Talk:Jubata ez-Zeit

Notability
I am really nervous of making any comment in these disputes, where passions often run very high. As a neutral question, however, I want to know: is there any notability by normal wikipedia standards (WP:N) for this village? I can't find any mention of it online except in this article, and in the one source that has been used, which has a strong POV of its own. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  10:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't a lot of sources for former Syrian villages in Golan, I am working on it and on the main list page and will expand. The source used is reliable, it is Arab Center for Human Rights in the Golan Heights which is an independent non-profit legal human rights organization, co-authored by Declan Gannon, legal researcher Al- Marsad, and Dr. Ray Murphy, senior lecture Irish Center for Human Rights at National University of Ireland, Galway. There is also a lot of interviews from refugees in the source.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not disputing reliability; but notability. If there are not a lot of sources, then notability is a legitimate concern. In this case, there seems to be one source only, and I don't think that's enough for notability. But I was asking in case there was anything more than this one. In this source, it appears that Jubata Ez-Zeit is chosen as an illustrative example. Specifically: "This report, for the purpose of simplicity, concentrates on one village ‘Jubata Ez-Zeit’, situated in the far north of the Syrian Golan." (page 27). The source seems credible, but it does have a very strong POV. That does not disqualify the source; but it does mean notability is less clear. The village seems to have been chosen as a way to let the report have specific detail of a concrete case; but I don't see anything in the report to indicate "notability" as would normally be required for a wikipedia article. This could be resolved if there were any other sources that refer to the village. Do you know of any? &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  10:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy with the notability of this village. Good work. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  05:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
The Anglicized spelling may not be uniform. I've found some alternative spellings, that may be useful. For example, here is a which lists many possible names for this village: Jubbata az Zayt, Syria Page at fallingrain.com, which seems to be some kind of Global Gazetteer with satellite images for towns all over the world.

It lists as other names: Joubbata ez Zaite,Joubbâta ez Zaïté,Joubbâta Zaïte,Jubbātā az Zayt,Jubbatah az Zayt,Jubbātah az Zayt,Joubbata Zaite

It also gives as "other towns at this location": Newe Ativ (spelled with a w, not a v). Interestingly, this also is listed under Syria. The Israel section does not seem to extend all the way that far East into the Golan Heights; I am not sure. Possibly this is aligned with a common international convention that the settlements are not legally recognized. I have not seen anything to help with notability, however. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  16:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Duae Quartunciae. We could use your skills in determining the algorithmic permutations from Arabic to English in a number of articles. I'm wondering if anyone knows if Jubata ez-Zeit was ever referred to simply as Jubbata? Edward Robinson (scholar) writes about Jubbata here and its proximity to Banias and Majdal Shams seem to make it a likely candidate for being one in the same. However, I cannot preclude there having been a neighboring Jubbata that was different but related. Does anyone know more?  T i a m u t talk 07:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am starting to think Western travellers to the region knew it simply as Jubbata (and in some cases referred to Majdal Shams, simply as Mejdel). See here and here too.  T i a m u t talk 08:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, that site I found could be a really useful resource. It really is a very handy Global Gazetteer; it seems to have thousands upon thousands of place names all over the world; you can look them up by country and then find out where they are and what is nearby... and it also gives links to any wikipedia page which refers to lat/lon co-ordinates nearby!


 * Using the entry Majdal Shams I discovered that it is a large Druze village about two kilometers away... and it already has its own wikipedia page: Majdal Shams. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  08:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is very useful. After checking the entries for Syria under "J", I am quite sure that Jubata ez-Zeit is the Jubbata mentioned in the books by Western travellers above. There is another Jubatta (Jubatta al-Khashab), but it is not mentioned as being in close promixity to all the sites mentioned in relation to Jubbata in the travel writings. I've asked a friend who is better at solving these puzzles than I to take a look and will hold off adding things until I can get further confirmation. But thank you for finding and remainding me of this link.  T i a m u t talk 08:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Rabat Shalom
A brief comment has been added about "Rabat Shalom", which was the initial Israeli settlement established on the site of the destroyed village, before being destroyed in turn by Palestian resistance. Neve Ativ was apparent the second Israeli settlement at the site. My reference is an article about Neve Ativ at a site called Jawlan.org. This gives a bit more detail than the source used at present; and I think the date 1970 used at present is incorrect.

However, I am not writing it into the article as yet.

