This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jordan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jordan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JordanWikipedia:WikiProject JordanTemplate:WikiProject JordanJordan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
I have tagged this article with the {{notability}} template because it is not clear from reading the page what makes this a notable site. Can someone explain and possibly expand the text of the page slightly?
My understanding - per the peace treaty - and this source is that the entire 820 dunam stretch referred to in the peach treaty is Israeli owned - harking back to the PEC purchase of 6000 dunam in 1927. This 820 dunam piece had the distinction of being under the control of Israel during 1950-1994 (and the border itself was disputed until 94). Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: This is useful information, but doesn't settle the issue yet. I have a detailed map of the armistice line (Survey of Israel, 1954) that shows approximately 820 dunums which is east of the international border but controlled by Israel. That much agrees. However, that region did not include the site of the power plant or the site of Tel Or. It corresponds roughly to the area called "Peace Island" on this map. The power plant is south of it and Tel Or was near where "Ecolodges" is marked. A detailed description of the region is supposed to appear in Appendix IV to the peace treaty, which I am still looking for (seems to be a map). Zerotalk00:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The map is here. I'll check it against a print copy of the UN Treaty Series soon. There is a dark line surrounding the Peace Island portion. We can accept a good source that this part has private Israeli ownership under Jordanian sovereignty, but we can't imply that all of the Naharayim area is like that. The spot marked as Naharayim on maps lies outside Peace Island. Zerotalk01:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the 820 dunams in the peace treaty is "peace island". The confusion in terminology is that the peace treaty refers to "peace island" as Naharayim (and not "peace island"). The rest of Naharayim was owned by PEC (Israel electric company) / private Israelis - but was placed under the Jordanian trustee for enemy holdings and the special provisions (access, protection of Israeli propery rights) does not apply there. Note also that "lease" or "reverse lease"is incorrect - it was used by media at the time, but the peace treaty itself and academic aources describe something different (and state lease is incorrect) - private Israeli ownership under Jordanian law/control - Israeli rights are protected by the treaty for 25 years whcih renew automatically forever (there is an opt-out with a one year notice - that trigeers renegotiation of the treaty).Icewhiz (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Today November 10th 2019, Jordan recover the Baqoura lands from Israel. Which ocuured by the termination of the rental 25 years agreement last year by Jordan. Sfrhan (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the title of the article from "Naharayim" (Hebrew name) to "Baqoura" (Arabic name) ; reflecting the end of the land lease given to Israel from Jordan as of the 10th of November 2019 in accordance with Annex I (B) of the 1994 Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty [1][2][3]. 82.44.32.145 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This request would appear to be valid, in fact it would likely have been valid even before the latest developments, the site is in Jordan not in Israel so there is no reason to have a Hebrew designation, the Arabic name is given in the existing lead.Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is (and was) in Jordan. The only obstacle is COMMONNAME, since English sources more commonly follow the Hebrew name. Maybe it needs an RfC. Zerotalk21:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli English sources more commonly use the Hebrew name[4][5], while Jordanian English sources more commonly use the Arabic name[6][7]. International English sources tend to reference Baqoura or more commonly both names depending on the context which does not suggest Naharayim to be the status quo COMMONNAME[8][9][10][11][12]. Leograce (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different sites. According to google maps, there is a Naharayim in Israel where a memorial for the 5 Israeli school girls killed in 1997 lies. There is also the Baqoura village in Jordan which is a couple of kms away from the site meant by this article. So considering the site meant by this article is in Jordan and the fact that there are two interchangeable names for it, both names should be used, exactly like how it is referred to in the 1994 peace treaty, "Naharayim/Baqoura". But now considering the site is under full Jordanian sovereignty, it should be just "Baqoura" perhaps to be merged with the non-existing village article. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read before commenting. Here's what the OP gave as his reason, I bolded the part you missed: "Please change the title of the article from "Naharayim" (Hebrew name) to "Baqoura" (Arabic name) ; reflecting the end of the land lease given to Israel from Jordan" Here come the Suns (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm going to mark this as done, clearly this needs a WP:RM consensus to be formed before moving forward. Anyone can place that if they feel it appropriate. — IVORKTalk21:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty blatant attempt to do an end-run around the decision just made in the previous section, NOT to rename this article. If there is enough material about the Jordanian area or village called Baqoura, which is different from what this article already contains (i.e; it is not about the hydroelectric power plant, or the Tel Or village built for its employees, or the meeting there between Abdullah and Mei, or the armistice line) - go ahead and create such an article called Baquora. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move. There is a clear absence of consensus to move after extended time for discussion. BD2412T22:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Oppose (see comments below for change of vote) COMMONNAME is true but according to WP:NAMECHANGES "we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change". Discounting sources published in Arabic or Hebrew, and sources published in English in Israel or an Arabic country because they will be hopeless biased. Looking at the International English language sources posted by Lego in the above discussion ^ there is weight given to the Arabic name. This only makes sense, it is unlikely a paper like the NYT or WaPo or BBC will refer to a town in Jordan officially named Baqoura as anything but Baqoura, except in the context of reminding readers what it was once called. -- GreenC04:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "town" there. Just the abandoned remains of a power plant, built and named by a Hebrew speaking Jew. As to what is likely or unlikely in the NYT, you can check your assumptions here [5], [6] ,[7]. And you should really read WP:NAMECHANGES: "If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names"."JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright this is more complex than I realized. I agree the site appears to have notability distinct from the nearby town of Baqoura. I agree the article as written has nothing to do with Al-Baqoura, which as a place should have its own article with infobox and population figures, categories etc.. whereas this article concerns the location and history of a former power station which is notable on its own, even if located in the Al-Baqoura jurisdiction. -- GreenC16:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Al-Baqoura is a town on the Yarmouk River just off the edge of the map (which I should widen to include it). The district is named Baqoura after the town. On the other hand there is and was no town called Naharayim and the power station that was once there is now a ruin. I don't think this question is super-clear since there is no doubt that the name Naharayim is still in common use. However, two facts are enough to tip the scales in favor of Baqoura for me: (1) the article is only partly about the power station, (2) the whole of the region belongs to Jordan. Zerotalk15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could do that, but there would be a WEIGHT issue with most of the article concerning the power station, then it would make sense to consider splitting. This is basically a lump/split debate, but I look at it like do people who come to this topic expect to read in detail about the town itself. It would also help with infoboxes and categories and photographs to have two articles. -- GreenC16:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whatever happens here, the first line of the article "Naharayim... is a site in Jordan" is clearly not true. The correct word would be "was". So if the name doesn't change, the scope of the article would need to. From what I can tell there is no settlement called Naharayim, this is really just the name of the power station. So perhaps the elegant solution is to create a separate article called Naharayim Power Station which would include the whole story of the Ruterberg concession [8], leaving this article to focus on the current Jordanian area (personally I would also merge Island of Peace into this article). It's worth noting the terminology used in the 1994 treaty The Baqura/Naharayim Area. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand your suggestion. This article is already an article about the Naharayim Power Station, and already includes the story of the Rutenberg concession . Why would we need to create a new, different article about it? This is that article. Conversely, there's next to nothing in this article about "the current Jordanian area "- if needed and if there's sufficient info about that "area - we could create a new article about that.
