2008, p. 252 ISBN 978 965 7344 52 1). Others have used Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 to show that there is no “illegal occupation” of lands in Palestine, and which have been won-over by Israel through war.

But as laws are often changed to suit the whims and fancies and political interests of men who challenge Israel’s right to their entitlement in their ancestral homeland, Israel must continue to explain itself while standing firmly in the right. The opinion of the international community, while important, is not necessarily binding nor enforceable, although they seek a settlement of the land dispute. Their opinion does not take away from Israel’s right to govern its own land.

The whole of Palestine was set aside by international law in 1919, 1920 (the San Remo Treaty) and 1922 (the League of Nations “Mandate for Palestine”) as the Jewish National Home, until internal political changes in Britain and the election of a government hostile to the creation of a Jewish homeland throughout the country known as Palestine proposed in 1936 that the country be divided between Jews and Arabs, as we learn in "The Survey of Palestine under the British Mandate: 1920 - 1948," published by the British Mandate government printing office in Jerusalem in 1946, p. 166: "The commission, under Lord Peel, was appointed on 7 August 1936 to investigate the cause for the outbreak of the Arab rebellion and the way the Articles of the Mandate were being implemented. Between November 1936 and January 1937 the commission studied the situation in the country, and in June 1937 published its recommendation to abolish the Mandate and to divide the country between Arabs and Jews." During the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, Egypt and Jordan stepped-in and tried to secure the country for its Arab inhabitants. At length, it was Jordan (not the Palestinian Arabs) who occupied a significant portion of Palestine from 1948–1967, albeit, as an occupying power. Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on April 24, 1950, but publicly relinquished its sovereignty over the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) in 1988.

Finally, what you wrote: "Israel considers its occupation of the West Bank to be legal, but it does not consider the West Bank to be part of Israel." I disagree, as there is no such dichotomy. At least, not among the vast majority of Israelis. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I received a friendly notice on my talk page about this issue, and I think that the simplest and least contentious issue would be to write:

The site today is inside Canada Park and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada.

The sentence, as constructed above is 100% accurate regardless of the status of Canada Park, and makes no statement as to under whose jurisdiction the actual land remains. The interested user can go to the Canada Park article if he or she is interested in the political status of the land, and we do not have to get into the pretzel-like contortions needed to make sure that Wikipedia is not perceived to be annexing the area for either Palestine, Jordan, or Israel. If we start making these contortions, no matter which we way we twist, we may be implicitly making Wikipedia show a preference one way or the other, which is certainly sub-optimal, regardless of each one of our own personal points-of-view. -- Avi (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Avi. The site is in Canada Park. That is all that is needed. If someone wants to know more about Canada Park, they can click the link and read all about it and where it is situated. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well, we can start a RfC about this, if necessary. With notices on both the Palestinian and Israeli project boards. But changing this after canvassing specific editors is not the way to go about this! Seriously. Huldra (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Huldra:, for what it is worth, friendly notices are completely appropriate as per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. As per the second and third bullet points there, there are a few dozen editors who are semi-regular at these discussions. You, Zero, and Nishidani are some good examples; I'd expect it reasonable for someone to notify you in these cases. -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Huldra:, as you can see, it's been a full-week since I have responded here, on this Talk-Page. The conclusion to which a large body of evidence from WP editors irresistibly leads is that there is a consensus to make the aforementioned statement neutral. In accordance with WP's policy of building a consensus in matters of disputed edits, I will soon make the change in accordance with Avi's latest suggestion.Davidbena (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Davidbena: No, that is not the consensus; AFAIK Zero and I disagree with you, from what I can see from above, I doubt User:Nableezy or User:IRISZOOM agree with you. I am @Nishidani: for his opinion. As I have said before; I think we need a RfC about this, if you want to eliminate West Bank from the lead, Huldra (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a refresher, Huldra. User:Zero0000 agreed above that we could write: "The site today is inside Canada Park, a place under Jordanian control for 1948–1967 and Israeli control since 1967," while Avi and I, as well as Sir Joseph, all agree that we can write: "The site today is inside Canada Park and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada," without mentioning the West Bank. All this, mind you, points to a "neutrality point-of-view." That is the consensus, and the consensus should prevail in this case.Davidbena (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry David, but I did not ever agree to omit the phrase "West Bank" from the description of this place. The reason we should say it is in the West Bank is that it is in the West Bank. It is exactly as simple as that. The claim that neutrality requires suppression of the truth is preposterous. Zero^talk 23:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So, is it preposterous to say that Emmaus-Nicopolis is in Israel? Of course not! That is, in my view, the real crux of the issue. It seems that some wish to deny the current status of the place. To avoid the problem of "politicizing" the issue, let us keep it neutral. There is still a consensus to go the "neutral route." Your own wording, and which I quoted above, and which you (in principle) agree to, could easily satisfy all.Davidbena (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

By saying either "West Bank" or "Israel" we start entering the zone of implication as to who controls what. We have to handle that in Canada Park—whose ownership is disputed (see that article)—we do not have to bring that dispute here as long as we say the completely factual and neutral statement "The site today is inside Canada Park and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." User:Zero0000, if you (or anyone) would please explain why leaving the term "in the West Bank" and not mentioning Israel's claims as regards Canada Park is a more neutral point of view, it would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Examples of alternative factual, neutral and even more informative statements for the readers of this and every article about locations in the West Bank would be to replace 'West Bank' with 'occupied West Bank' or 'Israeli occupied West Bank' or 'Israeli occupied West Bank claimed by the State of Palestine' so that these highly notable facts about these locations are made available to readers in every single article in a consistent way. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Avraham: This site is in Area C of the West Bank. To clarify: it is not in the "Latrun Salient", even though much of Canada Park is. So the issue of who has sovereignty in the Latrun Salient is not relevant here. According to Palestine it is about 3km inside the West Bank and according to Israel it is about 500–700m inside the West Bank. Area C is not claimed as part of Israel by the Israel government, so to state that it is in Israel would be going even further than the Israeli government goes. The only correct and neutral statement is that it is in the West Bank but under Israel control (like all of Area C). There is absolutely no reason to treat this location differently from the rest of the West Bank. Zero^talk 08:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, your designation and use of "West Bank" depends upon whose party you are affiliated with. Here, in Israel, we never say "Area C of the West Bank," but rather, the country in its entirety is still currently Israel (by Israeli considerations) but was only recently (as of 1995) given certain classifications for reasons related to future negotiations of land issues with the Palestinian Arabs regarding the land's final solution as outlined under the 1998 Wye River Memorandum in the now defunct Oslo II accords, as either "Area A" (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority), "Area B" (Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control), or "Area C" (full Israeli civil and security control). Today, the same designations (Areas A, B, and C) are used for the sake of defining a future settlement of these territories, especially those conquered by Israel during the Six Day War. Palestinan Arabs will, for reasons of historical identity with their past, refer to these captured areas as the "West Bank," although the people of Israel do not use this term (except when specifically referring to areas formerly under Jordanian control prior to 1967). Area C, as all other areas of the country, is still de facto Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel), governed by the State of Israel, and fully considered as Israel proper, until otherwise decided upon by the people (government) and parties concerned - which, as a reminder, its final status still hasn't been officially decided upon. To call this part of the country "West Bank" is to prejudice those negotiations from the outset. So, far, nothing has changed. The government of Israel still retains full control and sovereignty over the entire country, with relegated authority given to the Palestinian Authority (in certain areas) working in conjunction with Israel. Wherefore, the use of "West Bank" for this archaeological ruin is purely a political term that is best to avoid, besides ignoring Israel's full sovereignty over this part of the country (and which doesn't even have the Palestinian Authority's involvement at all vis-à-vis this particular archaeological site, Emmaus Nicopolis). Any description of this site should and ought to remain apolitical.Davidbena (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've hesitated in responding to the ping and do so only because the Canada Park article has been cited here as precedent or source of information since it is not authoritative. It even has silly phrases like 'unofficial annexation'. You can even get op-eds in newspapers, as you can for east Jerusalem, speaking of some formal act of annexation. All that happened was that the area was confiscated, after the ethnic cleansing. It was part of the Jordanian area, and still is in the West Bank. The only person on wiki who has mastered the catastal details, and checks against technical maps, all of these details, is User:Zero0000 (no offense to Huldra who is the only Wikipedia to have mastered the details of the near 500 villages erased from those maps). He is of course not a source for us, either, but you can be pretty sure that if the lay of the evidence is ambiguous, or wrong, he will question it, irrespective of the POV clash. See Har Homa's talk page, where I removed a claim it was based on Greek Orthodox land when he produced a source showing this appears to be inaccurate and that it was 'mainly' in Jewish title. A minuscule fringe of the Park is in the no man's land area but Canada Park is over the Green Line and predominantly in the West Bank.Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, even in the event of a future political settlement of this land dispute, "Area C" (wherein is Emmaus Nicopolis) will remain in full Israeli civil and security control. This gives us all the more reason NOT to mention this site in relation to the "West Bank." Since the term "West Bank" is a term that recognizes Jordanian's capture of territories during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, so, too, it is only natural that we recognize Israel's current control and sovereignty over these areas as a result of the Six Day war. To ignore this is to ignore reality, besides infringing upon WP:NPOV.Davidbena (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

David, in writing:'it is only natural that we recognize Israel's current control and sovereignty over these areas as a result of the Six Day war,' you've made all further discussion pointless. The excellence of your historical work on some articles is undercut by your total inability to grasp the elementary facts of the technical legal issues. We (the Wikipedia community) don't have the right to recognize Israeli sovereignty over anything other than the land within state of Israel. Recognization of sovereignty is what states do, and the international community. We just transcribe what those formal venues designate as the status quo.

Area C is under belligerent military occupation technically. It is not an area of Israel, it is not under civilian control. Everyone knows this, all sources acknowledge it. Israel does not respect the provisions of the Oslo Accords, since it insists on a right to make incursions in any area of the West Bank, A/B/C without security coordination, as stipulated at Oslo. It regularly raids Area A, did so the other day. You are trying to reason out a point of view against the evidence of sources. On this good technical sources are unanimous.Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

And all of the above is exactly my point. We can dispense with ALL of the posturing and geopolitical friction by saying it is in Canada Park and stopping there. We don't need to implicitly support the Israeli position; we don't need to implicitly support the Palestinian position, we do not take any position as to what the status is in this article. It's in Canada Park, and that is it. We will have to go through the tortuous dance to get NPOV in that article, but I disagree with User:Sean.hoyland; we do not have to force the pretzel in every article. If anything, we should do what we can to minimize I/P conflicts in articles as best we can, and finessing it here by writing a 100% accurate statement that does not take a position on Canada Park will, IMO, serve NPOV the best. Is it the best from the perspective of the Israeli position? No. Is it the best from the perspective of the Palestinian position? No. Those two positions have a vested interest in perpetuating their view of the conflict, and, by extension, framing the identification of the location, as much as possible. However, NPOV requires us to work to minimize these conflicts. One of the best pieces of advice for writing with NPOV is for a person of position A to write the article from position B, or even not A. Davidbena, how would you want to see the article written if it could only be written by someone with a Palestinian POV. User:Huldra, how would you like to see the article written if it could only be written from an Israeli point of view? I posit that the way I suggested a few score lines above would be acceptable to side B from the side A perspective; an agreed upon minimally mutually acceptable option as it were (tangent: Wikipedia politics as a maximin exercise may make for a good paper for a statistically-minded sociologist somewhere). I think leaning any further to one side or the other increases the net NPOV balance. -- Avi (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly stated, we do not need to bring-up by way of intimation the whole quagmire of this archaeological place's "political status" by saying that "it is located in the West Bank," since such an insertion is mostly irrelevant to this article. A agree fully with Avi that we should maintain a Neutral Point of View in accordance with WP:NPOV, and, therefore, I fully support a neutral edit that would read: "The site today is inside Canada Park and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada, where Arabs and Jews are free to visit." The last addition, of course, is meant to mollify our friends. Can you agree to this change, User:Zero0000 and User:Huldra?Davidbena (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Avi, there's no friction that I can see here.

