Talk:Headwater Diversion Plan (Jordan River)

Successful?
Successful? To whom? The projects were completed but gave Israel power of distribution, that is not a success for Jordan. Evidenced by the events in last set of droughts...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This statement is sourced to a reliable source. Israel's NWC was successful for Israel, Jordan's Eash Ghor Canal was successful for Jordan. NoCal100 (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

find the quote please. Because I have quotes to say it was unsuccessful..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The refernce is in the article. Click on it and search for this sentence: "two major successful projects were undertaken: the Israeli National Water Carrier and Jordan's East Ghor Main Canal.", or look in section C.4 - it's the first paragraph. NoCal100 (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

These problems can be seen to have emerged in 1999, when the treaty’s limitations were revealed by events concerning water shortages in the Jordan basin. A reduced supply of water to Israel due to drought meant that, in turn, Israel which is responsible for providing water to Jordan, decreased its water provisions to the country, provoking a diplomatic disagreement between the two and bringing the water component of the treaty back into question./// Ha'aretz ‘A dry Israel must cut water flow to Jordan’ by A. Cohen, 15th March 1999 as quoted in Hydro-Peace in the Middle East: Why no Water Wars?: A Case Study of the Jordan River Basin SAIS Review - Volume 22, Number 2, Summer-Fall 2002, pp. 255-272 and Allan John Anthony, (2001) The Middle East Water Question: Hydropolitics and the Global Economy I.B.Tauris, ISBN 1860648134 p 220///
 * This refers to a much later agreement, from 1994, and has NOTHING to do with the success of the two named projects. NoCal100 (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you measure success?...The project was development through sharing water resources..Jordan lost control of the water resource as Galilee was the major storage point under Israeli control...Jordan receives 17% of the Johnson plan water allocation while Israel receives 198%. if one measures the success by the amount that one receives then the project from Jordan's perspective was a failure. If the project is to be measured by development again the project for Jordan was a failure...May I suggest you remove the word success and leave it that the projects were completed....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, you measure it by what reliable sources say. The given source says it was successful - end of story. NoCal100 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And RS sources say ultimately it was not a success...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not include them both?  "According to sources ABC, this was a success, though according to sources XYZ, it was not."  Remember, we're not here on Wikipedia to decide disputes, we're here to describe disputes. --Elonka 05:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The second source does not mention the success (or lack thereof) of the NWC or the East Ghor projects - it refers to the challenges introduced by the Israel-Jordan Peace agreement of 1994, and the water sharing clauses contained in it. It is original research to try and use that in order to claim the projects were not successful, and the given reference does not support that claim. NoCal100 (talk)`

Should references which clearly show lack of success use the word success?....The word success should be removed or internal contradictions exist...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The references should refer, explicitly, to the NWC and the East Ghor Canal projects, if you want to make claims with regards to those projects. Otherwise, it is original research. NoCal100 (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't...The ref refers to water sharing and the only water sharing is the NWC and the East Ghor Canal projects...So the ref does refer to those projects...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if they were the only projects and only water sharing schemes, the references would still have to refer, explicitly, to the NWC and the East Ghor Canal projects and say these were unsuccessful (not merely that there were problems) if you want to make such a claim with regards to those projects. But it is simply false that these are the only water sharing schemes - as a new agreement was reached din 1994, and that is what your source is referring to. In contrast, the source I've provided explicitly refers to the NWC and Ghor canal, and explicitly says they were successful projects. Please stop removing well sourced material and replacing it with original research. NoCal100 (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect it only has to refer to water sharing schemes as the only water share schemes on the Jordan were the NWC and East Ghor it would be un-necessary to refer to anything else...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, you are wrong - these are not the only water sharing schemes - the Israel-Jordan peace agreement provides for another scheme, and it is this agreement which is the subject of your source. More importantly, you need to carefully read WP:NOR: the references have to refer, explicitly, to the NWC and the East Ghor Canal projects and say these were unsuccessful (not merely that there were problems) if you want to make such a claim with regards to those projects.

Plagiarism

 * Managing Water for Peace in the Middle East: Alternative Strategies By Masahiro Murakami Published by United Nations University Press, 1995 ISBN 9280808583 p 296 second paragraph reads:-

''Shortly before completion of the Israeli Water Carrier in 1964, an Arab summit conference decided to try to thwart it. Discarding direct military attack, the Arab states chose to divert the Jordan headwaters. Two options were considered: either the diversion of the Hasbani to the Litani and the diversion of the Banias to the Yarmouk, or the diversion of both the Hasbani and the Banias to the Yarmouk. The latter was chosen, with the diverted waters to be stored behind the Mukhaiba dam.''

That is plagiarism do not do it NoCal100...


