Talk:First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House

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

DYK nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Rutenberg caricatured in Punch on 7 June 1922
Rutenberg caricatured in Punch on 7 June 1922
  • ... that only one hydroelectric plant was built on the Jordan River, out of fourteen planned by Pinhas Rutenberg (pictured)? Source: Reguer, Sara. “Rutenberg and the Jordan River: A Revolution in Hydro-Electricity” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 31, no. 4, 1995, pages 692 and 725; "He envisaged using all the water in the area - Litani, Dan, Hasbani, Banias, Yarmuk, and Yabok - to feed fourteen power stations on both sides of the Jordan down to the Dead Sea, into which all the water would flow through parallel canals, east and west, from the southern end of Lake Tiberias to Jericho... Yet as the years passed, progress was slow, and the original plan diminished to one power plant at Jisr al-Mujamieh/Naharayim."

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 23:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Kept and ready for review. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is several unsolved issues in the article --Shrike (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed now. I would note that Shrike and one other editor have been in disagreement with me and two other editors about the inclusion of a quote in the body of the article from US diplomat Wells Stabler published in the FRUS. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not even remotely "fixed". There are multiple issues with regards to inappropriate use of primary sources , which have been thoroughly explained on the talk page, and met with stonewalling. There is no consensus for the material in the article as it currently stands. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the other editor I mentioned. The above comment contains hyperbole. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No hyperbole whatsoever, just a factual description of the situation: disputed material with no consensus for inclusion being reintroduced into to the article, and policy-based objections met with stonewalling . This is not ready for DYKs.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Full review needed now that sock's objections are moot. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently RSN discussion about the source [1] so not all problems were solved. --Shrike (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: No - Not done
Overall: QPQ needed. Some rewording needed to avoid copyvio --evrik (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Evrik: thank you for these comments. I will work through them. If you have time I would be grateful if you would comment at the RSN discussion, whichever way you consider appropriate. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just been through the earwig output - I believe all the text it picked up were quotations, and are explicitly stated as such in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have started a rename discussion it should be resolved one way or another.I think we can wait another week --Shrike (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rename just closed. This can go forward. --evrik (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that the image is coming up to its 98th anniversary, so let's run it on June 7! Yoninah (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyed?[edit]

@Makeandtoss: have you seen anything in Jordanian literature about why the plant was never reopened after it was taken by the Arab Legion in 1948? Israeli literature often says the Jordanians “destroyed” the plant, which seems odd, unless perhaps they wanted to remove a motive for further Israeli attacks. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turbines were allegedly destroyed by the Iraqi Army. "The hydroelectric plant sits on Jordanian land, though climate change and diverting the water for agriculture has weakened the flow of the rivers to the point at which hydroelectricity would no longer be feasible." Makeandtoss (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From this map I believe the power plant was among the 1,390 dunams occupied by Israel on 28 August 1950. I could be wrong I am not sure. It was also apparently discussed at the UNSC. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read that about the Iraqis in another publication, but it seems odd since it was the Transjordanian Arab Legion which took the plant from the Israelis in the war. The Iraqi army were nearby though – they tried and failed to occupy Gesher. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Per this map - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naharayim#/media/File:NaharayimBaqura.jpg - the power plant was in Jordanian hands after the war. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like 1,390 dunums to me, judging from Rutenburg 6,000 dunums. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the dunums measure has to do with it, but the map clearly shows the power plant on the Jordanian side of the border. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't look like more than a sixth of the territory.. The 1949 armistice line is irrelevant, the territory was occupied in 1950. There's are conflicting information in the two sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what does the size of the overall territory purchased by Rutenberg for the PEC have to do with it? The power plant is a group of buildings, all of which are on the Jordanian side and in Jordanian hands , both before and after 1950. There is no conflicting information regarding this here, you just don't seem to be able to read a map.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be unable to read my arguments. The armistice line was drawn in 1949, 2 years before Israel occupied the territory, i.e. it could have occupied beyond the armistice line which is a plausible claim considering that: 1-Jordan's Atlas map does not correspond exactly with the armistice map 2-the Jordanian map shows the territory to be larger than the armistice map which makes sense since 1,390 dunums out of 6,000 account for 23% of the territory. Makeandtoss (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Israel did not occupy any land beyond the armistice line, and could not do so without starting a war. Read the history of this area- there was a dispute between Israel and Transjordan about where the armistice line should have been drawn, vs where it was actually drawn, but no one disputes that the area you call "occupied" (i.e , the Island of Peace), was in fact on the Israeli side of the armistice line, and does not extend to the power plant, which is further south. Just look at the map. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The armistice line is about ceasefire and not borders. Israel militarily occupied the area. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it didn't. read some history. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please take your rudeness somewhere else. Zerotalk 14:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post where I please, thanks. When you comment similarly on people telling me "You seem to be unable to read my arguments", Or "focus" or "please switch your brain on or else go away. " (all in discussions you were heavily and actively involved with,) I might take you seriously. Until then, I'll treat this comment the way it should be treated - partisan hackery. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The power station was on the Jordanian side of the armistice line and never occupied by Israel. The argument in the UNSC was over the correct location of the armistice line. During negotiations in the 1950+ time period the possibility of restarting power generation was discussed but that didn't happen (I forget where I read about those negotiations). Zerotalk 06:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide us with a source? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all the debate in the SC. See the section "1949 armistice line" in Naharayim. You can find the UN documents by searching for the document symbol (such as S/1824) at https://documents.un.org/prod/ods.nsf/home.xsp . Zerotalk 12:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an excellent explanation from the US State Department. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew source[edit]

This paper in Cathedra is also available at JSTOR which unfortunately thinks there are two authors with the same name. NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PALESTINE ELECTRIC COMPANY CONCESSION by Michael Aran. Zerotalk 06:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archival Sources[edit]

These two files have interesting but rather frustrating information. For example there are several drafts and discussion of the 1927 Transjordanian law on the Rutenberg concession, but not, I think, the final version. Zerotalk 03:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zerotalk 03:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blown up generators[edit]

