Talk:Neve Ativ

Jubata Ez-Zeit

There is currently a separate article for Jubata Ez-Zeit. I have taken some content from that article and added it to this one. Neve Ativ occupies the same location as Jubata Ez-Zeit did, and only a few years separate the destruction of one and the founding of the the other. So there should be information about Jubata Ez-Zeit in this article. I also think it is hard to make a legitimate case for having two separate articles. If it were otherwise, there would be multiple articles for every town or village that has ever seen a population change or a name-change or a short break in settlement continuity. Meowy 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also normal to give former place-names for a settlement, so my addition of the words "formerly Jubata Ez-Zeit" is correct. Meowy 16:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, you dont know what you are doing, "Jubata Ez-Zeit" was a Syrian village, it was destroyed and its population removed. The israeli settlement built on the same land as it has no connection to it. Neve Ativ has never been "formerly Jubata Ez-Zeit" I had one sentence linked to the other article and that was enough. You have copied the info to try to get the other one deleted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Without speculating on the motivation of Meowy, I agree with Supreme D that Neve Ativ has never been "formerly Jubata Ez-Zeit". Tzu Zha Men (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Villages that occupy the same location?. Chesdovi (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I commented there. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Without speculating on the motivation of Meowy" - what a pathetic comment to make. I wonder what sort of unholy, perverse, freak-of-nature alliance will evolve to oppose me if I persist in editing this article like it were any other Wikipedia article, since I assume both "sides" have their vested interests in POV-warring "Arab-Israeli-conflict" articles into forms not seen on other Wikipedia articles. In "normal" wikipedia articles, it is the location of a settlement that is its defining characteristic, not its name or its ethnic makeup or the specific structures within the settlement. We are not talking about an ancient city and a modern settlement, we are talking about the same settlement but with a population and name change. Meowy 18:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Coudl you be anuy more insulting? I made that comment to calrify that I don't agree with the statement that you are editing here in order to get thew other article deleted. We are not, howver, talking about the same settlment. We are talking about a new settlement, which may partially overlap some of the lands of the previous one (a fact which has noit been established by the way). Tzu Zha Men (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could be more insulting if you were to give me some tips - you seem adept at giving insults. However, I suggest that in future you assume good faith and resist writing weasily "speculating on the motivation" comments about editors. Meowy 19:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you hasve a reading comprehension problem? Another editor was speculating on your motives. I distanced myself from that speculation, and you find that insulting? Whatever.. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you interupted my process of editing my earlier comment. Meowy 20:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

..and I then lost the ammended edit somehow! I was going to say that your "speculating on the motivation" comment did sound decidedly weasily, and as such I felt it was worse than Supreme Deliciousness's one because he/she, though wrong in his/her "speculation", was at least up-front about it. You say you actually meant it to be something like "Supreme Deliciousness, don't speculate on the motivation of Meowy" - but that is not what you actually wrote, so I was entitled to take your words at face value. But I accept that is not actually what you meant and have struck out my earlier comment. I would appreciate you striking out your "Coudl you be anuy more insulting" and "Do you hasve a reading comprehension problem?" comments, since it was your initial vaguely-worded comment that started this. Meowy 20:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you sriking out the previous comment (and have done the same). I can see how my previous note might have been misinterpreted. To make things clear- I am not speculating on your motivation, and I don't think Supreme should, either. I do agree with them, though, that Jubata is nor a former name for Neve Ativ. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Meowy you have in the article written that Neve Ativ is "formerly Jubata Ez-Zeit" You have not provided one single source for this claim. You are making stuff up. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you denying that the settlement called Neve Ativ was called Jubata Ez-Zeit before 1968? Meowy 20:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Neve Ativ didn't even exist until 1972. Who are you? Why are you even editing this article when you obviously don't know anything about the subject?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for that tone or language. Make comments related to the issue, not the editor. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, as usual you are using unreliable sources. As a matter of fact, I don't know if it's a problem on my end, but the links you've used here are dead. Either way, the source is not reliable and unless you can provide appropriate sources of information for the article, it should be reverted to the previous state.Breein1007 (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me get that straight. You call a source "unreliable", and at the same time admit you have not actually seen the source because you have been unable to access it? And you think that gives you a justification for removing referenced content? Meowy 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't have that straight. I accessed the file through a cached version on Google. You know what they say about people who assume?Breein1007 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The link works for me, and it is a reliable source, "Arab Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Golan and co-authored by Declan Gannon, legal researcher Al- Marsad, and Dr. Ray Murphy, senior lecture Irish Center for Human Rights." you have removed the article without asking or getting consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Declan Gannon exists. He lives in Israel, is 29, straight and has an athletic body. He has a Master's Degree to boot! Ray Murphy is older and likes wearing blue shirts. Chesdovi (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify; you are speaking here of the authors of the report that has been in dispute. I have given it a citation template in the other article, as follows:

• Murphy, R.; Gannon, D. (2008), "Changing the Landscape: Israel's Gross Violations of International Law in the Occupied Syrian Golan", Al Marsad, the Arab Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Golan http://www.golan-marsad.org/pdfs/declans%20report.pdf {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

It seems to me that people using this report are using it to support a small paragraph on the village of Jubata Ez-Zeit, which was in the Golan Heights before the wars in the sixties. You should decide whether you want a distinct article for this village, or whether you want to describe the village in this article as the village which was previously on the site of the modern settlement. Having the same paragraph twice is not appropriate. Either work towards making the new article, and have a link to it from here; or if all the information is in THIS article, then the other should be a redirect. We seem to have at least some editors who want it both ways; to put the paragraph here AND provide it again as a distinct article. That's not appropriate. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I can agree that is a fair and appropriate compromise. But which will it be?Breein1007 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Two separate things, one Syrian village, and one Israeli settlement = two separate articles. The info about Jubata should be removed from this article and only one line linking to the other as I did from the beginning: [1] Chesdovi had made two separate posts here and here and based on the posts there I suggest that if someone still demands the removal of the Jubata article that a RfC should be opened first asking what other people think. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

An RfC might help. This whole topic area can get very heated, but an RfC might work to actually get some clear resolution. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

..Sigh.. It would probably just become a forum for Arab and Israeli perverse thinking. Any normal person would assume that readers of this encyclopedia article would want to know that present-day Neve Ativ was once Jubata Ez-Zeit, and that the inhabitants of the settlement when it was called Jubata Ez-Zeit were expelled and their lands confiscated and given to Israelis. But, for Arab nationalist like Supreme Deliciousness, making that clear would be impossible becasue it would mean making an explicit connection between Neve Ativ and Jubata Ez-Zeit, and that would mean having to acknowledge the existence of Neve Ativ. Meowy 15:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? It was Supreme Deliciousness who first added to this article the association between Neve Ativ and Jubata Ez-Zeit, and who did so correctly, with this edit. His first introduction of the village, given in it's own article, similarly acknowledged the existence of Neve Ativ and gave a link back to it. There's a reasonable question about whether we really need two articles or not, but it doesn't make any sense at all to say S-D has any problem acknowledging the existence of Neve Ativ, or describing the nature of their connection. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he wants separate articles, wants all Jubata Ez-Zeit content beyond a link removed from this article, and he is against making an explicit connection between the two periods of settlement using the words "formerly called". If there were only one article, "Jubata Ez-Zeit" would be redirected to "Neve Ativ" and I guess that in his eyes that would be legitimising the Israeli occupation. But Wikipedia should not be concerned about such personal opinions, it should only be concerned about reflecting the reality on the ground in the most encyclopedic way (and not creating parallel articles to go along with personal parallel universes). Meowy 15:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure; that is a much more reasonable description than what you said previously! Hard as it is in the whole area, we should try as far as possible to assume good faith all around, recognize that everyone has a POV, and avoid distracting into motives. The question is how best to have a suitably neutral encyclopedic article. Editors with all kinds of POV will contribute, but the end result should be neutral with respect to them all.