 * especially when you have used the same page as a reference...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * you might want to look at who actually inserted that text, and point your schoolmarmishly criticism at them . NoCal100 (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep comments civil, thanks. As for plagiarism, it is only plagiarism when information is used without citing the source. If the source is cited, it's not plagiarism, it's "quoting a source". --Elonka 04:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No it's plagiarism if you claim ownership. the direct quote was given without quote marks so the question of ownership was no clearly stated...there was no attempt to rewrite in their own words as is most of the rest when run through google...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A better course of action here, would be to either edit the information, or simply add quote marks, rather than making charges of plagiarism. --Elonka 05:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

re-write...we have enough other sources to incorporate so a re-write would be best...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarised material rm
In 1964 when the Israel's National Water Carrier plan was nearing fruition the second Arab League summit conference voted on a plan which would circumvent it. The Arab and North African states chose to divert the Jordan headwaters rather than the use of direct military intervention,. The heads of State of the Arab League considered two options:


 * 1) The diversion of the Hasbani to the Litani combined with the diversion of the Banias to the Yarmouk,
 * 2) The diversion of both the Hasbani and the Banias to the Yarmouk.

The Arab league plan selected was for the Hasbani and Banias waters to be diverted and stored in the Mukhaiba dam. The diversion consisted of:-


 * 1) Diversion of tributaries in Lebanon.
 * A The upper Hasbani- the excavation of a canal from the Hasbani springs in the hasbaya region and a canal from the wadi Shab’a for carrying water to the kawkaba tunnels and from there to the Litani River. (This project would transport 40-60 million cubic metres of water annually).
 * B. The Middle hasbani-two diversion points-tyhe first in the hasbani riverbed; the second in wadi sarid. The Hasbani ans Sarid would flow in a canal to the banias and from there to the Yarmuk. According to the plan, 20-30 million cubic metres of water would flow annually to Syria (if Lebanon did not divert the hasbani’s floodwater to the Litani, the Sarid canal could transport up to 60 million cubic metres of water a year).
 * C. The Wazani Spring in the Lower Hasbani Riverbed-this would include an irrigation canal (carrying 16 million cubic metres of water a year) for local use in Lebanon; an irrigation canal in Syria (8 million cubic metres a year); and three pumping units to transport the Wanzani’s overflow to Syria via the Sarid-Banias canal at a rate of 26 million cubic metres a year.
 * 2. Diversions in Syrian territory
 * A. Diversion of the Banias-The diversion plan for the banias called for a 73 kilometre long canal to be dug 350 metres above sea level that would link the banias with the Yamuk. The canal would carry the Banias’s fixed flow plus the overflow from the hasbani (including water from the Sarid and Wazani). The Banias diversion would provide 90 million cubic metres of water for irrigation of riverine areas. The designers calculated that eighteen months would be sufficient for executing the plan. The cost was estimated at five million Pounds Sterling (including two tunnels), that is, approximately two million pounds more than the Arab plan.
 * B. The butayha Project-The Syrians feared that if the Arabs implemented their diversion plan, Israel would block the batayha Valley inhabitants, annual pumping of 22 million cubic metres from the Jordan as proposed in the Johnson plan. In order to guarantee the villagers their vital water supply, the Arab plan contained a proviso designed to incorporate primary and secondary canals from the Sea of Galilee.
 * 3. The water plans in Jordan.
 * The construction of a dam in the Kingdom of Jordan (the Mukheiba dam on the Yarmuk River) was designed to hold 200 million cubic metres of water. Work on the dam would take 30 months at a cost of ten and one quarter million Pounds Sterling. The Mukheiba Dam (and the Makarin Dam) would hurt Israel if it was incorporated into the diversion plans for the Jordan River’s northern sources, and without the Mukheiba dam all of the diverted water would flow back to the Yarmuk and return to the Jordan’s riverbed south of the Sea of galilee. Excluding this plan, the rest of the Jordan’s water projects correspond with the main parts of the Johnson Plan.

Shemesh, Moshe (2008) Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967 Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 1845191889 pp 49-50

Now re-written and re-inserted...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a straight copy paste from Murakami, Masahiro (1995) Managing Water for Peace in the Middle East: Alternative Strategies, ISBN 92-808-0858-3 pp.296-297

In a series of military strikes, Israel hit the diversion works in March, May, and August 1965. The attacks culminated in April 1967 in air strikes deep inside Syria. The increase in water-related Arab-Israeli hostility was a major factor leading to the June 1967 Six-Day War.[3]