It sounds like we agree that there should be two articles, one called "Baqoura" and one called "Naharayim Power Station" (which should include the Island of Peace). Onceinawhile (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking into it a bit, definitely worth a write up, this concession, the granting of a cross border concession, caused a lot of controversy back then.Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstood me. I am fine having two artices: this one, called Naharayim, which includes the current material. And another one, new, which will cover the nearby Jordanian town of Al-Baqoura. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like we agree to me. Exactly how it gets carried out and what material goes where we can leave to whoever chooses to implement it. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this is the best. Naharayim is the (limited) area of the conjunction point between Yarmouk and Jordan rivers, and primrily relates to the Power Plant/Island of Peace/Tel Or. Baqura is a village farther away (and the name of the broader area). Additionally, I think the article 'Island of Peace' should be merged into Naharayim, as was already suggested by Onceinawhile somwhere above. Yerushalmi (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The scope of the article is the site of the Island of peace and the Hydroelectric power station. Al-Bakura is a Jordanian town and thus the name the Arabs who disputed Jewish rule over this land, chose to call it. If it was an article about the town, or the district, so yes, but this is an article about Naharayim, which was established next to al-Bakura.--Bolter21(talk to me)21:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this article is about Naharayim, not about Al-Bakura. What ever happens at Naharayim and the Island of Peace is one thing and has nothing to do with Al-Bakura and the COMMONNAME of this place is Naharayim. It is not the same place as Al-Bakura. Sir Joseph(talk)22:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Baqoura/Naharayim", as it is described in the peace treaty, refers to 6,000 dunams, 850 of which was regained by Jordan in 1994. "Baqoura/Naharayim" does neither refer to the power station nor its settlement (Tel Or). The scope of this article is currently about the Baqoura lands that are mentioned in the peace treaty. It should be expanded to include the Baqoura town since at least half of the town in the territory! The New York Times' reporting specifically referred to it as Baqoura and never as Naharayim. Other examples include: DW, The Guardian, VOA news,The Telegraph, The Washington Institue, Al Jazeera. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC) After an inappropriate reply proved otherwise; that both names (the Hebrew name of Naharayim and the Arabic name of Baqoura according to the sources) are used by these very same sources in different articles, then I see no reason why a Hebrew name should be used to refer for an area that is entirely under Jordanian sovereignty and is known solely by its Arabic name of Baqoura. Furthermore, half of the Baqoura village is in the territory that was bought by Rutneberg back in 1929 and which the annex in the treaty refer to! Makeandtoss (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]Detailed map by Makeandtoss showing how the Baqoura village and the territory referred to in the peace treaty overlap. Sources: [1], [2], [3].
As well, the post lease termination articles are going to reflect a different reality, while the lease was still extant, there was a fig leaf and now it's gone.Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to me to be a matter for Jordan, if Jordan is happy for a place in Jordan to have a Hebrew name, then why should WP object to that? A write up on the Rutenberg concession could be good, I might have a go at that.Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:COMMONNAME is policy. And I didn't hear that you were appointed the arbitrator of what common sense is - to me it is common sense that a place built by a Hebrew-speaking person, given a Hebrew name that has been in use for nearly 100 years will be continued to be called that, despite the political machinations that the government of Jordan prefers. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commentclick to enlargeI've added a map to illustrate the problem here. Jordan wants to call this area "al-Baqura" and it is their right, but al-Baqura is the name of a place that exist, which is a Jordanian village (that has no article). "Naharayim" refers to all Jewish possesions in this territory, including the territory it self (Which does not include al-Baqura), the power plant, Tel Or, and the Israeli farms in the Island of Peace. The article can change its name to al-Baqura, but currently it does not describe al-Baqura, but describes Naharayim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talk • contribs)
That is entirely incorrect. The Baqoura village is named after the area which it lies in; Baqoura. As you can see in the peace treaty they named the territory "Baqoura/Naharayim" and not Naharayim. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Bolter21: Above you referred to "Jewish rule over this land" and now you refer to "Jewish possessions". You need to be more careful with your facts, since there never was any Jewish rule here. In the mandate period, a Jewish-owned company had a 70-year concession that allowed it to build the power plant and sell electricity, but it was part of Transjordan and that wasn't challenged. After 1948, Peace Island was on the Israeli side of the armistice line but Israeli sovereignty was not recognised there by anyone. The rest, including the site of the power station and the site of Tel Or was on the Jordanian side of the armistice line and Jordanian sovereignty was unchallenged. In your map the power station is in the wrong place; it was actually south of the area leased to Israel in 1994 (see the map in the article). I have the official map of the 1994 treaty and will add that boundary soon. Zerotalk10:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the map was not understood. I am not disputing the facts and yes some words I used were factually incorrect. The point it "Naharayim" is the spesific area that was leased by Jordan to Israel, al-Baqura is the name of the village and supposedly the area around it (did the village predate the name?). For the Jordanians this place 'is' Baqura, because this is the name of the area, but it also includes the village which is not in the scope of the article. I think that 'both' Naharayim and al-Baqura deserve an article, and if Baqura is a district or municipality, then Naharayim is a site of interest within this district.--Bolter21(talk to me)11:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be precise here, can we identify the boundaries of the "Rutenberg Lands"? Per [9] the area we are talking about was "by and large registered in the Jordanian Land Registration (Irbid) in the name of the Palestine Electric Company (PEC) as being a part of the Rutenberg Lands.". Onceinawhile (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Yes, as I discussed above and quoted a source, the 6,000 dunams were bought by Rutenberg in 1929 and are represented by the dashed red lines in the map above according to the Jordanian Land Registration Department of Irbid. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Makeandtoss: what is your source for the boundary line of the 6,000 dunums shown on your map above? It seems strange to me that it includes nothing on the other side of the river. The structure that Bolter calls "power plant" is almost certainly part of the wider power plant system, albeit not the main structure which as you say is further south, so surely that structure was part of the original Ruterberg lands. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
lFile:NaharayimBaqura.jpg Please look at this map, which is an Israeli map made in 1953 plus careful overlays. The project consisted of a diversion of the Jordan River to a new confluence with the Yarmouk River, where a dam created the artificial Yarmouk Reservoir. The structure Once found on Google street-view is the dam and is the straight black line on the map on the NW side of the reservoir. At the south-west edge of the reservoir an artificial channel took the water from the reservoir through the turbines of the power station, after which it continued down the channel for another kilometer before joining the Jordan River. The reservoir is now dry and the Yarmouk River (therefore the border) that used to flow into it isn't in its old location. I copied the new boundary in the center of the reservoir (black dots) but not the rest of it. The Jordan River boundary is also slightly different from what it was then. The boundary of the 1994 agreement ran across the northern dam (east to west), down the N-S road shown on this map until approximately where the green armistice line is drawn and then roughly following that line west. The old power station is south of it. The area marked by Makeandtoss as Rutenburg's holdings is not the area named in the 1994 treaty (I'm sure because I'm looking at the treaty map); however, I'd love to have a source for it so I can add it to this map. The Rutenburg concession published in the Palestine Gazette does not specify the boundaries, nor whether the land was owned or leased by Rutenburg. Zerotalk13:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once, that book's a great find that will enhance other articles too! The Transjordan portion is a good match to Makeandtoss' map. Zerotalk13:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile:@Zero0000: The source for the red dashed line in the map, showing the 6,000 dunams bought by Rutenburg in 1929, is this article by 7iber. You can find the map in the first video in the article. The red dashed line is also confirmed by the source that Onceinawhile just gave, as it looks almost exactly identical [10]. Obviously the Irbid Land Registration Department has no jurisdiction on the western bank of the Jordan River, and the peace treaty territory discusses the lands on the eastern bank of the Jordan River. The scope of this article is currently about: Rutenburg's land purchases, his power plant, Israeli occupation of the territory in 1950, Jordanian return of the land in 1994, and Jordan restoring complete sovereignty over the land in 2019. All of these events are about the territory on the east bank of the River because there's no controversy regarding the western one. My opinion is that we should include the Baqoura village into the scope of this article (because at least half of it already lies inside the Rutenburg purchased lands) and just rename it into Baqoura instead of a Hebrew name which has no legal legitimacy nor overwhelming use in sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the term "Naharayim" refers to the land on all sides of the meeting point of the two rivers, not just the Jordanian corner. This article is about the Jordanian corner. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This entire discussion - where the boundary runs, where the powerplant is etc... While academically interesting, Is wholly irrelevant to the RfC. The only thing that is relevant is what the area is called in english, by WP:COMMONNAME. That name is Naharayim. A name used long before the Israel-Jordan peace treaty of 1994.