Only one source tells that the workers blew up the generators and the source is on a verge of a primary source.This is not scholarly work.I didn't find any serous historian discuss it. I think its clearly undue and should be removed. --Shrike (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a high quality source which covers in detail the fate of the power plant in the 1948 war, we can discuss due weight. This report from the State Department is the most detailed source I have found on the topic. I note you are not questioning the reliability of the source. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, If the historians don't include this incident we shouldn't too we should use secondary sources not primary accounts.Which their accuracy is not clear per our policies.Also probably the long quote from the source should be removed it too. --Shrike (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The source is reliable, and appropriately in-line attributed, yet you ask to excise the information.
As I said above, if you can bring other sources which cover this event in detail, then we can discuss. In the absence of that, your statement that "the historians don't include this incident" has no basis. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy against using primary sources, only against interpreting them. In my opinion, the quotation enhances the article and it is in plain English with no interpretation required. If is no worse than the countless eye-witness reports from travelers that are all over the encyclopedia. Better, in fact, as the report is an official one. Zerotalk 11:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The plant is discussed in secondary sources including the battle for example Gelber and yet no one mention the generators.Proably RFC in order to clarify this issue --Shrike (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a cable from the US Chargé d'affaires is a primary source. Such a cable, made based on a visit to the site months after the event and relying on second hand info (at best) from an interested party (the Transjordanians who attacked the site and controlled it during the visit by the Chargé d'affaires), can't be used here without a secondary reliable source. I am removing it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
You need consensus first. There is no rush. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused. There is no consensus to include this, and WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. WP:ONUS is part of WP:V. We have established the source is a WP:RS, so ONUS has been achieved.
Your argument is about WP:PRIMARY, which is part of WP:OR. Two editors here are arguing that this primary source is appropriate in attributed form. We have been having a sensible discussion – there is no need to raise the temperature with edit warring. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is wrong on all counts. We have not established that this is a reliable source, and primary sources can't be used in the way you introduced them into the article per WP:RSPRIMARY: "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material ". Further, even if this was a reliable secondary source, per WP:ONUS " Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion"- and "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.". You do not have such consensus here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
The article has been edited by seven separate editors over the period that this text has been in the article. You need consensus to remove it. Please contribute to the discussion.
As to the first part of your statement above, you are correct that there should be no “interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources”. Where do you see such things in the article?
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
. This article only came out of AfD today - one of the 7 editors you are referring to nominated it for deletion almost immediately, so there was clearly no consensus for anything in the article back then. Another one of those "7 editors" was a bot, yet another merely removed the AfD tag, after closing the Afd, and yet another added a category. Other than you, there are exactly two editors who can plausibly be seen as implicitly agreeing with the content, and two editors objecting to it. The specific block of text in question was added by you just 5 days ago - there was no consensus for it when you added it, and there is no consensus for it now. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The report of Wells Stabler is obviously noteworthy. The only question is of whether to present the information in the report as fact. JungerMan's claim that Stabler's information came only from the Jordanians is based on nothing and should be ignored. The solution is to reword it as what Stabler reported, after which I don't believe any valid reason for censoring it would remain. Zerotalk 05:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:TENDENTIOUS nature of these editors' edit warring is now proven by the nature of their deletions. Both editors have tried to edit war out only the part of the quote that goes against a particular point of view. Yet they chose to retain the rest of the quote. And neither have brought any source which supports their deletion. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with your violation of WP:NPA.The WP:ONUS is on you to keep the material. --Shrike (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is disgraceful to argue that a source is unreliable and then keep all but the part one doesn't like. Consensus has been met because the argument against has no substance. Get over it and look for an alternative narrative if you want to balance this one. Zerotalk 10:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, If it was noteworthy like you claim than historians would mention it I didn't found any mention of this at Morris or Gelber or anyone for this matter.In my opinion we shouldn't use such source at all.I think we should use only secondary WP:RS --Shrike (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every eye-witness account is a primary source and Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of them. Every time a journalist reports something they saw, that's a primary source. So this primary/secondary argument has no value. In addition there are plenty of cases where only one eye-witness reported something. That only makes it fringe if there is something extraordinary about it, but this claim is in line with Israeli practice elsewhere and not surprising at all. The only question here is whether the source is reliable and that is the easiest question to answer: a trained diplomat of a neutral country who investigates in person and then reports in confidence to his government is about as reliable as one can get. Much more reliable than an official spokesperson of Israel, Jordan or Iraq. I reworded the section to attribute it to the source rather than present his report as fact, which is more of a compromise than it really deserves. Zerotalk 11:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Stabler's reports are very often cited as reliable. Also, we seem to be forgetting that Foreign Relations of the United States is a secondary source. It isn't like Onceinawhile dug into a dusty archive to unearth this material; it was published in a high profile series with an editorial board of serious historians. Zerotalk 12:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The FRUs, as a collection of original material, are primary sources. If this wasn't t obvious to you, other administrators have made that clear at WP:RSN: [2] JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT is also a collection of original material. An academic journal is also a collection of original material. Enjoy yourself purging Wikipedia of all those naughty primary sources. Zerotalk 15:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies regarding primary and non-primary sources before continuing to comment here, and read the specific WP:RSN discussion regarding the FRUs iI pointed you to. They are clearly a primary source.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule, and there has never been a rule, that primary sources can't be used in Wikipedia. There are only rules about how they can be used, and those rules are satisfied. I won't bother replying to you again on this. Zerotalk 15:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad you've learned enough to move the goalposts from the utterly fallacious claim that "Foreign Relations of the United States is a secondary source." to recognizing it is in fact a primary source, but supposedly being used properly. This assertion that this primary source is used properly is still false, as I've described elsewhere. You have no consensus to include this material in the article, and simply refusing to engage further is just fine with me - it will result in the removal of the contested material per WP:ONUS. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)
Extended content
@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: just a reminder about this. If you are not familiar with what this means I will be happy to explain. Please be careful to avoid WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. And note that in this discussion a majority of editors continue to support retaining the information in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I remind you of the same , since you violated WP:QUO by reinserting material I had just reverted? Spare me your sanctimoniousness. Consensus is not a numerical vote, and 3:2 is not consensus to include disputed material. Start an RfC if you want to include it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)
@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: Correct, policy states that "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Your argument is twofold: (1) an incorrect assertion that primary or semi-primary sources are disallowed (see WP:PRIMARY, which states "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia"); and (2) an original research speculation that there must be implicit contradiction through silence. Unfortunately, these arguments are not policy based, and therefore don't qualify. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misrepresent my arguments, it is dishonest in addition to being disruptive. I did not say WP:PRIMARY sources are not allowed, I said it is not allowed to use them in the way you are doing. The argument, once more (with relevant citations to policy) is as follows: The Stabler cable is a primary source. In it, he makes a claim no other reliable source has made. WP:OR, in discussing WP:PRIMARY sources, says that if they are used, it should be used with caution, and has an explanatory footnote that says that any such source making an exceptional claim requires exceptional sources. In WP:EXCEPTIONAL "exceptional claims" are then further defined as, among other criteria, "Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" - which this surely is, and "Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest" - which also fits this situation. In summary: policy is clear that you may not use the Stabler cable (alone) to support the claim that the dynamos were initially blown up by the plant's workers, as that is a challenged exceptional claim supported purely by a primary source. In addition, you have provided a lengthy (1500 char) quote from that source, which again runs contrary to WP:RSPRIMARY: "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. Finally, even if this was a reliable secondary source, per WP:ONUS. "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion"- and "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.". You do not have such consensus here.