WP:NPOV. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

This does not mean, as you appear to take it, that NPOV consists in omitting both significant points of view in order to obtain neutrality. What we are proposing to elide is moreover not a significant point of view as much as a fact.

Not to state an ascertained fact is suppressio veri. I know to some it will look like the usual Pally hands showing up unanimously to promote a POV, in fact I was reluctant to give my view because of this. But I don't think I am alone in thinking that David's point is counter-factual, and indeed, as he explicitly asserts, contains a strong POV, i.e. that the park in question is under Israeli sovereignty. It is not. Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, by definition, Sovereignty means: "1) supreme power or authority; 2) the authority of a state to govern itself or another state, 3) a self-governing state." Based on these three definitions, the country most-fitting these descriptions as "exercising sovereignty" over Emmaus Nicopolis is the State of Israel. Contrary to your personal beliefs, this is not POV, but rather a factual statement that cannot be denied with regard to the place in question, as it stands today. Do you know of a different meaning of "sovereignty"? I don't know one.Davidbena (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Again David, that is WP:OR based on your inference from a dictionary definition of sovereignty. I will document if you wish the fact that sovereignty over land extraterritorial to a state is not established by that state's military conquests. In international law, this only means that the state in question is a belligerent occupant, a position not only underlined by the International Court of Justice, but by Israel's government itself. I'll tell you a story. Once an Israeli motorist pushed his foot down on the accelerator while driving to Mevo Horon, was stopped by a cop and given a ticket for speeding. He appealed in an Israeli magistrate's court, and the court ruled in his favour. In that area, the judge concluded, Israel (as opposed to the military administration) had no jurisdiction. It is one thing to press a point of view one thinks obvious (as many Israelis would agree with you). It is another thing to try and grasp why those not raised there fail to follow you. Their only recourse is that advised for editors, i.e. to look at what RS say, and RS say you are incorrect.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, User:Nishidani, sovereignty over a country would also imply that it has the right to say which parts of the country are to be placed under civil courts of law and which are to be placed under military courts of law, due to the extenuating circumstances in that country (e.g. history of hostility). Look at China vs. Tibet, or China vs. the British Protectorate of Hong Kong, for examples of how laws in a sovereign country can actually affect different peoples in different manners. Israel is no exception. International law, while important, does not have the final say in disputes that might require a settlement, but in the final analysis, it is the parties to the suit and/or dispute who will have to work out their own differences. As for your statement, "sovereignty over land extraterritorial to a state is not established by that state's military conquests," are you insinuating here that lands conquered by the Arab Legion of Jordan during the War of 1948 were illegal conquests?Davidbena (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The Arab Legion withdrew from the territory now called the West Bank because it was ordered to by the United Nations, unlike the other major actor in that region at the time. On the declaration of Israel's independence, many parts of what was Israel's army were located outside the area of 56% assigned to it by the same UN. The Arab Legion re-entered and essentially defended the core region (the West Bank) assigned to the future Palestine state. This place is not a forum, nor a teaching venue.As to your contesting what I noted, you are criticizing international law's definition, not mine. Again WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, User:Nishidani, we're trying to improve an edit on this article. But since you mentioned international law, the whole of Palestine was set aside by international law in 1919, 1920 (the San Remo Treaty) and 1922 (the League of Nations “Mandate for Palestine”) as the Jewish National Home. Later, international law (this time under a declaration made by the United Nations) reiterated the same promises under section 80 of the United Nations Charter that “nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as affecting directly or indirectly in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or THE TERMS OF EXISTING INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS to which Members of the Organization may be parties.” Clearly, this meant that the UN was bound by the previous treaties and declarations to protect the legitimacy of the Jewish land rights established by the League of Nations, and which gave its blessings for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. So, obviously, there is no violation of WP:OR here when Israelis stand upon their natural right to settle and govern themselves in their own land, which, mind you, Israelis do today. To expunge this fact and to say otherwise is a violation of WP:OR, which we’d do best to avoid.Davidbena (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This makes painful reading, as do all things clipped and pasted from the usual websites written by quarterbaked dilettanti that attempt to prove by suppression and selective citation of complex issues,that under international law, Israel is entitled to dispossess the native people of that region of their historic, natural rights under law. All you are documenting is your ignorance and a POV that has no purchase in any informed understanding of law or international law. That said, waffle on by all means. I've stated what reliable sources written by competent authorities say, and they are what counts. Your POV is now declared, and it documents why your proposals here are unacceptable to Wikipedia's neutral voice.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Luckily for us, your voice is not a consensus. The consensus meanwhile is leaning toward a neutral edit, in spite of your objections to common sense and logic, as well as historical data.Davidbena (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I seriously have to question your counting skills if you think that there is a consensus for removing West Bank. nableezy - 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree Avi. I've stopped participating in these kind of talk page discussions but I'll make an exception and respond for what it's worth because I respect you as an editor. In the past I might have agreed that "we should do what we can to minimize I/P conflicts in articles as best we can", but I now believe that trying to collaborate with Israel supporters on Wikipedia (with exceptions of course) is mostly futile and counterproductive, sorry to say, and conflict is inevitable over almost every little thing multiplied by every article. In my view it will not be possible to achieve a policy based consensus to remove 'West Bank' from this article (or any article about a location in the West Bank), and for good reason, so nothing beneficial can be achieved by talking about it here in this article. Furthermore, I think the arguments put forward to support removal (and many arguments put forward about other ARBPIA issues like the status of Jerusalem and so many others over the years) really only make sense and have weight to people who have undergone and retained a very specific form of ethno-nationalist socialization, to put it in a rather offensively crude way. Of course I also underwent ethno-nationalist socialization that will bias my decision making in a different way. At best what can be achieved here is a local consensus whose cost far outweighs its benefit. In ARBPIA, ironically, conflict seems to be an inevitable consequence of trying to make peace, peace through collaboration, with editors whose goal, whether they realize it or not, is to convolve aspects of their personal views with the content. Since that is simultaneously something that no one should be doing and ARBPIA's national sport, conflict is inevitable and has an enormous cost time-wise. It's very inefficient. It's far better to move towards boilerplates, cross-article standardization, centralized discussions about what to do about X in the set of all articles related to X or that mention X, centralize RfCs, dilute the effects of demographics, politics, bias, all of our imprinting etc by getting the wider community to resolve a question for all relevant articles in one go. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Sean.hoyland, your input is very important here. Still, Avi, I think, is correct that we don't have to try to solve all the problems arising from the use of this terminology, "West Bank," but rather let us deal specifically with this one issue, since it "stands-out" as being a blatant POV-drive by the editor who wrote it, and especially since we're not dealing here with a political issue, per se, but rather simply describing an archaeological site in the very heart of the country, a place whose roads are traversed by hundreds, if not thousands, of Israeli motorists daily. Let's try to keep focused here, and not delve into contentious issues (as much as that is feasibly possible on WP). Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