and then Kobori, Michael H. Glantz (1998) Central Eurasian Water Crisis: Caspian, Aral, and Dead Seas United Nations University Press, ISBN 9280809253 is used as a citation...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear here, it's still not plagiarism if a source is included, though there may be copyvio issues. See Plagiarism. --Elonka 17:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It was the whole article Elonka with breaks for headers etc stuck in the middle...the odd para was lifted directly with one ref bunged in the middle of the whole article...a bit of intro half copied and the last para was half copied and exit with a few of their own words. This is why I did a re-write throughout...there was a copyvio issue that has been dealt with...I do not leave dodgy work in articles, I always deal with it. I initially saw the one para but then recognised the other paras all from the same book pages 295-297 the citation only referred to page 296 all immaterial now as it has been re-written...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting it and rewriting. I agree that there was a copyvio, and am glad you were able to take care of it. :) I looked into who inserted the information, and it appears to have been, who isn't editing anymore. Might be worth checking through Itzse's article space contribs though to see if anything else needs fixing. --Elonka 03:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. Notice of that should be placed on special project Israel...most of those subjects are not my "cup of tea" and I am not knowledgeable enough in the reference books etc on those subjects to recognise any possible copyright violations. My background is Civil Engineering, Military Engineering and Topographical Survey (JARIC Royal School of Military Survey geodesy and navigation, imagery, geospatial information management and geospatial information exploitation), with history of the middle east conflict as a hobby. So most of his/her list has no interest for me...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed
Most of the citations needed can be found in Water politics in the Jordan River basin....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Article by Footnote?
This article is mainly footnote. It hardly seems encyclopedic to me. If it is factual and neutral it should be written in the body of the article. No reader wants to be bothered with reading massive amounts of footnoted material.Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing with footnotes is the reader doesn't have to read them. And the great thing with foot notes is if the reader wants more they can read the footnotes either way footnotes are a winner...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Successful? or not?
The edit war over the "successful"/"unsuccessful" water projects is unnecessary, as it is "successful" in the source given, and should thus be left in.  C.4 Unilateral implementation: 1955-1967


 * The failure to develop a multilateral approach to water management reinforced unilateral development. Though the Unified Plan failed to be ratified, both Jordan and Israel undertook to operate within their allocations, and two major successful projects were undertaken: the Israeli National Water Carrier and Jordan's East Ghor Main Canal.

Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * and in fact if I am not mistaken, despite all sorts of problems, ..."Jordan was allowed to repair the canal; in exchange Jordan reaffirmed its adherence to the Johnston Plan quotas..."  It is still (and again) in effect and thus "successful." Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. The reference says it was successful - that's it as far as wikipedia is concerned, unless another source is provided that explicitly says the projects were not successful. NoCal100 (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

However Israel extracted 650-720 million cubic metres from the upper Jordan and 70-100 million cubic metres from the Yarmuk a total of 720-820 million cubic metres annually or 193% the amount allocated under the Johnson plan while Jordan received 120 million cubic metres of water or 17% of its allocation under the Johnson plan.//Efraim Karsh (2003) Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful Triangle Routledge, ISBN 0714654345 p 177//

the reference says 17%...not a success..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * the reference says explicitly it was a success. End of story. NoCal100 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh and the word success has been included in the para...If you have a problem with that then please see Elonka again...It would save a lot of hot air from you if you get down to reading instead of disrupting...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please comment on edits, not editors. I know the word success has been included in the para, I put it there, since it is what the source says. You seem to want it removed, which is improper, as it is well sourced. If I misread you, and you are ok with the word, then my apologies, but then I'm at a loss as to what this section is all about. NoCal100 (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The word success has been in the article for most part of a week. Please read rather than continue hot air arguments that finished a long time ago and stop rambling as though your argument has some sort of meaning...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * less than 4 hours ago you posted "the reference says 17%...not a success." - so it seems you did not consider the argument 'finished a long time ago'. Please try to remain civil- accusations of "rambling" or "hot air from you" are not civil. NoCal100 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath
Most of the "aftermath" section is not relevant to this article. The final paragraph discusses issues that arose 35 years after the Headwater Diversion Plan, and are related to the 1994 peace agreement between Israel and Jordan. On top of this, the given reference dose not even discus the success or lack thereof of the 2 projects mentioned in the "background" section. NoCal100 (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Three projects Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian. 'Arab rejected' sounds extremely OR after all Jordan is an Arab country...Aftermath normally means what happened after...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aftermath means right after, not 35 years later - and the source you are citing does not refer to the Headwater Diversion Plan - which is this article's topic, nor even to any of the 3 projects. NoCal100 (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong...see a dictionary...your WP:OR on words needs some adjustment...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aftermath: 1. 	something that results or follows from an event - Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. The events you are describing are not a consequence pf the Headwater Diversion Plan, thus they do not belong. NoCal100 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow and then I put a new section in. Now what's your problem?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk)
 * My problem is that you appear to be disrupting wikipedia to make a point in you r personal conflict with me. Consider this another warning. NoCal100 (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

All mention of johnston plan to be removed
All mention of Johnston plan to be removed as it doesn't mention the Arab plan to divert the headwaters, which was based on the McDonald plan...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the Johnston plan and reactions to it is quite relevant as background. Gatoclass seems to agree, as he has done a bit of work on that section. I am not entirely opposed to trimming that section down, if there's consensus for this. NoCal100 (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on NoCal100 consensus all Johnston plan removed...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove sourced material for which there appears to be consensus and replace it with "The MacDonald plan". That edit was borderline vanadlism. NoCal100 (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)