Talk:Battir

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Jordan occupation and annexation

This was changed from the incorrect "Jordanian era" to "Jordanian occupation and annexation" on December 9. It was reverted today, and I undid that revert, as the longer header is more correct, more informative, and in line with the next header in that section which reads "Israeli occupation". I remind my colleagues of the restrictions of WP:ARBPIA. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That change back in December 9, 2019 was undiscussed. Changeing it to be in line with the other West Bank articles. Huldra (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

PS: it is a bit absurd to have a headline "Palestinian control" ..when 3/4 of the area is Area C! Seriously....Huldra (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Jordan rule and Jordan annexation

The text "In the wake of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and after the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Battir came under Jordanian rule. It was annexed by Jordan in 1950." seems clearly preferable to "In the wake of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and after the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Battir came under Jordanian rule.", since it differentiates between "rule" and "annexation" which are two different things that happened at different times. I don't even understand why I need to explain such an edit here, what with all the experienced editors around. Debresser (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

To repeat what I have said on my talk-page: "My objection to it, is that he is WP:CHERRYPICKING info out of the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank article. I could of course cherrypick info out of, say the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, but I think we agree: (I hope we agree!) ..that controversial info should be in as few articles as possible (where all the info regarding any controversy can be presented)...and then we can link to those articles."

This is an issue relevant for all the hundreds of articles on Palestinian West Bank places. If we want to change that, then please have a RfC. Huldra (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

No Rfc is needed, since I am not planning to change 100 pages, just this one. There is no cherrypicking involved, as I said: this is a major clarification. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Most of the sources say Jordanian rule like here or this UN report. There is indeed cherry-picking going on here. Also, Debresser, you need to restore the status quo wording.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There is rule and then there is annexation. Not the same.

What is cherry-picking here? This is a major difference, and these were two separate events.

No serious arguments have been brought forth, so why should I restore some old version that is clearly inferior? Debresser (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Geographic areas are 'annexed', villages in them are not, except by implication. But, as I said, you need a source for that, and none, certainly not the one proffered, exists. Indeed that source introduced, was introduced under false pretenses since it governs the whole sentence about 'Battir' being annexed, giving the reader the impression that this is to be found in the source.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Nishidani. The ONUS is on those who seek to add that. And per WP:QUO the longstanding version should be implemented during the dispute until there is a consensus to change.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This argument was refuted at the Rfc, since what holds true for the larger entity holds true for the parts asa well, and that is not synthesis rather simple logic. Not to mention that the same has been done, on the insistence of editors like you, on all articles regarding Israeli settlements. Please cut out the hypocrisy. In addition, there is a source for Battir. And there is a majority of editors in favor of this change. Debresser (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Mixing Apples and oranges is a common error. International law states that all Israeli settlements are illegal. There is no analogy here. Jordan's rule/annexation of the West Bank did not consist of setting up illegal settlements of Jordanian carpetbaggers, and it was not recognized in International law. Indeed, the opposite of what occurred with Israel's occupation took place, massive movement for employment to Jordan. The attempt to coordinate paradigmatically the situation of Israeli rule/annexation and Jordanian rule/annexation is therefore POV pushing with no correlation in the factual record. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to try and endlessly set up analogies between what Israel does and (hence the activism recently here) intends to do in the West Bank with what Jordan did, and therefore seed in readers' minds the idea, 'Hey, what Israel does is what Jordan did, guys and gals, so there's an Arab precedent, and it's just anti-Semitic to single Israel out'. That is the subtext of the little 'arrangement' being organized over multiple articles by an editor or two perhaps excited by recent news that Wikipedia's I/P articles have to be re+written to re-establish the honour of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"This argument was refuted at the Rfc"- Um, it's still going on so I don't think you can say that. The best outcome for you will be if Nableezy suggestion gets the consensus, best thing is just to wait for the result.Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I never said the Rfc was closed. But the argument was refuted there in detail. Those are two separate statements, and one can be true without the other. Sigh. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier By the way, you may have noticed, that I have accepted and even thanked you for both your last edits. Which I say only to show that I am not fixed on any specific text, as long as it differentiates between rule and annexation.

I do think we should change "administration" back to "rule" as being the term used in most sources, and which IMHO expresses more clearly the situation, while "administration" sounds a bit like obfuscating the situation to me. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds rather like you are fixed on a specific text, the central RFC is still going on and I am thinking that I might suggest "administration" as being better than "rule" in the Nableezy formulation not because of Battir in particular but because I think that might be a good alternative to the debate around whether to rename Jordanian annexation of the West Bank (which presently includes pre and post annexation material). It is not an attempt to obfuscate, the situation there is not as clear cut as you are trying to make it seem.Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"That sounds rather like you are fixed on a specific text", really? I agreed to both your edits. Now if there is one word I think is more essential than others, that does not mean I am fixed on a specific text.