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: this is now the third time you have pivoted your argument on what looks like WP:Policy shopping. For the first time, after dozens of comments, you have decided to base your argument around WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Unfortunately your interpretation is incorrect. We are not saying here that the Israelis blew up the dynamos. We are saying that an American diplomat said that they did. Not only is that not exceptional, but we are using the best possible source to confirm it. You cannot deny that an American diplomat said that the Israelis blew up the dynamos, so WP:EXCEPTIONAL – which is about verifying the statement – is entirely irrelevant. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing to misrepresent arguments, I see. Read up to the very first post in this thread, which Shrike wrote: "the source is on a verge of a primary source.This is not scholarly work.I didn't find any serous historian discuss it. I think its clearly undue and should be removed." Then read my first argument here, on 4/17: "a cable from the US Chargé d'affaires is a primary source. Such a cable... can't be used here without a secondary reliable source.". Shrike's argument as well as mine are based on clear policy which excludes this use of a primary source. Accordingy, I will be removing this non-consensus material shortly, you may start an RfC if you'd like. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no OR here, if the primary source can be verified as saying x, it doesn't even matter if x is true or not. I think the onus is on you to demonstrate a consensus that this particular primary source, a very good and reliable source on the face of it, should not be used. There might be an argument against over quoting from it, I am not sure about that but the bit about Israeli complicity in the destruction is only a small part of it anyway.Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted to you from WP:PRIMARY, which is part of WP:OR- you need secondary sources for such a claim, else it's OR. alternatively, if you just want to say "a diplomat said this" - it would be excluded based on WP:DUE- why would we care, if no other source reported on it? And that not how WP:ONUS works -the onus to show consensu is on those seeking to include contested material. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your interpretation of the applicable policies and mine differ, as I see it there is nothing to disallow this primary source per Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. Zero is an admin and thinks it is OK, if you are still doubtful then could you not ask another admin to weigh in? Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've quoted the relevant policy that explains why you can't use a primary source for an exceptional claim. You can go discuss it on a relevant board, or start an RfC here - because there's no consensus for that material. Zero also thought the FRUs are secondary source, which is clearly wrong per the WP:RSN discussion I linked to. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not every primary source that may be reliable or not should be included please read WP:DUE --Shrike (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that the only way to justify exclusion of this material would be if no claims were made at all in respect of culpability for damage caused to the plant. I note that the large majority of Israeli sources alternately blame Jordan or Iraq for the damage while more neutral sources note the damage but refrain from assigning blame for it. This source, which is a pretty good source, allocates blame to Iraq and Israel while letting Jordan mostly off the hook. This seems reasonable, why would Jordan destroy the plant in their control when it could be of benefit to them? Isn't it more plausible that Israel would seek to deny that benefit? Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Enemy property is routinely destroyed during war. Your speculation on motive is amusing in its naivety (the plant was supplying Israel with around 1/3 of its electricity, now why would its war-time enemies want to destroy it, hmm?), but irrelevant to what scholarly sources say - which is that the Iraqis destroyed it. The cable is a primary source that can't be used this way in the article - find a secondary source to support this claim, or consensus on this page to include the material - so far you have done neither. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the only way to prevent electric flow to a particular place is to blow up the generator, then yes, you are certainly naive. As for the, rest, you are free, as usual, to commence an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was 'the only way' (have a read: Straw man), but it is a way, and a simple answer to a question that seemed to elude your naive mind - why would you want to destroy your enemy's power plant). You , too, are confused regarding the RfC - there is no consensus to include this material, and the WP:ONUS for seeking consensus is on those wishing to include disputed material that was removed from an article. Get to it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is broken. The plant was in Transjordanian territory and it would have been obvious to the Israeli operators that Israel was going to lose control of it and that it was about to become a Transjordanian asset. Of course they would seek to deny that asset to Transjordan; most countries in a war do things like that. Zerotalk 04:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You either did not read my argument, did not understand it, or are also engaging in a strawman argument . My logic above explains why the Jordanians or Iraqis would have an incentive to destroy the plant, and there's nothing broken in it. Read it again, carefully. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the case here, where no credible argument has been brought, only two editors support deletion (and the deletions both made strongly suggest tendentiousness), against three supporting the WP:STATUSQUO. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Credible arguments have been brought against the use of a primary, non-authoratative source that contradicts multiple secondary reliable scholarly sources. This is not a numerical vote, and 3:2 is not consensus. You should really read what WP:STATUSQUO actually sasy, not what you imagine it says: "if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit ". You made an edit, I reverted it in good faith - and you simply reinstated it, in clear violation of what WP:QUO says . Start an RfC if you want to include this contested material. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One needs a valid reason for removal in the first instance and seems to me there isn't one.Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason has been given several times- it is a primary source not collaborated and contradicted by reliable, secondary, scholarly sources. pretending you did't see that stated, many times over, is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JungerMan, above you wrote that Stabler's quote “ contradicts multiple secondary reliable scholarly sources”. Please could you bring those sources which contradict it? I am quite sure you are wrong here. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One source is already in the article- Gelber's account of Iraqis looting the premises, and makes no mention of the alleged damage by the plant workers. Gelber is an academic historian specializing in this subject matter, and his book was published by an academic press (Rooutledge). Another is S. Ilan Troen, a professional historian at Brandies University, with expertise in Israeli social and political history, who in "The price of partition, 1948: The dissolution of the Palestine potash company", (published in the peer-reviewed academic journal "Journal of Israeli History") says "The workers were taken captive and both Iraqis and Jordanians engaged in wholesale looting of machinery". Yet another is Prof. Samuel Willner, of the University of Haifa, "Hydropower and pumped-storage in Israel – The energy security aspect of the Med-Dead Project", in "Negev, Dead Sea and Arava Studie"s 6 (4), 1–9 (2014), who says "The power station was destroyed by the Iraqi forces in 1948 during Israel's War of Independence", and provides 2 additional sources for this statement - (Ben-Arieh, 1965 and Gelber,1997).
You are attempting to supplant these high quality sources with an uncorroborated claim from a non-scholarly primary source. Editors object to that, with good reason. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked Morris his 1948 war doesn't mention it either. Shrike (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone point me to the contradiction? I don't see it. Nothing in Stabler's quote is inconsistent with those sources. He simply provides more detail. Which is not surprising as neither of the sources you mention above were focused on this incident - both remarked on it only in passing. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, Please read WP:DUE.If the sources doesn't mention it we shouldn't too. --Shrike (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Stabler is not a historian, and was not present at the event. When professional historians cover the event, describing who caused the damage and don't make any mention of this extraordinary claim, we don't add such uncorroborated statements from primary sources. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, Also there are sources(for ex. [3],[4] ) that discuss the power station including the whole history and yet it doesn't mention the blown up generators Shrike (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I interpret from the answers above that we are agreed that there is no contradiction, since both of you have chosen not to repeat JungerMan’s claim. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When scholarly historical sources describing the incident including who is responsible and don't mention the plant workers, any source who comes and gives a different account is contradicting them, at least implicitly. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:OR. Speculation about implicit contradictions is just that, speculation. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR is allowed on talk pages, in determining how to use sources. And there's no speculation here at all - if all reliable academic historic sources say something happened one way, and one non academic source comes and says 'no it happened this way', it contradicts them. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, as to the other sources, I will look through them. It would be great if we really have a source that addresses this incident in detail, with citations to their underlying sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frustratingly Meiton does not give a source for his sentence on the incident. Footnote 92 leads to an August 1948 letter about the employees held by the Jordanians. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pesach Malovany (16 June 2017). Wars of Modern Babylon: A History of the Iraqi Army from 1921 to 2003. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 48–. ISBN 978-0-8131-6945-3. This UP says the Iraqi forces captured 40 armed Israelis? I am not that clear on timings, is it that the Legion went there on 14th May, left the next day and replaced by Iraqi forces?Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Palestine Post reported 40 prisoners from Naharayim on May 25, 1948, p1. I think Meiton's count of 38 is more reliable as it is based on contemporary documents. Zerotalk 02:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, still can't get the timings tho, I know the Legion came out of Palestine then went back in (at midnight, I guess) and they handed over to Iraqi force (because then Iraqi force attacked over the river at same time). Do you know any good source for these events at this time? Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: only you and Shrike oppose the inclusion of Stabler, versus me, Zero0000 and Selfstudier who support it.