I haven't provided a firm view on this question, and I certainly haven't centered the debate around WP:COMMONNAME.
I am keen to avoid a partisan argument here, and instead focus on understanding exactly what the story of this place is. Once we have that nailed we can agree on the scope of the articles needed.
As you are a seemingly new editor, I advise you to avoid making this (or any other topic) into a black-or-white binary argument. To be a good contributor here requires thoughtfulness, not aggressiveness. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing for more than 9 years, please don't patronize me, and answer the question I asked you - how do you square your arguments when you renamed Well of Harod to 'Ain Jalut, based on WP:COMMONNAME, with the position you are advocating here? You have just introduced a new source into the discussion - ('map on page 131 of this 2019 book is from the Palestine Electric Company archives'), which Zero0000 has described as 'that book's a great find that will enhance other articles too!' - please read the caption of that map. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commonname is not the be-all and end-all, although I don't dispute the need for RS confirmation, accuracy counts for something as well (and what the official name might be, to some extent).Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I consider common name to be very important - it one of the five fundamental pillars of the WP:AT policy. "Precision" is also one of those pillars, which is the one we are focusing on figuring out in this discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sign on the Israeli sideAnother sign from the area
For Hebrew speakers, this sign from the site itself might be of interest. It is orientated with North facing to the right. I have also put another sign from the area, but the map is much harder to see. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. I am glad we agree that WP:AT is the policy, and that WP:COMMONNAME, as part of that policy, dictates we use the common name. The "precision " part of that policy says "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article" - Naharayim clearly defines the scope of this article, and pretty clearly excludes the village of Al-Baqoura. If you want to create a new article for the village (or the district called Al-Baquora) - go right ahead. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that we have established the common name, I wouldn't dispute it in the past but there is a noticeable difference now (and no arguments about recentism, this is not going to suddenly go back to the way it was). Even some Israeli sources are using the formulation Baqura (Naharayim).Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to revisit the data: [11] ] Baqoura is nowhere to be found there, event recently. If some recent sources use the multiple designation, than as the policy I quoted above says "If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names"". But I do appreciate the not-so-subtle moving of the goal posts, from "Commonname is not the be-all and end-all" to "I'm not convinced that we have established the common name". What you are trying to do here is transparent. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both things I said remain valid, they are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary it is yourself that is stuck in single track mode.Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is Naharayim? Can those who support maintaining the current name please explain what they think the scope of an article named "Naharayim" should be? What are the boundaries of the term? Bolter's diagram was a very constructive attempt to answer that question – further information has since been provided in the discussion above. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: It currently says "is a site in Jordan adjacent to the Israeli border". Below you state "Of course it extends across the border - most of it is across the border", which is the exact opposite. Can you please switch your brain on or else go away. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think engaging with you is a good use of anyone's time at the moment. You are behaving too aggressively. I have tried to give you friendly advice, but you do not appear interested. The comment below about "your side", and now a threat to go to ANI is the final straw for me. I hope one day you can stop seeing this as if it is a partisan battle.
Of course it extends across the border - most of it is across the border. But where the border runs has nothing to do with what the area is called, per WP:COMMONNAME. Again, it is instructive to look at the arguments "your side" made with regards to another article rename , here - Well of HarodJungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the other case but every case is different anyway so that's neither here nor there. This article should never have been called Naharayim in the first place, I can guess how that happened.Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cases may be different, but the policy we apply to them should be consistent. Especially when it is the same people trying to apply the policy. This article should 100% have been called Naharayim, as that is what the area had been called, since at least the 1930s, as the sources show. It had never been called "Baqoura" , as far as I can tell, until the 1994 Peace Agreement. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you are fooling anyone with this, or did you just not bother to read it? "which the Jews called Naharayim" - in 1928. 21:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk • contribs)
Not saying it should be the name, just trying to figure things out, the name refers to the confluence of the 2 rivers North of the bridge (ie it has the same meaning as Naharayim). Part of the exorbitant purchase price was payable for compensating the villagers that had to be moved out of the way. Good stuff.Selfstudier (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Light is beginning to dawn,Gesher,_Israel. It's best to put it here for now, you never know, it might jog someone's memory or help somehow. Seems to me there are 3 possibles for the name, leave as is, change to Baquora or maybe a combo Baquora(Naharayim), pity about Jisr-al-Majami, quite like that one.Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: How about you stop making this flawed argument of Naharayim being the most common name? First of all there's the Naharayim fort at Gesher. Second the Arabic name is spelled in different ways such as Baqura/Baqoura/Baquora. Thirdly and most importantly, the majority of sources when googling "Naharayim" are Israeli sources. The does not establish the source independence required in WP:COMMONNAME which you conveniently ignored. So no, comparing the number of results between "Naharayim" and "Baqoura" is not going to be the decisive element here. Furthermore, your claims about the Baqoura village being separated from the "Naharayim/Baqoura" territory (as named in the peace treaty) is entirely false. At least half of the village lies within Rutenerg's purchased lands back in 1929. Naharayim and Baqoura have been used both by independent sources with the same weight. They acknowledge both Hebrew and Arabic names. However, to use an exclusively Hebrew name in the title of a Wikipedia article of a territory that is entirely in an Arab country with a distinct Arabic name is not acceptable. Especially considering the fact that the Baqoura village lies within that territory. Wikipedia should be consistent, given how for example, Gesher's original Arabic name of Jisr Al-Majami' was completely ignored in the title; and how the Gesher article not only refers to the Kibbutz (whose location has differed over the years by at least 1 km) but to the area surrounding it. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about you taking the time to actually read the arguments and sources presented here? Bolter21 has looked at the list of sources you provided - including the New York times, The Guardian, VOA and others, and all of them "Naharayim', along with Baqoura. These are not Israeli sources. Onceinawhile has recently provided a source (commended by Zero0000 as 'a great find') that is from the University of California, not an Israeli source, which again uses Naharayim. Selfstudier has unearthed another source, one which reefer to Jisr al-Majam, and that one, too, also says it s called Naharayim, Let's look at the alternate spelling argument :
@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: You distorted every argument I made. I said that I explicitly said that when you google “Naharayim” you will get hundreds of English Israeli websites. I did not say NYT, VOA or others were Israeli sources. No the sources I provided did not just mention Naharyim, they mentioned sometimes just Baqoura duch as in that NYT article. The other user gave another NYT article mentioning both names. Check the links for yourself. This is much more complicated than google results. We’re not just debating the name we’re also debating article scope so as to determine name. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't distorted your argument. You claimed "the majority of sources when googling "Naharayim" are Israeli sources." that is false, or at best, an unproven assertion that seems dubious at least by the anecdotal evidence presented so far. The article scope is defined in its first two paragraphs - and the common name for that scope is "Naharayim". And contrary to what you claim when you say "We’re not just debating the name we’re also debating article scope " - this is an RfC on the article name. If you want to start a discussion on changing the scope of the artcile- go ahead and start it in a new section, But the current name fits the current scope. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google "Naharayim" yourself and tell me how many Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post and Haaretz articles you find. In these articles I referenced above, not once were the territories referred to as Naharayim but only as Baqoura: NYT, The Guardian, VOA,The Telegraph and Al Jazeera. While these articles prioritized Baqoura over the Hebrew name: The Washington Institue and DW. So no, your assertion that the majority of independent English sources use Naharayim exclusively is false. Other articles in these very same sources using Naharayim instead of Baqoura doesn't make up a majority. I said that debating the scope of the article in order to determine name. If this article is about the lands in Jordan, it can't be named "Naharayim": 1-because its has no legal legitimacy 2-because its not used in the majority of independent English language sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier:eureka... I think you have solved it. [Gesher] Naharayim is nothing more than a Hebraization of the old name, Jisr Majami... It makes perfect sense, as the two terms have basically the same meaning, and when Rutenberg was given the concession, Jisr Majami was the only pre-existing name. So Naharayim simply means the area around the bridge, just as "Jisr al Majami area" once did. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bakoura - Naharayim area - overlapping terminology Venn diagram
See diagram this is the situation as I now understand it. The question therefore is how many articles should we have and how do we avoid too much overlap. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles represented by ovals in your diagram already exist, except "Baqoura District" - go ahead and create that article if you can find enough info about it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: The Naharyim oval is flawed. You’re treating the Israeli Naharayim as an extension of the Jordanian land whoch is not necessarily true. They have the same name sure but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re one homogeneous unit. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Makeandtoss, sorry I don't understand what you mean.