Two articles is a reasonable point of debate, and he's suggested an RfC. At this point I am inclined to think one article is enough, but I am open to counter arguments, and I am content to let editors continue to work on adding material. I certainly against "formerly called"; it's quite wrong. The location is the same, but there is a clear distinction between the earlier village and the subsequent Israeli settlement. "Neve Ativ" is not the name of the village formerly called Jubata Ez-Zeir. It is the name of a new settlement entirely, built at the same site. I agree that we should maintain a neutral POV here, and in my view the neutral POV would be to consider these are two quite distinct entities, seperate in time, in name, in legal status, in national affiliations and in population, sharing only a site. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see such a distinction. Same land, same location = same settlement, regardless of population, building, or name changes. You can change your clothes but you remain the same underneath. Meowy 21:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you disagree in good faith. I also recognize that we all have a POV of some kind. The position is vexed because both the strongly nationalist Israeli POV and the strongly nationalist Syrian POV are likely to have a vested interest in the outcome. Some settlers might prefer to say it is the same settlement with a different name, as a way of helping infer legality of the settlement. Some displaced occupants from before the war, or their supporters, might prefer to maintain a stronger distinction as a way of helping identify the new settlement as illegal.

That doesn't mean either of us have that particular motive in mind. My point is simply that you can't single out one resolution or the other as the one that is avoiding a nationalist POV of some kind.

I don't think you need any special political POV to appreciate that these are different settlements at one place. I think the distinction is obvious. Some places have a settlement with a continuity of history and occupation, and changes of name for the settlement. Some places have sharp discontinuities and no continuity of occupation, and clearly differentiated settlements on the same site. I think it is entirely normal to recognize distinctions between settlements with no overlap in time or population, all over the world. This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 69#Villages that occupy the same location?, and although you argued strenuously for your position, it seems to have no support from any other editor, whether previously involved in this specific case or not. That is just as I would expect; describing it as one settlement with two names strikes me as very odd.

I think the village pump discussion has this right. The neutral view is that there are two distinct settlements at this location. There was once a Syrian village. There is now an Israeli settlement. There's no overlap in time or population between them, and this is not a renaming of the older village. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

With that said, I think it is about time that we solve this problem. At this point, we have an existing article duplicated within another article, which is completely inappropriate and unnecessary. We haven't made any progress on this in several days, and I don't see everyone agreeing on the matter anytime soon. With that in mind, I am going ahead and removing the duplicated section from the Neve Ativ article and leaving the Jubata article as is. If in the future a consensus is reached deciding that it is more appropriate to include the information in the Neve Ativ article and delete the Jubata article altogether, then we can make that change at the time of the consensus. Breein1007 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted information. There is no rule against one article duplicating information that is in another article - there are many such articles on Wikipedia, and the content you removed is valid information for this article regardless of the future of the Jubata article. Meowy 03:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The future of the content in this article is very much so affected by the future of the Jubata article. They will not both continue to exist for very long. I would be happy to see the Jubata article deleted and leave the content here, but keeping both is inappropriate.Breein1007 (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Keeping both is inappropriate" is just an opinion. There are very many articles on Wikipedia that have content that is duplicated on other articles, and often on multiple articles - so duplication alone is not a good reason for removing content. The information you removed from this article is valid information for this article because it is about the origin of, and background to, the Neve Ativ settlement. Meowy 17:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Jubata article is not going anywhere, its time to remove all text about Jubata from this article and only have a link to the other. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Al Marsad