What definition of consensus are you using to continue your edit war here? Please remember that ARBPIA discretionary sanctions apply to this matter, and reverting against consensus is an enforceable offense. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one: Wikipedia:Consensus. Stop your empty threats - you are the one trying to edit war material w/o consensus into the article. Read WP:ONUS, and consider WP:DR or an RfC. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: perfect; per that policy we have consensus to keep the material so the tags will be removed. If you mean something else, please explain what exactly would satisfy your interpretation of consensus? I suspect 100 people in support would, but it seems three does not. How about four, five, or ten? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, per that policy there is no consensus to add this material. It makes it clear that consensu is not a numerical vote, which you obviously know. It would satisfy me if a supermajority (i.e, at least 2/3) of editors who are generally uninvolved in the I-P area would say that the primary source making such exceptional claims could be used in the manner you are attempting to add to the article, and give the policy based reason to do so. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Self evident high quality source, nothing wrong policy wise with primary if we quote it for a fact, I don't really get all this WP wikilawyering but I guess V trumps ONUS, that the way it works? So we have V (and at least 3 editors versus 2). So if 2 want it out then they should set up the RFC and make their case that their 2 policy based opinions outweigh the other 3 policy based opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a primary source, used to make an exceptional claim not mentioned by any other reliable secondary source. This is against policy, as explained in detail, above. When you actually read WP:V you'll find that verifiability is a required, but not sufficient condition for inclusion, and it most certainly does not trump WP:ONUS, which was written explicitly for such situations where something is verifiable, but editors have policy-based reasons to object to its inclusion JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I heard you the first time and I don't agree. You have policy reasons to object and we have policy reasons to support. The material might need rearranging a bit so that we don't imply that Gelber said it.Selfstudier (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree all you like. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not much of an argument. We all have reasons, but the WP:ONUS to demonstrate consensus is on those wishing to include contested material, and you have not met that onus yet. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to you. According to us, we have. And we are 3 and you are 2.Selfstudier (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Familiarize yourself with policy, please. Consensus is not a numerical vote. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It IS a numerical vote if it is based on policy arguments.Selfstudier (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it simply is not. Familiarize yourself with policy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. You familiarize yourself with policy. See, I can do that too. I don't understand your reluctance to start an RFC asking whether the material should stay, if your policy argument is better than our policy argument then an RFC will draw in outside editors and we can see who has the better case.Selfstudier (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second line of WP:CONSENSUS is 'Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote". I bolded the relevant part for you. My reluctance to start an Rfc is that it is not my job to do so, per WP:ONUS. It is yours. Now explain your reluctance. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already said, 3 vs 2 based on policy arguments so it's down to you to show that 3 are more wrong than right and 2 are more right than wrong (the thing about numerical votes is for people who just "vote" and say nothing or "vote" and give the wrong policy, that sort of thing).~I keep reading all these different policies and coming to the same conclusion every time, that there is so much flexi in them that a lot of the time an RFC is the only way to clarify consensus. Depressing but it is what it is.Selfstudier (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to try that wikilawyering at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus and see if people agree with it. I think you'll be in for a surprise. Indeed, an RfC is one of the ways to clarify consensus- so you should open one.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more to discuss here. You tried to censor a relevant source and you failed. As for "primary sources", you have two problems. One is that there is no policy against using primary sources. The other is that we don't use any primary sources. Stabler's memo is a primary source but our source is FRUS. The historians who edit FRUS selected and cross-referenced the memo out of a far larger body of material at their disposal; it is no different from what other historians do. Very many articles contain quotations from primary sources that have been selected by historians. Zerotalk 04:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we've been through this. There is policy against using primary sources in the manner it is being dome hre - to make an exception claim unsuppored by any other reliable sources . The FRUs are a primary source, as has been established in WP:RSN.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such policy. WP:PSTS does not say any of what you just wrote. Your argument is based on WP:EXCEPTIONAL, to which this does not qualify. The only fact we are stating is that a US diplomat said something. There is no doubt that he said it; FRUS is a highly reputable source. WP:EXCEPTIONAL is not intended to capture obviously verifiable statements. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is such policy, and it has been explained in detail, above. I'll repeat it here, for the hard of reading: it is not allowed to use WP:PRIMARY sources in the way you are doing. The argument, once more (with relevant citations to policy) is as follows: The Stabler cable is a primary source. In it, he makes a claim no other reliable source has made. WP:OR, in discussing WP:PRIMARY sources, says that if they are used, it should be used with caution, and has an explanatory footnote that says that any such source making an exceptional claim requires exceptional sources. In WP:EXCEPTIONAL "exceptional claims" are then further defined as, among other criteria, "Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" - which this surely is, and "Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest" - which also fits this situation. In summary: policy is clear that you may not use the Stabler cable (alone) to support the claim that the dynamos were initially blown up by the plant's workers, as that is a challenged exceptional claim supported purely by a primary source. In addition, you have provided a lengthy (1500 char) quote from that source, which again runs contrary to WP:RSPRIMARY: "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. Finally, even if this was a reliable secondary source, per WP:ONUS. "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion"- and "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.". You do not have such consensus here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we do but feel free to test that by way of an RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mistaken as to who has the WP:ONUS to demonstrate such consensus for disputed material, via RfC if needed. It is not me nor Shrike - "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The good news is that we have do so already. Thanks for your concern. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No you don't, and asserting you do is unlikely to convince anyone but you. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should not go around in circles. 60% support is clear. There is no rule on consensus requiring editors "uninvolved" in a topic area, as you suggest above. But it would be good to have this consensus strengthened, so I would be very supportive if you wish to invite in new editors via an RfC. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3:2 is not consensus, and consensus is not a vote. Feel free to start an RfC. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: I, together with the majority of the editors here, remain very happy with the current state of the article. So I have nothing to start an RfC about. I have enjoyed collaborating with you here, hope to continue our work together soon. Bye for now. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I and others are not happy with it, and declaring victory and walking away is not going to work, as you will find out. You do not have consensus for this, and the onus is on you to get it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which others? I only count one other. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well make it 4 to 2 then. nableezy - 21:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, make it 4 to 3 then, and that's not a consensus. You all should know better not to include a Primary Source in this area. I seem to recall another article in the IP conflict where on of you didn't like including the British police log because it was a primary source. Unless it was published in a reliable secondary source, we should follow policy. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt what policy says, and you can stop pinging me to pages Im obviously watching. Thanks. nableezy - 21:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph, looks like its back to 4-2. Whodathunkit? nableezy - 16:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RSN discussion[edit]