We dont shy away from saying Nazareth is in Israel. Avi, with all due respect, your proposed solution ends up with Wikipedia accepting Israeli sovereignty over all of Israel proper, despite the various Palestinian factions that claim all of Israel and the occupied territories, while keeping all of the West Bank in a grey area. There are undisputed facts here, undisputed among serious sources at least. Among those are excepting East Jerusalem the area east of the Green Line and west of the Jordan River is the West Bank. Id add EJ but there at least is a claim by an involved party that it isnt part of the Palestinian territories. For the rest of the West Bank, which this site is in, that claim doesnt even exist. If a committed Palestinian activist kept removing Israel from the article Nazareth that user would be rightly topic banned. Regardless of whether they just replaced "Israel" with "Palestine" or if they tried more creative approaches like saying approximately 100 km north of Jerusalem. I dont agree that NPOV requires us to minimize these conflicts, it requires us to examine the sources and not engage in the blatant OR (and besides it being OR it is also completely misinformed) to try to delete the common place of a territory for strictly nationalist reasons. Cmon, there are actual disputes that can be resolved, this one should just be shut down as the dispute is only on this page and not the sources. This place is, on a frickin map, in the West Bank. Why exactly should that not be included, and when answering keep in mind that there are any number of people that think Nazareth is in Palestine. nableezy - 18:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, User:Nableezy, but you seem to be missing the point. No one denies that Emmaus Nicopolis was once under Jordanian-rule in what was then called the "West Bank." It is now under Israeli-rule in what, by the vast majority of Israeli-government maps, is called Israel, and is referred to as such by nearly all Israelis. Obviously, there is no analogy between saying "Nazareth is a city in Israel" and saying "Emmaus-Nicopolis is an archaeological ruin in the West Bank," since the latter ignores its current status as being under Israeli jurisdiction and law and in the bounds of the modern-day State of Israel (formerly known as Palestine).Davidbena (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No, Im sorry, but it is you who is missing the point. Please read WP:OR and incorporate that basic tenet of editing Wikipedia into your arguments. Saying this is the definition of sovereignty, and this and this and this match that definition so then Israel is the sovereign power of the territory is textbook OR, and honestly Im kind of disappointed that Avi hasnt called that out for the blatant policy violation that it is. I do not care, even a little bit, how "nearly all Israelis" (citation needed) refer to something, "nearly all Israelis" is neither a reliable source or the end all be all of views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I could say nearly all Iranians refer to Israel as the Zionist entity, should we say Tel Aviv is in the Zionist entity because "nearly all Iranians" (again citation needed to be fair) think that? We do not write articles based on the political views of a, any, group of people. We write articles based on reliable sources. Your views on sovereignty, besides being at odds with actual published experts in the field of international law, are utterly irrelevant to the conversation. Finally, the site is unequivocally not in the bounds of the State of Israel and Israel is not formerly known as Palestine, it is a portion of the territory known, formerly and presently, as Palestine. See eg Palestine (region). nableezy - 18:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, User:Nableezy, there is no Original Research being conducted here. Everything is substantiated by documented evidence. There's no need to deny the country's current name, Israel, although you too are right that the country is still called "Palestine" by many of its Arab citizens. For Israelis, that was its former name, just as Canaan and Judea were also its former names. It's all semantics, my friend. Of course, that is not the issue here, is it?Davidbena (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I never denied the country's current name, I denied that it replaced Palestine as a whole. It is a country that is in a portion of the region commonly known in English as "Palestine". Im actually not aware of a country named Palestine (a state isnt necessarily a country, there are some added requirements there) but that again isnt exactly relevant. But there is indeed OR here, you using a dictionary to claim that Israel has sovereignty over the West Bank, something that even the government of Israel has never claimed, is indeed OR. nableezy - 19:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You stand to be corrected, my friend. I never used a dictionary to claim that Israel has sovereignty over the country, which it does. I rather used a dictionary to define the word "sovereignty," and I have duly quoted League of Nations and United Nations declarations to show how Israel has a legitimate entitlement to the land (see my response to Nishidani). The current edit is politically biased and should be rewritten so as not to infringe upon WP:NPOV.Davidbena (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Im sorry, but you are very badly misinformed on this topic. The United Nations is used in support of claiming Israel as having soverignty over the West Bank? Wow, thats just funny. You want a list of UNSC and UNGA resolutions referring to the West Bank as the West Bank and specifically saying it is a part of the occupied Palestinian territories? Your OR, despite being OR and on that basis not even needing a response, is so far outside of the fact based world that its kind of a little bit funny. How about, instead of trying this in an obscure article, you try these nonsense arguments in a page that gets a bit more exposure. Say how about trying this in the article West Bank, say that it is a part of Israel and see how that goes over. nableezy - 21:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Friend, the United Nations explicitly said in section 80 of the United Nations Charter that “nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as affecting directly or indirectly in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the Organization may be parties.” Meaning, the United Nations (if it now disagrees with Israel's hold of territories conquered through war in 1967) has reneged on its own word to support previous international ordinances, such as that made by the League of Nations (the predecessor to the United Nations) in favor of establishing a Jewish Homeland in Palestine - i.e. all of Palestine.Davidbena (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Apropos WP:OR, please directly quote where the United Nations Charter explicitly discusses either Emmaus Nicopolis or the status of the West Bank under international law. Finally, since you at last arrived to the fairly often used but easily disproved claim that the Jewish Homeland includes all of Palestine, please read United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (where you can fairly clearly see that not all of Palestine was set aside for a Jewish state), and since you seem quite adept at using a dictionary, see if you can find the difference between these two sentences. the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and the establishment of Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people nableezy - 22:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Nableezy, although this is unrelated to our current edit discussion, the United Nations only agreed to partition Palestine after it had reneged on its earlier commitment to honour decisions made by other international bodies vis-à-vis the Jews (i.e. the League of Nations).Davidbena (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is unrelated, and again wrong. But I note you have not quoted what from the United Nations Charter explicitly discusses either Emmaus Nicopolis or the status of the West Bank under international law, mostly because it doesnt, which makes everything youve written here on that topic WP:OR. nableezy - 18:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Avi, Sir Joseph and myself have all agreed to a neutral edit, while some of our friends here have been borderline (I mean, Zero0000 and Sean.holyland), I would like to appeal to our two friends to be more forthcoming and decisive in their approach to a satisfactory resolution of this edit dispute, and to tell us if they would agree, in principle, to a neutral edit (or, conversely, not agree), so that we can proceed one way or the other with this issue, based on a solid consensus.Davidbena (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No, because a. that isnt a "neutral" edit as "neutral" is defined in WP:NPOV, and b. there are quite a few of us that very specifically reject that edit. So no, you dont have a "solid consensus" to removed the common name of the place this site is in. And Sean was fairly clear, In my view it will not be possible to achieve a policy based consensus to remove 'West Bank' from this article Sean is, if nothing else, a policy based editor, so I somehow doubt he agrees with something that he feels is not policy based. nableezy - 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Avraham, Sir Joseph and Davidbena are 3 editors, Zero0000, Sean.hoyland, Nishidani, Nableezy and myself are 5 editors, all agains removing "West Bank" from the lead. Though I would hate to use the numbers here, I would rather let the argument count. And that is that everyone (except some (most?) Israelis?) count this as part of the West Bank. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This has to go by quality of argument, not numbers. I'm still waiting for a sound policy-based argument to show that stating that the fact, admitted by both the Israeli administration and independent modern sources that Imwas/Emmaus Nicopolis lies beyond the Green line and is in the West Bank captured in 1967, is not acceptable and so the fact should be suppressed from this page.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Not so, Huldra. There is an old adage: "He that is tacit to the charges laid against him, admits to those charges laid against him." User:Zero0000 at first objected, but then seemed to show a willingness to accommodate change in the edit. Sean, too, seems to be indecisive. That makes 3 for, and 3 against, and 2 that are borderline. As for Nishidani's last remarks, I think an administrator who has heretofore been uninvolved in this edit dispute can best decide whether or not we are to go by quality of argument or numbers.Davidbena (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, both Sean and Zero0000 are editors perfectly able to talk for themselves. If I have not counted them the way they want, then I´m sure they can correct me. Until they do, I assume I have counted them correctly; i.e. neither one of them support removing "West Bank" from the lead of the article, Huldra (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. So Jesus' silence before the Sanhedrin charge that he wished to destroy the Temple is proof he did so wish, whereas, I guess, his avowal that he was the Messiah is false, because he assented to that charge. (Mark:14:53ff) etc.?Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I just quoted from Sean, and heres the last thing I see from Zero in this section: The only correct and neutral statement is that it is in the West Bank but under Israel control (like all of Area C). There is absolutely no reason to treat this location differently from the rest of the West Bank. So, again, I need to question your counting skills here. nableezy - 21:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Again, David, I would draw you to read the policies governing Wikipedia (in the light of the fact that all of your comments ignore WP:OR). In your last remark you ignored the gravamen of WP:CONSENSUS, and specifically with regard to closing a discussion Wikipedia:Closing discussions. That you fail to recognize the obvious allusion in my remark is worrying.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:Closing discussions states explicitly: "There are no policies that directly dictate how to close a discussion." Consensus I think we have in favour of changing the current edit to a neutral edit, with no political overtones.Davidbena (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I quoted from both editors you claim are indecisive explicitly saying that the NPOV statement is that this place is in the West Bank. Kindly respond to that. nableezy - 22:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Also respond to the first thing I raised. You wish to remove West Bank as a political overtone, do you support removing Israel from Nazareth (and Tel Aviv, and Hiafa, and Sderot, and hell Jerusalem) as a political overtone and replacing any reference to it as being approximately 100 km north of Jerusalem? nableezy - 22:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Nableezy, I have already addressed this issue. Israel controls the entire country, so let us also mention Israel's hegemony in the article "Emmaus Nicopolis," or else let us keep the edit neutral.Davidbena (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to add Israeli-occupied prior to West Bank I have no objection. Again, your definition of "neutral" is not NPOV's. And finally, you didnt address either of the questions I asked of you. Those being to respond to the direct quotes from the users you claim are "indecisive" showing that they agree the only NPOV formulation is to include West Bank, and second whether or not you support removing Israel from the article Nazareth as a political overtone. nableezy - 22:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Avi: If you are aware of any formal act of annexation that Israel has undertaken with respect to this place, please provide a source for it. As far as I know, there has been no such act. That being so, it is simply untenable to describe as the Israeli position that Emmaus Nicopolis is in Israel. That is not the official Israeli position, even though we all know what Israel intends for the future. On the other hand, everyone, including Israel, understands that this place is in the West Bank. There is no POV problem here, just a question of whether we state the facts or suppress them. @Davidbena:, please understand that what the average Israeli citizen believes is irrelevant to what is on Wikipedia (unless in an article about Israeli public opinion). Zero^talk 23:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Davidbena: You wrote "on the West Bank map, the village actually sits in a Gray Area". You need to look at a more detailed map. The "gray area" you refer to is the Latrun Salient, which is the region between two armistice lines. Between 1949 and 1967 it was a no-mans-land administered by Jordan. Israel now pretends that it was always Israeli, but that's another story which is irrelevant to this page since Emmaus Nicopolis does not lie in it. Actually Emmaus Nicopolis lies inside the inner armistice line and not between them. Google's version of the layout is here (zoom out if you don't see two dashed lines). I checked the position of the lines on a 1:100000 map published by the Survey of Israel in 1958 and they are essentially the same. Zero^talk 23:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Zero0000. You say that "what the average Israeli citizen believes is irrelevant." I say that it is relevant. Who do world governments turn to when trying to settle land disputes in this country? Israel. Who does the Palestinian Authority turn to when there is a security problem involving areas of the country put under its administrative control? Israel. Who handles crime (e.g. speeding tickets, etc.), accident reports, in areas within or within close proximity to Emmaus Nicopolis? Israel. Who gives building permits in the immediate area surrounding Emmaus Nicopolis? Israel. This fact of Israel's preeminence should have, therefore, precedence over any mention of the West Bank, since the West Bank (in relation to Emmaus Nicopolis) implies a former political status, which none of us is sure will ever return. User:Nableezy, the West Bank was formerly controlled by Jordan, while the Arabs living many kilometers away from this archaeological site are hoping to gain full-autonomy over regions of the country, autonomy (by the way) which they've never had. I say, let us side-step the issue of "who the land belongs to" by simply mentioning that the site is situated near the Latrun Monastery, etc. etc. Such an edit shouldn't be construed as detrimental or harmful to any person's national feelings of allegiance. Nor would it do any disservice to the truth.Davidbena (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it is irrelevant. Our encyclopedia articles are not written according to the misconceptions of the Israeli public, even if one were to assume that you are correct and nearly all Israelis believe what you believe. And the proposed edit is detrimental, it allows the misinformed political opinions of a user to suppress one of the most basic facts about a place, that being in what territory it is located. The West Bank is not a "former political status". The name West Bank was coined as the West Bank of Jordan, as opposed to the East Bank (Jordan proper), yes, but that name has continued to be the commonly used name for the territory east of the Green Line that Israel has held under military occupation since 1967. If you doubt that do a google search for "west bank" site:nytimes.com for example and see that this continues to be the name used by reliable sources for that territory. Again, if you want to include Israel's control of this site in it then by all means feel free to add "Israeli-occupied" prior to "West Bank". But that is the only status that Israel has here, that of belligerent occupant, and I for one will continue to object to any attempt to water down that completely non-controversial fact. Even Israel doesnt claim this territory as being in Israel, and while there are any number of people in this world that take a more expansionist Zionist stance than Israel itself does, Wikipedia need not accede to their demands. Oh, and I noticed you have again neglected to answer a question of mine. Would you support replacing Israel in Nazareth with approximately 100 km north of Jerusalem? Should we side-step the issue of "who the land belongs to" by simply mentioning that [Nazareth] is situated [100 km from Jerusalem]? Would that be construed as detrimental or harmful to any person's national feelings of allegiance? Would it do any disservice to the truth? nableezy - 18:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Nableezy, of course I would not support replacing Israel in Nazareth, because that is the country wherein the city lies, just as Emmaus Nicopolis lies in Israel. You are grossly misled when you write of me that I seek "to suppress one of the most basic facts about a place, that being in what territory it is located," and mean to say by that that Emmaus Nicopolis lies in the West Bank, yet you are the one who suppresses its current status of being in the State of Israel (which, by the way, is obvious to all). Tell me, though. If you were to seek out the legislative body in the so-called "West Bank," who would you go to? You'd go to an Israeli legislative body. If you wanted to build a house in or near the archaeological site of Emmaus Nicopolis, or excavate the archaeological site, where you say is currently in the "West Bank," who would you go to for a building permit or excavation permit? You'd go to Israeli authorities. You see, the site today (though technically it was formerly a part of Jordan's "West Bank") is now an integral part of the State of Israel. There's no reason for you or anyone else here to twist the facts here. If so, we might as well call the American State of Texas by its former entity, "Mexico." You see, The State of Texas belonged formerly to Mexico, but because of American settler encroachment which culminated in the Battle of Alamo (1836) and the massacre of US citizens there, the US Government took control of the Texas territory by wrestling it from the hand of Mexico shortly thereafter. This led to the State’s annexation in 1844 and Statehood in 1845. This prompted the Mexican-American War in 1846-1848, in which the US was victorious. Later, the US and Mexico agreed on terms of reparations for America's "annexation" of Texas. Although the circumstances here in Israel are different, I still think you can appreciate the fact that borders change. Tell me, do you still call Texas by the name of "Mexico"?Davidbena (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And therein lies your problem. You think that your rather far-fetched views on what is in and not in Israel is what we should base an encyclopedia article. The West Bank is not in Israel. Israel holds the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, under military occupation. This is recognized by nearly every single country on the planet, the UN, the ICRC, the EU, the overwhelming majority of scholars, and I could list a number of others here as well. Those are the sources that we use, not your bizarre interpretation of League of Nations mandates or the San Remo Conference or whatever other irrelevant tidbit you wish to waste our time with. This place is not in Israel. Not even the government of Israel believes that this place is in Israel. It is in territory that is universally recognized as part of the West Bank, and nearly universally recognized as Palestinian territory held under Israeli occupation. The only status that Israel has in that area is that of belligerent occupant. Your views on this topic are directly at odds with a thousand reliable sources, which are what we base our articles on. The only person twisting any facts here is you, but thank you for making clear that your proposal for limiting "political overtones" only applies to the Palestinian territories and not to Israel. Had you said youd support removing Israel from Nazareth I could step back and say well David has what I think is a misguided view but his view as at least consistent and not overtly political. But no, it is strictly about claiming for Israel what is Palestinian territory. As youve made that now crystal clear I dont see the point on arguing about this anymore. There is very obviously no consensus to remove the fact that this site is in the West Bank, and further attempts to do so may well end up at arbitration enforcement. This blatant POV pushing based on OR, OR that is manifestly untrue, is disallowed in multiple arbitration decisions, and I for one do not intend to waste my time arguing with somebody that is claiming for Israel what even Israel doesnt claim for itself. This place is in the West Bank, and if you are under the misguided view that such a place does not exist and it is all Israel well then you are free to make blog post after blog post proclaiming that fact. This however is an encyclopedia article, and your warped view is not going to be what an encyclopedia article promotes. nableezy - 20:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment Noticed this discussion on my watchlist weeks ago and it's gone on in circles for too long and unnecessarily so. There's no need to suppress a basic and uncontroversial fact here. Emmaus-Nicopolis is located on the West Bank side of the Green Line, so obviously it's in the West Bank. It wouldn't be neutral to say otherwise. It's not on the Israeli side and it's not in the Latrun salient (no-man's land). This is not a matter of debate. Israel has not annexed the West Bank and has not claimed the West Bank as part of Israel, like they have with East Jerusalem. If you want to add an extra sentence mentioning that it's part of Area C (full Israeli control), I wouldn't be opposed, but to say it's not in the West Bank is simply not true. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