I will try to explain myself. Naharayim is, broadly speaking, all the lands once owned by the PEC, centered on the power plant. Baqoura is the Jordanian district, centered on the town. The 1994 "Baqoura / Naharayim Area" as defined in the treaty represents only part of Naharayim and only part of Baqoura district. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aerial shot showing the original Jisr Majami plus the rail and road bridges and the caravanserai
The bridge Jisr el-Majami is not where you drew it. It is where the road and railway cross the Jordan in the south of the map I posted (yellow one above). "Jisr el-Majami" is actually written there in Hebrew and in the earlier English maps it is written there in English. Also in that place on the Palestinian side was a village. In the 1930s 1:20K map the village is called Jisr el-Majami and its village lands to the north are also labeled Jisr el-Majami. At some point between then and the next 1:20K map issue in 1944, part of the village became Gesher and the lands that used to be labeled Jisr el-Majami were relabeled Gesher. Presumably this indicates a Jewish purchase. To add a little confusion (in case we don't have enough), the 1944 map uses "Naharayim" as an alternative for Tel-Or. That settlement is labeled "Naharayim (Tel-Or)" and that is the only appearance of "Naharayim" on the map apart from a railway siding. Zerotalk01:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. My diagram is intended simply to show what definitions overlap rather than exact geographical location. The image here shows the location of the bridge very clearly. It is definitely within both the wider Naharayim and the wider Baqoura areas. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: and @Zero0000: I now understand what you two are trying to say. There are three overlapping areas within Jordan: 6,000 dunams purchased by Rutenberg in 1929; 1,390 dunams occupied by Israel in 1950 (corresponds with ceasefire line); and the 830 dunams leased in the peace treaty in 1994. If the scope of the article is the 830 dunams, then we are faced with two options: either "Island of Peace" (which is not used often in any source) or a combination of both names "Baqoura/Naharayim" (which is widely used in sources and in the peace treaty). IF the scop of the article is the 6,000 dunams then it should be just Baqoura as it overlaps with the village. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have an article on Baqoura. I have edited this article to change its scope so that it relates to the whole area around the power plant, which today is on both sides of the border. I figure it might be easier to make a new article about Baqoura because that is less related to the power plant. That article would focus on the village and then also cover the land area to which the 1994 treaty related. We should also have a look at Tel Or – has it been demolished or is it an active Jordanian village? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Well what is the source that Naharayim is used to refer to lands that are not in Jordan? Isn't the area west of the River called Gesher? My point is that since there's nothing significant named Naharayim in Israel, then this article should focus on the territory that is inside of Jordan, and therefore be named "Baqoura/Naharayim" and have the useless standalone article of Island of Peace merged with it. And another new article just on the Jordanian village of Baqoura. Tel Or can remain separate as it is a distinct village; it is today an abandoned ruin. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you a number of independent and major English sources which only used the name Baqoura. You chose to completely ignore that to come here and say “no”? The scope of this article is about the treaty’s lands which are described by the treaty itself to be “Baqoura/Naharayim”, as well as by dozens of sources that use both names. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support Baqoura Naharayim combo for the name. Here is an RS (before the handing back) that supports this Page 6 (1100) (this RS p.725 supports Jisr al-Mujamieh/Naharayim for the name and I can produce several other scholarly sources supporting Jisr al-Mujamieh alone as the name.)Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can find a handful of articles or a book that support this position or that -I can easily give you articles from the very same sources you selected (BBC, NYT, etc... ) that use only Naharayim, even after the 1994 agreement (e.g: BBC, NYT. That's why we don't go by anecdotal things like that, but by broad-based searched. Which I have done, and presented you with the results several times. Again: [17] - it is not even close. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can repeat themselves over and over, I am not doing that, I only just now made up my mind about the question rather than making up my mind before there was even a discussion. I think scholarly RS has weight that newspaper coverage does not. The treaty iself, a treaty between 2 sides, establishes a baseline I find persuasive and finally it is just not sensible that a site mainly in Jordan should be represented by a name and a language used mainly in Israel.Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When the same fallacious argument is brought up over and over again by my interlocutors, I respond to it with the saem rebuttal - which happens to be policy on wikipedia: WP:COMMONNAME. There's no shortage of scholarly RSes that use Naharayim (e.g: [18]). If you get Wikipedia to change its article naming policy to use the name favored by the political entity controlling a place, I'll give your personal opinion that "it is just not sensible that a site mainly in Jordan should be represented by a name and a language used mainly in Israel." some weight. Until then, the policy here is WP:COMMONNAME. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proof by repetition is not a proof of anything at all. Commonname is not the only thing that matters in this case and from where I am sitting, nor have you even established that it is the commonname (your above search is for the power station, right? And look at all those Israel related sources, no independence there)Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you three reasons why your google results are meaningless. Stop wasting everyone’s time by repeating things that have already been discussed.Makeandtoss (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of these "reasons" are Wikipedia policy, even if they were correct (which they are not). Stop wasting wasting everyone’s time by insisting that your personal opinions of how things should be trump policy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: Please explain to me how my reasons aren't related to Wikipedia policies? You quoted WP:COMMONNAME a million times already without bothering to read what it says! It says: "as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". Using advanced google search, you can find that the Times of Israel has a total of 497 articles about Naharayim! The Jordan Times by contrast has 96 articles on Baqoura. Neither of these are independent sources, the key word which you have been ignoring all this time. Googling Naharayim you will find thousands of articles from Israeli news sites, which are much more prevalent than English Jordanian sources. So again, your comparing results of Naharayim and Baqoura does not help in finding which one is more used in independent sources. I gave you a couple of independent sources like NYT, DW, AFP, and many other sources either using Baqoura or Baqoura/Naharayim. Can't you just admit what I am saying is reasonable so we can move forward discussing more important things? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can I suggest we ignore those editors who are not willing to enter into constructive discussion. It is just wasting everyone's time.