Brought to RSN. nableezy - 22:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Foreign_Relations_of_the_United_States_(book_series)_in_First_Jordan_Hydro-Electric_Power_House
Onceinawhile (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt we are going to get more out of the WP:RSN discussion at this point. Does anyone disagree with SlaterSteven’s comment? In other words, since it isn’t considered “exceptional”, there is nothing in policy stopping us using using the source in the article. His point on weight comes down to consensus of editors which we have a clear 4 vs 2 majority. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, I don't think its enough input we can restore the text after DYK and then start RFC or you prefer to start RFC now? --Shrike (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: it seems a big effort for a dead horse. We you agree to a compromise so we can move on? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, I already proposed the compromise the text stay out and will be reinserted after dyk Shrike (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike I mean a compromise so we can close this argument permanently. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, I already said the alleged "blown generator " should be left out if you don't agree and reinsert the text I will start RFC. --Shrike (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: I don’t agree, so please feel free to start the RfC now. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clipped text[edit]

Transjordan had a secret agreement with Israel regarding protection of the works.[1] United States Chargé d'affaires Wells Stabler reported in a confidential despatch that when the Iraqi army arrived, the Israeli operators of the plant blew up some of the electricity generators (alternators) in the plant and the plant was subsequently looted by the Iraqi troops.[1] Thirty-eight workers were captured;[2] they were released only after the Armistice Agreements were signed on 3 April 1949.[3] Stabler's despatch on 11 July 1949, written after a visit to the site, read:

It is understood that prior to the hostilities In May 1948, the Jordan Government and the Jewish Agency reached some form of agreement concerning the protection of the Hydro-Electric works. It is possible that the Jordan Government would have been able to observe this agreement if it had not been for the arrival of the Iraqi forces. When the Iraqi forces came into the area, the Israelis departed, but only after blowing up certain of the dynamos in the main dynamo building. Later the Iraqi finished the job, even removing numerous machines.... The area has been under the control of the Arab Legion since the departure of the Iraqi troops three months ago. All looting and damage has been stopped by the Legion and the area is under guard. ... It is quite obvious that the Rutenberg Hydro-Electric works can only be operated again by an agreement between Jordan and Israel. Jordan, on its part, is incapable of operating such a works by itself and, moreover, the Israelis can control the flow of the Jordan. Israel, on the other hand, cannot commence operations of the works as all the buildings are in Jordan territory. In addition, Jordan can control the flow of the Yarmuk River. It would appear that it would take some time yet to reach an agreement on the operation of the Rutenberg Hydro-Electric works as it remains, along with the Dead Sea Potash Works, an important bargaining point for Jordan.[1]

I want to move the DYK forward, once this debate is resolved we can add this back in. --evrik (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949: The Near East, South Asia, Africa (Chapter: Israel). State Department Historical Office. 1976. pp. 981, reference to Despatch 65 from Amman, 890i.6463/7-1149.
  2. ^ Schayegh, Cyrus; Arsan, Andrew (2015-06-05). The Routledge Handbook of the History of the Middle East Mandates. Routledge. p. 302. ISBN 978-1-317-49706-6.
  3. ^ Meiton, 2019, p.214

Rename[edit]