From memory descendants of those expelled from the three villagers claim a right of return based precisely on the fact that this is not in Israel, but in the West Bank, and I have a vague memory this even came up in the 1990s peace talks. Were it in Israel, they would have zero legal redress. But, as everyone but David knows, it ain't. There is actually a society that works towards reclaiming these villages.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yā aṣ-ḥāb (O Friends). I can see that many of our Arab friends have joined the discussion, who have adopted the quintessential Arab view that Israel is the "illegal occupier" of Arab lands, and that it is below their honour to recognize Israeli sovereignty over lands conquered during war. First, I welcome your participation here, Al Ameer and Nableezy, but calling the turf by any other name doesn't really change the fact, does it? But if it will make you feel any better, can we at least agree, collectively, to write here: "Emmaus Nicopolis... located in the Israeli-controlled West-Bank, near the Latrun Monastery"? This is a compromise of sort. Can we all agree to this minor edit? I see that my Jewish brothers have opted out of this discussion.Davidbena (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Your 'compromise' apart from being untrue (Israel does not control 'The West Bank') would mean that everywhere we would have to add, according to case, 'Israeli-controlled sector of the West Bank'/'Palestinian-controlled sector of the West Bank'/Joint Israeli-Palestinian controlled sector of the West Bank', which is bad writing, and encyclopedically dumb. So stop wasting time and space. Your zany argument died on its feet some days back.Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There are exactly two Arabs in this discussion, and until recently zero Palestinians. Not that that matters, because we dont segregate or diminish the views of users due to their ethnic background. You may have noticed that nobody said the three people that support removing the term are Jews, because that is irrelevant on these pages. I respect editors such as User:Avraham a great deal and wouldnt think to attribute any motive in removing the term West Bank due to his being Jewish. I have complete faith that his interest is in creating a high quality encyclopedia article and that he determines his position with that aim, regardless of his ethnicity, citizenship or religion.

As far as your suggestion, no. The term is Israeli-occupied, as in Israeli-occupied territories. It isnt a quintessential Arab view that Israel occupies the West Bank, thats the position of Israels closest ally (eg here), the position of the United Nations (eg [1] here and every page it links to), the ICRC (eg here). nableezy - 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, your insistence on this wording (West Bank)in the article - without mentioning Israel's authority over the place, is in direct violation of WP:POVPUSH.Davidbena (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, User:Nishidani. Since we seek a more accurate edit (unbiased) on this WP page, which describes a geographical place, and one that will either lend credibility to this online encyclopedia or discredit it, the argument has not died by any means, but it is still alive and well. Can we reach a compromise?Davidbena (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, let's keep bias out of Wikipedia, but apply it in the real world.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no compromise to be made with somebody who insists that 2+2=6. We wont just agree to say 2+2=5 to satisfy them. nableezy - 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) David, you're response to my comment is patronizing, but I'll assume you mean well. I don't agree with "Israeli-controlled West Bank", partly per Nish's argument that this would essentially mean that we (wiki editors) would be dividing the West Bank into Israeli and Palestinian sectors. Let's just stick to facts: (1) it's in the West Bank (2) it's in Area C. The current sentence: The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada is objective and accurate. If someone wants to add an additional sentence to the lead or a passage in the body mentioning that the site is in Area C and what that entails, I wouldn't object. Actually, I think this needs to be mentioned at least somewhere in the article. Other than that, there's really no compromise. If you want to debate whether or not the West Bank is part of Israel rather than an occupied territory, this is not the place for such a discussion. And I could save you the trouble by telling you, you're not gonna gain a consensus on wikipedia that supports the far-right Israeli view of the territory. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ameer. While it is true that I hold the place to be in Israel, I have NEVER suggested that we add that in the article at the omission of the West Bank, but rather to give a NEUTRAL edit, such as: "The site today is inside Canada Park and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." Otherwise, insisting that we say that this place is in the West-Bank, without mentioning Israeli control of the West Bank, is tantamount - in my humble opinion - to tendentious editing WP:TE, as also tends to show that the writer of this edit has taken sides in this conflict. We ought to avoid that. Can you agree with me to make the neutral edit as suggested above?Davidbena (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

David, you're proposal still omits the basic geographic fact that the site is in the West Bank. Like I've said twice already, if you or anyone else wants to add an additional sentence about it being in Area C, I don't object (as long as it's accurate and objective). --22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Al Ameer (talk)

David, it is not tendentious editing, when what one say is actually the plain facts! And it is a the plain fact that this place is in the West Bank. The current sentence: The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada, is fine with me, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Huldra and Ameer, the plain fact of the matter is that the site is today claimed by Israel (which, of course, Israel's right to claim it is disputed by others). Still, the fact remains that in the view of many people who live here, in Israel (me included), the site is in Israel, and if not acknowledged as such in this article (because of its political connotations, being a disputed matter as noted), then the least that we can do as neutral editors is not mention either entity, or else say that it is the territory formerly controlled by Jordan (West Bank).Davidbena (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Uhhh no, Israel does not claim the territory as its own. It has never attempted to annex any part of the West Bank except for East Jerusalem and some surronding areas that they included in East Jerusalem. Nobody cares that you or other people who live in Israel think the site is in Israel, that does not matter even a little bit. What matters is reliable sources. Why cant you get that? The West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory. Occupied by Israel. These are facts. Your "plain fact of the matter" is completely wrong. Not even the state of Israel claims this to be in its territory. nableezy - 23:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

To All Concerned: When I sought advice about the content dispute from an experienced editor, this is what he wrote to me: "At present the Emmaus Nicopolis article does not mention any political controversy about the place of the site. That article is mostly addressed to history and archaeology. It might be best to describe the site's location in the most non-committal fashion possible. If you can manage to omit both West Bank and Israel from the article lead, that might be best. If a dispute occurs, consider an WP:RFC. There is more political stuff in Canada Park and that might be a better place to mention political issues. It appears that Canada Park actually straddles the Green Line. If people consider this an important issue, maybe somebody can create a map showing how that works. It is WP:UNDUE to make an archaeological article political if reliable sources don't emphasize that aspect in their own coverage of the site."Davidbena (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thats nice. Doesnt really trump the views of everybody else here, but nice nonetheless. There are a number of us that see no reason to omit the basic fact that this place lies in the West Bank. That response is also colored by your inaccurate portrayal to that user that this place is in Israel. nableezy - 23:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That "experienced editor" is presumably permitted to post here directly. I suggest he/she does so, Huldra (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That experienced editor has seen our Talk-Page. Based on the above advice given by this experienced editor, and as evidenced by all of your words to the effect of keeping the phrase "West Bank" (as its location), without mentioning the State of Israel who controls the territory, it is plain to me that such an insistence upon the present non-neutral wording is meant to arouse certain political connotations that are unbefitting an article that treats on an archaeological site, and infringes upon WP policy of WP:UNDUE.Davidbena (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me be as blunt as I can be now. We are all experienced editors here, Zero, Nishidani, Huldra, Al Ameer Son, myself. Your misleading description to Ed, and his response, do not trump anything on this talk page, and Im fairly certain he would tell you do the same thing. You want to open and RFC go right ahead. But there is no consensus to remove the fact that this place is in the West Bank. Finally, ive several times offered to include that Israel occupies this territory. You rejected that as an Arab buzzword, shortly after you denigrated the comments of Al Ameer and myself as colored by being Arab. I showed that it is not an Arab idea, but the view of nearly the entire world, you neglected to respond. nableezy - 00:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Your heated response, User:Nableezy, proves to all that your insistence on the current wording is totally political. Hopefully, a responsible administrator such as User:EdJohnston, or some other, will make the constructive neutral edit, and keep politics out of this archaeological site, since it serves no good purpose. By the way, there is nothing denigrating about being an Arab. I have many good Arab friends. My point, however, was to keep politics (i.e. the Arab-Israeli conflict) out of our editing.Davidbena (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Curiously, no one ever denigrates Nableezy's position on the basis that he's a US citizen whose views are colored by the US Department of State's official position that the West Bank is "Israeli-occupied". I wonder why. These Americans, coming here pushing the living-in-the-past views of the State department. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree we should keep politics out of it. But denying that it's located in the West Bank is not keeping politics out of it. Claiming that it is in Israel is false. Denying that it is in the West Bank is POV. Saying that the site is located in the West Bank, but on the Israelis side of the border fence is NPOV, but political. Saying it is in Israeli-occupied Palestine is at best neutral but political, at worst POV. Claiming that the site is under illegal Israeli occupation is definitely POV. However, saying it is in Palestine, or in the West Bank, or even in "West Bank, Palestine" are all perfectly factual, NPOV and non-political. It is just a simple, verifiable factual claim with no political overtones whatsoever, and exactly as political, biased and POV as saying that Tel-Aviv is in Israel. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

User:OpenFuture, I can't help but admire your sheer naiveté in saying that the use of the words "West Bank, Palestine are WP:NPOV and non-political." First and foremost, in our modern age, they are political statements. Secondly, yes, the country was called Canaan, Judea, Palestine, the Holy Land, and I see nothing wrong with that if used properly. But to deny its current name is political and POV-pushing. The use of the words "West Bank," too, depends on its context. If we say, for example, the country that lies on "the west-bank of the Jordan River," it is a factual statement, and non-political. But when we mention this place (Emmaus Nicopolis) in relation to the Green Line (Israel), we are, once again, being political. Why bring-in politics when this article refers to an archaeological site whose roads are traversed by hundreds, if not thousands, of Israelis daily? What is the point?Davidbena (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You are so heavily biased that I don't think any argumentation is going to pass through your reality-filter. But here goes anyway:

"But to deny its current name is political and POV-pushing." - I agree, so please stop trying to deny that Emmaus Nicopolis is located on the West Bank, one of the two areas that make up Palestine.

"But when we mention this place (Emmaus Nicopolis) in relation to the Green Line (Israel), we are, once again, being political." - So don't do that then. I'm not. I haven't mentioned the green line.

"Why bring-in politics" - I don't know why you insist on bringing in politics. Why do you ask me? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I go out of town for a business trip for a couple of days and seem to have missed a ton of action . I do have to read a lot of what I missed, but one quick point is that as of how I remember, there has been as of yet no consensus to change the lede—whether that means to mention Israel, West Bank, or anything. Hopefully, the RFC will show a consensus for something. -- Avi (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy the break, Avi. You're busier than I, so I'd like to do some legwork to correct the impression there is no consensus to change the lead'. True, but there is a consensus that the lead should stand as it is (i.e. not 'whether to mention Israel, West Bank, or anything'. Here are the facts.