I have been thinking about Makeandtoss's comment from 00:42, 9 April 2020. I have been trying to figure this out. What are the boundaries of "Naharayim" in its wider sense? I am reasonably confident that there are no formal boundaries, but the question is what boundaries are used in practice. The evidence I have so far is:
I looked at a lot of British maps and a lot of Israeli maps up to the mid 1960s. I saw "Naharayim" as a label on the power station and as an alternative for Tel Or. I didn't see it as a region name at all, but it's impossible to prove that it never was. Zerotalk08:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, it is difficult to say with certainty but my impression is that "Naharayim" is not an area as such, it is simply the Hebrew name of the confluence point (as is/was Jisr el-Majami') and then with the passage of time it has been appended to other locations so N. power plant, Gesher N., Tel Or (N) and equally you have compositions such as Khan Gesher (Jisr el-Majami') and Qaryet Jisr Al-Majame for Tel Or. The plant itself, at least at the beginning, seems to be referred to by other means as in Jaffa Power House and (First) Jordan Power House.Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous sources that says otherwise, many of which have been presented here. Some exmaaless; "build the company's main hydroelectric power station at Naharayim" [21]; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616680802000022], [22]," Naharayim came to be known as the Island of Peace," [23]. I appreciate the desire to ignore those who disagree with you and present the policies behind that disagreement, but unfortunately , that's not going to fly. There is no consensus to change the name, and no policy-based reason was given to do so. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources do not say that there was an area called Naharayim, IoP (N) is exactly an example of what I said, N. being appended to a nearby location. "At Naharayim" means at the meeting point of two rivers not that there was an area called Naharayim, if you believe there was show me an official map with that area delineated on it.Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, I agree. It makes me think that there is actually no formal place called "Naharayim", which makes it problematic as an article title as it fails WP:PRECISE. So we have to fix it. I think the simplest answer to to move this article to "Naharayim Power Station", focusing the article on that topic, and then making a new article on the area of land subject to the 1994 treaty. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's just ridiculous. "At Naharayim" means at that area. It is not an officially delineated district, like many geographic areas, but a area just the same. Perhaps if you can show me a map with an official designation for "The Great Plains" delineated on it I will take this argument seriously. You are again encouraged to read the wikipedia policy guiding this RfC -(WP:COMMONNAME) which explicitly discounts "official" names : "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used"JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And again, that pesky policy: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've already addressed these arguments, more than once, days ago. To repeat: Even if I were to accept your claim that all Israeli sources are not independent (which I don't), 'Bolter21 has looked at the list of sources you provided - including the New York times, The Guardian, VOA and others, and all of them [use] "Naharayim', along with Baqoura. These are not Israeli sources. Onceinawhile has recently provided a source (commended by Zero0000 as 'a great find') that is from the University of California, not an Israeli source' (April 7th) and 'You claimed "the majority of sources when googling "Naharayim" are Israeli sources." that is false, or at best, an unproven assertion that seems dubious at least by the anecdotal evidence presented so far.' (April 8th) I don't see a need to repeat that every time you regurgitate the same argument that I have already addressed. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
take the time to read what I wrote. Those two sentence fragments you cherry-picked were followed by a lengthy, reasoned response. It was indeed a repeat, as the argument it was responding to was a repeat. I am under no obligation to come up with new rebuttals to identical arguments already addressed. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You just addressed the "independent" part of my argument and never "days ago". All Israeli sources are not independent with regards to this territory. Of course Israeli sources will call the territory Naharayim, what Israeli would be interested in reading Baqoura? Same goes with Jordanian sources, what Jordanian will be interested in reading Naharayim? Bolter21 gave me other articles from the same sources that mentioned Naharayim, he did not show that my articles contained Naharayim. Focus. That means we have sources that mention Naharayim and Baqoura interchangeably and therefore none of the two terms have a majority in independent sources. If you are still not convinced then I will not bother replying to you. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
April 7th was 3 days ago, the 8th was two days ago, and I addressed your claims (which I don't accept) by saying it is an unproven assertion that seems dubious based on sources presented so far. I never said your articles contained Naharayim. Focus. But if you want to re-evaluate the quality of your reasoning, juxtapose "Of course Israeli sources will call the territory Naharayim" with this, as just one example:[24]JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You addressed the independent part of my argument on 16:37, 10 April 2020 for the first time. I don't really know what you are trying to prove with an Associated Press caption in a Haaretz article but ok. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Updated diagram Further to some clarifications from Zero0000 at the Jisr Majami page, the diagram to the left is now how I understand the definitions. In other words, I now understand that the area subject to the 1994 treaty is a much greater part of the area of "Naharayim" than I had previously understood. It is definitely not 100% of the area though - see how google maps labels "Site Naharayim" in English and 100m to the south in Hebrew on the Israeli side of the border (near the bridge). Onceinawhile (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A 2019 paper (Zeitoun, M.; Dajani, M.; Abdallah, C.; Khresat, S. and Elaydi, H. 2019. The Yarmouk tributary to the Jordan River II: Infrastructure impeding the transformation of equitable transboundary water arrangements, Water Alternatives 12(3): 1095-1122]) writes: "The plans were revived in 1926 when the British granted a concession to Russian businessman and Zionist leader Pinhas Rutenberg to use the Yarmouk and Jordan flows to operate a power plant at their confluence – the then Jordanian territory of Baqura (referred to as Naharayim, or 'two rivers', in Israel)."
I haven't seen any other sources stating that the territory was known as Baqura as far back as the 1920s, but that would be interesting if confirmed.
This is a 2019 paper, and uses current terminology (e.g, it says "referred to as Naharayim, or 'two rivers', in Israel - which it obviously didn't in 1926, as "Israel" only came into being in 1948)". It doesn't say that this is the name that was used in the 1926 correspondence. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The village al-Baqura was a part of the lands of Sukhur al-Ghawr as far back as 1915, it was from this village that the 6000 dunums was taken in 1927. I suppose, since Al-Baqura was still extant, they had to change the name of the 6000 and so they chose Jisr al-Majawi in June 1928. By the time we get around to the peace treaty, I can only surmise that someone had decided to change it back to what it was originally. This is a simple explanation of the origin of "Naharayim", it is just the hebrew translation of the name that was given to the land by the Jordanians, nothing more.Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say it was? This is just an explanation of the naming, how and why it was named as it was by the Jordanians. In passing, it conveniently explains where "Naharayim" came from (which you have not yet explained anywhere afaics).Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no great mystery as to the naming, it is given in the article: Naharayim means "two rivers" in Hebrew, and the area is the confluence of the Jordan and Yarmouk rivers. It is not a translation of Jisr al Majami (which means "The bridge of the joining/complex" , or similar, also alluding to the joining of the two rivers). JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we know that already. That is not an explanation of where it comes from though. Between Zero and me we have come up with a date of 1928 (change of name to JaM and we have sourced this)/1929 (first appearance in newspapers) and an explanation.After it passed into Israeli control, the Jordanians would have had little or no interest in the place so Israel was free to devise such history as it chose. Until Jordan said they wanted it back, that is.Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P. Rutenburg, “Water Resources of Palestine, I. Jordan Valley, Preliminary Project”, a Confidential Report issued in Jerasalem, dated June 1920, bilingual (English and Hebrew), pp. 61.
The Crown Agents for the Colonies and Mr. Pinhas Rutenberg, “Agreement for the Granting of a Concession for the Utilization of the Waters of the Rivers Jordan and Yarmouk and Their Affluents for Generating and Supplying Electrical Energy”, witnessed by Burchells Solicitors of Westminster, London; Herbert Oppenheimer Nathan and Vandyk, Solicitors, London; and Harry Sacher, Barrister at Law and Notary Public, Jemsalem, dated 21 September 1921.
“Official Gazette No. 177”, Princedom of Transjordan, 1928.
The British Government asked Prince Abdallah Ibn al Hussein of Transjordan to accept the Concession and ratify the Agreement in 1924. The Prince declined on the grounds that such a concession is the concern of the people, and should be looked into by the Council of Deputies (Parliament). The British Resident Representative in Amman of the High Commissioner in Jerusalem repeated the request to the Prime Minister on 15 March 1926.
If anyone can find copies of these original papers it might help idetify the original “official” name of the area (including whether the term Naharayim was used back then).
As I indicated above, the "official" name was "Jisr al-Majawi" in 1928 (after the separation from al-Baqura) and Naharayim is just the translation of that and that timing ties in with Zero's newspapers.Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that Naharayim was intended as a translation of Majami; the meanings are related but not the same. I don't think this can be resolved without a source for the choice of the name. Zerotalk05:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking for such a source, Once thinks Tel Or is a possibility and there is some evidence for that, the difficulty is that Naharayim has been used or applied to the plant, the dam, Gesher, IoP, everywhere within striking distance.Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any of those. From the Palestine Gazette I have these:
May 1923: Registration of the Palestine Electric Corporation, purpose "To carry on business as an Electric Light and Electric Power Company in all its branches etc.", with list of directors etc.
