Talk:Wadi Qana

Title

This article has been stable for nearly two years at Wadi Qana. If somebody wishes to move it they should follow the process at WP:RM. nableezy - 00:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The process at WP:RM states that the initial move requires a discussion before being made. That this policy violation managed to sneak by , unnoticed, for two years doesn't trump policy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)

Contested moves need to be discussed. That one was not contested. As WP:RM says: Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location. This is the stable title. And your move requires an RM. Kindly do not disrupt Wikipedia be engaging in a move-war. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 02:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What WP:RM says is "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. " If English is not your first language, what that means is that you need to request the move BEFORE you make it. Would is the future tense. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasnt contested lol. We have a stable name. It is Wadi Qana. You know your preferred name is contested. You can do with that information what you want to. nableezy - 03:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment Sorry. I didn't notice this discussion and moved the page. I won't mind if the move is reverted. Thanks ~SS49~ {talk} 05:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

SS49 please self revert your move. The page has been stable at Wadi Qana since 2018. nableezy - 06:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

And for the record, Wadi Qana gets 3x the ghits as Nahal Qana, and 156 to 4 in google news results. So a. the previous title has been stable for well over a year, and b. the previous title is the common name and nobody has once suggested otherwise. nableezy - 06:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the move. Thanks ~SS49~ {talk} 08:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Nahal Qana is the term used in 6 out of the 7 sources of this article. Google: "Wadi Qana" - 7,080, "Wadi Qanah" - 1,360, "Nahal Qanah" - 5,290, "Nahal Qana" - 2,250, therefore "Wadi" in total 8,440, "Nahal" 7,530, which is not a significant difference. Nableezy, perhaps you forgot to add parentheses when you made the search? In view of the usage of sources, I think we must therefore move to "Nahal". Debresser (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not stream?

Why is this using the Hebrew or Arabic at all for the title? Why not Qana Stream like on [1]? It also needs to reference Kana as an alternate spelling form. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

this is indeed a reasonable solution, that avoids the nationalistic back and forth. I support a move to that. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Since that is not used by sources, and Google yields 164 results. :) Debresser (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Palestinian villages along the slopes

This article has, since it first appeared, described the path of the Wadi through the West Bank by reference to multiple illegal Israeli settlements. Palestinian towns apparently don't exist even if, like Kafr Thulth and Sanniriya, they are right on the edge of the wadi. Sublime. Zero^talk 09:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the article. Debresser (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved buidhe 22:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Wadi Qana → Nahal Qana – The move has happened without any discussion yes I understand this happened two years ago but the article since the contested move didn't receive much edits I ask that the original title will be restored and move and discussion will take place Shrike (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Added to WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE project pages. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• This was not an uncontroversial request and should be reverted. nableezy - 06:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Nahal Qana Nahal Qana is the term used in 6 out of the 7 sources of this article. Google: "Wadi Qana" - 7,080, "Wadi Qanah" - 1,360, "Nahal Qanah" - 5,290, "Nahal Qana" - 2,250, therefore "Wadi" in total 8,440, "Nahal" 7,530, which is not a significant difference, so in view of the usage of sources, I think we must therefore move to "Nahal". Debresser (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - odd that Debresser would post results showing Wadi Qana is more commonly used and then support moving the page. I get 7030 for Wadi Qana vs 2540 for Nahal Qana (in quotes) in google and an even bigger disparity of 144 for Wadi Qana vs 4 for Nahal Qana in news results. Wadi Qana is clearly, by a wide margin, the more common name. Also, a note on the Nahal Qanah results, those seem to be nearly entirely about a "Nahal Qanah cave", not the river itself. nableezy - 16:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Not odd. If the difference is small, like in this case, other considerations take precedence, in this case the sources of the article. Strange your search gives other results than mine; I was very precise in copying the results of my search here. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe most of the sources cited in the article now use wadi. There any other reason to move it to Nahal? nableezy - 04:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose.

It’s wadi qana by a long way at Google Books, since that is the standard term for this area for the last millenium

• (2)We are dealing with a wadi that starts in, and mostly runs through the West Bank, which is Palestinian territory under international law. Sure, Israel is settling it and like the POV pushing here, there is an attempt to rename the Palestinian landscape and swamp the Arab villages around it with settlements with Israeli names to stamp it
• (3) Israel has pumped out much of the spring waters feeding it, and discharges settlement sewage into it. What was prime Palestinian agricultural land. A brief story of the Israeli attemp0t to create a leisure for Israelis Natural Part in this occupied territory and uproot local Palestinians and their olive groves is told in the following report, Wadi Qana – From Palestinian agricultural valley to settlements’ tourism park B'tselem 23 April 2015
• (4) This move breaks NPOV because it endorses using Israeli terminology for territory predominantly outside Israel, and suppressing the fact that in the overwhelming bulk of.the literature on historic Palestine down to our time, Wadi Qana is the only term used by scholars from all over the world.
• (5) Even a correctly done google search shows wadi qana is used more than three times more often than the recent (WP:RECENTISM) Israeli settler term.

"wadi qana"=7,620,

"nahal qana"=2,200 Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• (6)The move is in lockstep with an official Israeli policy known, and this is the foiremost Israeli expert on the landscape and its toponyms, as the Hebraization of the occupied territories:-

‘When the occupation began assigning names to Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, its task within the boundaries of the State of Israel had already been essentially completed. Not only had Hebrew names been bestowed upon nearly all of the Jewish settlements . ., but all of the geographical features of the map-streams, springs, mountains, and wadis – as well as ruins and tels, had acquired Hebrew names as well. The discussion will now turn to the tremendous undertaking: the Hebraization of the landscape. Pp.37-37 Meron Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape:The Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948, University of California Press 2000 pp.36-37.

In short, the proposal endorses using the ideological drive of an occupying army to describe features in an occupied territory and therefore, ipso facto, is tantamount to editing the encyclopedia along nationalistic lines.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• (7)'Nahal' in Hebrew does not translate 'wadi'. It is an astute POV pun for west bank 'streams', because nahal in Hebrew etymology comes from a root connotating a sparking, a flow, that leads somewhere, to a point of repose (hence 'stream') and secondly Nahal is an acronymic pun on it, referring to the flow of paramilitary Israeli units flowing into the land to settle it. That is the purport of these name changes. It's fine within Israel, but not in occupied land, where the traditional Arabic and international terminology are, per NPOV, to be rigorously conserved.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, your arguments are for the most part not relevant to Wikipedia, being that they are clearly political in nature.

The fact that "Wadi" and "Nahal" are not precisely identical (although close in meaning) has no bearing on this discussion, since we are not discussion to rename the wadi article to [[nahal], rather "Wadi Qana" to "Nahal Qana" and those two are names for one and the same geographic entity. Debresser (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope. I gave strong technical reasons consonant with normal wiki practices for not endorsing an Israeli settler rewrite of what is mainly a Palestinian area extraterritorial to Israel. The politics emerge with editors who think it proper to assist Israeli government policy in Judaizing Palestinian areas. As my editing of the article, shows, what interests me is the factual history of the , and the way it has been appropriated to turn a rich agricultural zone and home for Palestinians into a place for Israelis and foreign tourists -no Palestinians allowed- to stroll in, picnic without having the scenic prospect disturbed by the sight of foreign 'elements' as the settlers call them, and enjoy another rich 'love Israel' experience in a real holiday spirit.Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Your POV is speaking, not arguments, and certainly Wikipedia policy-based ones. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course I have a POV, just as you, and everyone else does. To have one is not excluded by wiki policy. What policy requires is that NPOV prevail, that facts prevail, that sources be highly reliable, and that disagreements be thrashed out by rational arguments. Above all policy frowns on pushing one's POV into articles by studious omission or determined commission. The replacement of wadi by nahal is documented as ideological in Benvenisti's book, and therefore those who push for the latter are consciously using Wikipedia to naturalize terminology that has a political valency in Israel's occupation of the West Bank. I.e. they are making a political judgment (with zero interest by the way in actually writing up the history of the place referred to.)Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Nahal Qana or to Qana Stream - the original move from Nahal Qana to Wadi Qana was done outside the requirements of process, which state that potentially controversial moves (as this one surely is - see above discussion) be made via a Requested Move before making the move. This wasn't done, and we shouldn't reward policy violations just because they go unnoticed for a while. That means going back to the original article name. As this stream flows in both Israel and the West Bank, and has both an Arabic and Hebrew name , a reasonable solution is to cuse English terminology- Qana stream. We don't call our Rhine article Rhein, le Rhin, Reno, or Rijn either, nor do we call the Orinoco the Rio Orinoco, we just make the latter a redirect. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we call the Rhine article Rhine because that is the most common name used in English. Evidence has been provided that Wadi Qana is the most commonly used name in English. None has been provided to refute that. Yes, we should not reward policy violations, including WP:HOUND and WP:SOCK. I think youll find wide agreement in that. nableezy - 18:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, please do not modify your comment after it has been replied to. nableezy - 19:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sneaky. A 'stream' is definitely not a wadi. Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose move by all the sources/reasons given by Nableezy and Nishidani. Huldra (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose move. "Wadi" is an English word (I remember it from geography lessons half a century ago), but "nahal" is not, so, unless there is an overwhelming predominance in English-language sources for "Nahal Qana" as the English name, then we should call it a wadi. Google Books and Google Scholar find similar numbers of sources for both names, but it seems that many of those using "Nahal Qana" are about the cave rather than the wadi. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose move for the reasons stated by Nishidani and Phil Bridger. NSH001 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose move. There is a river called "Qana" mentioned in the geographical descriptions of the Book of Joshua and its name was preserved historically in the modern "Wadi Qana" which flows from the Samarian hills in the West Bank into the Yarkon River. "Nahal" is a completely Hebrew word, while "Wadi" is an accepted term in English. I would love to solve this with changing it to "Qana Stream" but there is a problem with the translation to stream, and I didn't see too many sources using it. Each language has its own way of defining different bodies of water so it is best to keep to the original. Preserving the Arabic name is not rare. We have this in Wadi Qelt and Wadi Ara, who both have Hebrew names ("Nahal Prat" and "Nahal Iron") but most people don't refer to them this way. Another example of an iconic place in Israel known as "wadi" is Wadi Milek. The neighborhoods Wadi Salib and Wadi Nisnas kept their Arabic names even in Israeli-Hebrew conciseness.--Bolter21 (talk to me)
• Oppose. Current title is majority in the sources and even the endorsers concede this point. Good observation on Wadi Qelt by Bolter21 which, like Wadi Qana, are both features of the West Bank and not Israel proper. This fits the pattern already extant where Nahal Sorek, a stream in Israel, is the article and Wadi al-Sarar is the redirect. Havradim (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  But this stream most certainly flows in Israel proper, so if thata's your reason to oppose, it is based on an incorrect assumption. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Used by a majority of English sources (even including many Israeli archaeologists). Zero^talk 05:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:30, 14 May 2020 (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.