This edit conflict started when David drove by Emmaus, and, presumably, got back home to read up on the site and was shocked to find that, as the article stood, it stated that he had been in the West Bank. Al Ameer Son had made that correction 6 months ago. David immediately tweaked this at that time by admitting it was inside the West Bank, but claimed that the West Bank had been annexed to Israel. The version we have now has stood for 6 months, i.e., it is stable, and though David has come back to challenge it, nothing in this rather bizarre and zany contretemps alters the fact that the lead is factual, not disputed seriously as such by an overwhelming majority of editors. It's unfortunate that there is an appearance of partisanship in that majority, but Number 57, not unusually, has given an authoritative construal of the obvious, and confirms with his usual independence the precision of what others have argued.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for being unclear; my assumption was that current status included the term "West Bank" and no consensus was evinced to make any changes from "The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." prior to the RfC. So we are in agreement as to the application of Wikipedia guidelines at the least 8-). -- Avi (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, can you please tell us why you think it is important to mention Emmaus Nicopolis' location in relation to the Green Line (Israel)?Davidbena (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

us? I could tell you, but I won't because I would be repeating myself, and what almost everywhere here has said, abundantly and exhaustively. Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

One more thing, no man is unassailable, and, A fortiori, no controversial statement on WP is unassailable. There is nothing wrong nor amiss about objecting to a statement that shows bias, nor is it an unexpected and unfortunate occurrence; minor dispute (i.e. contretemps) to suggest a better edit that will not be offensive to some and that will show neutrality.Davidbena (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole history of that place consists of a massive offense by Europeans to Jews precipitating a solution that became a massive and, it appears, permanent offense to Palestinians to pay the price for Western genocidal enmities. You like your park? 6,000 people were told to fuck off so people of the right ethnic origin could picnic in peace, a bit like my ancestors who worked on English manors expropriated by conquest, which had trenches from the Irish villages leading to the kitchen or servants' areas. That way, the lords of the land could have their breakfast overlooking the wonderfully designed English parkland undisturbed by the 'apes' whose invisible presence was required to cook the food, and clean the barns and manor. That was where I got my ethics, not from myths. But of course, while this affects my approach to the I/P area, it must not influence my judgement on what policy and an encyclopedia require, neutrality.Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, events that preceded the war and which culminated in the eviction of Palestinian Arabs can be read about by the British contemporaries of that period; I mean Sir John Bagot Glubb, in his book, A Soldier with the Arabs (London 1957), who mentions there the incitement of Arabs against Jews by Haj Amin Husseini, as also as described in the book, A Survey of Palestine (Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry), vol. 1, chapter 2, British Mandate Government of Palestine: Jerusalem 1946, pp. 17 – 24:

April, 1920 (Easter Sunday).

“Savage attacks were made by Arab rioters in Jerusalem on Jewish lives and property. Five Jews were killed and 211 injured. Order was restored by the intervention of British troops; four Arabs were killed and 21 injured. It was reported by a military commission of inquiry * that the reasons for this trouble were:

(a) Arab disappointment at the non-fulfillment of the promises of independence which they claimed had been given to them during the war.

(b) Arab belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self-determination and their fear that the establishment of a National Homeland would mean a great increase in Jewish immigration and would lead to their economic and political subjection to the Jews.

(c) The aggravation of these sentiments on the one hand by propaganda from outside Palestine associated with the proclamation of the Emir Feisal as King of a re-united Syria and with the growth of Pan-Arab and Pan-Moslem ideas, and on the other hand by the activities of the Zionist Commission supported by the resources and influence of Jews throughout the world.”

24th September, 1928

“The Jews attempted to introduce a screen to divide men and women during prayers at the Wailing Wall on the Jewish Day of Atonement. This was contrary to the status quo ante and on this account led to objections by the Arabs; orders were given for its removal, the Jews did not remove it and it was forcibly removed by the police in the course of prayers at the Wall. This incident engendered high feeling and was a prelude to the disturbances of the following year. Haj Amin Eff. Husseini and the leaders of the Arab Executive made much of the incident and set themselves to bring about a revival of nationalist agitation throughout the country; branches of Moslem societies were established by them in the provincial towns.”

August, 1929

“On 15th August a Jewish demonstration was held at the Wailing Wall, and on the following day the Arabs held a counter demonstration. From 23rd to 29th August murderous attacks were made on Jews in various parts of the country. The most violent attacks were those against the old established Jewish communities at Hebron and Safad; there were also attacks in Jerusalem and Jaffa and against several Jewish rural settlements. There was little retaliation by Jews, of whom 133 were killed and 339 wounded. Order was restored with the help of British troops rushed up from Egypt; 116 Arabs were killed and 232 wounded, mostly by troops and police.”

“The breach between the two races was widened by the events of 1928-1929, first by the emergence of the religious factor and then by the outbreak of murder and pillage. Reciprocal boycotts of Arab and Jewish trade were organized. All possibility of cooperation, even in the economic field, was eliminated for some time to come and the High Commissioner, returning in haste to Palestine after the outbreak of the disturbances, issued a proclamation announcing the suspension of discussions on the constitutional issue.”

“As it was felt necessary that an Arab body should represent the Arab case in an enquiry into the cause of the disorders, Government recognized the Arab Executive Committee for the purpose.”

October-December, 1929

“A Commission of Inquiry under Sir Walter Shaw visited Palestine and reported, in March, 1930*, that "the Arab-feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future" was the fundamental cause of the outbreak. The findings were very similar to those of the Haycraft.”