Suggest to rename it to Naharayim Power Plant as it seems that it most common name compare [5] and [6] and the first one without quotes and still almost no mention in modern scholarship --Shrike (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I agree that Naharayim Power Plant is a common name for this place. On the other hand, the other title was never supposed to be a name; it was a description. So your means of comparison doesn't make sense. Zerotalk 15:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where "Naharayim" is. There is a page called that but it says "citation required" for location. That apart, I think you could also make a case for it being known as "Rutenberg power plant" although that might get confused with plants that are actually in Israel.Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen variations of the following used in different sources:
  • "First Jordan" power plant / power house / hydroelectric power house - this was the official name on all formal documents
  • "Jordan" power plant / hydroelectric plant
  • "Jordan river" power plant / hydroelectric plant
  • "Rutenberg" power plant / hydroelectric plant
  • "Naharayim" power plant / hydroelectric plant
  • "Tel Or" power plant / hydroelectric plant
Shrike, have you looked at all of these? I tend to agree with Zero that many of these phrases are used in the sources as descriptions rather than names. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, It most common name as far as I checked looking at google books at google scholar.The current article name is not used in scholarly literature --Shrike (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few sources that include Jisr al-Majami (or a variation of it) as part of a description.Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, I didn't found much contemporary sources that mention this description.Please note that I didn't used quotes [7] --Shrike (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are not that many contemporary sources about the thing at all (and afaics, virtually all sources referring to Naharayim power plant are Israeli/Jewish, which, while not surprising, doesn't exactly add up to independent sourcing).Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, What you saying is not according to policy being Israeli or Jewish have nothing to do with it. Shrike (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does, this place is in Jordan, it is illogical to use a Hebrew placeholder that refers to a place that does not exist in Jordan. Said placeholder is used mainly by Israeli and Jewish sources and has more to do with the Jewish ownership of PEC (by Rutenberg, which is why you can equally find references to the Rutenberg power plant, again mainly from Israeli and Jewish sources) than it has to do with the fact of this being the first electric power plant in Jordan, which is what the current article title nicely encapsulates (and likely the reason for it being referred to in that manner in official documents).Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, What do you mean by Jewish source? Shrike (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Written by someone who is not an Israeli but Jewish? And could reasonably be expected to use "Naharayim" in their works, Rachel Havrelock, for example. What does this have to do with the name of the article? Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, it's not necessary to ping me every time, I will show up without it.Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Shrike, he is using the reply-link function which automatically comes up with a ping link at the beginning. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found a setting in preferences to disable notifications.Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 May 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. When there is no clearly dominant WP:COMMONNAME, the official name should be used. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House → Naharayim Power Plant – The most common name that the plant was known for example compare [8] and [9]. Almost no one referred it as First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House Shrike (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems to be the common name. The idea that we should discount writers based on their ethnicity or nationality is completely unacceptable for reasons that should be obvious. buidhe 00:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont know if there is a singular common name for this place. Naharyim Power Plant is used, Rutenburg Power Plant is used, and a number of descriptive names are used. And note that none of them, including Naharyim, is a proper name for this place. All of these are descriptions of it, and the operative part of WP:TITLE in that case is WP:NDESC, where neutrality and not just commonality come in to play. I dont really oppose or support this move, but I think that looking at the various options before trying to settle on one through an RM would be a better idea than doing it now. nableezy - 04:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Onceinawhile's sources, I oppose. nableezy - 18:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose if the official name is “First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House“ then that should be used, regardless of common name. I give as an example the article about the “Geva Binyamin” settlement; in everyday conversation, all refer to the settlement as “(yishuv) Adam” not the official name. If we change this, we would have to change that...I just think we should stick with whatever the official name of the power plant is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarcademan123456 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zarcademan123456,The WP:COMMONNAME is a policy and should be abided. The original name is not used in WP:RS.No one the knows this name.Its never referred as such.If it refered by WP:RS as ADAM then we should change the title(but it isn't) --Shrike (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike, there is no common name for this place. These are all descriptive titles. nableezy - 17:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources as far as I checked refer as power plain in Naharayim so even if you right my proposal is best descriptive title --Shrike (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well not necessarily if that is not a neutral title, and I dont know using an Israeli name for a Jordanian power plant qualifies as "neutral". nableezy - 17:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The common name of this Naharayim even if its Jordan as per our article of this place. ---Shrike (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The plant was (and the ruins of it are) in Jordan, there is no area or place called Naharayim (a Hebrew transliteration) in Jordan where the language is Arabic. So describing the plant as Naharayim power plant is inaccurate/wrong as well as non NPOV.Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"One of the sites is Baqura, a spit of land where the Jordan and Yarmuk rivers meet, which is called Naharayim in Hebrew." I can produce several like this. Shrike is relying on the resolution of a PM re Naharayim (an area or place in Jordan but until recently under Israeli control so there is no recent history of the Jordanian name being used only the Hebrew name). This is different though, we are talking about a physical object clearly located in Jordan not an area and it seems to me quite wrong to apply an areaname Hebrew transliteration to it notwithstanding that Israeli sources will self evidently use the Hebrew. Try this Google search ["power house" + Jordan + Jisr ie no mention of either Baqura or Naharayim.Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer a source of type "more usual", Washington Post, An Israeli soldier closes a border gate on the Israeli side of the border at the Jordan Valley site of Naharayim, also known as Baqura in Jordan, east of the Jordan River on Nov. 10, 2019..Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are two related issues here. The first is the use of the Hebrew transliteration Naharayim which refers to an uncertain location that does not even exist in Jordan, where the language is Arabic. Since the "area" (wherever it is precisely has not currently been determined) has only recently returned to full Jordanian control, Naharayim remains for the time being a common name. The second issue is the further appending of this Hebrew appellation to the power plant which has it's own independent history as can be seen from the sources and Google searches given. Merely because Naharayim is a currently common name for an area does not automatically mean that every other object/location in the vicinity should automatically be tagged with that label, notwithstanding that non-independent Israeli sources may reflect such a usage. There are various possible descriptions (in English) for the plant and the current title reflects the official early usage. There is no need to append Hebrew or Arabic transliterations to the name although if one were to do so, then it makes more sense to append the Arabic, given the location in Jordan.Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: US diplomat Wells Stabler's report published in FRUS[edit]

Can this article include information from United States Chargé d'affaires Wells Stabler's report of May 7, 1949, published in the Foreign Relations of the United States (book series)? The book is cited for the line United States Chargé d'affaires Wells Stabler reported in a confidential despatch that when the Iraqi army arrived, the Israeli operators of the plant blew up some of the electricity generators (alternators) in the plant and the plant was subsequently looted by the Iraqi troops and for a longer quote. A discussion at WP:RSN is here. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No per WP:REDFLAG this WP:PRIMARY source. I scored multiple secondary sources that deals specifically with history of the power station including occupation by Iraqi and sources that deal with 1948 war and mention the the Plant and no secondary source mention this.So probably multiple historians didn't find this report credible.So we should exclude it as not everything that is sourced its WP:DUE to include --Shrike (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example Metion discuss detained workers [10] but don't discuss blown generators also here [11] he too deals quite extensively with destruction see pg 213(this is not open in google I could send a copy of relevant pages --Shrike (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please bring a quote for the second link then. The first link gives just a single sentence on the events of that day. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my version of Meiton (both above sources are the same material) it is on page 214 and all it says is "the Iraqis sacked the plant that night and detained the thirty-eight workers still at the site.". I don't think this passing mention constitutes dealing "extensively" with the destruction of the plant. Nor are the detained workers anything to do with the matter under discussion here.Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just found a copy and read the same. There isn't even a citation given. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Shrike made a similar comment a month ago (17 April, above) and since then has been unable to provide a single source which covers this moment in history in detail. The only sources we have give a couple of sentences on the whole story at best. Therefore it doesn't hold even a drop of water to claim that "probably multiple historians didn't find this report credible". The RSN discussion established that there is nothing "exceptional" about the claim that at the height of war, departing operators of an economic asset might have sought to stop the captors from using it. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the sources I have examined so far, there is only unclarity, and brief unclarity at that. A possible majority say the Iraqi forces looted/destroyed the plant, others say it was the Jordanians and yet others note the damage but refrain from assigning blame. There is some confusion over the date, is it the 14th or the 15th? And all only mention the matter briefly while I have found none that give an original source.Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is interesting, relevant, properly sourced, and not contrary to any policy. FRUS is a collection of official documents selected from a vastly larger body of work by an editorial board of professional historians, and published with cross-referencing and some commentary. The documents themselves are primary sources, but I think that the value added by the editors makes FRUS a secondary source. But this is irrelevant, since the citing of primary sources without embellishment is permitted. Next, this is not an extraordinary claim; actually it is the sort of thing very likely to happen. Finally, it is true that we haven't found another source for the claim, but we haven't found a source refuting it either. There is certainly no policy that two or more sources are required for something to be included, and we don't even claim in our voice that Stabler's assertion is true. (That's a compromise, because policy appears to allow us to state it as fact.) I'm betting many historians don't cite Stabler's report, if only to deny it, because they aren't aware of it. Zerotalk 12:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that Stabler's memo is actually inserted by the editors as a footnote to give context to the main text. It is exactly what historians do in history books. Zerotalk 13:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes This is clear cut per arguments by Zero above.Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I could add little to Zero000's compelling argument; an "editorial board of professional historians" changed the content from primary to secondary source with via scholarly analysis. Lindenfall (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Island[edit]