Hebrew Bible

I see 'Bible' has been reverted back to Hebrew Bible by Debresser.

I changed the header Hebrew Bible to Bible for a very simple, unideological reason. The Bible exists in two basic versions, the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew Tanakh. Since 'Bible' refers generally to both, it should be the default term in an encyclopedia, none of that genre ever adjectivalizing Bible as Hebrew Bible, unless there is a specific reason. How this habit of writing 'Hebrew' before Bible got into Wikipedia is beyond me. But the point is as follows:

There are notable differences in the two, both in terms of what books are included, and in terms of textual history. Scholarship, whenever it deals with differences between the Septuagint and Tanakh versions (say in the accounts of David's career) of the (generic) Bible, specifies which tradition says what. But they largely overlap. When we use the term Hebrew Bible, we are implicitly referring to the Masoretic recension, but if the exact same material is also in the Septuagint, such a distinction is pointless.

In the present instance, both the Septuagint and the Tanakh concur at Joshua 17:9 , the former writing φάραγγα Καρανὰ where the Hebrew bible has נחל קנה, the Greek referring to Qana as a gully, the Hebrew the stream in it, two different perspectives on the same geomorphology. But the textual tradition concurs about Wadi Qana’s location as a border. If we were citing say Jeremiah, then there would be reason to privilege the Masoretic text and write 'Hebrew Bible' if the said passage was not in the Septuagint. This is not the case here.

Where the Greek and Hebrew versions concur as here, therefore, it is pointless singling out the Hebrew, because that implies it is not in the Greek version.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

My reason for restoring Hebrew Bible was also "unideological". The term is used to set apart the Old Testament part of the bible. See Hebrew_Bible#Hebrew_Bible. Since this article specifically refers to the function of Nahal Qana as a border in the time of the Old Testament, this makes eminent sense. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki is not a source for facts, so citing Hebrew_Bible#Hebrew_Bible is neither here nor there. A bible-basher in English doesn't refer to people who tubthump the OT drum. You have not replied to the gravamen of the point I made above: it is not scholarly usage to put 'hebrew' before bible, unless the point is to single out a divergence between the Hebrew, Septuagint (and Onkelos etc.,) versions, which, in this instance does not exist. Hebrew Bible has cogency if the intent is to refer to the text written only in Hebrew, and not say Greek, which as the language translating a pre-Masoretic Tanakh source. To insist on referring on every occasion to a foundational document for both Judaism and Christianity as exclusively 'Hebrew' is ideological, a claim for unique possession of a literary property shared by two civilisations.Nishidani (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of source material

Material describing Palestian actions that harm the wadi's ecology that are sourced to mainstream newspapers were removed with a bogus edit summary. The article reads like a propaganda piece by B'tselem, and violates wikipedia policy on WP:NPOVJungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree removal of WP:RS is not acceptable --Shrike (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll wait for Nishidani to explain his actions, meanwhile I agree with the tag that has been added since all of the Israeli illegal activity in this area has not been adequately covered yet.eg https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-settlers-who-build-in-west-bank-nature-reserves-now-facing-trial-1.6787328 Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The illegal construction of the road by settlers is actually already mentioned in the article, but we can certainly add to that the fact that they are now facing trial for it, and that previous violators were already tried and convicted, per your source. When you add that, make sure you also add the fact that the Palestinians are also harming the reserve through illegal hunting, per the same source. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not so much interested in Israeli legal gymnastics or their complete inapplicability in the WB as in the gangsterish methods used to dispossess the rightful owners of property in favor of illegal settlers.Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I know exactly what kind of editor you are and how you are using this encyclopedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, per your explicit comment, above. I'm just pointing out to you how that source will be used, in a WP:NPOV manner, to avoid any future misunderstanding. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You just picked out some small parts of the source that suited you, there is plenty more in the article nor is it the only source I have but I will let Nishidani do his thing first. "Battleground" accusation from you? Don't make me laugh. You go back and look what I used to edit (mostly historical document type articles) until I had the misfortune to run into the Ice and Suns of the world.Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

An editor that states that he's only interested in "the gangsterish methods used to dispossess the rightful owners of property in favor of illegal settler" is quite obviously here for WP:BATTLEGROUND reasons. I think it is self-explanatory. Perhaps you were a better editor in the past. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

At least you hadn't the neck to dispute the truth of it. And people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages are for article improvement, not a forum, so I don't feel the need to rebut every wild accusation some random wiki editor tosses around. But if this article is to be improved, by adding sources like the one you suggested, it will include all the relevant material from that source, not just the bits that a WP:BATTLEGROUND-minded editor like you would like to cherry-pick from them. WP:NPOV is policy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, when I add it, you can pontificate all you like. Meantime, it's just your usual hot air.Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I won't pontificate, I'll simply add the bits I referenced above, just as I wrote. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Examine that editor's actions (which, through no fault of his) accidentally caused me to lose a major restructuring an update of the material on the page, with numerous corrections of its flaws (for example the sourcing to Ember is screwed up, since he is one of the editors, but the article was written by Thomas E. Levy). The window I wrote in seized up because of an ec, and I had to wait three hours, and then close it, losing the material. That is my fault, but what I observed was no improvement. Since I have done 80% of the article, and have actually read all of the sources, and have several more, all editors eager to 'fix' it need do is wait a few days.

The addition of two Israeli newspaper articles in Hebrew, one certainly not RS (makorrishon) to document what the existing academic sources describe more comprehensively (part of what I was editing in)) was disruptive. All editors know that, in the English language wiki, the same material if covered in English sources, need not be documented from sources that cannot be read by the passing readers. Editors that just tweak and quibble over a sentence or two in their wiki work, or the positioning of a statement, should rein in their eagerness to fiddle if a major attempèt to actually construct the article and bring it up to some level of comprehensiveness is underway.Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please restore the material you removed in violation of WIkipedia policy, and then we can discuss how it may be improved with even better sources. And read WP:OWN while you are at it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Answer the above questions. (1) Why do we need a Hebrew language source for an English language encyclopedia for material already existing in the given academic references?

(2)And why do we supply part of that from makorrishon.com? Any serious editor will know instantly that a religious nationalist settler rag (Makor Rishon) cannot be used for facts, and has an evident conflict of interest in reporting on an area like this in another country.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(3)Why did you write:

Historically all the villages and settlements along the banks discharged their sewage waste waters into the Wadi Qana stream, contaminating its use for irrigation[https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3927838,00.html פלסטינים יבשו את נחל קנה בשומרון}.

Historically needs very strong support, given the fact that, down to 1986, no one complained of the humongous stench and shit in the river coming from piped slush from two settlements, and all travel writers I have consulted before that date don't mention it. The statistical data for waste discharge directly into the stream also doesn't, as far as I have investigated so far, bear that out. Since it is an exceptional claim it requires multiple sourcing, and certainly not from partisan newspapers.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If like you claim the violations by Palestinians included in your sources please add them to the article.--Shrike (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Violations of what law? Israeli occupational laws. Undoubtedly, the growth of the Palestinian population in this general area created problems for the wadi, and had this page not come under disruptive editing, I'd have probably got to that material. The problem is, I as an editor, read all of the sources on the page, or what research turns up, before editing, try and synthesize it, and then start comprehensive editing whereas the usual I/P disruptive approach is to drop by, frig around tinkering with POV tilts, and then drag the page into a stonewalling stasis of bickering. All that is required is a little patience till the page and its sources are worked through. Then by all means, all are welcome to challenge it.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The only disruptions here are your recent edits. You created a one-sided article, referencing only settler pollution, despite knowing there is documented pollution by Palestinians as well, in the very sources you used. I started fixing that WP:NPOV violation by adding such material - which you deleted, wholesale, even though it is clearly relevant and sourced to mainstream reliable sources. You do not WP:OWN this article, and editors are not obligated to wait until your highness deigns to get around to fixing the NPOV problems they create, if they ever do .JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• (1) If we had English language sources detailing Palestinian pollution, I'd be fine with it. There were none in the article when I edited it, and there are none now, following your WP:NPOV-violating edit

They exist. You haven't looked, so wait till I'm done with the article in a day or two, and then if not satisfied, make a proposal here. After all the first thing you are obliged to do is to comply with my request to translate the said Hebrew article and allow other editors to evaluate it.

They probably do exist, but they, and the material about Palestinian pollution, is currently missing from the article, violating our WP:NPOV policy. You can re-add it and fix you NPOV-violating revert, and then we can improve the sourcing , if needed.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• (2) NRG is a news site, and a reliable source. It is not a "religious nationalist settler rag ". You can discuss it at WP:RSN, if you'd like.

No. You introduced it, it has all the usual symptoms of rubbish, and therefore, challenged, you should gop to RSN That's your burden, not mine.

