Talk:Auja al-Hafir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content[edit]

I belive that this Neutral zone should be better described, with an appropriate template. If you belive that some other template should be used, feel free and create it. Also it is highly unacceptable to remove my editing as false simply because I used the content of "today" sources to better describe the article. The place carried four names al-Auja, Al-Auja al Hafir, El Audja el Hafir and El Audja. There also exist more Egyptian like names. When I tryed to find El Audja this article was not found. Etc. -- Imbris (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

Auja al-Hafir is located in Israel
Auja al-Hafir
Auja al-Hafir (Israel)

I do not see any problem with my editing, Palestinian Arabic is official in Israel. And if we are talking about a historical location we can use the orriginal language. -- Imbris (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was completely incorrect. I'm not sure you understand which Auja is referred to (there are several of these in the Middle East, and at least two on the former Mandate of Palestine territory), so I have provided a location map for your convenience. Moreover, there is no such place as 'History of Palestine', so please comply with WP:NC/WP:NCGN/WP:PLACES. The village was located in the British Mandate of Palestine territory, and it was eventually abandoned in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. There is also no 'd' in the name (عوجة الحفير), I'm assuming you can read Arabic, and any Arabic transliteration method you care to use will not have such a 'd'. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem in using just the title El Audja el Hafir without the sufix history of Palestine. I disagree that the El Audja was lastly mentioned in the context of the British Mandate of Palestine. I think that it would be better to lastly mention that location in the context of the DMZ between Egypt and Israel. I am aware of different places that are named in simmilar fashion but I do not see any reason to use al-Auja when El Audja is accurate enough. Using al-Auja is dubious because it is could be mixed up with Al-Awja, Al-Auja, or Al-Ouja is a poverty stricken village east of Tikrit, in Iraq. Nevertheless all names should be listed. -- Imbris (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imbris, Wikipedia has certain policies and guidelines regarding place names, some of which I have linked to above and you should take the time to read. For example, a completely incorrect transliteration ('al-Audja') should not be used because of possible confusion. It is not 'accurate enough', and the WP:MOSAR guideline doesn't leave much space for ambiguity. In cases like this, the name is used, followed by the geographical entity it is located in. For example, the village Kabul is in Kabul, Israel in order not to confuse it with the city in Afghanistan. The argument here is strictly policy-based, and not content-based. I realize that you might not be familiar with many Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and again ask you to take the time to read them. I will revert your changes if no policy-based counter-argument is made. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content wise is more important[edit]

Your attempt to drag the policies of Wikipedia into a content dispute is not a good way to solve anything. El Audja is a valid name and could be used. As a compromise I used El Auja. But there can be no compromise between using a false mentioning of the British Mandate in Palestine because the British left and chaos started. Before the DMZ was integrated into Israel (by an agreement of Egypt and Israel) it was a Demilitarized Zone and not the British Mandate in Palestine. You have not offered any comment on the "content" of the title but keep insisting I read policies. This can be a good advice but not a good way to solve anything. Also I do not see any reason for not including the el Hafir part of the article's name. Your thoughts please. -- Imbris (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The demilitarized zone isn't even notable. There were at least 5 distinct DMZs after the war, and we can further divide that into smaller ones to create at least 7 DMZs. There's nothing to say about them though. What can you write about a DMZ? Cross-border problems should go into other articles named completely differently, for example an article called Israel–Egypt relations. There's nothing content-based in this argument because there is no content related to the DMZ. The article is about the village, which existed before the State of Israel, in the mandate, and did not exist after the creation of the state. It can't really be any more clear, and I'm sorry that you ignored my previous statements.
So, again, this is entirely a policy-based and not content-based argument. It's also about consistency with other similar articles. Articles where disambiguation is needed are written as the place named, followed by the district or country name. For exmaple, Al-Nabi Rubin, Acre is another former Arab village in the mandate. I'd add the district to this article too, but am unsure what district it belonged to.
About Auja vs. Auja al-Hafir—again policy-based (WP:ENGLISH). All English maps refer to the place as al-Auja or a variation thereof, without the 'al-Hafir' (for example this one, as much as I hate to bring PR.com into this). I neither know nor care about this point, but it's again a policy-based argument. The al-Hafir seems to be something that is only used in Hebrew and Arabic, not in English.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise[edit]

If we have to decide on the most appropriate title of this article (which best describes a former village in Palestine) we must ask ourselves:

  • Would adding more identificators make it easier to find?
  • Why disputing a name which "better describes" the article's content?
  • Why claiming that a shorter variant is better when it is just one of the variants?
  • Why claiming that a speaker of the English language would be better suited with a shorter name?