To editor Arminden: Though you didn't actually write it, your addition about tourism seems to imply that the power station is on Peace Island. It isn't so, see this map which I think should be included. Zerotalk 04:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Naharayim it says "The remains of the power station are part of the Jordan River Peace Park south of the Island of Peace on the Israel-Jordan border.[1] Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the "Peace Park" (which I think is still in the planning stages) is not the the same as "Peace Island". Peace Island is a region that was on the Israeli side of the 1949 armistice line, whereas the Peace Park includes places on the Jordanian side including the former power station. Zerotalk 12:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Zero0000: Hi. Again, maps can be deceiving, especially in this region. The island, geographically speaking, is the land between the rivers. What was agreed to be called the Isle of Peace park might have been different (admin. term vs geogr. term). The power plant must also be defined: for engineers, it's the whole complex. In the vernacular, it's just the building holding the turbines. That one was indeed not part of the 'tourable' area, and definitely not the inside of the building, but EcoPeace was promoting, with much outside support, the inclusion of the entire Baqoura (Jordanian) area into a new, much larger park, with the turbines building becoming the visitors centre. It was supposed to offer access to Jordanians, Palestinians, and Israelis alike. The best material is in their own Jordan River Peace Park Pre-Feasibility Study (July 2008), and summed up with all imaginable plans and photos by "eshchar" here. Whatever the real chances might have been, Netanyahu chose to raise the tensions with Jordan and all fell flat in 2018-19 with Jordan not renewing the 25-year agreement, let alone allowing the access area for Israelis to be expanded (btw, the Jordanians never opened access from their side for their own nationals). So your map hints at the fact that until 2019 the Jordanians might have allowed Israeli access only up to the 1949-94 armistice line, thus excluding the turbine house, which is on the "island", but was outside the park. But that's just a guess. Maybe they kept just the building off-limits, or a mined area around it, or some other area considered militarily sensitive. Or it changed according to the day's policies, which might well have been the case and would be in accord with how things are run in the region: orders from "above"/the authorities, and gates open one day and close the next. The map doesn't say anything explicit and useful about that.
I would definitely support adding the photo with Emir Abdullah starting the turbines in 1932 – or actually 33 (!! worth looking into), according to the Matson caption – see here, at LoC. That is historical fact, the rest is guesswork. It existed, it produced power for both entities, was attacked and abandoned, ceased to work, became part of a short-lived touristic peace dream, and for the future listen to Que sera, sera. Arminden (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In the planning stages", or better: "in the dreaming stages" it was in 2008, maybe until 2018. Now it's as dead as Peres' confederation plan or Stef Wertheimer's proposed industrial park for Gaza. With, again, Que sera, sera playing in the background. Cute detail: Globes announced the go-ahead of the Gaza plan during the 2nd Intifada, in 2004, posting it - on April Fool's Day. Arminden (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but there is nothing deceiving about the map. It lays out the facts in a much clearer way than words can do it. There is no disagreement over what "Peace Island" means: it is/was the region in the east of the Jordan River that was leased to Israel by Jordan under the 1994 peace treaty. I copied the boundary onto this map as a line of dots from the official map accompanying the peace treaty. The turbine house was several hundred meters outside, in Jordan. As for dates: the opening ceremony on June 9, 1932, was reported in the Palestine Bulletin in its next issue (June 12, page 1). The different date June 6, 1933 on the photo is impossible as the High Commissioner was arriving in Port Said on June 7 on his way to Palestine from a trip abroad. Anyway the Palestine Post has nothing about Naharayim on June 7. Zerotalk 13:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli official maps of 1951, 1953, 1955 and 1961 all show the turbine house being on the Jordanian side of the armistice line. The official map of the 1994 peace treaty also shows the plant in Jordanian territory, not in the part that was temporarily leased to Israel. No guessing required. Zerotalk 13:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Zero0000: Thank you for clarifying the LoC caption issue. They're often inaccurate, but it's better to check - quite often the official inauguration comes long before or after the actual production starting date.
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough: I never had any doubts that the turbine house is on the Jordanian side. My point is that how far tours were allowed to go in might very well have depended on less clear criteria, and I do stick to that. After 94 the entire "island" (admin. acception) was on the Jordanian side, with a special temporary status, true, and EcoPeace with help from others, including some from Jordan, were trying to expand the common access area.
Btw, here the armistice line seems to have been quite clear, even though the border was amended under different criteria in 1994, but elsewhere a thick chemical pencil used in the field, and the effect of the dye smudging with time, meant that armistice lines were less than clear and contested. Another example: the southern Palestine-Egypt border was also contested because the British marked it with telegraph poles, which got used as firewood by the local Bedouin, so in short: the Bedouin "stole the border". I also heard a version that the clerks sent to place the stakes along the border were overwhelmed by the heat and did a rather sloppy job, which I would more than understand. It's typical to read for instance that "It is of unique interest to note that, in spite of agreements and demarcation, the memoirs of a former British governor of the Sinai (Jarvis, 1932, end paper) still show the boundary beginning east of Rafah and ending west of Taba." (see here). That's why I keep on insisting that what we get online or neatly printed out in books must not be seen as carved in stone, as absolutely nobody in the region ever has, at least not until very recently. And when the UN thinks they've sorted it out, an issue like the Sheba'a Farms is invented out of thin air. Commerce, i.e. haggling, has been invented in the Middle East. It's not about Germany & Switzerland. That's my more general point. Arminden (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a dispute in the UNSC about the armistice line here in 1949; see Naharayim#1949_armistice_line. In the Taba dispute, Israel argued against historical photographs and its own official maps and had no real prospect of winning. The memoirs of Jarvis have no historical weight in this issue and are not even mentioned in the 80-page dissenting opinion of tribunal member Ruth Lapidoth setting out the Israeli case. Thanks for this interesting thesis, though. Zerotalk 01:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Zero0000: Welcome. But it's more than a thesis or theory, it's reality. The same reality that has Israel somehow function without a constitution, and all other countries in the region formally have constitutions, parliaments, elections, etc. - but the power is with the political strongmen, or groups, at the top - who in turn sometimes are loyal to a tribe or specific fiqh school. The reality that doesn't define at least part of the borders of Israel. That has the most important holy sites in Christendom be run according to an unwritten and equivocal "Status Quo" (Cust acknowledged that he can't put several of the issues in a clear, Western legal-style document, and that some claims cannot be brought to a common denominator). The same goes for the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa/Haram ash-Sharif: just check how many versions of a "Gate of the Prophet" or "Gate of Buraq" connected to where Muhammad is said to have tethered Buraq there are (eastern [Bab al-Buraq south of the Golden Gate], southern [Triple Gate], now western wall [Barclay's Gate], because it's convenient).
