Talk:Horvat Burgin

Khirbet Umm Burj and the "Green-Line"
User:Huldra, see my new section on the Bayt Nattif Talk-page, which answers your concerns here.Davidbena (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

My Latest Edit
User:Huldra, what did you see in my last edit on this page that you thought was Original Research? Everything was supported with sources. It seems to me that you have a problem with recognizing accurate sources. Please explain your rationale?Davidbena (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * David, I think you should stop adding comments about the green line and 1967 to locations that were not impacted by the events of 1967. Zerotalk 03:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , I have been trying to show the proximity of certain former Arab villages in relation to the country's "Green Line," and how that, after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, some of these same villages came under Israeli control, as agreed by the signatories to the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan. However, for some fatuous reason, our fellow co-editor (User:Huldra) has twice tried to withhold this information from the public. I'm sure that you and I both agree that at least with respect to that 1949 Armistice Agreement, one of the vestiges that has still survived from that instrument is that, after the Six Day War, lands taken by Jordan in 1948 continued to be recognized as the "West Bank" of Jordan, with lands conquered by Israel forming their territorial boundary, and just as it is stated explicitly in the book, Har’el - Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, written by Zvi Dror and published by Ha-kibbutz ha-meuchad 2005, p. 273. Here, with respect to Khirbet Umm Burj (Burgin), it falls on the Israeli side of the "Green line," as I have shown by the map which you can see here, under the coordinates: latitude of 31.37(116)° N, and longitude of 34.59° E. Besides, most western powers are pressuring Israel to return to the status-quo that existed before 1967. In this regard, Khirbet Umm Burj's relation to the "Green Line" is relevant in this article, and no-matter what outcome of the Peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, Khirbet Umm Burj (Burgin) would still remain on the Israeli side of the fence. Neither you, nor Huldra, should take offense at our mentioning this fact, especially when Huldra has consistently gone through Israeli-Palestinian related articles and has mentioned their current status, vis-à-vis Israel. As for my other edits, I call your attention to the fact that on Maps made of this country, the site appears under two names. Why then did Huldra feel it necessary to delete this important information? Looking forward to your reply.Davidbena (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , the problem is your version of history, which is not correct as I have tried to explain. I have no objection whatever to noting that this location is to the west of the Green Line.  Actually I'm happy to write that the location is in Israel, since the international consensus is recognition of Israel west of the Green Line. We only need to agree on the wording. But I object to insertion of either (1) a claim that this location changed status in 1967, or (2) claims about the status of the West Bank.  (1) is unacceptable because the status did not change in 1967, while (2) is off-topic since this location is not in the West Bank. Zerotalk 12:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fine with me. I'll be willing to forego the inclusion of the place's status after 1967. It's not that important. Let's just leave that part empty. So, with your permission, can we add there this edit? "After the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, the ruin of Kh. Umm Burj remained under Israeli control under the terms of the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan" [1] [2]

NOTES:
 * [1]The 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan
 * [2]General map of Palestine showing Khirbet Umm Burj in relation to the "Green-Line"

Also, we should at least mention the town's other name, namely, "Burgin," as it appears on modern Israeli maps. Be well, my friend.Davidbena (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the sentence "remained under Israeli control" makes it sound as if it had been under Israeli control for a long time; I'm changing that to "came under Israeli control": more accurate, IMO, Huldra (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Moved from article
"In 2013, the archaeological survey was continued at the site by Peter Gendelman, Alon Klein, and Amir Ganor, on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, and in 2014 an archaeological excavation of the site was led by Hagit Noygborn on behalf of Israel Antiquities Authority. "

That someone has conducted an excavation is not that important to add to the article; it is what they published, ie found, which is important, IMO. Now there are a couple of articles in the Biblio-section we should add from.., cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)