There are other villages in former Palestine that have articles on this Wikipedia in the form XXX al-YYY

As a compromise I suggest we use Auja al-Hafir as the main part of the title.

As a sufix of the title we could use a former District name to which Auja al-Hafir belonged but we should also mention the fact that it was a DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) in Palestine before it was attached to Israel. It was not the part of the British Mandate of Palestine before the attaching it to the State of Israel but was a part of the Palestinian territories in the time of creation of the State of Israel and then it was a DMZ in Palestine.

Some sources:

Imbris (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a comment that it is just this fact of a DMZ in Palestine which makes the village worthy of analysis thus mentioning the DMZ is of great importance towards correct representation of the village. The DMZ's are not a set of the "same stuff" but each and every is different and only a subset in the DMZ set. -- Imbris (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is named Auja al-Hafir, there doesn't need to be a suffix. Not sure what the point of the above sources was (other than to prove my point that the place is called primarily al-Auja in English), but I am willing to compromise on simple Auja al-Hafir. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 01:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Auja al-Hafir, Beersheba is a good title. -- Imbris (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there is no reason to disambiguate if 'al-Hafir' is added, simply because it's the only place named Auja al-Hafir. I will move it to Auja al-Hafir if there are no objections. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 02:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was your idea to add the former district name, and it would be prefferable because of the smallness of that village, counting only 48 Arabs by one source's account. -- Imbris (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the argument here is policy-based, it has nothing to do with the village's population. Obviously the article cannot be named simple 'Auja' or 'al-Auja', because another article by that name already exists, so according to Wikipedia naming conventions, the region/country it's located in should be appended. However, when there is no article by the same name, the appendix is not needed. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then. -- Imbris (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Auja al-Hafir. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution 108[edit]

"Calls upon both parties forthwith to take all steps necessary to bring about order and tranquillity in the area, and in particular to desist from further acts of violence and to continue the cease-fire in full force and effect;" is not the same, or even similar to "Despite [108] Israel re-militarized the area on September 21, 1955." That part is still unsourced, and not supported by the text of UNSCR 108. Here come the Suns (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, I can hardly understand you with all your spelling mistakes.
Anyway "and in particular to desist from further acts of violence and to continue the cease-fire in full force and effect; (my bolding): obviously Israel did not follow this, when it established a fortified settlement in the zone.
That Israel wanted to take over de-militarized is not unique to the Auja zone; they did the same in the DMZ with Syria, see eg Al-Hamma Incident: there the Israel soldiers were disguised as policemen: needless to say, the Syrians were not fooled. (Neither was the UN) Huldra (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion that establishing a Nahal outpost in the DMZ is an "act of violence" or a violation of the ceasefire is of no interest to me nor is it of relevance here. If you want the article to make that claim, you need to find a source that says that, and UNSCR 108 does not. Here come the Suns (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Check Morris: Israel's Border Wars, Huldra (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here to do your homework. If you want the article to say what I had removed, bring a specific source. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source is in the article: Morris: Israel's Border Wars, p. 356. Huldra (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is the source for the original name of the outpost, not for anything related to UNSCR 108. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked that? I don't have the book presently, but I read it when I was working on the Al-Hamma Incident and Al-Hamma, Tiberias. Morris have a lot about the covert way the Israelis worked to take over the de-militarized zones. (Hmm. I think I will get hold of that book, again) Huldra (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - did you just say that you don't actually have the book, after confidently telling me that page 356 supports what you added to the article? You just made that up? This kind of editing should be taken to WP:AE. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the Morris source today? Yes or no, Huldra (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are seriously mistaken as to which one of us has the onus to support the sentences they have added to the article. And you have just basically admitted to lyingyou made things up when you claimed that Morris p.356 supports the sentences you added to the article, as you do not have the book in your possession and could not check it. I think WP:AE is next for you. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you the source that was in the article. Again: have you checked the Morris source today? Yes or no, Huldra (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source was in the article to support a different claim ("The first name given to this Nahal outpost was Giv'at Rachel.[21])" You claimed it also supported the stuff about 108, obviously without checking if it did, since you do not possess the book, as you admitted. I did not and do not need to check anything - the onus is on people making claims to support them. You claimed Morris supports it, without looking at Morris. Simply put: you lied, and Your editing needs to be looked at at WP:AE. Here come the Suns (talk)
Please stop your WP:NPA. If you have not checked Morris, how can you say what Morris support or not? Huldra (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Describing what you did is not a personal attack. I am under no obligation to check your claims for you, I asked for the source. You claimed that p. 356 in Morris supports it, and did so without checking Morris. You lied. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't verify page numbers in the cited edition of Morris, since I have the paperback edition. There, the fact that Ketzi'ot (as Morris spelt it) was a military base despite Israel's claims, that it was an armistice violation, and that Israel stopped pretending on Sept 20/21 1955 by sending in major forces and taking over the Mixed Armistice Commission office, is all on page 373. The UNSC resolution is not on that page but I don't think we need it. Zerotalk 08:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at that page now, and you are misrepresenting what it says. It does not say it was a violation of the armistice agreement, it the that the Egyptians claimed it was such. It doesn't say it was a military base, but rather that it was a Nahal outpost that "functioned like" one. And needless to say, contrary to Huldra's assertion, it does not mention 108 at all or taht the Israeli actions violated 108, which is the sentence I removed.
The presentation in Morris is a fair description of the events- Egypt and Israel differed in their interpretations of the Armistice terms, both sides violated the terms and accused the other side of doing so etc..
The presentation in this article is one sided POV-pushing. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A place that functions as a military base is a military base. ("Stop complaining, Moscow, that wasn't a nuclear bomb but just a box that functioned as one.") The armistice agreement says "The area comprising the village of El Auja and vicinity, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, shall be demilitarized, and both Egyptian and Israeli armed forces shall be totally excluded therefrom." (my emphasis) The dispute was not over the wording of the agreement but over whether Israel had violated it. When Morris wrote that Ketzi'ot functioned as a military base contrary to Israel's claims, and in the next paragraph writes of "Nahal troops at Ketzi'ot", he is saying clearly that Israel was in violation. In Righteous Victims (p285) he is even clearer: "But in September 1953 Israel established a permanent military camp, in the form of a Nahal outpost, inside the DMZ. The troops mounted patrols and ambushes against the Bedouin. Israel argued—falsely—that the outpost, named Giv'at Rachel, was not a military base." Zerotalk 23:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. I might regularly house guests in my home, making it function like a hotel, but that does make my house a hotel. But this is a rather minor point. The main point is the that Morris presents violations of the agreement by both sides, and claims and counter claims by each side, whereas the article paints a one sided picture. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Morris again Benny Morris (25 May 2011). Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. pp. 478–. ISBN 978-0-307-78805-4.Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The full chain of events of 1949 and on (Israel section)[edit]