You see, there is a long history of hostilities.Davidbena (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a bad excuse for POV pushing on Wikipedia, to be honest. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am turning to you for your unbiased and professional opinion about an edit on this article which concerns the archaeological site, Emmaus Nicopolis, a place in Israel, and where I have suggested a more neutral edit so as to read: "The site today is inside Canada Park and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada," as opposed to the current edit that reads: "The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." As it stands, people who espouse to the view that "Israel is an illegal occupant" have joined in on the Talk-Page discussion to voice their general disapproval at implying that the archaeological site is in Israel, while Jewish participants (including myself) have wanted to omit the words "West Bank" in the article, that is to say, to keep it neutral, without mentioning Israel, neither the West Bank. What do you think we should do with respect to this edit? Can you give your advice on how we ought to proceed and to reach a compromise? Simply put, is it wise to mention areas now fully under Jewish legal control and jurisdiction as only having been held by the Arab Legion of Jordan from 1948-1967, in other words, what some call the "West Bank", and with no mention of Israel? Emmaus is situated in the very center of Israel, the heart of Israel. In government circles, there is no discussion at all, no dialogue, to make the place negotiable for a return under Arab-rule or hegemony, since "Area C" in the Oslo II Accords (where the site is located) is clearly defined as remaining under "full Israeli civil and security control." It's non-negotiable. Any emphasis on "West-Bank" as being the location of this place would, in my mind, conjure-up an editor who wants to relive the past, but forget the present status of the place. A neutral edit, I think, would avoid any misconceptions about the current status of the place.Davidbena (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Collapsing all comments beyond the nom, since the debate is pretty long - TigraanClick here to contact me 15:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep West Bank or replace with Palestine - There is absolutely nothing non-neutral with mentioning the location. I think "Palestine" would be better, as I'm not sure people in general know what the "West Bank" is, but since it's linked it's easy to find out, so "West Bank" is OK. I have no idea why you would think it's more neutral to not say where the location is. "Emmaus is situated in the very center of Israel, the heart of Israel." Actually, it's not. It's in the West Bank, one of the two parts of Palestine. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Keep West Bank West Bank is clearly the neutral term, and I can't believe this has even been raised tbh. Very disturbed that anyone could consider stating that this is in Israel. Number 57 09:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Number57, you and I have actually worked together on some of the WP articles. Your view reflects your Western upbringing, which, sadly to say, is detached from the Israeli mainstream view. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Sorry, but that's wrong on two counts. Firstly, I lived in Israel for several years, so my "view" is nothing to do with my upbringing, it's merely stating reality – this place is not within Israel's borders. Secondly, I don't believe the Israeli mainstream is detached from reality; certainly I can only think of one person amongst my Israeli friends who considers the West Bank to be part of Israel. And as a "serious administrator" (see the picture on my userpage) committed to upholding our policies, I can tell you now that the only possible outcome of this RfC is the phrase "West Bank" being kept. Number 57 14:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Again, with no offence, your opinion does not reflect the opinion of the majority of Israelis. If we should keep the words "West Bank," it should be done with slight modifications. IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Please read WP:RS. Note how "What Davidbena claims is the opinion of the majority of Israelis" is not a reliable source. In this case, authoritative sources are the laws of the state of Israel, UN resolutions and similar. Not your claims of others opinions. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) Firstly, it's important to note (as OpenFuture has done) that the opinion of the majority of Israelis is wholly irrelevant to the legal status of where the border is. Secondly, I don't believe your assertion about public opinion is true; this recent poll suggests 45.3% of Israelis support annexing the West Bank and 44.8% are against, with the remainder undecided. Even if 100% of those in favour of annexation believed the West Bank was already part of Israel (which I very much doubt – they may wish it to be, but recognise that it isn't at the moment), they are still less than 50% of the population (and it's also worth noting that for some reason that question was only asked to Israeli Jews; had Arab opinions been included, I'm sure the proportion supporting annexation would be lower. Number 57 14:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Friends, User:Number 57 and User:OpenFuture, what better Reliable Source is there than the Oslo II Accord which assigns the place where now stands Emmaus Nicopolis as being in "Area C" and where it shall remain under "full Israeli civil and security control." Therefore, insisting on writing "West Bank" at the omission of "West Bank under Israeli control" is, in my opinion, an infringement upon WP:NPOV and is a flagrant violation of POV-pushing, besides being overtly connected to WP:OR.Davidbena (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Er, and Area C is an area of... the West Bank. From the Accords themselves (bolding for effect): ″"Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement″. Number 57 15:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC) As Number 57 said, It's still in the West Bank. It doesn't matter who has civil and security control of the area. The Oslo II accords does not change any borders. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC) But the stipulation there says unequivocally, "full Israeli civil and security control." So let's mention that too in relation to this place!Davidbena (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Why do you insist on making this political? Oh, right, sorry, I know exactly why. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Keep West Bank, because it is on the West Bank. That Davidbena writes that Israelis believe this is in Israel: well, what about using Wikipedia to inform Israelis, instead of using Wikipedia to misinform everybody else? Huldra (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC) I say that if we keep the words "West Bank," it is only fitting and right that we add thereto "under Israeli rule." In so doing, we show the full extent of its status. IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC) So you disagree with that other guy who said, and I quote "My point, however, was to keep politics (i.e. the Arab-Israeli conflict) out of our editing"? You don't agree with that? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC) As a first resort, we should keep politics out of our edits. But if the words "West Bank" are to remain, they require the addition mentioned above.Davidbena (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC) If there is a requirement to show the full extent of the status, the way to start doing that is to describe it as the 'Israeli-occupied West Bank'. It's an occupation administered by the Israeli military. Doing what is 'only fitting and right' according to Wikipedia policy would mean describing the status as RS describe it rather than using non-specific language that hides rather than provides information, and obscures rather than clarifies. Further details with respect to Oslo II could be added or not, but describing an occupation as 'rule' is not how to write an encyclopedia article in my view. But as I have said before, there should be standard Wikipedia-wide boilerplate phrase for this. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC) There is no such requirement. Wikipedia's Five Pillars apply to this post, just as it does everywhere. And saying where a place is located is not POV or political. And it's located in Palestine, more specifically, West Bank. The end. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Yes, there is no requirement, hence the 'if'. And in my view it's foolish for people with an aversion to the language of reliable sources to push on this point of further information about 'the full extent of the status' because the most likely outcome of a policy based decision would be the opposite of what they want. But if someone is going to try to include information about the 'full extent of the status' then it must be done according to policy and it must not be done on the basis of a diluted version of someone's ultra-nationalist/fringe views because they have decided pragmatically that that is all they will be able get away with. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC) If "saying where a place is located is not POV or political," then, for heaven's sake, let us not deny that there are some, supported by RS, who claim that it is in the modern-day State of Israel - with all its diversity of regions and populations. In fact, no wording to the contrary can change this fact, but can hurt Wikipedia's reputation if it should be perceived as pushing the Palestinian agenda. I say, to avoid this contentious issue here, in this case, let us keep it neutral.Davidbena (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC) "Some", you mean you. Only you claim this. What reliable sources? Who claims this area is withing Israel? Israel doesn't. UN doesn't. Who? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Pure denial.Davidbena (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC) I note how you completely fail to provide the reliable sources. For example a reference to the law where Israel annexes the area in question, or UN recognizes the de-facto annexation. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC) The subject of "de facto" annexation has already been discussed in the above section on this Talk-Page. If you wish to see specific references related to what was discussed above, I can show them to you.Davidbena (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC) And here we again see that your claim of not wanting to bring politics into this are false. Claiming it's in Israel because of a de facto annexation that even Israel itself doesn't claim is highly POV. And you want this article to reflect that? No. Reliable sources on the border between Palestina and Israel are first and foremost Palestina and Israel, and secondly the international community and UN. And NONE of these claims this area is within Israel. Not even Israel claims that. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC) User:OpenFuture, this is for your information: De facto annexation of a country is just that, de facto. It precludes the need of formerly declaring a country annexed. But if you think that it isn't annexed, try going to the "West Bank" without receiving a visa from Israel to visit the country.Davidbena (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Keep West Bank or replace with Palestine - this location is in the West Bank. This editor's use of the term "Jewish" in the RfC is dubious and far from NPOV; the question is one of geopolitics, not religion, and geographically, this site is on the wrong side of the Green Line to be encyclopedically be described as anything other than the West Bank or the State of Palestine. TrickyH (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC) This comes as no surprise to me for someone who belongs to the "WikiProject Palestine." Still, our better senses tell us to keep politics out of our editing. Furthermore, the credibility of Wikipedia as a neutral online encyclopedia is at stake here. I hope that a serious administrator will put down his foot here and say that upholding Wikipedia's policies should be our primary interest. Let us, therefore, write: "The site is located in the West Bank, currently under Israeli control." In this, we all agree that the words "West Bank" can stay, with minor edit alterations. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC) I love how you make a complete 180 degree turn, from "I don't want it to be political" to now demanding that we mention the political situation. Just WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop this ridiculous POV-pushing. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Well, friend, it's my prerogative to do so if editors are bent on retaining the words "West Bank." If I seek a neutral compromise, this cannot be construed with POV-pushing.Davidbena (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC) But you aren't seeking a neutral compromise. You are demanding that we change it to something POV. You insist that Wikipedia is going to pretend that Emmaus Nicopolis is in Israel, even though that is untrue. That's not gonna happen. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC) You stand to be corrected. Emmaus Nicopolis is, in fact, in the Land of Israel, as also under the administrative hegemony of the modern-day State of Israel. Stop denying the facts. In the regional dispute between the Palestinians and Israelis, it is also classified as belonging to the "West Bank," although this hints on its "political entity." If you wish to be even more precise, you might say that "the matter is disputed" by the world community. This would, of course, be commensurable with a wise and good editor.Davidbena (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC) And you accuse others of not being up to date, and then you say that the are is in the Land of Israel, and ancient and outdated concept with nothing but historical interest? This whole thing is just ridiculous. And no, the matter is not disputed. Full stop. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC) As others have pointed out, calling the Latrun salient or Canada Park under "Israeli control" is POV. Your assertion in the last edit is laughably POV. International bodies consider it under "Israeli occupation", which is what the UN calls it. There's already a serious POV issue with the article's sentence, "and its mixed Muslim and Christian Arab population left. The area then became a part of Canada Park.[17]" to describe the events of 1967 that needs rectifying. Sorry, but it doesn't seem like any other editors will be joining your POV crusade. TrickyH (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Just as all of us here have expressed our personal views, I am no different. But in the final analysis - as far as editing goes - I have merely suggested a more neutral edit because of the problems arising from the current edit.Davidbena (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Facts are not personal views. And Emmaus Nicopolis is *factually* located in the West Bank. Do you really want to stop claiming that Tel Aviv is in Israel? Because that's apparently your view of neutrality. Pretending that neither Israel nor Palestine exists. Because surely you don't think it's neutral to pretend only Palestine doesn't exist? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC) What I wrote to our friends above, I'll paste them here for you to see and consider. What better Reliable Source is there than the Oslo II Accord which assigns the place where now stands Emmaus Nicopolis as being in "Area C" and where it shall remain under "full Israeli civil and security control"? Therefore, insisting on writing "West Bank" at the omission of "West Bank under Israeli control" is, in my opinion, an infringement upon WP:NPOV and is a flagrant violation of POV-pushing, besides being overtly connected to WP:OR.Davidbena (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Which is why just saying "it is in Canada Park" should suffice. There are no editorials,etc. Canada Park is where this is. If you go to the Canada Park article, it explains in more detail the current location and politics. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC) When I first read the RfC I assumed it was about Canada. :-) Most articles will mention the country name or similar as a disambiguation and to make it possible to not have to click and read an article just to know where it is. And "West Bank" is wholly neutral, even by people who think Palestine shouldn't exist, the West Bank is still the West Bank. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Current First preference Leave it as in Canada Park and make no mention of Israel, West Bank, or Palestine. This finesses the issue, albeit kicking the can down the road to the Canada Park article. This removes any shred of politics from the entry in my opinion. Current Second Preference Leave as is or, perhaps more accurately state "The site today is near Canada Park, which is in both No man's land andin the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." Our job is to try and be as accurate as possible whilst minimizing as best possible the P/I conflicts. From a geographical persepective, the church is near the park, which was held by the Jordanians at the start of the Israeli war for Independence and ended up as no-mans land afterwards (see JNF entry on Ayalon Canada Park - Biblical & Modern Israel. Therefore, as the terms are used today, I believe it to be accurate to state "West Bank" as its geographic location, although sub-optimal as opposed to my first preference. The geopolitical issues, such as whio controls it militarily, jurisprudentially, economically, and who will eventually have universally accepted control after any negotiations or the like is not important to the article. Just as removing it completely would nevertheless allow the interested reader to investigate the status of Canada Park through that article, an reader interested in the current Israeli, Palestinian, or any other positions about the status of the No_man's_land#Israel-Jordan and the West Bank can follow their links. The less politics we can have in this article the better. None remains my first preference and minimal (speak of geography and not geopolitics) the second. I may do more research in the future, an, as always, reserve the right to change my mind if I am persuaded by convincing arguments. The reason I would change "in" to "near" is based on the JNF entry which states: Emmaus Church is outside the area of the park, but it is very close by and worth visiting. At the foot of a large white stone building, the Beth Shalom hostel, there are remnants from a large church from the Byzantine period (5th century CE). The church was built on top of the ruins of a Roman villa from the 2nd century CE, but most of the visible ruins were built much later by the crusaders in the 12th century. Similar for the addition of "No Man's Land", since we should be as precise as possible with the geography and be as apolitical as we can. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC) I would oppose replacing West Bank and No Man's Land with Palestine. I do not beleive there is either geographic or geopolitical justification for taking that position. -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Please note that although Canada Park straddles both Israel, West Bank and No mans land, Emmaus Nicopolis doesn't, as far as I understand. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) Duplicating what OpenFuture has said, If we're going to be precise, I think the no-man's land option is a little misleading, as although a small chunk of the park is in no-man's land, Emmaus Nicopolis itself is in the West Bank portion of it (see the map). Cheers, Number 57 15:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Fair enough, if the Church is in the area of the park which never was no man's land, then my second preference should reflect that by leaving that term out. My first preference is to still leave out any locator except "Canada Park" and transfer the discussion there. -- Avi (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC) In any case, saying it is in Palestine is as flawed as asserting it is in Israel, for slightly different reasons, and I hope commenting editors keep that in mind in reviewing the options and giving their suggestions.