I deleted the citation of "Al Marsad" the publications of which should not be regarded as a credible source. It is a pro-Syrian, political organization who occasionally publishes anti-Israeli pamphlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinakohl (talk • contribs) 19:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This source also appears in Murphy, R.; Gannon, D. (2008), "Changing The Landscape: Israel's Gross Violation of International Law in the occupied Syrian Golan", Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 11, Cambridge University Press: pp. 139-174 {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help) p 151. The quote is Taiseer Maray explains the Israeli settlement programme in the Occupied Golan and in particular the settlement of Neve Ativ, which is built on the destroyed Arab village of Jubata Ez-Zeit. nableezy - 20:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A political manifesto (although in a form of a book) with an agenda overlapping that of the organization that was cited previously is yet not a credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinakohl (talk • contribs) 20:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law is a peer reviewed journal published by Cambridge University Press. It is without doubt a reliable source. Please go read WP:RS and do not continue removing content cited to such sources. nableezy - 20:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It publishes original research, political views and so on. None of which can be considered as solid, informative or unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinakohl (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to read the policies of this encyclopedia. Original research means a Wikipedia editor adding their own research into an article, citing an article published in such a source is not original research. Whether or not something is a political view is meaningless, and "biased" is a personal opinion. We have policies on what is a reliable source and what neutral point of view means. Repeatedly removing content from such sources is a quick way to get blocked from editing. nableezy - 21:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that Wikipedia has its own definition of the term "original research". I should have said not original research but an obviously biased political manifesto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinakohl (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if you think something is "an obviously biased political manifesto". This source is in a peer reviewed journal published by Cambridge University Press. That you do not like the contents does not matter. nableezy - 21:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is as good as that of the guy which you cited, Taiseer Maray. The reference you are trying to promote is not only biased, but the citation taken from it describes quotes from a local residence of the Golan Heights, Taiseer Maray. Cherry picking a testimony of a person cited in a research differs from citing the conclusion of that research, even if the research had not been politically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinakohl (talk • contribs) 22:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You have not read the source. That sentence is not from Taiseer Maray, it is in the article written by Declan and Gannon. And your opinion is of no use here. The actual paper, published in a peer reviewed journal from Cambridge University Press, says that Neve Ativ is built on the site of the destroyed Syrian village Jubata ez-Zeit. nableezy - 23:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law is a RS, and there is also another source confirming that Neve Ativ is built on Jubata ez-Zeit, I added it to the article: Dar, Shimon (1993). Settlements and cult sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean culture in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Illustrated ed.). Tempus Reparatum. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-86054-756-3. Also I removed the link to Moshavism in the see also section since that link is already in the article, and I re added the link to the Israeli occupied territories article since this settlement is built in Israeli occupied territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read the source well. It is indeed in that article except that it as a description of the quote from Taiseer Maray. If you had written "according to one Majdal Shams resident Taiseer Maray, Neve Ativ was..." then it would have been correct. Correct but not to be cited since it would still not have been a credible source which would have pulled the rug under your pro-Syrian agenda and after all, you can not accept that can you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinakohl (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true. The line on Neve Ativ being built on the site of Jubata ez-Zeit is from the authors of the report, and if you actually did read the report that would be easy for you to verify. nableezy - 01:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The link of Moshavim is more relevant than the link to Israeli Settlements, although I agree that both are not essential. Jubata ez-Zeit (a strange Latin name isn't it?) does not date to Roman period but perhaps was built over the destroyed ancient village that preceded it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinakohl (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial info should not be in WP first person, and better attributed to the source. --Shuki (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How is this controversial? Is there a single source that disputes that either Jubata ez-Zeit is a destroyed Syrian village or that Neve Ativ was built on the site of Jubata ez-Zeit? nableezy - 19:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Status sentence

There has been long discussion at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues about adding the illegality issue in all settlement article:[2] There is now consensus to have the sentence: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." in all relevant articles, but its not clear yet exactly where in the article, I have tried to open up a discussion at IPCCAI: [3][4] but I haven't gotten any replies to my latest posts. So now I'm just adding the sentence as I had explained at the IPCCAI discussion. If someone disagrees with the placement then we can discuss this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit

As usual, Supreme Deliciousness is doing all it can to push a POV and use non-neutral language in every article it touches. I have copyedited this article for neutrality and proper English. Supreme Deliciousness does not own the article and should find other topics to edit, as advised by administrators after their last round of sanctions.--Geewhiz (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Gilabrand, how its "non-neutral repetitive hogwash" or "push a POV and use non-neutral language" to have the information that this Israeli settlement is built on land where a former, destroyed Syrian villages once sat? How is the removal of this information "copyedited this article for neutrality" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ski resort section

The part about the ski resort should be derived from Mount Hermon ski resort Currently I just added the link but I think we should make the connection between the two articles better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy.other (talk • contribs) 08:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)