Please note that Nableezy's proposal also says "rule" and not "administration". And rightfully so. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There is little point in further discussion of this here, Battir is just a specific instance of the general case. I have made a comment at the central RFC. If it turns out that there is a central decision to use rule, then this particular case will also change. Note that it is yourself that persists in treating this particular case as some sort of exception rather than waiting for a central outcome.Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect again. There is a sourced that is specific for Battir, and that makes this a whole other ballgame. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I must be blind, where is it? And even if there is, provided that there was no contradiction, it should not affect a central consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Ancient period at lead

Hi @Huldra, I'd be happy to know do you keep removing the earlier history of the village from lead. Yes, we do have a dedicated article for Betar, so I agree there is no reason to expand on it in this article. However, Betar is an of course notable part of the village's history, the site of one of the most decisive battles of the Bar Kokhba revolt. I believe that removing the reference to Betar from lead creates a false impression that the village was founded only during the Byzantine period, while it can be traced back to much earlier. How is it possible that Battir has an ancient irrigation system, praised for being 2,000 years old, if it was only established during the Byzantine period? Tombah (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If you actually read the page there is no trace of any 'false impression that the village was founded only during the Byzantine period'.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

As Nishidani says. In addition, the UNESCO page says nothing about Betar, nor anything about the Byzantine period. It states that "The village of Battir, which developed on the outskirts of this cultural landscape, and was inhabited by farmers who worked and still work the land, attests to the sustainability of this system and to its continuation over at least a millennia", Huldra (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources, with the earliest ones written during the 19th century, that identify Battir with ancient Betar, and it is only logical that the farmers who had built the famous terraces were then residents of Betar, because that was the villages name two thousand years ago!

It is correct that UNESCO does not mention it, and I really don't know why. In any case - it means that Battir's history can be traced back to an earlier period than the Byzantine period, and I believe that should appear on lead. Starting Battir's history with the Middle Ages is ignoring a part of history the village is today notable for, even if it had another name back then. Tombah (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

External links

Further information: Wikipedia: External links

The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, was expanded to 10 entries. Consensus needs to determine inclusion or exclusion when contested.

• A tag indicates concerns about links. However, none is needed for article promotion.

Some links may be included in WP:ELNO, or What Wikipedia is not (policy) such as WP:NOTREPOSITORY or Others, listed below:

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.

The External links guideline This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

• WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:ELDEAD may apply as well as WP:ELOFFICIAL.
• In some cases ELCITE applies: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
  • Please also note:
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. Please do not add back more links without consensus. Simple solution to facilitate career maintenance tag. Move links here for discussion.

Moved links:

• Battir Village (Fact Sheet), Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem (ARIJ)
• Battir Village Profile, ARIJ
• Battir Village Area Photo, ARIJ
• The priorities and needs for development in Battir village based on the community and local authorities’ assessment, ARIJ
• www.battir.i8.com
• Battir village photos
• Battir Video -- Otr500 (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

None of these links are official links, so ELOFFICIAL and ELMIN don't apply. Also the response to ELCITE violations should be to fix them, which is less work than moving them here, but in any case there were no such violations. Why are you wasting our time with false assertions?

Anyway, the "priorities" link is not needed because it is on page 22 of the Village Profile link. The i8.com link can go as it is not of great quality. The Battir village photos link is dead. The ARIJ links (other than the "priorities" link) are good and enhance the article, and I don't know of a single link that covers them. The IAA link (still in the article) should be replaced by a displayed map. With these changes I disagree that the number of links is excessive. Zero^talk 11:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

To editor Otr500: You didn't actually dispute any ELs, which would require you to examine their content. You only disputed the overall EL section, which is not what ELBURDEN is for. I notice that you are putting the same list of policy links on multiple talk pages without any explanation of why they apply. You are just asserting "there's a dispute" and demanding that other editors form a consensus. That's not how it works. Consensus is not a vote, it depends on quality of argument and so far you haven't provided any argument at all. Zero^talk 12:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Given no response, I'm restoring and trimming as indicated. Zero^talk 12:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, see Talk:Jabel_Mukaber#External_links, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Bibliography section

The list of publications appears broad, and the section name is not sufficiently defined. There needs to be a discussion to determine if the section content swings into What Wikipedia is not such as Wikipedia is not a directory or Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, everything in the Bibliography section is cited in the References. This is a common way of organizing citations and the section names are the standard ones. This does not need a discussion. Zero^talk 11:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Source review

The Zeichmann, Christopher B., source titled "Same-Sex Intercourse Involving Jewish Men 100 BCE–100 CE", used to support the content The Warren Cup is also said to have been found near Battir. The title is biased and to me antisematic. Regarding concerns, an opinion was offered, "Moreover, the "Same-sex..." source in a peer-reviewed academic journal is a perfectly fine reference for the Warren Cup for reasons you can read at Warren Cup". I am not sure if leaving a reader hanging -- unless or until they read another article -- is a good goal.

Issues: Supporting content is located in a numbered section 5: "The Warren Cup". The section deals with the cup in some detail. It mentions the provenience and that the origins are not well documented. It mentions questionable authenticity, who the cup[s] may have belonged to, and several other things. Section 6 does discuss things along the lines of the title, but I see no indication that the sexual exploits of Jewish men have anything to do with the cup or who might be depicted on it, since the evidence does not appear to identify them as Jews. This makes the title deceptive, derogatory, and I would say, false, which should be changed.

The source may be considered "acceptable" but I question why the title would not be more appropriate as the "Warren Cup" and source section 5 included, except for being a POV push? -- Otr500 (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Our text does not state that the cup is authentic, nor does it state that it was found at Battir. We have a whole article Warren Cup where the opinions of reliable sources on those matters is discussed. Here we only say that it is "said to have been found" near Battir, which is a simple statement of the facts that is sufficient given its minor importance to this article. As for the source, complain to the author or the journal if you don't want scholars to research such topics, but you won't get anywhere. Meanwhile, we don't censor the titles of journal articles, and accusing an editor of POV-pushing for citing a source correctly is rather pointless. Zero^talk 03:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, we only need one reference that the Warren cup was found near Battir, the Zeichmann -reference could be moved to the Warren cup (where, strangely, it isn't mentioned). And to call the title anti-semitic (which I assume is the word you meant), could be seen as homophobic, Huldra (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)