Jan 1927: Certification that "works in connection with the erection of a Dam on the River Yarmuk and of a Power House near Jisr el Mejamie, in accordance with the Concession to the Palestine Electric Corporation dated the 5th of March, 1926, are works of a public nature ..."
Mar 1927: Draft of the Electricity Concessions Ordinance, 1927, which includes the full text of "Concession granted to the Palestine Electric Corporation for the utilisation of the waters of the Rivers Jordan and Yarmuk for generating and supplying electrical energy, dated the 5th day of March 1926." This is a long legal document of 18 pages. It does not specify a name for the works but only identifies them by location, viz. "A dam on the River Yarmuk adjacent to the Yarmuk Waterfall and near the junction of the Rivers Yarmuk and Jordan with the corresponding canal and another dam or weir if necessary on the River Jordan. A power house situated near Jisr-el-Majami together with head-works tail-race and pipe lines." plus power lines etc.
The Concession applied to Transjordan as well, only "Provided that the Company shall not construct in Trans-Jordan any distribution system for the supply and sale of electric light or energy in that territory without the previous approval of the Trans-Jordan Government which shall not be unreasonably withheld; Should the Company submit that approval is unreasonably withheld the matter shall be referred to the High Commissioner whose decision shall be final."
Oct 1927: Promulgation with trivial change of the Ordinance above.
There is no mention of "Naharayim" in these documents. The earliest mention I can find of this name is in newspapers of 1929, like "Naharayim (where the works of the Palestine Electric Corporation are being carried out)". It appears the newspaper didn't assume that readers were familiar with the name. In 1930 I see Naharayim described as "Rutenberg's electrical works", but nearly always the works are said to be "in Naharayim" rather than called Naharayim. This includes the Palestine Bulletin's report on the opening ceremony (June 9, 1932): "the Hydro-electric Station of the Palestine Electric Corporation on the Jordan at Naharayim".
Zerotalk12:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Zero. This is very useful information. The Palestine Bulletin was of course a predecessor of what is now the Jerusalem Post. I assume that all the newspapers which used the term Naharayim back then were Jewish newspapers that wished to avoid any Arabic terminology. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I didn't try to tabulate which of those words the newspapers used (some use "at") and in any case the difference is too subtle to make much of it. Zerotalk13:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Once, please take a look at Settling Historical Land Claims in the Wake of Arab-Israeli Peace by Michael R. Fischbach (page 43).DOI10.2307/2537808Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Strike that, I had the wrong interpretation there.Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting, thanks for bringing it. But please note that this is not the concession. It is an agreement to award a future concession to a company that didn't exist yet. Rutenberg needed this assurance in order to find the capital for creating the company, which he registered in May 1923. The actual concession (to the company, not to Rutenberg) was signed only in 1926. It is similar to this document but quite a lot of the details are different. Still no reference to either Naharayim or Baqoura though. Zerotalk06:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's request for comments about renaming to Baqoura. I know you (and others) are trying to make it into something different, so it's worthwhile reminding you what we are actually trying to do here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know how you like to repeat yourself, the outcome of an RFC RM (oops) is not necessarily a binary yes/no, I'll just remind you of that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I should finally cast an official vote at this point. Reliable sources, particularly scholarly sources, indicate that the name of this place, which is in Jordan, is Baqoura or a variant thereof. The name is recognizable to anyone familiar with the topic whereas Naharayim is a term of mainly Israeli usage that lacks precision due to its being used to refer to a variety of distinct locations both in and outside of Israel. In addition, it is clearly established that the official usage is, according to the Jordanian Israeli peace treaty, Baqura/Naharayim so following its recent reversion to Jordanian rule there is no longer any reason to maintain the reference to Naharayim (a placename that does not and never has existed in Jordan). Note that the other leased territory in the peace agreement, Al Ghamr/Tzofar, now has two separate articles following the reversion to Jordan; Al-Ghamr was previously described as being in Israel(!) while there was no article for Tzofar.Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reading the article again, it is clearly talking of the area of the peace island, (former) power plant and Tel Or. All of which were created due to Rutenberg's power plant back in the 1930s. The power plant was called Naharayim, as was the region. Al-Baqura is a village situated farther out. Naharayim may be referenced as 'Baqura' by the Jordanians, but this is common that an Arab party uses an Arab name while an Israeli party using an Israeli name. However, in this case, this area between the Jordan and Yarmouk got its distinctive name (rather then the rest of the area) due to the power plant, even if that power plant is now defunct. This name was given before Israel's birth as a modern country. Therefore, I see no reason why to use a term for of the broader area (Baqura), while there is a distinctive name for this specific area, given before Israel's establishment. Yerushalmi (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've waded through the above and below and there seems no basis in policy or the nomination or the !votes to justify a move as proposed. No evidence has been offered that the common name in English for this place is the proposed new name. There are appeals to official documents, and proposals to rescope the article, but these miss the point entirely, as another contributor has also pointed out. Andrewa (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article says: "יישוב העובדים תל אור, שמוכר יותר בשם "נהריים", הוקם בשנת 1932 בסמוך לתחנת הכוח בנהריים כשכונת מגורים לפועלי התחנה והתקיים כיישוב עצמאי עד לפינויו בידי הירדנים במלחמת העצמאות 1948" which includes the phrase "Tel Or workers settlement, better known as Naharayim". Onceinawhile (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
p.37,Guide to new Palestine, Zionist Information Bureau for Tourists in Palestine, 1933 is amusing:-
"Near the point of confluence of the Yarmuk and Jordan, the Rutenberg hydro-electric works have been established, with two new settlements, TelOr (officials) and Naharaim (workers'residential quarter)"
Sourced to: The light of Abraham, light from fire: The electric company and the Haganah, 1920-1948 (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv, 1994), 42-43. For the history of the company and its founder see Eli She'altiel, Pinchas Ruttenberg: The rise and fall ofa ";strong man"; in Eretz Israel, 1879-1942 (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv, 1990).
