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)#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)