Talk:Al-Ram

Typos and notes.

Pringle, 1998, p. 180 writes that all those "mentioned between 1150 and 1152" have names that indicate that they are Christian. However, when we look at the sources, (RHH), then the dates are 1152 and 1160; I assume it is a Pringle-typo. (However, it could also be a RHH-typo: anyone with access to Bresc-Bautier please check).

Also, note that when Pringle (on the same page) refers to "Wilson,1880 b", then that is a 1976 reprint version of "Picturesque Palestine". And the original "Picturesque Palestine" has (irritatingly) no date. Pringle dates it to 1880; I have used the dates on the web.archive: 1881-1884. (Perhaps we should adopt the Pringle-date?) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Picturesque Palestine came out in four volumes. The first two volumes appeared in 1881, which I can say with confidence since they were reviewed in The Times on Sep 23 and Dec 26 of that year. In each case the review states that the volume had just appeared. Volume 3 appeared in early 1883 (Pall Mall Magazine, Feb 16). I didn't find volume 4 for sure, but I see all 4 volumes advertised as a set in 1886. Zero^talk 00:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

More information: it was first published in monthly sections to subscribers only, starting at the end of 1880. That can explain why 1880 is given sometimes despite 1881 being when "volume 1" appeared. (Glasgow Herald, Dec 2, 1880) I see issue 39 mentioned in July 1884. Zero^talk 00:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Could that be issue 29? Otherwise "an issue" is less than a chapter, as:

vol 1: 3 chapters

vol 2: 9 chapters

vol 3: 11 chapters

vol 4: 6 chapters

I`m aiming to have a nice, "already made" ref here, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, definitely 39. Issue 29 already appeared in Nov 1882. I wonder if the subscription series had more content than the four volumes. Zero^talk 02:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

:Ok, since we only use vol 1 here: that is definitely 1881, then. And some of the chapters were quite long; they might have been divided in parts. Most authors who published like this (say, Dickens) published the full account later. With manual typesetting, re-editing was costly. Cheers, & thanks, Huldra (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have noted this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine/Books, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Jordanian rule

Some editors are very keen on equalling Israeli occupation to "Jordanian occupation" 1948-67.

This is rather outrageous.

For one thing: Jordan annexed the West Bank in the 1950, so then inhabitants of Al-Ram then had equal rights with inhabitants of, say Amman. When the people of Al-Ram have equal rights with inhabitants of say, Tel Aviv, ..then we can discuss the issue again. Huldra (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, typically Encyclopedia Britannica does of course not use it; it does not have an entry for Al-Ram, but look at its entry for Jenin, Huldra (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