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC) There's nothing flawed about saying that is under Israeli control.Davidbena (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC) While there is nothing inaccurate about saying that, I think we are all better served putting as little politics into the issue as possible. The control is irrelevant to where the church is. If we cannot leave out any locator besides Canada Park, perhaps saying West Bank Area C would be an acceptable compromise. -- Avi (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC) I think your comment is even more reason to just say Canada Park. If someone wants to know more about it, they can read the CP article. But we should strive to not have every article somehow entangled in the IP conflict and saying that EN is in Canada Park is true and neutral and should be OK with everyone. Once you get into more details then obviously we run afoul of people's opinions, so CP is all that should be as the location. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Which is why that is my clear first preference. Hopefully, consensus will break to that position. If not, I think that having the term West Bank, or West Bank Area C, is sub-optimally acceptable as being geographically neutral with minimal geopolitics. The interested reader can read more about the West Bank on his or her schedule. I think adding elements of who controls what does more harm than good to this article; that belongs in the West Bank article. We have wikilinks for a reason. I think saying Palestine is unacceptable. Remember, part of an RfC is to determine if there is an existing consensus, and part of an RfC is to get everyone's positions in the open so we can work to a consensus. Often, with consensuses, everyone is going to be disappointed. The key is to find the mutually acceptable wording that minimizes the various cohorts dissatosfaction and maximizes their satisfactions. -- Avi (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC) There is a long history of missing signage associated with the area. Zochrot won a minimal concession after going to the Supreme Court, to get the JNF to set up a minimal hint Emmaus Nicepolis/Imwas was part of the Park's history. A thin allusion to it was made in 2007, but the 2 signs are regularly torn down or vandalized. Your optimal preference leaves out, contextually, precisely what the JNF left out (and on its website still leaves out). Absence of factual signage is not a solution, surely, in either case. Were Wikipedia to mimic the JNF solution, we would be partisan. We have patiently heard David out, but, I think it fair to intuit that his misprisions, all over this page, are evidence of a deep but understandable defect in his knowledge of simple factual history. Had the facts been simply stated in park signage, visitors like him would not labour under the kind of confusion we see here. Wikipedia's function is to set these basic (in this case authoritatively uncontested) facts down. If one, for whatever reason, suppresses such an extremely minimal fact, the deep confusion we see in the tedious argufying above will persist in reality, surely? (Zafrir Rinat, Out of Sight Maybe, but Not Out of Mind Haaretz 13 June 2007) (Eitan Bronstein, Restless Park: On the Latrun villages and Zochrot,' ) Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Nishidani reminds me of someone who, by the dupes of words artfully framed, wishes to win over constituents to a sorry cause. First, your use of the word "misprisions" is out-of-place here, a word which means: "the deliberate concealment of one's knowledge of a treasonable act or a felony." What is treasonable or felonious about winning territory in war? After all, Jordan did this in 1948. You see, you are obviously willing to accept territorial gains during war when it comes to Jordan, but not willing to accept it when it comes to Israel. Admit it, Nishidani. If you deny it, then why do you get so upset now that Israel has taken full-control of the country when, looking back in retrospect before 1948, the country was under British-rule, and before that under Ottoman Turk rule, and before that under Mameluk rule? There has never been an independent Palestinian Arab State. The Jewish National Fund's hold of property in the region of Emmaus Nicopolis is proof of Israel's "de facto" annexation of the land. So, once again, suppression of facts rests with you, my dear friend.Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Misprision. I was rereading Harold Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence (1973) a few days ago for an essay I am writing, and that is why 'misprision' (p.19 and passim) sprang to mind. I can't expect you to know that. In this context, the I/P world , I should clarify that I borrowed it from Bloom, and use it to refer to the deflection of a burden or debt by a defensive recasting of a received narrative in order to assert one's uniqueness, which is how I read the whole discursive history of Zionism. As for the rest, reality doesn't upset me because a short acquaintance with history confirms Edward Gibbon's definition. I do get irritated at the distortions of history and facts. Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Keep West Bank for the simple reason that it's in the West Bank (not in no-man's land and not in Israel). Like I said to David in the thread above, there's no problem with an additional sentence mentioning that it's in Area C of the West Bank and what that entails i.e. Israeli military and civil control. This has nothing to do with making an archaeological site a political football. If this article were to be nominated as a GA, A or FA-class, one would think that the geographic facts of the site's current location and status would be a basic requirement. But yes it's really a shame that everything with the slightest relation to the I/P conflict becomes an exhaustive shit-show that drains editors' time. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC) I would be OK with having something about the current political situation in the "Location" section, but I prefer to keep it out. I don't think it should be mentioned in the lead. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Keep West Bank As stated in the rules, WP:NPoV doesn't mean 1 minute for Hitler and 1 minute for the Jews. This reminds that the pov's have to be weighted according to their relevance and legitimacy. In the current case, both stating Imwas is in Israel or not stating where Imwas would be is undue weight. The international law, which has full legitimacy states Imwas is in the West Bank and that's the information that has to be stated in the lead regarding the localisation of this [former] village. Another option is to be very precise regarding the law and to write: is located in Area C according to West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord.Pluto2012 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC) The problem with that assessment is that WP:Weight states explicitly that we are to give due weight to the relative issues at hand, and since Israel is the major contender here, rather than the abstract entity of "West Bank," we ought to mention Israel too, in addition to mentioning the "West Bank."Davidbena (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 1. Israel is not a contender. At all. 2. No, that's exactly the opposite of what it means. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC) WP policy under WP:Weight says explicitly: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, etc." Can you please show me in the article where Israel is mentioned?Davidbena (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Your' viewpoint on this, as opposed to many other things, is not significant, David. Please stop the hammering effect. I'm certain the more you repeat yourself here, the more outside editors will, rather than review your arguments, simply look over the page, and 'vote' the other way.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC) It is not a significant viewpoint, and not published by reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Let's just say that we keep the words "West Bank." As far as country status is concerned, anyone reading this article from abroad and who might wish to visit this archaeological site in the "West Bank," where will he go to find the "West Bank Embassy" in his own country to receive a visa to visit the place? Who is the President or Prime-Minister or King of the "West Bank" (and, for that matter, what is his legal title withal!?) so that a person who wishes to write him might be able to do so, or send him an embassage to represent their own nation? Of course, this is all said in jest, but it underscores the point that I want to make, and that is Israel is a major contender here, in all that concerns Emmaus Nicopolis, and we, as good editors on this noble venue, should be willing to uphold the policies of Wikipedia and accord due weight WP:Weight in our recognition that Israel controls the country, and cannot be slighted by the editorial of POV-pushing editors. There is no reason to expunge this fact.Davidbena (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Same place they would go to find where the "Canada Park" embassy is. What a weird argument. But yes, I would prefer that it was changed from "West Bank" to "Palestine". Also please note that this is an encyclopedia, not a vacation pamphlet. Israel is not a contender. Wikipedia does not recognize countries, there is no "our recognition", it does not exist. Your position is not notable, and has no reliable sources. What you are doing is nothing but disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC) I beg to differ. Israel is and will always be a contender in what concerns this country. Try to visit the "West Bank," and you'll see what I mean. The current edit infringes upon Wikipedia policy of according due weight (WP:Weight). But I'll let serious administrators and/or stewards be the judge of that. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Of course you beg to differ. But please understand this: YOU ARE NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. Your opinion is wholly irrelevant. Please. for the love of all that is holy, read WP:RS. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Keep "West Bank" in the description because that's where it is. No other reason is needed. The description "Canada Park" is correct but insufficient as Canada Park straddles the Green Line and it matters which side this point is on. A correct precise description would be "in the part of Canada Park that lies in the West Bank". Zerotalk 22:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC) It is also in Israel. I can't help but feel how the insistence on using "West Bank" at the exclusion of mentioning Israel infringes upon: WP:NPOV WP:Weight WP:TEND I would suggest that all editors who write or edit articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will bear in mind the Purpose of Wikipedia. Let's use "West Bank," since that is obviously the consensus here, but let's also expand it to read, "The site is in the Israeli-controlled West-Bank, near the Latrun Monastery" or something of this nature where Israel is not left-out in the blue. You see, it is not enough to have a consensus. Consensus policy also stipulates: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Davidbena (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC) No, it is not in Israel. Yes, Canada Park is. But Emmaus Nicopolis is not, and that's what we are discussing. And it is YOU who is ignoring the purpose of Wikipedia, nobody else. You insist on making this article lie based on your political standpoints. And for the last time: That will not happen. Drop the stick. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC) The fact is, whether or not the place is in Israel is a matter disputed between you and me. We can leave our dispute behind. I have already agreed to use the edit "West Bank" with some modification, such as: "The site is in the Israeli-controlled West-Bank, near the Latrun Monastery." In this way, we steer clear of pressing our own POV, and will avoid the serious issues I've already mentioned with regard Wikipedia policy and guidelines.Davidbena (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Perhaps we can get an opinion and, hopefully, a decisive position with which to take action here, say, from one of the stewards on Wikipedia if they were to be broached with this issue: User:Barras, User:Hoo man, User:DerHexer, User:Matanya, User:Bsadowski1, or others, as there is a deep concern of mine that, while there is a consensus, there are still the three points mentioned by me above which may have been infringed upon. Consensus policy also requires sticking to WP's guidelines. If there has been an infringement, it is their duty to correct the wrong.Davidbena (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Just to be a pedant here, Canada Park isn't "in Israel" in terms of standard spatial predicates or everyday language. The Canada Park spatial object (CP) is not contained by or within the State of Israel spatial object (SoI) which is defined by the Green line, because there are points within CP that are exterior to SoI. So 'in' is not a valid term to use to describe the spatial relations of these objects. At best the objects could said to overlap or intersect i.e. CP ∩ SoI ≠ ∅ but even that is not necessarily true depending on the status of the Latrun salient. Like it or not, the Green Line is important. We have been here before with Jerusalem, which is also a spatial object that cannot be described as being 'in Israel' according to Wikipedia's rules, and there was a very lengthy and well managed process to confirm this. It's all very well having personal opinions like places in the West Bank are in Israel, Jesus Saves and the Moon is made of green cheese (it's not, I've looked at thin sections), but not respecting beautiful things like topology and DE-9IM is just going too far IMO. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC) +1 --OpenFuture (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Oh WP:CANVASSING. How nice. I'm getting really tired of your disruptive behavior, David. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "The fact is, whether or not the place is in Israel is a matter disputed between you and me." - No, it's not. It's disputed between you, and every single authoritative source in existence, including the government and laws of the State of Israel. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC) I can still see that our friends are repeating old arguments. I have already agreed to let "West Bank" stand, but that we ought to also mention its current administrative status, namely: "The site is in the Israeli-controlled West-Bank, near the Latrun Monastery." This will give some balance to the whole picture, and avoid the appearance of bias (especially when the vast majority of Israelis see the place as de facto annexation, and they, too, can present their own Reliable Sources). As for the accusation that I have been "canvassing," I wish to remind our friend that this page, with the sub-title: "Request for Comment," is still pending, and therefore requesting an opinion here is within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Keep West Bank. Not a word more. This is a lead, the description is precise and a commonplace, and if someone wants to tinker with it, that can go in the relevant section below, on the post 1967 period. I might add that a Zochrot poll of park visitors revealed that 75% of the visitors were laboring under the false impression that the park was in Israel, all the more reason to get this datum in.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Yes, let us keep "West Bank" in the lead, with the minor addition of "Israeli-controlled West Bank," so as to steer clear from: WP:NPOV WP:Weight WP:TEND Can we get an opinion from a steward if adding "Israeli-controlled West Bank" is more neutral, and gives due weight to the reality on the ground? After all, Israel controls everything that happens there. That's the stark reality, whether some editors agree or disagree with the status quo.Davidbena (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Davidbena, from the Palestinian perspective, saying "Israeli-controlled West Bank" would probably be an NPOV violation, just like calling it "Israeli-controlled Palestine" would be an NPOV violation from the Israeli perspective. What I am sensing, is that the following may be mutually acceptable: The site today is inside Canada Park, in Area C of the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada. This way, the text remains acceptably neutral to all parties, yet factual with regard to geographic location and geopolitical status. The reader interested in further exploration of the West Bank and I/P issues can click on any of those links. -- Avi (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC) That's Neutral, but gives undue weight to the irrelevant political situation. Just saying "The site today is inside Canada Park, West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." is exactly as factual and neutral, without even mentioning the political situation. The only reason Davidbena insist on making it political is that he failed in his efforts to make the article falsely claim it was in Israel. Nobody else has a problem with saying it's in the West Bank. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC) If I understand correctly, Area C is a geographic subset of the West Bank, and the church is completely contained within Area C, is it not? If so, there is nothing overtly political about saying "Area C". -- Avi (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Area C is a purely political designation and a direct reference to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, that tells the reader absolutely nothing useful. Area C is simply just the common name for "West Bank, but not in Area A or B". So it's not POV, but it's political. The only reason to include it is if you for some reason want to put a focus on the Israeli occupation, like David does. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC) The only problem with your proposal is the precedent it sets, Avi. I can imagine humongous edit wars starting over all Israeli settlements, parks, camps, installations, sites in the West Bank as eager beavers try to extend this. Nothing would be simply 'in the West Bank' anymore. Everything imaginably 'Israeli' beyond the green line would be 'in Area C of the West Bank', David's code language for 'it's ours'. I don't think David's unique obsession should be cause to compromise on this, given his total misunderstanding of policy, and failure to communicate with reality.Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC) I concede that I have failed to communicate the reality of this "disputed issue," but I have not failed to communicate the reality on the ground, and that the State of Israel is a major contender here, even if it is only de facto annexation of lands captured in 1967. De facto annexation precludes the necessity of formally declaring "it's ours." When Russia took Crimea and annexed it, there was a large public outcry at the UN, but Israel abstained from condemning Russia. You see, all throughout the annals of history borders of countries have been decided because of war. While the UN seeks to bring some civility into the picture, it is largely construed by politics. Be well, my friends. We can always ask ourselves what is in the essence of the name, "West Bank." The fact remains, however, that the people of Israel are connected to its land, and the land is governed by the State of Israel, whether recognized as such or not. Cheers. I have no more to add here, unless it should be something out-of-the-extraordinary..Davidbena (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC) 'The fact remains, however, that the people of Israel are connected to its land'. So are Palestinians, and Christians throughout the world.