There is an unresolved issue about whether Jubata ez-Zeit and Neve Ativ should be two articles, or one. It is at time of writing two articles; and although I have no strong stake in the one article two article discussion, as long as there are two articles then in my view the Israeli settlement Rabat Shalom is better incorporated into the Neve Ativ article, not here; since it has more continuity with Neve Ativ than with Jubata ez-Zeit.

This article is better to focus on the Syrian village, without trying to give all the subsequent history after the village had been destroyed. It is enough to note that the site is currently occupied by Neve Ativ; and let the Neve Ativ article deal with the history of the Israeli settlement, including Ramat Shalom.

I am therefore proposing to remove this addition; and I'll put something in the other page. But I'll wait a bit to see if there is more comment from anyone. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the info on Ramat Shalom being included in either article. As the precursor to Neve Ativ, it is probably better covered there though, as you suggest. Please be bold and do what you think needs to be done.  T i a m u t talk 09:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

reverted Epeefleche edit
Epeefleche, I reverted your edit because blogs are not allowed as sources and also the info you added is of no importance to the article topic. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blogs are allowed as sources unless deemed unreliable. Why do you think it unreliable in this case?  Also, Marwan Habash's quarter-century imprisonment/torture in Syria is a significant aspect of his notability--which is reason for his inclusion here.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What does his imprisonment or that he was tortured have to do with the article topic of this village? Also look here it says blogs are largely not acceptable, and it is sourced with a sentence only accepting: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He is only worth mentioning if he is notable. That is a significant aspect of his notability. The author of the article that the blog carries is highly reputable -- check him out -- as is the academic whose blog it is.  Are you not familiar with van Dam?  He is one of the foremost experts on Syrian politics of the time.  That's just the sort of blog review that Wiki views as acceptable ("Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.").  In addition, I've now added a source that confirms much of what the author wrote, and that he was one of the world's longest-held political prisoners.  And I should note -- the author is reflecting what Habash himself wrote.  Not much room for unreliability there.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That he was a member of the Syrian Ba'ath Party's regional command makes him notable because he was born in this village, but to have that info that he was in prison and tortured is not connected to this article, if you want you can create a separate article about him, and ad these things. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)]
 * First of all, am I correct that you are now fine with the source? Really, its far better than the other source about him in the article.  Second, he is notable for two reasons.  Both are reflected.  That he was in prison and tortured and one of the longest-held political prisoners in the world is noteworthy on a world level; that he was a member of the country regional command for 1/3 to 1/4 of that time makes him noteworthy on a national level, but I have no problem reflecting that as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a better question is why you have a problem including this fact in the article. Do I smell a hint of unwavering ultra-Syrian nationalism? The point is that if he's going to be mentioned, it should be with a brief explanation so that people who haven't heard of him get an idea of who he is. His imprisonment and torture are among the things for which he is most commonly known. The problem with a reliable source is a secondary issue that you seem to be using as a convenient excuse to censor relevant information. Breein1007 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that by now SD has more closely checked the author of the article, the academic whose website it appears on, and their notability, and is satisfied.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you're right and we can call this a problem solved! Breein1007 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, while I don't have a problem with the sources, I do fail to see the relevance of the information being added to this article. I think its better included in an article on Habash himself. Perhaps an RfC on the issue would help to break this 2 against 2 divide?  T i a m u t talk 12:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If he is at all notable and worthy of mention in the article, that should stay. If anything, the source is far superior than the source for the original information. And the notability is worldwide (he was a world leader in this regard), rather than national. If you do open up a RfC, please include the question as to whether it is even necessary to mention him at all. Otherwise, please leave it as is. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The original source, which mentions that he was a leader of the Baath party, is the source that mentions his being born in Jubata ez-Zeit, which is the information relevant to this article and the reason for his inclusion oon this page. The sources added that mention his fate as the longest held political prisoner, do not mention that he is from Jubata ez-Zeit. As this is an article about Jubata ez-Zeit, and not Marwan Habash, I think the relevant info is that included in the source that mentions his being born in Jubata ez-Zeit.