Ok, we'll do that. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• (3) I wrote historically because most of the sewage dumping ended in 2006, when the settlements were hooked up to the sewage system. This is supported by the ynet source, as well as your B'tselem source ("the settlements continued to release wastewater into the wadi until 2006") . We can discuss alternate wording to describe this, I am not married to it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

'Historically' doesn't mean that, since it equates a thousand years of Palestinian use and dwelling practices with the infrastructure of urbanized towns and communities established 1978-2006 (and in 2006 the spillage did not stop, since not all settlements were connected). No 19th century traveler I know of complained of the stench that drove 350 Palestinians out of the wadi eight years after the first settlement offloaded its shit there. Palestinians traditionally used cesspits and open channels. Under the occupation, and according to the Oslo Accords, Israel has a veto decision on any infrastructure proposed by the PA, and has thrived at the smelly chaos caused by the checkpoint and closure system's impact on vacuum tankers' in transit to cesspits. Since Ynet is an involved party in reporting the conflict from an Israeli/settler perspective one needs better sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I dont really have too big a problem with the nrg piece since it predates the Makor Rishon takeover, but I can find literally no other source that supports that tilapia swim in the stream. The yNet source appears to be labeled an opinion piece. If you have other sources that support the contentions made then bring them, but I dont see how that one is usable. nableezy - 22:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional source for the Tilapia: [2], there are plenty more. The ynet article is not opinion, but the same material is also in the B'tselem source "In 2010, INPA inspectors raked and destroyed irrigation channels dug by the residents to divert water from the stream to their plots of land". For some strange reason those editing that section and using the same source to add claims of settlers drying up the area missed that part. Oversight, I am sure. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Im fine adding Tilapia. Btselem supports that residents have dug irrigation channels, we already say that the residents have been using the wadi for farming. It does not support what you put, that all the villages and settlements along the banks discharged their sewage waste waters into the Wadi Qana stream. It does not support the equating of the discharge of sewage from the settlements to the digging of irrigation channels. Im sure that was an oversight in your phrasing, certainly. AGF and all. And, as far as historically, you may have neglected to notice, assuming your good faith of course, that Btselem also says However, wastewater from the outposts of Alonei Shilo and El Matan is still being released directly into the reserve, while recurring blockages in the sewage system of the settlements of Nofim and Yaqir also result in occasional pollution of the stream’s water. That it isnt just a historical thing with the settlements polluting the wadi. nableezy - 02:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Saying the residents use the area for farming is not the same as saying they constructed an illegal irrigation canal, diverted water and caused a partial drying up of the stream, until it was dismantled by the authorities. I'll re-add that in due course. But the Ynet source, and other sources, support the claim that Palestinian villages and towns also dump sewage into the wadi (though of course B'tselem doesn't mention that, as they are an unabashed partisan group, whose claims need to be attributed, if they are to be used at all) - I'll add those additional, too. As I wrote earlier, I am not wedded to the 'historical' phrasing, and we can use other wording to reflect that the situation changed in 2006, while it is not fully solved yet. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

lol, Btselem has been repeatedly found to be a reliable source. The ynet source shows as opinion in the heading. Btselem does not support anything about the Palestinian irrigation channels being either illegal or that they caused a partial drying up of the stream, it actually very clearly attributes that drying up of the stream to Israeli drillings ("The wadi’s springs were also harmed by water drillings undertaken by Israel since the 1970s. The drilling reduced the volume of water the springs discharged which, in turn, reduced the flow of the stream.") nableezy - 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That's false . The Yent article is in a section labeled "Articles and opinions'- it is an article , not an opinion, as even a cursory reading of it shows. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, right, that's laughable, that Israeli ews sources here are routinely considered non-RS yet you find B'Tselem to be OK merely because it agrees with your viewpoint. They are an advocacy organization that has an agenda and should not be used. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Waits for Sir Joseph to take B'tselem to RS noticeboard...Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Internal link to Israel

I really wish I didn't have to get into an argument about this, but Israel is a country and West Bank is not, so a link to Israel falls foul of WP:OVERLINK but one to West Bank does not. I can only conclude from the re-reversion that Debresser considers them to be equivalent. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally I would agree, but in this case not, for two reasons: 1. because of the juxtaposition with the West Bank, and 2. Because the fact that part of the flow is is specifically in the State of Israel is an important theme of this article. Phil Bridger, thanks for posting here and giving me the benefit of the doubt that as a veteran editor, I probably have a good reason for my edits. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a trivial point, but WP:OVERLINK refers to countries as well as to "locations", which are not countries. That's not really a policy-based objection. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The bigger problem imo is the chain linking. And thats true for both sentences. nableezy - 22:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing POV term

I wrote the parks authority of the Israeli military administration. This has been challenged as POV. That word means 'point of view' rather than factual. The link gloss is factual and succinct.

The governing authority of the West Bank is the Israeli Civil Administration which is a military institution subordinate to the Israeli Defence Force's Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories. 'The national parks and nature reserves in Area C of the West Bank are managed by the Civil Administration' i.e. they are under military administration, which implements decisions made by the government's Nature and Parks Authority in Israel. This is therefore factual. The word 'civil' administration is a euphemism, as would be the impression that the organization of parks there has nothing to do with the IDF. Nishidani (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The INPA is simply not part of the Israeli military administration. What you wrote is wrong, and unsurprisingly not sourced. Therefore it has no place in the article.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Putting lipstick on a pig, it's an occupation, pure and simple.Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

One of the archaeological sources used, for the electrum circlets, indeed is written by the f Archaeological Officer in the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, and that is why that link+gloss should be restored. I should get quite a bit of text in by the late afternoon, so request the courtesy of a little more patience.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umCXCtgesNA COGAT :) Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "parks authority of the Israeli military administration" is the best wording or that it should be wikilinked to Israel Nature and Parks Authority. "One of the units of the Civil Administration [a military unit despite its name] is the Staff Officer (SO) for Nature Reserves and National Parks. Since Israeli law does not apply to the West Bank, the Staff Officer for the Nature Reserves and National Parks operates under Order 373, a military order that regulates their operation."[3] However, this perfectly reliable source goes on to say that "in practice" the INPA participates in the management of WB parks and reserves. Wording must be chosen to reflect these facts. Zero^talk 13:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

More gymnastics "The Nature Reserve Staff Officer works in the Infrastructure Division of the Civil Administration, and also holds the office of Director of the “Judea and Samaria Area” [West Bank] District at the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and so forth" https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/files.yesh-din.org/Minhal+Ezrahi/YeshDin+-+Haminhal+-+English.pdf Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk about gymnastics . The Civil Administration has a Nature Reserves officer, who is a liaison with the INPA- so what? Did any of the sources tie this officer or his actions to the creation and maintenance of the Park? No. That park was created and is administered and maintained by INPA, which is not part of the Civil Administration . The civil Administration also has an officer responsible for Religious Affairs- would anyone think that if the Waqf in Hebron decided to do something and this Religious affairs officer is involved in granting a permit, that Waqf action could be described as "The Waqf of the Israeli military administration"? Ridiculous. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, we should use the title of the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what the above comment is about . JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Same gymnastics with the antiquities, a fiction to cover the fact that these entities have no legal authority in the WB.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. Occupation law vests the legal authority with the occupying power. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Not even worth replying to. lol.Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• [[Israel Nature and Parks Authority|parks authority of the Israeli military administration]] is so obviously POV, that it is not even funny any more. Debresser (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Only because it has been directly equated in a wikilink. In fact it is, in essence, true in the context here, but the A->B needs to be spelled out in detail (and it will be).Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

When was it declared a "reserve"?

According to the footnote at page 23 of https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/201105_Dispossession_and_Exploitation_Eng.pdf it says "The land was seized in accordance with two military orders: Order Regarding Nature Protection (Judea and Samaria) (No. 363), 5730 – 1969, and the Order Regarding Parks (Judea and Samaria) (No. 373), 5730 – 1970." and then gives a list that includes "Qana and Samar".

Some other sources seem to give conflicting reports about this, I am thinking it might have been subject to different orders at different times, it would be good to track it all the way through from 67 so we can see what exactly went on.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Another about this http://poica.org/2011/05/israel-declared-it-a-nature-reserve-israeli-military-evacuation-orders-for-the-palestinian-lands-in-wadi-qana-area-in-deir-istiya-village-north-of-salfit-governorate/ Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)~

Bit here https://wadiqana.wixsite.com/salfit/about Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

And here, p14 https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/06-foei-palestine-report-eng-lr.pdf Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

POV sections

Much of the article, and specifically the "Geography and population" section and the "Area development history" reflect just the West Bank portion of the wadi (e.g. "As of 2018, the population of the area has been estimated at 176,580 Palestinians in 56 communities and 58,195 Israelis in 15 settlements.[4]"- which ignores all the population in Israel; or the entire "Area development history" which treats "the area" is if it was just the WB part. This needs to be fixed. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to add material and sources.Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Reminds me, we need stuff about Wadi Qana, the town.Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

which town would that be? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It's still on the map even if it's a ruin, the story needs telling.Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

which map are you referring to? 17:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you making conversation or just disputing that it existed? Anna Baltzer (22 January 2019). Witness in Palestine: A Jewish Woman in the Occupied Territories. Taylor & Francis. pp. 250–. ISBN 978-1-317-24884-2.

