Talk:Jordan Valley

Merge

What exactly is the differnce between Jordan Valley (Middle East) and Jordan Rift Valley? Why do we need 2 article s to describe essentially the same thing? Isarig 23:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments at the Jordan Rift Valley and read the sources cited throughout both articles. Tiamat 16:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Error re population

The figures given in the text for the population of the Jordan Valley from the CIA Fact Book refer to the Jordanian side of the Jordan Valley, while this article is about the land on the other side of the Jordan river, which has been under Israeli control since 1967. IOW, the land on either side of the Jordan river can be and is referred to as the Jordan Valley. The two should not be confused. I don't have good population figures for the Israeli-controlled portion of Jordan Valley or I would put them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.4.9 (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there are conflicting claims about the population of the Valley before 1967. There is a EU report claiming that there used to be "between 200,000 and 320,000 people" living there before the Six Day War, but the Israeli census of the time talks about 9,078 people in the Jericho district. Of course, this was after the war, so all the people who fled then were already unaccounted for.Froy1100 (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Content merged from Jordan Rift Valley article

Merged content from the Jordan Rift Valley which was irrelevant to that geology article into this article. Content moved/merged included the tourism, agriculture, and demographics material. Vsmith (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong first picture

This picture shows a landscape which IS NOT PART OF THE JORDAN VALLEY AS DEFINED HERE! It shows the southern Sea of Galilee, but WITHOUT even the exit point of the Jordan River (that would be the rounded end which is not part of the picture, farther to its right), which is where the Jordan Valley starts according to the definition presented here.

The confusion with the far longer Jordan Rift Valley, which unlike the Jordan Valley does include the Sea of Galilee, is one probable cause for this mistake, and is the source of much more confusion. Needs careful stressing, even to the point of repetition - as proven here.

In the local Israeli terminology the southern part of the Sea of Galilee/Lake Kinneret is one unit with the northern part of the Jordan Valley, see Emek HaYarden Regional Council. This is probably the second cause ofconfusion.

In short, the Arabic "Ghor" and the Hebrew "Emek" both are defined much wider than the "Jordan Valley" is in this article. Beware of much, never-ending confusion.Arminden (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Arminden

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jordan Valley (Middle East). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927224040/http://www.jordanembassyus.org/08312000008.htm to http://www.jordanembassyus.org/08312000008.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing impeccably sourced material

Debresser. Consensus means responding to another person's comments. I gave 3 strong reasons why your edit summary removing material was erratic and not ground in policy [here] So please tell me:

• The source says 'Palestinian Bedouins' and you say they are two different things. Please explain why you are correct, and the source wrong.
• You state B'tselem is an 'radical leftist' organ and fails RS (poor source). Please point to me the relevant part of RSN discussions which has determined it is not RS.
• You state that there is no grounds for putting information prior to 1993 regarding demolitions into the demolition section. Explain why a section of Demolitions should exclude those occurring before the Oslo Accords.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I have split the sentence into two parts. The first part, that Israel severely restricts movement, building etc. in the Jordan Valley is an accepted fact. I have added another source, the Red Cross, for the statement. The second part, saying that this is a de facto annexation of the Jordan Valley; for this part I have added another book, from Indiana University Press. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added another source by Itamar Rabinovich et. al. which gives the Israeli viewpoint that the Jordan Valley should be held for security reasons. Debresser's edit is not accurate: the charge of annexation is not just made by B'Tselem, so attributing it to B'Tselem would be wrong. The source quotes B'Tselem (and others) but it says the same thing in its own voice in the rest of the section. The section concludes with: Actual Israeli practices in the Jordan Valley and statements issued by high ranking officers indicate that what lies behind Israel's policy is not a security-military motive, but rather a political one. What is taking place is the annexation of this land to Israel. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Jordan Valley