These are not just matters of lore & tradition, but strong arguments in every major negotiation round. The same style permeates down to the last border passport control officer or policeman on the street. It's in part an inherited way of dealing with complex matters based on custom and the day's interests, and in part due to a very conscious modern-time decision to avoid dangerous decisions and explosive public debates. The Jordanian and Israeli leaders have held very close and friendly political meetings for decades before the 1994 peace accord, which in itself was a masterpiece of "imaginative problem-solving", including in the matter of Naharayim/Baqoura.
So in terms of general background I'm talking known facts. If the area accessible for tours did at any point include the SE tip of the physical "island" with the turbine house, which has always been in Jordan, I cannot say; that the map isn't the ultimate answer to that question, that I am sure. A paragraph in a written agreement defining the "Peace Island" park as only within the territory held by Israel in 1948/50-1994 would be a much stronger argument, if still not a final one, for said reasons.
The same goes for Taba or Rafah: when at the UN, everyone is forced to act based on Western-style legal arguments; when having discussions behind closed doors, that's not the case, and much of the final documents are based on exactly that. And when an actor doesn't care much about the UN, like Hizballah, the Sheba'a Farms are invented.
I seem to care that you understand this aspect of Muddle (ha! typo, honestly, but a fun one) Eastern reality, which has its own rules. To be fair, this approach is far from being typical just for that region, but there it sits on the throne. So ME maps are great, especially when France and England are involved, but otherwise... I'm sorry I didn't send you a PEF article I came across, about a British officer who received a high army rank in Egypt from the Khedive along with the nickname "Pasha", but officially needed to wait for a confirmation letter from the sultan, in which he was told, in a customary sentence, that any act against the sultan would be harshly punished - while the very presence of British military in Egypt was an act of occupation and open hostility against Turkey. And that was in the late 19th century, not in the dark & remote past. Ah, here it is! Long live Google. Arminden (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't propose a map to show where tours went and that would be silly since after all one can get a tour of Amman. I only wrote of what in the peace treaty is called the "special Naharayim/Baqura area", and afterwards colloquially known as "Peace Island", and there a map rules supreme since the treaty itself uses a map to define it. As far as I am aware, "Peace Island" as a name has only been used post-1994 and never meant anything else. It's easy to find newspaper sources equating the two and that's all there is likely to be. Zerotalk 15:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may be able to go to Amman, but not to places right on the border. Try. And you now present implicitly what has never been stated anywhere explicitly: that the treaty uses the term "special Naharayim/Baqura area"; and that the "special Naharayim/Baqura area" is identical with the "Peace Island". Two logical jumps one has to accept. You usually don't accept newspapers as RS. And I've explained why I don't consider this type of Russian dolls-type argument as "ruling supreme" in the Middle East. EcoPeace was working to expand the area. The barriers were opened daily and the respective areas were patrolled by the two armies according to the orders they received. A tourism entrepreneur from nearby Ashdod Ya'akov and maybe others were able to take tourists to where they didn't go on foot by themselves, by pre-arranged reservation, most likely in close coordination with the two armies. So let's agree to disagree. Arminden (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a detailed description of a guided tour in 2009. They were shown the power station from a distance but they weren't allowed to enter it. Zerotalk 01:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Z, I'm not impervious to arguments, it's perfectly possible that regular tours were never allowed near the turbine house, and it seems that this section of the border was at least until 2018 accessible on foot from the Jordanian side (many others are not, and some are still heavily mined). If you read the Ynet article linked here below, you'll get a sense of how certain things were possible under King Hussein and became less possible with time. The map shows where the boundary used to be and where the border is now, and the treaty determined the special arrangements regarding access for Israeli kibbutz farmers to agricultural land, but this is a different category altogether: a goodwill park with tourist access from Israel. There is a monumental gate behind the entrance and a Jordanian Army watchtower at the highest point, officers were greeting the mainly Israeli tourists etc. This had nothing to do with agriculture and the special arrangement with the farmers. A goodwill, or you may also call it: a PR project, can evolve according to the PR wishes of those in charge. That's why EcoPeace saw a realistic chance there, as did their Jordanian counterparts. As long as no abandoning of territorial sovereignty over any area, however small, could be misconstrued by anyone, the pre-94 boundary was not "ruling supreme" in matters of goodwill. Relationships evolved in the opposite direction, as did public opinion in Jordan, and any talk of keeping, let alone expanding, the 94 arrangements fell flat in 2018-19. That's all I'm saying. The map shows the various lines and borders, but how the goodwill project was defined or evolved, it does not. That can maybe be shown with other sources, although I doubt it, because much of what was going on only seldom made it to the media (see article, one among very many). To bring up one (!) tour description doesn't sound like you. I couldn't find out how the Ynet journalist came to the turbine house accompanied by a Jordanian soldier, but I'd very much think that he was politely accompanied there via the Peace Island right next to it, and not via Beth Shean and the Sheikh Hussein Bridge and up north again, a totally unnecessary loop of over 100 km in total. It is ALWAYS possible to get a permit "from high up", the right phone call and the dotted or continuous line on the map disappears in no time.
Just to remind you how the Al-Maghtas Baptism Site came to be: the Franciscan archaeologist Michele Piccirillo took Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad, a nephew of King Hussein, to the still mined site in Aug 1995, and made him grasp the importance of the place. Next thing you know, the army demined it all and a truly grand national park was established on a large piece of land, with a considerable investment and various denominations being invited to build churches. Because the royal house was supporting it all. That's all it takes.
  • A photo of one of the turbines with (probably Israeli) visitors and a Jordanian soldier, taken by an Ynet collaborator, Yigal Tzur, in 2018 or not long before that (see article here).
  • A video taken by an Israeli architect, Guy Shachar, and uploaded in Nov 2019. I would say he came in from the Jordanian side, it doesn't look official, no soldiers, which would mean: no mines, free access. Arminden (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Projects - Jordan River Peace Park foeme.org
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Jordan_Hydro-Electric_Power_House&oldid=1207234716"