Yes, I am disputing that any town called "Wadi Qana" existed. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)

Village, too?Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the Wadi Qana on this map? https://www.btselem.org/sites/default/files2/wadi_qana_en.html# Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

More than likely, a name B'tselem invented out of whole cloth (as they often do) for a cluster of structures used by residents of Deir Istiyya who used to farm down in the wadi. There is no such place name in Hadawi's Village Statistics 1945. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Wadi Qana is a bedouin community. Such places are not shown on older maps or listed separately in censuses, so it is necessary to rely on patchy text sources for their history. It appears on UN maps that I have from 2000, 2014 and 2019. On the 2019 map several nearby locations are shown as "Arab Al Khouli/Wadi Kana", including the one on the Btselem map. Zero^talk 03:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

There is another site in the Wadi a bit further east called Khirbet Qana. It had population in the 1961 census but now I don't know. Zero^talk 14:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, there were three places, Arab al Khouli, Khirbet Qana and Khirbet Shehadi (maybe plus the Bedouin at WQ)Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Shehadi mostly died in 70/80's, can't find much about Khirbet Qana (mentioned in Deir Istiya profile), 'Arab al Khouli is since 2012 in with Kafr Thulth organizationally, still going.Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm personally following sources. The term wadi qana refers to a larger ecosystem than just the wadi itself, which is also something to be noted. I'll add something to that effect shortly.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The geography section has material on its path in Israel. What exactly is POV about that section? What exactly is POV about the Area development section? Has any addition about anything in Israel been reverted? Or is this just a renewal of the tactic of tag-bombing articles that discuss topics that some editors find to be uncomfortable? Specific examples of POV issues, backed by sources, are needed or I will be removing the tags. nableezy - 18:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought made that clear in the sample sentence I called out from the Geography section- the population figures, supposedly about "the area" , are only for the part of "the area" that is in the West Bank. If we are to have population figures for 'the area', in an artice about a wadi, it needs to be for the whole area. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. If you can find sources that support added material you are welcome to add it. If you cannot find such sources that does not mean we should not include what we do have sourced., Absent an attempt to actually edit the article to fix whatever issues you think are there I will be removing the tags. And it is absurd to have the article and several sections tagged. Reminds of a former user (2) actually. nableezy - 20:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The article should reflect what the sources say. If the population figures are for the WB portion only it should say so, without claiming to be figures for "the area". So long as these section will have only WB material, to the exclusion of the parts that flow through Israel, the tags will stay. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, if you have sources for additional material bring them. I will be removing tags that are not justified however. And I thank you for the motivation you have provided to several of us to actually expand this article. Truly a started from the bottom moment. And all because you decided to hound Nishidani here. Thanks! nableezy - 20:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My attempts to fix various POV problems were blindly reverted by a POV-warrior you support (reintroducing a number of horrendous grammar issues he originally put in the article) but rest assured they will continue. Until these issues are fixed, the tags will stay. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No, your attempt to misrepresent what sources say to include the native Palestinian villagers with the illegal Israeli settlers in who has been polluting the wadi with wastewater has been reverted. Good thing I dont need your permission to remove the tags. nableezy - 20:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Editor hostility

Re the tag 'Cleanup rewrite|date=May 2020'

• (1)Adding this tag while the actual organization of masses of material is being systematically carried out, is rather odd. Whoever added the tag could have simply listed the things to be cleaned up, and indicated what required rewriting.

So I request that what the complaining tagger had in mind be bulleted here, and points will be readily addressed and if needed fixed. An abstract tag tells me nothing. If someone asks me, or any other editor, about a specific problem, they always get a reasonable and quick response. So, by all means, list the problems. I've been working on this synthesis of sources for, um, 12 hours, minus a few breaks, so I'm sure an observer can spare a few minutes to help me see what I have overlooked, or, spot prose that doesn't flow (normal in précis synthesis of numerous sources).Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• (2) I found the page in this sorry state. There were 5 web sources and one book, all dealing, not with Wadi Qana, but a single cave's chalcolithic remains, as uncovered and analysed by Israeli archaeologists. In short the article was not about the wadi, but an Israeli archaeological find in 500 sq.metres of a 229 sq.km area predominantly in the West Bank. And, the major overriding, prepossessing interest of several editors was simply to set in cement the Israel toponym for the site i.e. nahal and consign the Palestinian term to the peanut gallery.

This extraordinary state of underdevelopment 9 years after the page was created - the admirable Arminden's excellent thickening of the archaeological section apart - was problematical. Having a bunfight over a name of a stub is rather like quarreling over whether to give a starved African lemonade or limonana.

So I set about introducing all of the klnd of material, geographic, political, religious, linguistic etc., which a distinctive landscape in an historically fraught, ancient region would be expected to have. Instead of 5 articles and 1 book reporting the same data on one aspect, the cave, we now have 21, (and rising - there's plenty more) mostly scholarly books and articles. The outpouring of abuse, hostility, tagging and snearing that has greeted this attempt, well, it leaves me cold, but is getting to reportable levels. The editor with a chip on his handle in particular needs to curb the hysteria and suspicion. It's hard to finish what I'd promised to do, in just 2 days - it means finding, downloading, reading and rereading about two hundred pages of material, and making a close précis and synthesis for a preliminary draft before a final stylistic recension of the result. It's the simplest game in the world for s sweeper to mugwump and mumble about the quality of the hard yakka from a fence as workmen labour under a hot sun, but the roadwork has to be done before the sweeper tidies up.

So drop the otiose huffing and puffing hot air act and useless hyberbolic tirades about 'horrendous grammar' (unfixed conflict between two sources left in the draft) and be practical. List here things you'd like done, with appropriate sources for any perceived lacunae, and I for one will be happy to attend to any fixes that might be needed. I'll need another day, by the looks of it, to complete my supplements and review of this whilom stub. Sorry for the delay, but behind every minor detail there's often an hour's close examination of several sources that must be analysed before even a simple addition to the text that is congruent with the facts can be introduced.Nishidani (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Apropos the last section, I think that can be done in a line covering all three views. But the best thing is to list in chronological order the accumulated incidents by theme, which can be done. Opinions are often obvious and informatively tuppence a dozen. Historical reconstruction makes the facts do that work for themselves, simply by being disinterred from the memory hole of our collective disattention.Nishidani (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, you do realize you don't OWN the article, right? You might want to reread your wall of text, because that's how it comes across. You also might want to stop commenting on editors, as you have continued to do. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Come on now, dear chap. Anyone can check the record to see that, unlike many serial tweakers ratcheting up an impressive edit count when not exhausting people with endless talk page objections and reverts, I write extensive articles, over a thousand. I don't get the nervous nellies over the POV of trivia, as many do. Once done, those pages are not 'mine'. They create or raise stubs to a minimal encyclopedic standard of coverage. In this case, since the article has languished through a stubborn insouciance to the complex factual history, and apart from Arminden, no one in 9 years has rolled up their sleeves, I did so. And I asked other editors, who, as elsewhere, are not known for doing substantial work, to give me a mere couple of days to get the minimal record straight. They are well within their rights to ignore this request for a courtesy, tell me to fuck off. But so far, despite the grumpiness, I've been tolerantly allowed in a few days to get this from 5kb to 22kb. If you want my recension to get to the end, and put more order in, all I need is a short day of work tomorrow, and then Robert's a close relative. Anyone can drop in to screw it up, hack away, twist it, or, rather, build on it, tweaking, amending, balancing the content. My polite request was for civil collaboration and is policy here. Note that I request you specifically to set down evidence of faults to be fixed, and you still haven't - too busy waving another policy flag symptomatic of that accursed Nishidani's disruptive behavior on Wikipedia, as several of you have repeatedly claimed at A/I, A/E and talk pages for a decade. That's water under the bridge. So try and be helpful, and answer my request.Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, there you go again. I'm not going to humor you, sorry. And again, please try to be civil. Perhaps with the tag some more people will come around and help out with prose and stuff. As always, there's no need to get your panties in a bunch. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

When I write requests for collaboration in the I/P area I am well-aware they will be met with icy contempt or indifference. I certainly do not write them to have editors 'humour me'. It's a civil request and, predictably,only elicits the reply that in making it, I am being uncivil. Just on a linguistic point, I don't get my knickers in a twist, though I will admit that it would be reasonable for a male editor like myself to get their knackers in a spin and feel a bit like what Samsom might have felt when he was blind(sided) and doomed 'to grind in brazen fetters under task.' But experience teaches a chap to avoid being knackered.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You can start with the following relatively minor and hopefully uncontroversial issues in the Geography section, and once you fix them, we'll move on to the serious POV issues in the "Area Development section:

• Both the "Area" figure and the "Population of the area" figure refer only to the area within the West bank, and ignore the significant area and population of the area inside Israel, creating a POV issue. You need to either add the Israeli figures, or remove the current figures which creates a false picture. I'd prefer removing them, because 'population of the area" is unusual for articles about streams in this region (comparewith Nahal Alexander, or HaBesor Stream or Wadi al-Hasa , and is likely to constantly change and require updating. The "area" figure is not well defined - is it the drainage basin area? If so, it need to include the entire basin, on the Israeli side as well

I have fixed your point about 'area' by simply doing the obvious, tweaking it as 'area of the West Bank'. So that objection, even if it had been valid, is satisfied.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As all editors should know, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not expectations of what sources should say. Your argument is self-evidently specious. No article gives all of the detail that in theory could be known about a reality, so suggesting that the solid available data we do have recorded must be removed until fate rains down from heaven an perspective that covers all angles is a recipe that prefers nescience until one is capable of exhaustive omniscience. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• The statement "The northern section forms the southern boundary of Kafr Thulth with its harsh rocky limestone and karst terrain" is practically meaningless, and based on a misreading of the source used. Kafr Thulth is not "the northern section" of the Wadi in any meaningful sense - the wadi runs mostly East to West, and Kafr Thulth is not the northernmost point of the wadi (Ginot Shomron for example, is both closer to the Wadi banks, and further north than Kafr Thulth). The source used for this random sentence studies the relationship between farm resources and settlements, and was conducted in a specific area (the "study area"). It says "The study area that we selected is the territory of Kafr Thuluth". It then goes on to define the boundaries of this "study area" and says it is bounded by Wadi Kana on the south. That is, the only reference to Kana is as the edge of a specific "study area" in one particular research. It is not even the boundary of Kafr Thulth, as Figure 1 in the source shows, and this is incorrectly stated in our article. This sentence is wrong, adds nothing to the article, and should be removed. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You've contradicted yourself. You criticize

(a)"The northern section (context = Wadi Qana) forms the southern boundary of Kafr Thulth with its harsh rocky limestone and karst terrain"

and state that this formulation is 'basically meaningless'.