annexation and occupation are not mutually exclusive, as I am sure you will agree when we discuss the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem, or of the Golan heights. The Wikipedia article you are linking to is called Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - let's dispense with the whitewashing efforts. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Occupation has a specific legal meaning. Under international law the proper status of Jerusalem is that of corpus separatum. After the 1948 war, the international community didn't recognise either Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem or Jordanian sovereignty over East Jerusalem. However, neither did they consider either place to be under occupation. Since 1967, the view with regard to Israeli control of West Jerusalem hasn't changed, though East Jerusalem is now considered to be occupied by Israel. Your insistence on claiming that anywhere in East Jerusalem was under Jordanian occupation in the period from 1948 to 1967 is POV pushing.     ←   ZScarpia   02:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion - of whether or not a Corpus Seperatum can be "occupied" - might have been somewhat academically interesting, but as A-Ram was not part of the Corpus Sepratum (whose northernmost border ram south of Beit Hanina, which is well South of A-Ram itself - see http://imeu.org/map/jerusalem-and-the-corpus-separatum-proposed-in-1947) it is a Red Herring. The article linked to is called Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - let's dispense with the whitewash. Brad Dyer (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If Al-Ram is outside the corpus separatum zone, the position is even simpler, but makes no difference to the position regarding its status as occupied or not occupied however. Under internation law, neither of the areas ruled by Israel and Jordan between 1948 and 1967 on either side of the Green Line were considered occupied. The article linked to is called Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. So what? If you look at that article's talkpage, you'll notice that the article's title isn't exactly popular. If you really consider the original version of the wording of this article neutral, you should also be quite happy referring to the areas under Israeli rule from 1948 as being areas of Palestine under Zionist occupation shouldn't you? Let's see you put your keyboard where your mouth is and dispense with, what should be in your terms, another piece of whitewashing. How about starting by creating an article called "Zionist occupation of parts of Palestine from 1948"?     ←   ZScarpia   12:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you don't like Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. The problem is it was desperately tried to moved twice but there was no consensus. So now you're trying to change the terms elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see WP:DEADHORSE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you have things round the wrong way. Check the version histories. That the West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan are assertions made by Israel and Israeli supporters in order to argue that those places are now rightfully Israel's. The assertions appear to be little supported elsewhere. To state them in the form of a fact in Wikipedia is to push a point of view. The word 'occupation' has legal significance: it means that the Geneva Conventions apply to a particular territory. As far as I can determine, nobody, particularly UN bodies, had ruled that the Geneva Conventions were applicable to territories west of the Jordan River between 1949 and 1967. Significantly, the majority of Israeli assertions about Jordan having occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem date to after the 1967 war. Ask yourself whether you'd accept the term being used to describe the regime in areas captured by Israel before the the end of the 1948 war and, using a bit of effort to suppress political prejudices, you just maybe might be able to see the problem.     ←   ZScarpia   14:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to support my point, but thank you. Your OR arguments belong, if anywhere, at Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. As stated, you lost the argument there and now have begun pushing your OR at every article that uses the term "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank" by reverting multiple editors. This is ripe for AE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the major contributors to the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank, you can see it was started by IZAK (with the word “occupation), and later dominated by editors like Izak, Gilabrand and Chestovi. The naming of the article has always been based on “brute force” (“who can muster the most editors/socks”), and not by argument. I agree that “fighting it out” on each and every place on the West Bank is not a good idea (to put it mildly). I think WP:M should be the next stop for naming of the article. Huldra (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"brute force". nice. surely that's also how you would describe how your preferred wording keeps on being maintained in this article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You forgot socks... Huldra (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank article is a mini-version of the Jerusalem article in which a group of Zionistically-minded editors claimed, by a show of hands, a consensus for stating as facts that Jerusalem was in Israel and Israel's capital, then filibustered for ten years to stop the wording from being changed. Finally, outside editors were appointed to judge the neutrality of the article's wording and it was changed. Obviously, consensus is supposed to be reached by judging the merits of arguments. Difficulties arise, as they did in the Jerusalem article, when partisan editors ignore the policy definitions and insist that their own side's opinions are both 'factual' and 'neutral'.     ←   ZScarpia   23:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer, I don't see anything in my comment which supports your position, so I'd suggest that you've probably misread it. The last time I looked, the argument at the article mentioned was still underway. There, I listed a UNISPAL document which details the post-1948 history of the occupied territories. It serves as an example of a document which refers specifically to areas taken by Israel in 1967 as 'occupied' (that is, areas under military rule where Geneva Convention articles relating to the taking of territory by the force and the transferring of populations apply) while areas captured by Israel and Jordan in 1948 are described as Israeli-ruled and Jordanian-ruled. This document describes how, post-1967, supporters of Israel started making arguments such as that Israel was the successor to the British mandate and that areas controlled by Jordan had been 'occupied' in order to bolster Israel's claim that those areas were now legitimately Israeli sovereign territory.     ←   ZScarpia   22:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Golan Heights article has the words "occupation" and "settlements", even though it was annexed just like Jordan annexed the West Bank/Judea-Samaria. So why a different standard? Yuvn86 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Consider: you won't find a single UN document that refers to either the territory that came under Jordanian control or that coming under Israeli control post-1948 as 'occupied' (even West and East Jerusalem and even though military rule was applied to Arab residents of the latter for decades), whereas the UN's standard position is that that is the status of the areas taken by Israel in 1967. Though I could hazard guesses, I'm not really certain what the answer to your question is. What concerns us here, in making judgements about neutrality, though, is whether there are different opinions as to the status of the West Bank in the period 1948-1967 or only one common one. My opinion, based on sources, is that the view that the West Bank was under Jordanian occupation during that period is contested and that therefore the article should be presenting it, if it is presented, as a viewpoint rather than as a fact. You say that the West Bank was annexed 'just like' the Israeli-occupied territories. Some differences you may like to keep in mind are that, after the annexation, representatives of both West and East Bankers voted on the union, that Jordanian citizenship was given to the West Bankers, that Palestinians formed the majority in the new, unified state and that Jordanian military rule of the West Bank existed for a fairly short time, especially compared to Israeli military rule of Arabs residing in areas which came under Israeli control in the 1948 War and areas occupied in 1967. It is in the question of whether an area is under military rule which largely determined whether an area is 'occupied' and therefore subject to the terms of the Geneva Conventions.     ←   ZScarpia   22:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to contradict yourself here. Only the UK and Pakistan recognized the annexation, right? then that means that the majority countries didn't really see it as part of the Jordanian kingdom, and so even then were probably considered disputed territories. Yuvn86 (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Socks

Simon Wtekni: This account is a suspected sock puppet of Wlglunight93 and has been blocked indefinitely.     ←   ZScarpia   14:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted Dubstep_gen, giving as a reason that the 1RR restriction was violated. Looking again I see that, contrary to what I thought, Dubstep_gen's two reverts were not actually done on the same day and therefore 1RR was not actually violated. I, for reasons previously given, have left the revert in place though.     ←   ZScarpia   22:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubstep_gen just blocked as another Wlglunight93-sock, Huldra (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Ram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814125517/http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=547 to http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=547

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)