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC) True. I never suggested that they were not. But if Israel's hegemony over the land has been given to it by God, there is nothing that we can say or do to change that fact.Davidbena (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC) That's the first time I've heard the Israel Defense Forces called 'God', but still, I'm not surprised. We are, after all, editing in the death zone of the rational in Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC) David, please explain to us why YOUR claims of where the borders of The State of Israel goes weighs heavier that the laws of The State of Israel. I asked this before, I think it would be prudent of you to answer. How come the State of Israel is not a reliable source on this issue, but YOU are? From your comment above, the only way I can see how that could be possible is if you are indeed God. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Although here we are regressing from our topic (and freely speaking our mind on a Talk-Page), just for the record - in case no one has ever told you this before, often God works through the agency of man.Davidbena (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Ah, of course. Sorry, stupid me, you aren't God, you are just his Prophet. Got it. Do you have a reliable source on that? Otherwise I'm afraid we will have to continue to rely on what the state of Israel, and UN as authoritative sources on the subject, has to say. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC) User:OpenFuture, here, I could tell you that in Israel’s ancient constitution, drafted by Moses our lawgiver, it explicitly mentions Israel’s settlement in this land in Numbers 33:53, but do not use that as proof. Look rather at the long history of the people of Israel in its own land, during the late Bronze Age until the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, during the period of Roman and Byzantine conquest. Still, if that isn’t sufficient proof, look at Jewish immigration to Palestine throughout the long period of foreign rulers in the country. Then, look at the history of modern warfare (from 1948 – 1967) and consider the military exploits of the people of Israel (the IDF) to ensure its freedom of access to all places in the ancestral borders of the Land of Israel. It would be quite easy to provide you with the references in books (published by the Israeli Government) showing Israeli legislation to the effect of its having inherited the land tenure laws (tabu) from the British and how it has implemented these laws in its hold of territories acquired through war, but this will be no more than a vain effort to convince you of Israel's legal hold of the land of its ancestors. Be well. I have no more to say here.Davidbena (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC) You have no more to say, and yet you haven't provided one single reliable source. Instead your arguments are based on bronze-age myths. I truly hope that you don't actually expect Wikipedia to heed such nonsense, and that this is some sort of elaborate joke. Haha. Very funny. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC) It was nice conversing with you. If you should ever think about applying for a visa to visit the "West Bank" ruin of Emmaus Nicopolis, I'd be more than happy to show you around our beautiful country , in which I'd be more than happy to serve as your guide and explain for you the history of the site. There are also very beautiful forested areas maintained now by the Jewish National Fund. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC) That's nice, but as a general principle in tour guiding, one seeks a local who knows the history of his country, not a foreign theology.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Hahahaha, Nishidani. What can we do? After all, we were exiled by force from our land. But I've been here since 1975 (born in 1956), so that makes the majority of my life. I've lived amongst Arabs and Jews. I even lived in Bethany in 1976.Davidbena (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC) You and your family were exiled from your land from by force since 1956? I didn't realize you were Palestinian. Welcome then. There is a shortage of Palestinian editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC) The Jewish people were exiled years ago, which accounts for why there are Jewish communities in the Diaspora. This is nothing new.Davidbena (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Getting back to the matter at hand, Nishidani has a point. While "Area C" is factually correct, it may open up a can of worms wherein every individual location in the West Bank is going to be "decorated" with its area. So for geographic purposes, perhaps "Area C" can be left out. Davidbena's main concern seems to be the lack of any indication that this area is under Israeli control, which I believe is fact (whether a desired or reviled fact may depend on one's point of view of course). Whereas most others with an alternative perspective feel that David's edits may give more weight to the POV that the West Bank is Israel proper, which, at this point, is not accepted by most of the world, and should not be Wiki's POV. Perhaps we can compromise as so. The lede remains something like "The site today is in the West Bank, near Canada Park." Later on in the article, we have the history section end something like this: "However it was conquered by Israeli forces during the Six Day War of 1967, and its mixed Muslim and Christian Arab population left. The area, similar to nearby Canada Park, remains under Israeli control". Or instead "part of Area C" or something like that. This way, we have the factual statement of the control in the article, but separated from the location, so we finesse Nishidani's concern about rampant re-statement of various "West Bank" entries to frame one side or the other. Would that achieve consensus, perhaps? -- Avi (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Your proposal that "later on in the article, we have [an] history section" that explain the current situation is already in place: here. (Note that I don't have the concern of Nish with Area C. I think it should stated everywhere. But anyway I agree that opening that door will not bring a lot of added value, if any, but would generate a lot of problems with pov-pushing management). So let's not do so. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Avraham, with all due respect that suggestion is filled with euphemisms that obfuscate the issues. It's mixed population "left", "Israeli control". The word is occupation, and that isnt simply a POV, that is the view of nearly every reliable source on the planet, and even the Israeli High Court says so. The only word that, if we need to add any political status to the territory here (and to be clear I don't think we do for an article on a monastery) is "occupied" with a wikilink to military occupation. And honestly, do you not see any parallel to your first preference to removing any mention of Israel in the article Nazareth? Some people don't like that Nazareth is in Israel, but so what. It factually is in Israel. Just like this, as a plain fact is in the West Bank. Why exactly do we need to suppress that basic information only for places in the Palestinian territories? nableezy - 06:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Hi, User:Nableezy. With mutual respect , may I point out the the word "occupation" is a politically-loaded term. Israel controls the area, that is a fact. Whether thatr control is legal or illegal, moral or immoral, justified or unjustified, is part of the I/P morass we find ourselves in. Calling it "occupied", I believe, makes Wikipedia take a stand on that issue, which is what we are trying to prevent. There are plenty of links to various aspects of the struggle in the article or related articles; the focus here should be to be factually accurate and politically neutral. I think saying simply that the area of the park is currently under Israeli control is factually accurate, albeit distasteful to many, and does not carry the same political connotations that "Israeli-occupied" or "under Israeli jursdiction" would (respectively to either side). -- Avi (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Hi, user:Avraham. It is true that "control" is a more neutral word than "occupy". But using the word "control" doesn't comply with WP:NPoV at the contrary of the word "occupy". WP:NPoV doesn't mean to attenuate the facts but to comply with all the pov's in giving them their due:weight. In the current case, all countries in the world and all legitimate organisations (starting by the UN Security Council) consider West Bank is part of the Palestinian occupied territories [sic]. Some may not appreciate the following comparison but it is nevertheless pertinent: when only the "criminal" disagrees with a fact, WP:NPoV (wp:dueweight) doesn't mean that his point of view must be taken into account in order to smooth the global view. We follow what the most relevant views say and highly minorator point of views are discarded. In the current case, "occupy" is the position of 7,000,000,000 people ; "control" (or "liberation") is the one of max 7,000,000... And indeed "Occupy" has legal, political and emotive connotations. That's a strong word. But that's not an issue. If this word is mainly used to describe the situation it just means this lattest has... legal, political and emotive consequences. That's WP:NPoV. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Firstly, I do not think anyone rational would consider the UN an unbiased party regarding the state of Israel. Secondly, a few hundred delegates at the General assembly does not mean that all the population of the countries comprising the membership of the UN necessarily follow. That is an example of the fallacy of composition. Thirdly, a better metric would be proportion of use of the terms in the English language (as this is the English Wikipedia). argumentum ad googlecountum is a ridiculous fallacy as well, but a brief search shows that the order of magnitude of the usage is about the same (3:1 perhaps) and not the three orders of magnitude (7 billion to 7 million) ratio you were implying before. However, during this discussion User:Nishidani has re-written the history section, and it may be that it is more neutral as it stands now than how it was before. We should all re-read it. -- Avi (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC) (ec) I think the reference was, not to the UN, but to the International Court of Justice, 15 judges hailing from all over the planet who were virtually unanimous in confirming what the UN et al say (Remember, the UN is a political body, of course, but the United Nations Security Council is a great power lobby, where one power consistently blocks the application of the provisions of International Law in the I/P case, so the Un argument of bias goes both ways). I usually revert IP edits that add mechanically 'illegal' or 'occupied' to any Israeli thing over the Green line. That happens to be also why I am sceptical about 'control' here as well. It's true that everything Israel does there is, to put it euphemistically, both 'illegal', that it ignores most of the obligations it has as a 'belligerent occupier' and that the area is under occupaation: it is true also that Israel controls the whole area, directly or through its proxy, the PNA. But we can do without excessive adjectivalization. Both facts are implicit, and obvious to any reader. Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Apropos the history section, it could be substantially expanded from the Maccabees down to Varus to say the least, and the archaeology section, compared to the materials, is thin. There are lots of things to fix here, and perhaps we are getting too distracted by overplying the POV worry beads. Davidbena used his God image, so I'll say that his failed POV push has been nonetheless useful, in drawing attention to the work that needs to be done, and so he's right in the proverbial sense at least, that the tetragrammaton works in mysterious ways.Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Yeah, I think in the lead saying that it is in the "West Bank" and then in the history section mentioning the Israeli occupation can achieve consensus. Although we really need to fix that claim that the population "left". They didn't, they were expelled. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Avraham, Firstly, you mix the UNGA and UN Security Council. The Security Council decisions are binding for all UN members as stated in its chart that each member signed. I add that -if biased- UN Security Council would be so in favor of Israel due to the 'veto' of the US that was used many times in favor of Israel. Many commentators also point out that Israel is the State that disobbeys to the highest numbers of these resolutions (of the Security Council) without consequence as a 'rogue state'. As far as wp is concerned, UNSC is a WP:RS source of high quality and that's why its interpretation of the events is followed here. Secondly, in democraties, population chose delegates to take decisions in their name. Its your choice to attack this principle but that's the way it works. Referring to UNGA delegates or to Ministers of Foreign Affairs they are broadly considering West Bank is a Palestinian occupied territory. Secondly bis, bad faith do not lead to nowhere: wp:en has chosen Israeli-occupied territories in order to underline that if most countries condemn Israel's occupation, a huge amount do not recognize these are Palestinian territories openly but ask parties to negociate. On wp:fr they prefered using the precise words of UN Security Council that states the territories are Palestinians (note that more than 50 % of States do so). As you can see, WP:NPoV is quite well applied on wp and in synthesis: you should consider "occupied" is used in all versions. Could you please clarify how you could have missed it ? Are you pov-pushing by ignorance or by conviction ? Thirdly, regarding the 7000 M / 7 M. I agree that this lacks source but the order of magnitude of the ratio of 1000 may drop to 100 but never below and thereforme remains extremely significant. We are not at Yeshiva and this is not a pilpul. Bad fait leads nowhere and rejecting a detail doesn't give the point. Global view remains the key rule when discussing ideas (but it is true to when we see people keep quoting religious books (Mishra, Bible, Quran) in the XXI century we would doubt of any global view they could have on the world). A a conclusion, this ratio remains relevant when we discuss about how wikipedia's voice. Regarding history, do you think that when trapped you could dodge the consequence in going to another direction as if you would center the debate back. You suggested a blatant pov-pushing. Would you mind admitting you was wrong and stating you will never do so again on this topic ? (Excuses would be welcome too.) Pluto2012 (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC) RFC statements are supposed to be short and neutrally worded. This is neither, it is somebody making assertions that are directly at odds with the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. But fine, a response. Keep West Bank and do not add anything else. If anything else needs to be added then added "the Israeli-occupied" immediately prior to "West Bank". That is the status of the territory according to even the Israeli High Court and Israel's closest ally. This place is emphatically not in Israel according to even Israel. The idea that we are spending this much time on a so patently bogus argument is kind of ridiculous, but hey this is Wikipedia after all. nableezy - 06:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC) On the other hand, Nab, the article body does make clear that Canada Park is under Israeli administration, 'is in Park, under Israeli administration, in the West Bank' would technically reflect WP:LEDE summary style and take into account Avi's concern. I don't think it necessary, but I'mk willing to put that to a vote.Nishidani (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC) If you're talking about the park administration works. But his suggestion was about the territory, being under Israeli "control" since 1967. Yes that's true but the type of control has a specific word that reliable sources use. That word is occupation. I have no problem saying Israel administers Canada Park. I do have one saying that the territory that park lies in is simply under Israeli control. nableezy - 07:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC) See above for my thoughts that "occupation" implies Wikipedias taking a side (the way that Israeli Jurisdiction may the other way). "Control" is a statement of fact, it may be legal or illegal, moreal or immoral, but the Israelis control that piece of land now, not the Jordanians, Palestinians, or Syrians. -- Avi (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Avi I'm on my phone so I'm gonna answer both replies here, sorry just don't feel like looking for the right place up there (I really didn't want to spend time on this during vacation but ah well guess I'm back to being an addict). But to begin with I dispute the notion that using the word occupied makes Wikipedia take a side. That word is used by the High Court regarding the WB outside of of EJ. That word is used by the US for the West Bank. That word is used by a substantial majority of reliable sources to describe the West Bank. I don't feel that using words that sound supposedly sound more neutral over words that reliable sources use regularly is what NPOV means. We are supposed to examine the sources to determine these things, not write things that are supposedly less harsh for the sake of sounding "neutral". The article title for the occupied territories is Israeli-occupied territories (and Pluto it's not occupied Palestinian territories because it includes the Golan). There was an instance where somebody in the past wanted to use ultra-Orthodox instead of Haredi on some random page, and I felt then that that argument should take place on the Haredi Judaism page and we use whatever title is used there. Same thing here. I personally think this should be a settled question, that as a matter of fact, not POV, Israel holds these territories as belligerent occupant. That doesn't mean illegal, or unjust or whatever pejorative thing that a lot of Wikipedia users seem to think is implied by occupied. It's a technical status, one that, again, even Israel's high court regularly uses to describe Israel's standing there. Finally, would you be so kind as to answer the last question of mine that being what's the difference between removing West Bank here and removing Israel from the article Nazareth? That has about the same percentage of reliable sources disputing it's in Israel as anything I've seen disputing this is in the WB. nableezy - 11:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Comment - This RfC is pretty snowy, with one wanting to remove "West Bank" and all others wanting to keep it. Do we need to wait the full 30 days, or should we ask someone to close to get it over with? :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Keep "West Bank", of course. The place where Emmaus Nicopolis is situated is named West Bank by practically every third-party, reliable source extant. The West Bank region has not be annexed by Israel. In other words, not even Israel has officially declared that the West Bank belongs to Israel and should be denoted as Israeli land. The lead paragraph provides an outline of the subject. It'd be unthinkable not to include the name of its location. The name of its location is provided by the sources required by Wikipedia. (Quite a waste of time all this.) -The Gnome (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.