You then write:-

(b)'It says "The study area that we selected is the territory of Kafr Thuluth". It then goes on to define the boundaries of this "study area" and says it is bounded by Wadi Kana on the south.'

If (a) is meaningless your comment (b) is meaningless, because (a) and (b) say the same thing.

The article sourcing this is of impeccable stature, minutely detailed academic fieldwork, fleshed out with an historical perspective, conducted by two leading Israeli scholars. Grossman and Safrai. Your argument is that because the article, though mentioning details about wadi Qana in several passages, is focused specifically on the history of village lands of Kafr Thulth immediately contiguous to Wadi Qana, it can't be used for Wadi Qana. If you really believe that is an argument, you'd better take it to the Reliable Sources forum and get an independent consensual verdict, because the principle is wildly flawed. It would be rather like claiming a book on Jerusalem that mentions Hebron, can't be used for Hebron; or that the Bible can't be used to refer to the boundary between Manasseh and Ephraim because it deals mainly with a huge amount of material unrelated to that piddling division. The objection is patently WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'll try to finish my review of the page by late afternoon.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

read my argument again. You did not understand it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What the source says

Kufr Thulth is located on the western margins of the Samaria Mountains near their line of contact with the Sharon Plain. Most of the area is in the mountains and is bounded by Wadi Isla on the north and by Wadi Kana on the south.

And yet we have here a user saying that Wadi Kana does not form the southern boundary of Kufr Thulth. Ill remove northrn section, and the fv tag as this is very obviously verified. nableezy - 17:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No, "the area" referred to in that sentence is the "study area" of the research, not the area of the village, as the image in Fig 1 of the article shows (the village border extends past the southern bank of the river. That aside, can you explain why this random factoid improves the article? There are over 60 communities on the banks of the river, why should we call this one out? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)

Except the source says

The study area that we selected is the territory of Kufr Thulth in western Samaria where offshoot settlements existed in Roman-Byzantine times as well as in the modern era

The study area is Kufr Thulth, and that area is bounded by this wadi. nableezy - 18:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This is contradicted by Figure 1 of the same study. Could you answer the question - how does random factoid improves the article? There are over 60 communities on the banks of the river, why should we call this one out? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do we call out the Yarkon junction? Ive quoted from the source what verifies the material in question, and will be removing that tag again when I add the whole damn quote to the reference to make moot any game playing attempts. nableezy - 18:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Because that is the terminus of the stream, where it flows into the Yarqon river, and the junction is a place marker that helps locate it on a map. This is a common feature of Wikipedia articles abut rivers and streams. But if you feel strongly about it, you can remove the mention of the junction. And just to make it clear - there's no consensus to add either that sentence fragment or the "whole damn quote", and WP:ONUS applies to you, as it does to any other editor. You may of course open an RfC on this trivial issue if it is that important to you . JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you dont determine what there is consensus for, and good luck removing a quote from a reference. nableezy - 18:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course. Consensus it determined by soliciting opinions of other editors, and until it is achieved, disputed material stays out, along with its reference and quote . You may of course open an RfC on this trivial issue if it is that important to you. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

lol, like i said, good luck. nableezy - 18:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This was huge pettifoggery, when all the editor needed to suggest is that Kafr Thulth's lands don't frame all of the northern border of the wadi, but only a notable part. If that is the point, a simple rephrasing resolves the point immediately. This was not disputed material so much as a question of less ambiguous phrasing. It is pointless being aggressive when a simple accommodation can be made to minor differences of opinion or issues of syntactical clarity. Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is "notable" about the part of the wadi that is adjacent to Kafr Thulth? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What is lacking so far, since this is a notable geophysical structure, parts of whose geomorphology are described in Gopher 1996 for example, is a description of the physical setting of the wadi. These bits will come forth as research continues. For the moment we have one key item marking the contrast between the harsh terrain to the immediate north round Kafr Thulth, and, the rich ecology of the wadi itself, for which more details will be forthcoming or are already present further down the text. Secondly the source you contest talks quite a bit about population shifts, connected to the wadi and its tributaries. Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the geophysical structure of the Wadi is important, and as currently rephrased, without the "northern part" bits, it can stay in the article. I'm still unsure of the importance of Kafr Thulth in this context- the entire wadi has this feature (at least in its Samaria parts). Indeed, virtually all of the West bank is limestone and karst (see for example https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/86430621.pdf p.20). So why call out this village in particular? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've had to put a verification tag on your adjustment. I wrote what the source says, the contrast is between the harsh terrain starting from its northern margin onwards to Kfar Thulth, and the wadi, which were it harsh terrain would not have been chosen as a park, since it is forested, rich in water, and once supported very high levels of sheep grazing. The geophysical characteristics of a heavily silted, spring-rich wadi like this are differ markedly from the often arid higher plain to the north. To describe the wadi as limestone and karst as you did is silly. If you think your misimpression is supported by the Birzeit paper, direct us to the exact page. I only had time to read half of it.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

What is silly (and unsupported by the text) is to think that (a) there is something unique about Kafr Thuluth (KT) in this regard - it is the same topology and same geomorphology throughout this part of the wadi in the Samarian hills, and (b) that there is some unique aspect of the "northern" bank of the wadi. Sure, the wadi bed is fertile soil rich in water, and the wadi banks are barren with harsh limestone - but that is as true of the southern bank as it is of the northern one and is as true of the bank next to KT as it is of the bank next to Deir Istyia or Saniriya. This whole thing stems from your attempt to shoehorn a casual mention of the Wadi from a piece of research about the village (which happens to be on the banks of Qana) into some general statement about the Wadi, and to twist what the article says (that it studied an area around the village, an area whose southern edge is the Wadi) into some general statement about the Wadi. That is not serious editing. And to be clear- I have no issue with describing the geomorphology, and highlighting the differences between the stream bed and banks. I just don't think there's anything particular about KT in this regard that needs calling out. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What is silly is an editing aggressiveness that keeps misconstruing sources, making inferences, and citing without using sources (Birzeit master's thesis) that never makes the point you wish to make re Wadi Qana.

To recapitulate.

I wrote:

Harsh rocky limestone and karst terrain is characteristic of the terrain north of its border towards Kafr Thulth.

On the basis of the source:

The dissected hilly terrain, extending north and south of Kufr Thulth is composed of hard limestones that form rocky areas with karst features. This lithology is expressed in the barren nature of the whole western margin of Samaria.

This was a compromise after you repeatedly objected to my first draft. Now you replace it with. Edits like this are done through compromise, not by insisting on having one's own way, through rephrasing it several times differently.

harsh rocky limestone and karst terrain is characteristic of the terrain in this area (grammatically that refers to Wadi Qana).</ref>

Your aim apparently is to rid the geology section of a reference to Kafr Thulth, but in doing so you transfer the geology of that village to the wadi to its south. Why, I don’t think anyone but yourself knows.

That, in any case, is WP.OR. The source does not state that specifically of wadi Qana. The ‘hilly terrain’ the source refers to is not the sunken wadi dissecting the hill terrain. The wadi is not barren, to the contrary it is a rich in groundwater, fauna and flora, and wadis, being erosions of a terrain, have different geological structures (marl etc.), since floods over millenia cut through to other strata, and silting over the wadi plain makes it fertile.

Mentioning Kfar Thulth’s harsh terrain north of the wadi is important because the struggle for arable land was severe there, and some population movement, the source states, went from there to the wadi.

Wadis can be described as having a border, and in the Bible text we refer to, it is referred to, also in the secondary literature as marking the border between Ephraim and Manasseh.

You have no argument. The reasons are specious, the altered text an inference not warranted by the reference. So I will restore the compromise.Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with article content. nableezy - 19:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"based on similar israeli laws"

The source does not say that this law is based on any similar Israeli law. What it says is Some rules followed similar Israeli enactments. It does not say that this is one of them. I invite the editor to explain where in the source it supports this apparent misrepresentation here. nableezy - 23:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Just read below the intro paragraph - The source says "The military authorities introduced in the territories environmental laws based on similar Israeli laws." It then proceeds to list them, including this one. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Youre right, sorry. nableezy - 04:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

• This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (May 2020)
• This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (May 2020)

I asked for evidence, and none has been provided. Unless evidence by that tagger is forthcoming, which other editors can act on, the tags should be removed immediately. After all, either there are problems (fixable) or there are speculations that there may be problems: In the latter case, the problem has to be identified. Suspicion is no warrant for scarring the visual aspect of an article.Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I refer you to Help:Maintenance template removal. You should not remove a tag when you don't understand why it has been added. Only if you have researched the article and found the problems to be resolved or absent, can you remove a tag. Since it has only recently been added, give the editor a while to reply, and give other editors some time to express their opinion as well. Debresser (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That completely misses the point. A tag was added listing what might be needed. When I asked for details, the tagger refused to specify them. You add a tag when you know what the problems are, but don't fix them. I do believe I understand why it was added -unlike Newton, I finger hypotheses, but rarely express them. The tagger apparently doesn't.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, right, this is a volunteer project and people aren't forced to do more than they want. This article the way it's currently written is not written very well. It also does not read very well. Putting the tags up draw people, sometimes outsiders, and also people from other projects to come in and clean it up, a win-win for all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph Agreed, and you might want to take note that your tags have now been removed by an editor who has not been actively involved in this discussion . JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If you tag something as needing a copyedit, it means you understand that the text has flaws. But you refuse to state them, hoping to catch the eye of someone who does understand how to write well. So to repeat that this must be tagged while refusing to state why, looks disruptive. And, in any case, since the article is under construction, which normally means it will undergo a systematic stylistic recension after the bulk of the content has been written in, such tagging is premature.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The text had obvious copedit issues, which even you admitted to. It still suffers from WP:POV, WP:OR and other issues, and removing the tags was premature. The tagging is needed in order to bring additional editors here, and avoid ownership issues that the article seems to be suffering from. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