http://www.zionistarchives.org.il/en/datelist/Pages/Rutenberg.aspx is interesting. "In 1932, a power station at Tel-Or was established, followed by other large power stations in Haifa and Tel Aviv (the Reading Station)" and the pix at the bottom call the power station the "Rutenberg power station" and "the power station in Tel Or". In the text is also mentioned another power station? "Aram-Naharaim near the Jordan River".Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"A powerhouse has been erected at Jisr el-Majameh, seven miles south of the S. of Gallilee. Here, a modern construction camp has arisen and named Naharaim (two rivers), some 600 workmen have taken up their residence here...."Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another one from Golda Meir’s biography (p.133)about the secret 1947 meeting with Abdullah: “Ben-Gurion requested Avraham Ruttenberg, the head of the Electric Company, to arrange a meeting. Ruttenberg knew the king well and the request was not seen as odd. As he was leaving for England, he asked the head of the power station in Naharayim, on the Palestine-Jordan border, Avraham Daskal, to organize the meeting. Daskal was a regular visitor at the king’s palace in Amman and was often used by the Agency for various purposes. The problem was: would the king be willing to meet a woman. Daskal persuaded the king to accept the following scenario: Mrs. Ruttenberg would host Golda, Sasson and Danin for lunch at the home of Daskal. At the same time the king and his Privy Councillor Muhammed Zbaiti would have lunch in a nearby home belonging to Zbaiti. After lunch the king would complain of a headache and would retire to rest in the Electric Company’s guest house where he would meet the Jewish representative. He was not told it would be Golda”
Self's discovery reminds me that I forgot to search newspapers for the spelling "Naharaim". I got two hits for 1928, one of which is spectacular: The Palestine Bulletin, Aug 6, 1928, page 3: THE JORDAN ELECTRIC STATION. The Jordan electric station area, of the Palestine Electric Company, has been named as follows :— the residential quarter of the staff—"Tel Or," (Hill of Light) and the adjacent agricultural settlement "Naharaim" (Two Rivers). I think that settles both the names and the date. For further confirmation, someone with Hebrew skills should visit http://jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=tab&tab=search and search around the same time. Zerotalk01:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz newspaper (Dec 31st, 1928) tells about the project, calls Jisr al Majamie (the bridge) in Hebrew as 'Gesher Nehalim' (the bridge of the streams) (which is different than Naharayim - which means 'two rivers'). The article calls 'Tel Or' as the hill between the 'future' lake and the Jordan River (hill is 'Tel' in Hebrew), on which the company administration office was located (during the time of the project construction). One cannot ignore the symbolic name given to the hill - Or ('light' in Hebrew), i.e. the electricity that will be produced here will be able to provide lights. The article ends with an explanation: Tel Or is where the 'work is being done' (to construct the power plant), and Naharayim is the place of the agriculture community, which will be established here once the works are done. ([25]). Yerushalmi (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to find an original copy of the exact same timetable online in English and Hebrew (see below). Naharaim in Hebrew is the same as in English, whereas Jisr El Majamie says "Gesher (Jisr El Majamie)". Onceinawhile (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noticing that the Arabic name used on the train station sign reads نهرَايِم i. e. "N?h?rāyim". The vocalisation of N and H is not clear (probably missing), but it's clearly an Arabic transcription of the Hebrew name.--Shlomo (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the location of the Naharayim train station on the map I inserted above (the yellowish one). It is the little rectangle on the train line just north of the armistice line. Pre-1948 maps show the station name there. The Palestine Gazette gives the fares to there from various places. Zerotalk01:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Degania and other settlements used the Valley train to cart their production off to Haifa, I think the Naharaim worker settlement did the same thing later on.Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The last paragraph claims that the memorial of Israeli schoolchildren was allegedly transferred from the Island of Peace in Jordanian territory to Israeli territory. This seems to contradict information in this Times of Israel article: Makeandtoss (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After the massacre, Naharayim Island was renamed the Island of Peace. Since 1998, Shimoni has maintained a memorial to the seven girls who were killed, called “The Hill of Plucked Flowers.” Gently curving paths modeled after tree branches lead to small mounds along a hillside, where she has spelled each of the girls’ names in seasonal flowers that she replaces three times a year. Shimoni’s memorial is outside of the Island of Peace, next to the road that leads to the Jordanian checkpoint, on land that won’t revert back to Jordan.
I've just read the article you have referred too. Shimoni's memorial is just north of the Yarmouk river (next to the old British custom house (thus in Israel), therefore I do not understand what is behind this article. Seems that whomever wrote this article has never been to the site. Here's the memorial on Google earth. [26]. The entire sentence you are referring to can be erased, in my opinion. Yerushalmi (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed you edited that out (I put it in), it didn't say that it was transferred to Israeli territory, it said that the families have asked for it to be transferred. I guess it wasn't that clear in the place I put it but it is apparently true all the same.Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: That makes no sense at all. They must have visited the site at least once and they know for sure that it is before the checkpoint and not after. This is an example of an extraordinary claim that is supported by exactly one source and disproven by multiple other. It should be omitted.
Sure, I haven't restored it in any case, I was just wondering how it came to be that such a claim would be made and apparently involving the Mayor and the President. Tsk, fake news strikes again.Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 1994 [[Israel–Jordan peace treaty]] recognized part of the area – known as the Naharayim/Baqura Area in the treaty– to be under Jordanian sovereignty, but leased Israeli landowners freedom of entry.
..changed to this:
The 1994 [[Israel–Jordan peace treaty]] recognized part of the area – known as the Naharayim/Baqura Area in the treaty or, according to the map annexed to the treaty and authenticated by both Israel and Jordan,<ref>[https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1998/11/19981111%2004-07%20AM/25.PDF UN treaty map]</ref> the Baqura/Naharayim area
This edit is an example of how to turn an article into a war zone, how to make it unreadable. The article is becoming a crypto version of the talk page - a debate over what to call the place. The title of a map deep in a document, probably created by a map maker with no meaning other than sorting the names alphabetically because that is how map makers title maps from an organization perspective. You forgot at the bottom of the map Jordan's signature also comes first - again alphabetically - this must mean something right? It's the same sort of false balance editing we saw in the other article that triggered the NPOV tags and RFCs. -- GreenC00:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The treaty says "The lines defining the special Naharayim/Baqura area are shown on the 1:10,000 orthophoto map (Appendix IV attached to this Annex)." Throughout the document it is Naharayim/Baqura. Cherry picking a single exception and giving it false balance is anti-intellectual. The map makers listed the names alphabetically so what. -- GreenC05:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The probable truth is that no preference was intended either way, if you go to the Jordanian site (kinghussein.gov.jo) for the text, you find that they have transcribed it there as Baqura/Naharayim (and Al-Ghamr/Zofar for Annex 1c). In which case, any false balance was there before my edit and my edit corrects it.Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! It would be nice if later usage was consistent. This is the only time I've seen Tel Or applied to the power house itself (but maybe I forgot one). To clarify "halt", I believe it is a place where trains will stop on request, not quite a station. Zerotalk07:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the letter is dated 4 months after the newspaper announcement that I posted above. (Which isn't a contradiction since the letter is to inform the railways and not to announce names just adopted.) Zerotalk07:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The PEC became IEC (Israel Electric Company) (this process was completed in 1954). Later, IEC sold part of their lands in Naharayim (the island between the Jordan River and the Naharayim lake and upper canal. which later became known as the 'peace island') to JNF, but still retains ownership of most of the land in the area. Israeli 'private' land ownership is the reason the Naharayim area was granted a 'special regime' status (article 3, section 8 of the 1994 Peace Treaty) (unlike Zofar area, by the way, which was granted this status because of de-facto Israeli agriculture land use rights). On a side note, since it's a private Israeli land, the Jordanians cannot work there, unless the land is leased to them. This may also constitute a base for a future 'special regime' agreement in Naharayim, when Israeli-Jordanian relations will improve. Middle East peace anyone? Yerushalmi (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peace does not equate leasing a part of Jordan's sovereignty in a "special regime". Middle East peace comes when Israel leases its de facto sovereignty over the West Bank to the Palestinians, but that's for another discussion elsewhere. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the 1994 treaty, Israel recognized Jordanian sovereignty over Naharayim. I think that in this case, both parties claimed the area, and a compromise was reached. recognizing Jordan sovereignty on one hand, and affirming Israeli land ownership on the other hand. I think this is beautiful. You have to compromise to make peace, and it seems that the two brave leaders of those countries at the time did so. Yerushalmi (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The annex recognized Jordan's sovereignty and placed restrictions on that sovereignty. Israeli private property rights are respected with or without the annex, as evidenced by the annex's expiration a couple of months ago. The annex allowed unrestricted entry for Israelis into the territory, the possibility of Israeli police entering the area unrestricted, tax exemptions and many other clauses that made Jordan's sovereignty mere ink on paper. Now that Jordan exercises full sovereignty over the area, as it does over every other inch of its land, the area can be visited and farmed by Israelis who must cross through an official border entry and obtain a visa like every other Israeli. Private property is still respected regardless of the annex. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. Peace cannot be done without compromises, which is what Hussein & Rabin understood. This is what matters. Yerushalmi (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you, good (apart from the names:). Now you mention it, I don't really understand how the Jewish workforce managed to get into TJ if it comes to that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it the case that as well as land sales to Jews being a no-no at the time, that Jews were not allowed to work in Jordan? (I know what probably happened was that everyone just looked the other way. I was just kidding you about the Jordanians not being able to work there).Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand your point. Well, without the concession, the Jewish village at Tel Or wouldn't exist, exactly because the restrictions you are describing. The British were very harsh with this restriction. In this case, the village was inside the concession and was deemed part of the power plant needs (housing for workers). I can give you another example - the concession of the Palestine Potash company, was also on both Palestine and TransJordan (Rabat Ashlag and Sodom). In Sodom (the southern end of the Dead Sea) the workers preferred to live in Safi, TransJordan (that had plenty of fresh water and fertile soil to grow food on) - but repeated requests were denied by the British, and they settled next to Mount Sodom (Jebel Usdum) in Palestine, and brought water from Safi by pipes. The difference between the two cases - the Palestine Potash concession was in Palestine & TransJordan, while the Jordan Electric concession was only in TransJordan. Yerushalmi (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we have some key dates and data grouped together here:
1905: Jezreel Valley railway opens, with eight stations, one of which is Jisr el Mujami, later translated in Hebrew as Gesher Nahalim [note this is Nahalim (meaning stream) not Naharayim]. (Gesher Museum: "One of eight original stations…")
21 September 1921 initial concession "to erect a power house near Jisr-el-Mujamyeh", subject to financing being obtained.