 * You will notice that I have not yet removed the information that is contested by both myself and Supreme Deliciousness. However, the appropriate thing to do when faced with contestation over material you are adding is to remove it until you gain consensus for its inclusion. Please remove it so that we can open an RfC on this issue and see whether there is consensus regarding its inclusion or not among uninvolved editors. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 21:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the original source mentions the village does not make the other facts in it the more notable ones about him. It mentions many others who were in the party as well, and is at best a passing reference to him.  If it mentioned he were from the town, were an RS, and also mentioned that he picked his toes in Pougkeepsie, that would not make his toe-picking more notable than his nearly-world's-longest-political-imprisonment.  That's simply not how it works.  The second source is a much more significant treatment of him.  My other points stand as we.  Feel free to open an RfC.  But I don't see support for removal here, and the analysis of your compatriot here was wholly baseless as we have discussed.  You're trying to stifle/censor the poor man's own words for whatever reason; no wp policy suggests that your desire to do so takes precedence.  Also, can you pls explain if you bring this to rfc why the first source is an RS?  Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from assuming bad faith about my reasons for advocating for the removal of this information. I've explained clearly why I think its not appropriate. You are free to disagree, but not to assign ulterior motivations when there is no reason to doubt my good faith explanation.
 * Again, I believe it is preferable and ask once again, for you to please remove the disputed text (in toto, if necessary) until such time as we have consensus on what to include.  T i a m u t talk 08:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After raising my concerns here twice, I've decided to go ahead and be bold. I've removed the disputed text to its own page on Marwan Habash. I've replaced the lengthy description of Habash only tangentially related to this article with a section entitled "Notable residents", followed by his name. As other names appear, we can add them too.  T i a m u t talk 08:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that move was clearly not supported by consensus. SD was the only editor agreeing w/you.  SD's understanding of policy as it applied to this "blog" has since been corrected.  Your reasoning lacks support in policy.  So as not to edit war, however, I've not reverted your edit (only slightly honed it), and await notice as to where you will raise the discussion of the inappropriateness of my prior formatting of the information.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How could SD agree with me when my proposal was one she has not seen? I removed both your text and my own, leaving only the gentleman's name and a brief note on his being born in Jubata ez-=Zeit (i.e. the information relevant to this page). I don't mind leaving only his name (as I did in my first boild edit to break this impasse, and as you have since). That sounds like a good compromise to me. Details regarding his life can now be discussed in the article on him, rather than on this page,l where it is not at al relevant.
 * Given that I'm quite pleased with the new arrangement, I see nor eason to open an RfC. If you want to, please go ahead. Alternately, you can try to gain consensus for the inclusion of the information you would like to add here, by explaining why such detail on Habash's life is relevant to an article on the village he was born in.  T i a m u t talk 09:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * SD was the only one protesting the point. And SD's point was baseless.  SD could have made the same point you did (which I likewise did not think a strong one), but did not.  As to our friend, let's hope the article on him is not AfD'd.  Let me know if it is, and I'll consider weighing in.  For the moment, I'll leave the article as-is, and await w/curiousity development as to the article you are starting on him.  Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Estimation accuracy explained here is enough: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The level of the rawness of the estimate is communicated by the quote.  It is not communicated by your interpretation of it.  I'm therefore reverting, as it is more accurate in reflecting the source the way it was, and avoids mischaracterization of the rawness of the estimate.  It causes no harm the way it was, is not unduly lengthy, and is more accurate.  Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Something like that" is not encyclopedic language and "estimate" indicates a rough figure. I've restored the edit made by SD.  T i a m u t talk 14:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If its not encyclopedic, then it should be deleted whole, as not appropriate. If you can't agree, I suggest we get independent eyes somewhere (not the usual crowd on these articles) to weigh in.  I think your edit elevates an estimate that is not encyclopedic to a level it does not deserve.  I don't want to endlessly revert, but I think my edit was a reasonable accommodation--the other alternative is to delete it altogether.  If you won't agree, where would you suggest this be posted to get independent input?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can open an WP:RfC if it means that much to you. However, I would not object to the exact quote being placed in a footnote, if it will alleviate your concerns. The full quote is poorly phrased and should not be excerpted in full in our introduction just to convey "the level of the rawness of the estimate". The word "estimate" sufficiently conveys that it is an approximation without the need for emphasis of that idea and its attribution to a resident of a neighboring village gives the reader the idea that its not an expert estimate (i,e, one based on a census).  T i a m u t talk 21:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote "about 1,500 2,000 people something like that" is easily paraphrased as estimated to be about 1500 to 2000 people. There is no reason to keep the entire quote, none at all. It gives no information that the word "estimate" does not.  nableezy  - 22:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @Tiamut -- when I said "not the usual crowd on these articles" I was including editors who have been blocked in the past for POV editing patterns on articles in this subject area. I think fresh non-POV eyes might best address this.  As to the edit, I think "Something like that" gives a greater sense of the rawness of the edit than your change.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have something to say then say it. Dont try to be cute.  nableezy  - 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

People from Jubata ez-Zeit
Is this something that should be mentioned in the article?