c'mon. There are several editors here with a record for hostility to my wiki contributions. All write fluent English. So, can not one of you, why crying out for a ce, state concretely examples of what is meant by this? Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to justify your tags, not tag-bomb them and say well until I say so this article is sub-par, and no I wont say what exactly is wrong. nableezy - 18:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not completely true. That is indeed the preferred behavior, but that does not mean that absence of a discussion about the problems of the article is in itself a reason to remove the tags. in any case, now that reasons have been provided, albeit summarily, please somebody restore the tags. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It absolutely does justify removing the tags. If you cannot explain what needs to be rewritten how is anybody supposed to know where you find any fault? And no, no reason has been provided. What exactly about the article needs to be rewritten? He just says This article the way it's currently written is not written very well. It also does not read very well. Ironically, that isnt all that well written, but I have no idea what he is talking about. What is not written well? Examples please. nableezy - 18:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I did justify my tags,which have now been removed by an editor not participating in the discussion. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That was directed to Sir Josephs drive-by tagging of the article for multiple issues, issues apparently only he sees and is unable to articulate. nableezy - 18:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It strikes me that this is now one of the best sourced articles on waterways in Israel and Palestine. I can’t see what purpose the tags are serving, as any issues can be worked through on this talk page. Tags should not be used by editors as a substitute for achieving consensus on the content. High quality neutral articles are built by hard work on all sides, not by WP:POINTY tagging. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, I tagged it because the article has lots of style, prose and grammar concerns. I don't have to go through all the issues. To go through it while Nishidani is in his OWN stage of editing is very difficult. Why not read through the article and see what I mean, it's missing commas in almost every paragraph, prose is not good at all and it does not read well at all. It is not written for a native English speaker at a basic Wiki encyclopedic level. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have to go through all the issues. To go through it while Nishidani is in his OWN stage of editing is very difficult

True you don't have to go through the issues, but that means you have no right to tag the page for these ìissues' which are now putative.

If you have been paying attention, you will have noticed that I have made several textual emendations following observations here made by JMCA. Today I made several ce edits just re commas and the like, and loose syntax.

So don't shy away. Tell me what annoys you about anything here stylistically or otherwise, and I, and I'm sure several editors from both 'sides', will look into it, and adjust if necessary.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, as I said before, tagging the issue lets others know there are concerns. It also lets people who watch those pages that are tagged know there are issues. Some of those people are prose experts, or have experience with Wikipedia guidelines and I'm sure you'd welcome more people to this article. When I have the time, I might go through it as well, but there is no reason to constantly be so negative all the time and criticize everyone who interacts with you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Reread what you just wrote and explain what actually you mean by 'concerns' (I admit I am prejudiced about the vogue for the word 'concerns', just like the guy in Stephen King's novel 11/22/63 from the 1950s was jolted to hear Jake Epping, time-traveling back forty years, use the word 'issues' for what, in American speech in the late 1950s, would have been called 'problems' or 'worries'). Niceties of prose style delight me, though I admittedly don't waste my experience in that area on Wikipedia, for the simple reason that anything one writes here will down the years be jolted out of shape and morph into something else.

Imagine the following conversation.

'Why are you upset?'

'There's stuff that worries me'.

'Well, tell me and I'll see if I, or daddy or auntie or uncle or grandma or our cousins, who are all on visit here, can fix it.'

'Nah. It's something I see and nags at me. Something someone did in our living room.'

'Someone here?'

'Oh, I guess you mean that old grump. Fine. What did he do?'

'I'm not gunna tell you because I shout it outside the window, and some day, I reckon someone will pass by who will hear me, come in here, and fix it up. . . .'

That's the level we're at in this exchange here, SJ.Nishidani (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, this is why people don't like collaborating with you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What style or prose issues are there. And yes, you actually do have to go through the issues. Please read Wikipedia:Template_index/Cleanup. Particularly the part where it says Tags must either be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter (available in some templates) as shown below. At the very least, tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion. Collaborating requires, well, collaboration, not disruptive tagging with a refusal to engage and actually say what the problem is. You may not simply tag an article say you think there are issues and refuse to identify them. That is not one of the available options here. Or at least not without the expectation that your tag will be summarily reverted for being placed without any explanation. nableezy - 23:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

dubious footnote

These edits show tagging and changes are being splotched here and there without understanding the sources or the article.

• dubious. Reason =not what the stream was called.

Benvenisti cites this as an example of name-switching. Neither he nor my paraphrase assert that this is the Qana of the Wadi (it may be, but that is not the point).

• this shows you misread the source. The earlier phrasing was to indicate Kafr Thulth’s terrain, not that of the wadi, the point being the geological shift from the north to the wadi, which has a different faunal and geomorphic structure. You have made Grossman and Safrai's description of the type of terrain north of part of the wadi into the wadi itself.

It's pointless trying to microniggle trivia into an agony column of reverts, tweaks, challenges, and talk page haranguing. It only wastes serious editorial time, for an article that still requires quite a lot of content work and reorganization.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The template {{dubious}} is to be used in situations like this- where a claim is sourced, to Benvenisti, but is likely wrong. The stream is not called 'Elkana'. Its name in Hebrew, as can be seen in signs from sources you've used, is Kana. If Benvenisti is referring to some other place name called Kana, not Wadi qana, then including it here is simply WP:OR, and needs to be removed. It's actually you who are repeatedly missreading the references to Kafr Thuluth, and I shall fix that in due course. You are again reminded that you do not WP:OWN this article. I find fixing your errors no less frustrating than what you experience. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If Benvenisti is referring to some other place name called Kana, not Wadi qana, then including it here is simply WP:OR.

Reread the above. You have understood neither the source, Benvenisti, nor the paraphrase from it. The point of the edit from Benvenisti regards a thoroughly documented practice in Israel of substituting names, one such substitution being part of the history of wadi qana=nahal kana. Whether Benvenisti is referring to this placed (in an earlier Israeli mapping (1959) or to some other quasi homophonous toponym in Israel proper, is utterly beside the point. We do not know, but he supplies an almost identical substitution, qana/kana, and that is the point of the footnote on the word itself. No original research at all, since no synthesis, or inference of the kind you are making, has been made between Benvenisti's Wadi al-Qana and our Wadi Qana. Nishidani (talk)

I am responding to your statement that 'Neither he nor my paraphrase assert that this is the Qana of the Wadi". If this is not the Qana of this article, it is WP:OR to mention it, and I will remove it in due course. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, you fail to construe correctly simple English. 'Neither he nor my paraphrase assert that this is the Qana of the Wadi'. At the same time, neither Benvenisti nor I assert that this is not Wadi Qana. We don't know, since Benvenisti never clarifies. So it is not WP:OR. It is simply a juxtaposition of Benvenisti's datum with details about the word qanah and Hebrew 'kana'. Benvenisti in addition does what the other sources fail to do, note the meaning of the terms, and that is important. Once upon a time, people used to understand syntax. Or, since there is a POV fight over the naming of this article, alerting the page to the fact that it is Israeli policy to hebraicize the landscape by endlessly erasing the traditional Arabic terminology in favour of Hebrew neologisms or terms vaguely dusted off from the bible, is being held hostage, and Benvenisti's major work on this policy must apparently be rubbed out so that general readers will never know that pushing 'Nahal Kana' over 'Wadi Qana' reflects an Israelocentric cultural and political policy, seemingly passionately underwritten by a number of editors here who don't care for WP:NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand perfectly, and have addressed both possibilities: If Benevinisti is referring to this Wadi Qana, his claim is dubious (or rather : obviously false), as the stream is not called Elkana in Hebrew. If he is referring to some other Qana which was renamed Elkana, it is WP:OR to mention it here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Had you understood you wouldn't have made the silly inferences above. You persist in refusing to construe English, even when I paraphrase it, correctly, ergo your objection is a matter of a parti pris that refuses to budge because of self-certainty.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

spare me your pompous condescending and reread the argument, and choose- WP:OR or dubious claim, which is it? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani Please refrain from making your replies personal. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You're writing this just below a remark about my putative 'pompous condescending'? This is teaming, and the grudges are teeming with it.

I have provided arguments, glosses, texts, explanations and text. And in reply to queries, silence or 'don't be uncivil', 'don't get personal', 'there are ce problems, which we can't fix but are voices in the wilderness of the wadi qana talk page crying out for redemptive help from some unidentified editors out there in the wider cosmos of wikiopolis. Do don't try the old tactic of stirring-the-old-codger-Nishidani(get his Irish up)-until-he-snaps-and-we can-report-him-and-get-him-banned-from-this-page-or-suspended-from-wiki' gambit. Be collaborative: make intelligent suggestions to improve the article. Either put in or pull out.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani You are right, even though you provoked it. @JungerMan Chips Ahoy! Please do not reply to insult with insult. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course. I'm always to blame, even if this nasty turn to direct WP:NPA violations began here with 'editors are not obligated to wait until your highness deigns to get around to fixing the NPOV problems they crete, if they ever do', a post I certainly I had no hand in writing two days ago.Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

which (now that there's an ad break for the movie I'm watching) is an intensely funny phrase coming from someone who finds my grammar 'horrendous'. For JMCA's snipe means 'editors are not obliged to wait till Nishidani fixes the errors they (the other editors like JMCA) make.' Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Area development history

I just want to note that the way this part of the page reads (to me) like a propaganda piece. Perhaps it’s all true, but it just reads very propagandistic to me. I’m not going to make any changes (I don’t know enough about topic, nor do I care enough to get involved in this issue); I just wanted to raise awareness. Thx Zarcademan123456 (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

General information

• Remove recently added general statement

I reverted showing that the source given actually mentions 'Kanah' as a typical Biblical example of naming places by the plants associated with them, which is what Wadi Qana per Benvenisti, means.