As of now - the description in the "Israel" section of the article does not provide the full chain of events. For example, the reason Ktzi'ot was established, and the reason a re-militarization of the zone was made in 1955 by Israel (and the fact that Israel cleared it afterwards, and following an Egyptian military move, re-militarized it the second time) etc. As of now, the article only describes the Israeli measures and not the Egyptian measures, thus providing a one-sided view (i.e. as if, Israel was acting on its own, not responding to other actions). The data about Egypt that I added is based on Morris' "Israel Border Wars". This book is alreay the cited source for the Israeli actions that are already described in the article. Therefore, I ask why adding the descriptions of the Egyptian actions constitutes 'highly biased edits', as the distinguished user Zerotalk had claimed. Yerushalmi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "In the second half of 1953, Egypt had encouraged Bedouins to move from its territory and settle 'Auja, in an effort to claim the area as part of Egypt" but you didn't mention that they were moving back to where they had lived before the war. Nor did you mention that it was an Israeli assessment that the movement was encouraged by Egypt for political purposes. Both of these are stated clearly by Morris. Then you inserted "as a counter measure" to give the impression that Israel's response was purely defensive, ignoring Israel's intention of asserting sovereignty over this enclave despite it not being designated part of Israel in the armistice agreement, which Morris notes over several pages. The rest of your insertion might as well have come from the Israeli MFA. All articles can be improved, but your changes were not improvements. Zerotalk 09:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree with you on most of your points. I think the change that this section of the article should get needs giving much more details, descriptions and sources, so no one could read it and interpret it in a specific way/agenda. It's purely military history. Yerushalmi (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PEQ[edit]

Ref invoked about 6-7 times:

Palestine Exploration Quarterly PEQ. (April 1941). The Negev, or Southern Desert of Palestine by George E. Kirk. London. Page 62.
  1. What is it? Normally we have author, date, title, page, etc. Is it a book review? Then pls say so & (if provided) its author. If not, and Kirk is the author of the article, then he belings first and out of the Italics.
  1. Any URL? PEF has uploaded lots of material. Expecting us to blindly believe unaccessible ref, and basing so much on out-of-reach material one cannot consult and expand on, is not ideal.

Arminden (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Padres Hana: hi. I see it was your contribution, and thank you for the very useful material. Did you use a hard copy? Or could you pls add a link to that PEQ issue? If it requires subscription, that can be added as "|url-access= subscription". Thanks! Arminden (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arminden: Sent by email. doi now in ref 5. Zerotalk 12:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Auja_al-Hafir&oldid=1199179058"