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/december01/0112110.html

"Majed Assad Elass, former Aramco executive and chief of the Washington-based energy publishing firm The Oil Daily Co., died Aug. 29 at Sibley Memorial Hospital of congestive heart failure. A native of Jubata al-Zayt in Syria’s Golan Heights, he served as the town’s mayor in the 1940s before moving to the U.S. the following decade. He earned a law degree from Syrian University and a master’s in international relations from the University of Wisconsin. A 34-year employee of the Aramco Services Co., he worked in New York and Saudi Arabia before he moved to the Washington area to serve as vice president in charge of Aramco’s Washington office, retiring in 1991." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * His being a native of the town and its mayor in the 1940s is relevant to the article, no? I'd leave out his work for ARAMCO and death of heart failure though, as they are not related to Jubata ez-Zeit. T i a m u t talk 21:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

source
There was never any consensus that the marsad document was not a reliable source, I have found several other sources that say the same thing as the marsad document, these being: Sakr Abu Fakhr, "Voices from the Golan", Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Autumn, 2000), University of California Press, Dar, Shimon (1993). Settlements and cult sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean culture in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Illustrated ed.). Tempus Reparatum, and Humphries, Isabelle. In the Ghost Towns of the Occupied Golan, Five Villages Defiantly Wave the Syrian Flag Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 2006. pantherskin, you have not been able to prove anything in that document to be incorrect. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Declan and Gannon
The report by Declan and Gannon has repeatedly been removed because it was published by al-Marsad. A report by the same authors that contains nearly the identical information has since been published in the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, a peer reviewed journal published by Cambridge University Press (abstract here. I dont think there can be any argument about the reliability of this source, and I have updated the removed material to source the article published by Cambridge.  nableezy  - 09:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem now is that no one can direly access the source. Since the marsad document is the only one that is accessible online, it should be the main source with a link, and then it can be mentioned that its also published in the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not a problem. Sources dont have to be available online, and the two articles are not the exact same, so we cannot say the marsad link is a convenience link to the journal link. We dont need a link for every citation.  nableezy  - 10:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a citation. But note that some time ago there has been a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, and the consensus of uninvolved editors was that this publication by a special interest is not a reliable source. Apparently Supreme Deliciousness decided to ignore this, and even started to create article based on this source. There is another problem - the source is based on an order of the Israeli Defense Forces to clean-up abandonded sites, with no indication of whether the sources were actually carried out or not. Pantherskin (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is published in a peer-reviewed journal published by an academic press. There is absolutely no question that this source is a "reliable source".  nableezy  - 13:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I doubt that? I did not. Pantherskin (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were.  nableezy  - 14:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This source was removed under the pretense that it did not support the phrase that Neve Ativ was built on the site of this destroyed village. The source specifically says the following on page 151:"Neve Ativ, which is built on the destroyed Arab village of Jubata Ez-Zeit"You can even see this is true if you do not have access to the source, simple put this quote in google scholar. The result is here.  nableezy  - 13:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest edits
Gilabrand, in this edit: you remove:


 * "According to an Arab resident of a nearby town, it had a population of around 1,500 to 2,000 people prior to the Six-Day War."


 * "Jubata ez-Zeit is an Arabic name that translates into English as "Olive Oil Pit," and refers to the olive trees that grew in the village which remain present today."

You also change: *"In the early 1970s, the Israeli settlement Neve Ativ was built on the site of the former village." to "In the early 1970s, the Israeli settlement of Neve Ativ was built on the land."

and


 * "Towards the end of June 1967, the area was made a closed military zone, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) forcibly transferred half the population of Jubata (as half had left during the war)" to "Towards the end of the Six Day War in June 1967, the area was declared a closed military zone. The residents of Jabata fled during the war. Those who remained were evicted by the Israel Defense Force after the war."

- "The residents of Jabata fled during the war." as if it was all, also removing that the Israeli military forcibly transferred half the population of the village by changing it to" Those who remained"

You did these changes with the edit summary: "clean up; ce; source does not support text; still populated"

Can you explain how these four texts are not supported by the sources, how its clean up, or copy edit (ce) for the better? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I restored most of the deleted info you referred to above. I don't why Gila removed or changed them in the first place, but I'm assuming good faith. The bit about half the population fleeing and the other being expelled is indeed backed by the source, contrary to Gila's statement in her edit summary. Actually, the source goes further, saying that the half that initially fled returned to Jubata, but were subsequently transferred. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)