• (Please talk this to the talk. This remains general information, regardless of whether the source mentions this wadi

This second revert does not explain why Debresser insists that, despite the clarification, this remains 'generic information'.

This is a description of what you, Debresser, did. But the edit summary does not explain why you twice removed that information. What policy stipulates that editors may or should remove sourced 'general information' from an article? Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is general information a reason to remove something? nableezy - 21:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "The names of many streams in the Bible, such as Qana/Kanah here, are related to the type of plant found there." since it is general information. This is not an article about "Names of streams in the Bible", or "Namegiving in the Bible". At most this could be a footnote. Debresser (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Two editors have asked you to provide the policy basis for the idea that 'general information' can be removed. You have run up, a week after appearing to undertake not to repeat sanctioned behaviour 3 reverts, while refusing to explain what policy governs your removal of information. So again, (please note WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT) state clearly what the policy ground is justifying in your mind the excision of 'general information'. A WP:BRD cycle is pointless if one interlocutor refuses to answer questions. And by the way, your third revert was so careless it marred the text.Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll make allowances for fatigue here, before reverting you, as your marring of the page gives me little other option. In your reply above you repeat your objection, adding 'At most this (general information) could be a footnote.'

In this alacrity to revert, you apparently did not see that the 'general information' you mysteriously objected to was added to a footnote. You did not note that, and then screwed up by editing the text to make the footnote appear as part of the lead text. This means that you have made 3 errors

(a) the first revert failed to examine the new source: it was a blind revert therefore

(b) the second revert ignored the fact I had adjusted in the meantime the text to show that it was not general information but a datum specific to Wadi Qana)

(c) the third revert excised markup in the footnote, making the footnote part of the lead.

(d) then you suggest a compromise on the talk page 'At most this could be a footnote'!!!!!! when originally it formed precisely part of a footnote you undid. Really. Such erratic carelessness, straight after pleading that you would mend your ways with 3R rule abuse, gives me a warrant to restore the text as I edited it. Be more attentive next time.Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

not relevant to the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Point (d) is correct. Sorry, I didn't see this was indeed a footnote, and though it was part of the main body of the article. Shame on you for the lack of good faith and the incivility though. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC) You are edit-warring over something that was a footnote that you say should be a footnote and you are saying shame on somebody else? Sheesh, just admit the error and move on. nableezy - 17:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC) I admitted my error, and say shame on Nishidani for edit warring and being his usual uncivil and showing a lack of good faith, both in his edit summaries. I see no reason to move on without noting that fact. At least I made an honest mistake, without insulting or sneering at anybody. That is something Nishidani can not say. Again... Debresser (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC) It is quite literally impossible for only one person to be edit-warring. That would, I hope is obvious, mean you were likewise edit-warring. Immediately after a block for, wait for it, edit-warring. And you were reverting what you yourself agree can be included the way it was included. How does any of that add up to you admonishing somebody else? nableezy - 21:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC) A month ago, on observing an exchange of bitching about me on your talk page, I dropped a note telling you to desist from personal attacks. You have taken up the habit again, referring to my presumptive incivility, bad faith, and 'shameless' behaviour. Since there is no evidence for any of this, you are making a personal attack, despite my repeated requests for you to stop this. Recent behavior is getting increasingly problematical, petty but repetitive. Last warning. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC) But then of course your edit summaries and post at WP:AN3 are proof of your incivility, bad faith and shamelessness. Anyway, this is not the place for all of this. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Those are all serious accusations, and if you are really convinced my editing evinces those putative traits, you should run up the diffs and take it to a noticeboard for a sanction. Otherwise, kindly drop the NPA-violating refrain. This place is for resolving text issues, not settling scores or conducting old vendettas. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC) I did that, as you are well aware, and the discussion was closed without sanctions. I will drop the accusations of incivility as soon as you drop the incivility, logically. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Jesus, look at a mirror when you get a chance. Kindly stop abusing the purpose of this page, that being to discuss the article. You made several reverts based on what you now acknowledge to have been an error in paying attention to what was in the article. Ok, cool, we can move on with that settled. If youd like to try your look at edit-warring and reporting somebody else for edit-warring again, or being uncivil and reporting somebody for incivility then you can do that, but kindly take it somewhere else. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 16:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Oh dearie, dearie me. The same old problem: not grasping precisely what an interlocutor actually wrote/said by replying to remarks in a focused manner, which is the conditio sine qua non of a logical conversation. Not to do this is to engage in WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. 'Logic' has nothing to do with what you state, at least not in the canons of any known logic I am familiar with where logic arose to tease out the propositional meanings of statements people made from morn to night without thinking about them, each believing they were talking sense. I persist against the evidence in thinking that whoever one's interlocutor may be, they can't be told something endlessly without a glimmer of light seeping through the chink of a stonewall eventually. To the matter, logically:- You did not make a case of my putative incivility, shamelessness, bad faith. You complained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring board, and there maintained that I reverted thrice. Reverting someone is not a sign of incivility, shamelessness or bad faith, sometimes it is necessary though, like some vices, not to be abused. Were it so, then your accusation against me would have been a self-denunciation. since protesting I did what you did and deserved, unlike you, a sanction for the same behaviour would be tantamount to admitting that you, the plaintiff, are uncivil, shameless and lack bad faith, since you did exactly the same number of reverts that I did, but appear to think sanctions only apply if I break a rule. The cognitive problem is there: you complain that others do what you yourself do, but appear to think that what is intolerable in others must be acceptable for your own behavior. So. In now saying that your personal attacks will persist, as long as the unproven 'incivility' you impute to me perdures, you are making your contempt for WP:NPA conditional on my behavior as you perceive it. I will drop the accusations of incivility as soon as you drop the incivility, logically In logical terms that means you recognize what you have been saying consist of accusations and that 'I (Debresser)will persist in baiting you about incivility (in what are personal attacks) as long as I perceive you to be uncivil.' In stating you will not desist, as repeatedly asked, from breaking a key NPA convention, you are effectively asserting a right to be 'disruptive', to snipe, insinuate such unfounded accusations, and, in doing so, personalizing talk pages where we encounter one another, on pages which, according to our written code, we are required to refrain from indulging in personalized attacks:- Personal attacks are disruptive. On article talk pages they tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together.. That is the logical outcome of your declaration, one of (unilatreral) war, perhaps of attrition, to 'get at me'. I'm surprised you get away with it so often. But then again you know that I almost never arraign co-editors in forums to extract some punitive sanction. I rely on talk page 'logic', however incoherent my interlocutors may strike me as being.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Both of you are back to your old, and bad, ways: Nableezy is invoking Jezus and Nishidani is writing a wall of useless text showing his delusions of superiority over all mankind. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Im going to hat everything since this stopped being about the article now. nableezy - 17:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Earliest gold?

I have written to Prof. Gopher, and hope to get his answer soon, which I will share here.

According to the article he had published along with his partners, the gold in the Qana cave is dated between 5540 and 4960 BCE while the Varna necropolis gold is dated to some time between: 4550-4320 BCE. Still the archaeologists preferred to write carefully that the Qana gold is only the earliest found in the Levant, and not that it may be the earliest known surviving gold artifacts. The explanation in the article is that gold artifacts were obviously manufactured much earlier, but did not survive because Gold is stolen. As written already here in WP, the gold at Qana is probably from Egypt, (based on LATER pictograms for gold trade in Hieroglyphic writing). I hope to get an answer to the actual reason that they decided to leave the Varna gold as the most ancient. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"Nahal Elkana"

As I've said, "Nahal Elkana" is simply not this stream. There is not a single reference to "Nahal Elkana" outside of this Benvenisti quote, except for a different stream by that name 60 km north. In Hebrew the vast majority of references are to that northern stream, though going over the results more carefully I've found a few references to a stream by that name located south of Elkana, while Wadi Qana is north of that settlement. There is actually a single reference from 2013 reporting a road blockage in "Nahal Elkana" which does refer to this Wadi Qana, but it appears that the reporter is confusing the Wadi with the settlement, perhaps as Benvenisti is doing. The name "Nahal Qana" is a native Hebrew one, mentioned in the Bible, and there is no reason for Israel to change it. The wadi is called "Nahal Qana" on Israel's official map website. The settlement of Elkana refers to it only as "Nahal Qana" on its website.

Benevenisti does not provide an identification of his "Wadi al-Qana" with this Wadi Qana, nor does he cite a source so that we could check what he means. However, original documents of the naming committee (page 65) from the period he discusses explicitly state the name "Qana" was preserved (if you are editing I/P topics but can't read 3 letters of Hebrew, that's not my problem). If Benvenisti meant some other Wadi al-Qana, such as the northern one (I could not find its Arabic name), the quote definitely has nothing to do with this article. If he meant this Wadi al-Qana, that is exactly what the tag was created for. Benvenisti is (was) a human who can make mistakes, not the god of geography. Reality forms the context for interpreting sources, they are not blindly followed independent of it. Gsueso2 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

While it is of course possible that Benvenisti is in error, I see no proof of that at the moment. Your argument boils down to OR + "here is this Hebrew primary document which proves it." Of course it doesn't, this is exactly why we do not use primary sources to draw conclusions, in other words, original research. Btw, this is English Wikipedia, editors of it do not need to read Hebrew, what is required is an authoritative translation of what the document says and an exact explanation of how that document renders Benvenisti dubious. Another alternative might be, depending on what it says, to cite the primary (again with translation) and let readers decide for themselves which they prefer to believe. Selfstudier (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Since Benvenisti is an authoritative source, and the 'evidence' challenging his remark as used in this context comes from original research in primary documents, technically on Wikipedia one cannot remove Benvenisti on those grounds. As Selfstudier says, OR is forbidden. But a way round the objection in Gsueso's suspicion can be found by simply rewriting the text. We have

Thus, for example, Wadi al-Qana ('wadi of reeds') was altered to Nahal Elkana, where Elkana is a proper name (Benvenisti 2000, pp. 11–53, 39).