June 1928, "the Transjordanian government....created a new locality called Jisr al Majami" being the 6000 dunum area sold to PEC. Michael R. Fischbach (26 August 2008). Jewish Property Claims Against Arab Countries. Columbia University Press. pp. 82–. ISBN978-0-231-51781-2.
Aug 6, 1928, The Palestine Bulletin,page 3: "THE JORDAN ELECTRIC STATION. The Jordan electric station area, of the Palestine Electric Company, has been named as follows :— the residential quarter of the staff—"Tel Or," (Hill of Light) and the adjacent agricultural settlement "Naharaim" (Two Rivers)."
Feb 27, 1929 (the letter to Palestine railways from PEC.)"name of the works as a whole, including the labor camp, now bears the name 'Naharaim'", "the site of the powerhouse and the adjoining staff quarters, offices etc is called 'Tel-Or'". Halt line name changed from "Jordan halt" to "Naharaim"
9 June 1932 "First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House" opens
1937 Naharaim train station opened, with extra track built into the plant area (Gesher Museum: "Naharaim railway station was unique for two reasons. Designed in the European Bauhaus style, it was also the only station east of the Jordan. Originally, the Palestine Electric Corporation and its workers used Geser Nahalim (Jeser El Mujami) station. However, Electric Corporation founder Pinchas Rutenberg managed to persuade the mandate government to set up a station at the hydro-electric plant. Track was laid into the power plant and in 1937 Naharaim station was inaugurated.")
August 10th, 1948: Truce is signed between the Israeli and Iraqi forces in the Baqura-Sheiksh Hussein sector. Iraqi frontline was not on the international border (according to truce map)
April 3rd, 1949: Israel and TransJordan sign an armistice agreement. The agreement integrates the Israeli-Iraqi truce lines as the Israeli-TransJordanians armistice. The armistice line in Naharayim was drawn exactly in the middle between the Israeli and Iraqi truce lines.
27 August 1950 Israeli Army entered the area (1,380 dunams). The Israeli kibbutzim started to regularly work in the area (on the Israeli side of the armistice) from this point on.
26 October 1994: Israel withdraws from area and recognizes Jordanian sovereignty in Naharayim after the signing of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty, in which a 25-year special annex gave Israelis special rights in the area.
9 November 2019 special annex expires and the area is restored to Jordan's complete sovereignty.
I have as well. Since Naharayim was not annexed by Israel 1950-1994 then the correct term to described its "control" is military occupation, taking into consideration the fact that it was nevertheless on Israel's side of the ceasefire line. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide support for your claim that Israel not treating Naharayim (1949-1994, west of the armistice) as annexed. I have never seen a claim that Israel occupied an area which is inside the green line of 1949 armistice lines. Yerushalmi (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I more or less agree with you on this. Israel definitely did not acknowledge Jordanian sovereignty here until 1994. On the other hand, openly claiming Israeli sovereignty (as opposed to acting as if there was sovereignty) would have been contrary to the policy of not defining borders so I'll be surprised if such an official declaration was made. Zerotalk06:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it was under Jordanian sovereignty then it is occupied territory that was not annexed. It was occupied a year after the war’s end. https://youtu. be/rx-GZX9ntvM Footage of the Israeli military withdrawal in 1994. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have as well. Provided that the 1949 armistice line allocated part of Naharayim to Israel, I have elaborated on this matter. It's not simply a matter of a mistake. The chapter about this issue in the article should be improved. Yerushalmi (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Jordanian complaint to the UNSC was that armed forces had entered, not just tractors (though they would have complained about tractors too). It is implausible that tractors would be sent without armed protection anyway; this needs a source which is not an Israeli official source. Zerotalk03:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this was the complaint (S/1780 from Sep 11th, 1950). I agree it just sounds too funny if only tractors would enter, but that's what's written in 'Operation Naharayim' preparation file and in the report following the operation. Anyway, I'm not going to insist on this at all. IDF troops entered in that date or in a later date, in the end it doesn't really matter. I'm generalizing the above paragraph now. Yerushalmi (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't accept "The armistice line in Naharayim was drawn exactly in the middle between the Israeli and Iraqi truce lines" as a fact, since it contradicts the testimony of Bunche that the armistice line in this place was not discussed at Rhodes. However he does give that as a theory for the location of the line (S-PV.518). Most relevantly, he says "the truce map of 10 August 1948 shows the area involved as being in no-man's-land, except for the north-north-west tip, which was on the Israeli side of the truce line. At that time, this area was occupied by the forces of Iraq." It would be great to have that map. Zerotalk06:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1935 Palestine Electric Corporation General Scheme for the area around the First Jordan Power House
See the attached, which shows the difference between Naharayim, Tel Or, and Baqora (all three are shown) and illustrates the boundary of the Palestine Electric Corporation (PEC) land. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this needs fixing. The only concrete facts I have seen are that Naharayim was (a) the name of the workers settlement (which should be merged with Tel Or) that was applied by the PEC to the wider area of the works; and (b) the name of a train halt stop and later train station. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Were we to go by the PEC to Palestine Railways letter, that says that "Power House" + Staff quarters = Tel Or, "works as a whole" (presumably separate from Tel Or) is Naharaim.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So then we should describe it as the sources say ie the name that was given by PEC to the "works as a whole" (assumed to be the land then owned by PEC) including therein a site called Tel Or being the staff quarters plus Power House blah blah.Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be defined from canal to canal (in the 1935 diagram above). I think the land acquired is too broad, as this “in the vicinity of” map shows.
I think we should say something like: “defined by the Palestine Electric Corporation as the area of the power station’s “works as a whole”. The works were primarily situated in the Emirate of Transjordan; they stretched from the northern canal near the Ashdot Ya'akov in Northern Mandatory Palestine to the Jisr el-Majami in the south”.
How about "Naharayim was defined by the Palestine Electric Corporation in a letter dated 27 February, 1929 to Palestine Railways giving "proper names" to the "different quarters of our Jordan Works" one of these being the "works as a whole including the labour camp" to be called "Naharaim" and another being the site of the "Power House and the adjoining staff quarters, offices" to be called "Tel-Or". In total, the majority of the plant was primarily situated in the Emirate of Transjordan and stretched from the northern canal near the Ashdot Ya'akov in Northern Mandatory Palestine to the Jisr el-Majami in the south."? Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In common usage the terms "Naharayim" and "Tel Or" describe the same area, presumably because the definitions proposed by the PEC were just too subtle. This can been seen from multiple sources, most notably the official Survey of Palestine where the map states "Naharayim (Tel Or)". Other maps and documents mix the names up in various different combinations. And our article Tel Or is currently primarily describing the labour camp, which per the PEC was actually named Naharayim. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