as

To illustrate this change, Meron Benvenisti cites an example where a certain Wadi al-Qana ('wadi of reeds') was altered to Nahal Elkana, (one such stream with that name is attested 60 km north. Secondary RS required) where Elkana was a proper name (Benvenisti 2000, pp. 11–53, 39).(Such a)

The information in Benvenisti's RS is conserved, while the phrasing suspends judgement as to whether the Wadi al-Qana he mentions is the area covered by our article. Retention of such material allows readers to follow up on what might be a puzzle. Its removal just 'disappears' the crux, never a good thing in scholarship. The bracketed bit would alert readers, but to add that one would need a secondary source of quality stating that originally that Nahal Elkana was originally called Wadi al-Qana. Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually disagree with that. I think if you can prove a secondary source incorrect then you shouldnt include it. Yes, that is OR, but it isnt putting OR into the article. We dont have to follow a source we know is wrong. I dont know enough about this yet to say that is true here, but on the general point I think Gseuso's points need to be examined and if correct we shouldnt reflect Benvenisti's error here (if it is in error). nableezy - 13:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The archives of the Names Committee that Gsueso2 found are definitely referring the right wadi, as the map coordinates are given. I also checked hi-res maps from the 1950s to 1967 and one recent map and all of them have Nahal Qana. Benvenisti doesn't give the date for the meeting he is quoting, and the file contains far fewer than the 121 reports that he mentions. My theory is that Benvenisti is referring to a different place. I think we should remove it. Zero^talk 13:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

To editor Gsueso2: can you find any more minutes of the names committee? And can you tell us more about the location of the northern Nahal Elkana so I can check its Arabic name? Zero^talk 13:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

GOT IT! Just near Bat Shlomo there is a stream now called Nahal Elkana but previously called Wadi el Qana. So now I'm quite confident we have mistaken identity and we should remove the citation to Benvenisti. Gsueso2, it would still be very handy to know if the archives have more of those Name Committee reports. Zero^talk 13:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Done, by consensus on the removal. Gsueso2 actually identified it as that near Bat Shlomo on his talk page. Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a bunch there, just need to search "ועדת השמות הממשלתית" (government naming committee). For some reason I get 404s on the English website, so it has to be on the Hebrew website (the descriptions are all Hebrew anyway). Gsueso2 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Great. I was just telling Nishidani on my talk-page that Gsueso2 is so obviously right, that keeping this makes no sense. There's enough on Israeli lawless behavior that really does occur there, that adding a knowingly unrelated bit about Hebraisation is basically cheap POV, on top of being counterproductive overkill. Thanks to Zero for finding the actual place it refers to, and where Benvenisti's Elkana story belongs and should be added. Arminden (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't (consciously) POV pushing when I added that source - I was perplexed by the nearby Elkana, (b) the fact that these name switches are commonplace and (c) that much of this topological minutiae escapes RS attention. The fact I asked you in was to make sure that my judgment was free of 'discursive overkill' in favour of one POV. Thankfully Zero also has chipped in, and Nableezy questioned my judgment as well. This is how this place ought to function: thorough research to establish the facts irrespective of POV. A good day's yakka, thank you all.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Nishidani, no worries mate, I understood that much. On this page I only wanted to make the point that I'm 100% with nableezy ("if you can prove a secondary source incorrect then you shouldnt include it"), while thoroughly disagreeing with Selfstudier ("this is English Wikipedia, editors of it do not need to read Hebrew, what is required is an authoritative translation", and one can use that "and let readers decide for themselves which they prefer to believe"): for all my distrust of Wiki rules and its tendency to act like a judicial system, I did come across a mention of a "court order" from a Russian context that RS in any language is acceptable, period (we all have Google Translate, and it's a ref, not text in the article); and the way he insisted to keep a factlet already proven wrong is indicative of something, and that something isn't bureaucratic rigor. But it's been sorted, and yes, it worked out just perfectly through collaboration. Some over the top opinions though are out of place from the start and just eat up people's time and energy unnecessarily. We will always make honest mistakes, but once they're proven to be wrong, finding bureaucratic ways to maintain them in because they support a strategic point is less than sincere. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

A translation doesnt have to be authoritative, but it does have to provided. You can cite a non-English source, but you have to be willing to provide the translation for the material that directly supports what youre putting in an article on the talk page per WP:NONENG. nableezy - 05:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

That's common sense. I ALWAYS do, starting with the title and the name of the publication, and ending with the quote. I even go to other people's input and translate it, if I come across it. The only problem is when the Google translation is ambiguous and I'm afraid of deciding how to interpret it, if the options are very different from each other. Then I hesitate to do it, but only then. Knocking at open doors. This also has never been the point here, the only valid point is: hidden agenda. Arminden (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

aka Nahal Qana

That isnt true, at least not in English, that is simply a Hebrew transliteration of Nahal. Im going to remove the transliteration as an aka, though we can keep it as a transliteration of the Hebrew. nableezy - 18:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Arminden, at least make even a token appearance here. Nahal Qana is not a common English name and it shouldnt be presented as one. Yes, it is a relevant foreign name, and we give the Hebrew as the Hebrew name. But Wadi Qana is the English name, and then we give the Arabic and Hebrew. nableezy - 01:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy, hi. The title is not under dispute, but the stream a) also flows through Israel, and b) has a name in the Hebrew Bible, where it is not insignificant, which together make Nahal Qana/Kana absolutely worth setting in bold and in equal manner after the Arabic name in the lead. I don't even see how this can be a matter for discussion. I'm not talking land grab/settlements, I'm talking clear rules. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Youre missing the point here, the Hebrew name is already treated the same as the Arabic name. In fact, its given more, as the Arabic does not have a transliteration given. The problem is treating it the same as the English name. Wadi Qana is the English name. Then we give the Arabic and the Hebrew as native names. nableezy - 02:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. It has no English name other than that from the Bible translation. Every cartographer knows nowadays to print the local name of a river each time it crosses a border. And this stream does. Neither the Arabic, nor the Hebrew name are "English names", don't try to fool yourself. This I/P bullshit is taking incredible forms. Let's just stick to the rules and leave the conflict to where it belongs. Arminden (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, the I/P bullshit is pretending that there isnt a common English name for this place (uh look at for example 4 news results for Nahal and 122 for Wadi) or that wadi isnt an English word to shoehorn in some other language as though it were the same. The I/P bullshit is the holier than thou attitude you take whenever somebody disagrees with you. You are attempting to give a prominence to the Hebrew name that the Arabic does not have. That is the bullshit. Miss me with that for I can do no wrong attitude, Ive treated you with respect over and over only to be met with obstinance and arrogance. Well, consider this to be a do unto others lesson, as I will treat you with the same dismissiveness and lack of respect as you treat me. No, as a matter of fact, you are wrong on substance and on policy here. The Hebrew transliteration belongs in italics as per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. Nahal for "stream" is not an English word, "Nahal Qana" is not commonly used in English to refer to this place, and at most you could claim the Hebrew translation should be included in bold as a relevant foreign title, but certainly not the Hebrew transliteration. But youre too busy blustering about things you dont understand, like the rules of this place, to actually read those rules. nableezy - 03:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

What you're doing is called on Wiki: edit warring. Outside Wiki - stubberness and many other names. If it makes you politically happy, keep on doing it. Bye. Arminden (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

See above. And Ive made one revert, if you had trouble counting that high. Bye. nableezy - 03:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

There, I added an Arabic transliteration, maybe now youll be able to see that your position that the Hebrew is treated "in equal manner after the Arabic name in the lead." is the case, and the bolding has nothing to do with the Arabic name but with the title of the Article, which yes happens to be derived from the Arabic name. nableezy - 22:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I know what I am doing in such cases: whenever I find only the English or Hebrew name in bold, with the Arabic one either absent or just in Italics, I change that to both (or all three) names in bold, because that's the right thing to do. But I've already made my point quite clearly (there is no English name for the stream apart from, maybe, the one from the King James Version, etc., etc.), and I'm not Don Quixote, so do whatever you feel appropriate, I'll leave the needed amendments to others. 09:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Arminden (talk)

Yes there is an English name, meaning there is a name used in English for the wadi. It is Wadi Qana. As far as your once more stated condescension of knowing what the right thing to do and those dastardly others do not, I showed you what our manual of style calls for. What you think is right is, unsurprisingly, wrong. Maybe if you dropped the I know better than all others act you may learn something about what is right on Wikipedia. The Arabic and the Hebrew are treated exactly the same here. Or is that too quixotic for you to see? nableezy - 14:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

:))) Cheers & bye, Arminden (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Toodles, nableezy - 15:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Source

Hi Nishidani, I hope you're facing the colder seasons with stoicism, a good stock of firewood, and good humour.

It's just a prosaic matter. During a massive Covid-time editing session you placed a ref which doesn't seem to be the exactly right one:

"Down to the mid 1980s, 50 families lived in the wadi itself, in a hamlet with rock structures adjacent to the stream known as Wadi Qana. [ref: Baltzer|2019|p=251]"

Baltzer is an excellent source on the occupation and some of its, literally, shittiest aspects, but none of the referenced details seem to be on the linked page 251. I guess it's from a B'tselem report quoted elsewhere in the article, but I don't know. Baltzer should be used in this article (as of now it's not), but here it's not the right source. Would you mind looking into it? Or maybe someone else, among those who have this article on their list? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

​You're the man, again, for this issue: How come that Καρανὰ 'Karaná' translates as Kanah? Does the genitive (?) in Greek add that intrusive ra in the middle? I have no clue of that language. Ευχαριστώ for filling out one of my endless gaps in basic classical education, Arminden (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for catching the Baltzer howler. As to the Septuagint, it's one of those puzzles one frequently comes across that, on a fair attempt to get to the bottom of it, leaves one stuck in a mystery. There's a lot of that in the Septuagint, or oldest version, as compared to the Masoretic text which begs analysis. Probably I just didn't look hard enough.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)