The opening section is so crafted as to defy the way the Jordan Valley is mentioned in IP sources, i.e. as part of the West Bank. This should be registered, because the complexity and vagueness of the introduction fails to clarify this. I suggest Elisha Efrat The West Bank and Gaza Strip: A Geography of Occupation and Disengagement, Routledge, 2006 p.34Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

One can probably simply change the phrasing to make it clear that the Jordan Valley is part of the West Bank. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the northern part fo the Jordan Valley is not part of the West Bank. As a result, I think we can easily leave this article the way it is, since the second paragraph of the lead already implies that the status of at least part of the Jordan Valley is disputed. By the way, I saw a nice article about the Jordan Valley here. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the Jordan Rift Valley with the Jordan Valley. Where's your map, vs this,The Jordan Valley and the region of the northern Dead Sea cover approximately 160,000 hectares, which make up about 28.8% of the West Bank (see accompanying map) The Jewish Virtual Library admits that 'The Jordan Valley lies within the Palestinian territory of the West Bank.'; the BBC says the the Jordan Valley of our article was 'captured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War.' Remember my advice Debresser. Opinions count for zilch in editing. We are obliged to use sources, and unless you can summon adequate evidence for your contention, it has no value for this encyclopedia, and is immaterial to this talk page's purpose.Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You started so well, commenting on the subject and not on the editor, and then you just had to be a patronizing dick again. I don't need your advice, and I don't want it, and I ask you to stop giving it. As you have been told at WP:AE before.

As to the point. You are wrong, because this article clearly says that the Jordan Valley starts "from the spot where it exits the Sea of Galilee in the north", and that is far higher than where the West Bank begins. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This is kindergarten level advice, Debresser. I gave you several sources. You replied that you don't accept them because our article contradicts them. Wikipedia as all beginners are told, cannot be cited as a reliable source, as you just did. Do you understand this? Nishidani (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

All I am saying is that there is a contradiction. If I am wrong, and the Jordan Valley does not start where the Jordan River exits the Sea of Galilee, then the text needs to be changed in that regards. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Like all IP articles this has been edited indifferently, by adding blobs here and there without an eye to overall coherence. The geography section is quite explicit:'According to the definition used in this article, what is elsewhere sometimes termed the Upper Jordan Valley is not considered part of the Jordan Valley.' One must clearly distinguish, geophysical, historical, and contemporary definitions, and the article deals with the Jordan Valley within the West Bank, which is the meaning 99% of contemporary sources give it. Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Np. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

A simple google map measurement shows 37 kms (from the southern tip of the Sea of Galilee to the West Bank's northern edge a bit south of Beit She'an), of the 110 kms, to be outside of the west bank (all be it area C in the west bank). The article lede, at present, places Israel & West-Bank right next to each other in the second paragraph - and for the most part ignores politics (in the lede). It is fine as is. The Jordan valley is not part of the west bank - to begin with half of it is on the east bank (Jordan), and a third of the length isn't adjacent to the west bank at all.Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see, the sources typically use "Jordan Valley" to refer to the area which Israel occupied in 1967. The BBC article linked above uses this definition (so do many other news reports). This UN OCHA document does the same. If this does not exactly match whatever definition the article uses, it should either be fixed or clarified. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The source of the conflation is the Israel bikaa regional council and referring to this area as Bikaar HaYardan as opposed to Emek HaYarden (which also means valley). In Hebrew bikaa would (almost) always refer to the west bank portion, and this has worked itself into the English. In terms of geographical divions, which is what this article refers to, the proper division is fro the sea of galilee downwards, the west bank line in this area does not follow any particular geographical feature and is purely political. Note that the geographical feature is also half on the east side, in Transjordan. Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The OHCA map and BBC piece are not helpful in resolving this as OCHA deals only with the occupied territories and the bbc piece also addresses the IP conflict. Neither deal with geography, which as per my understanding the lowe jordan valley, better known as the jordan valley, extends from the sea of galilee to the dead sea and is composed also of the east bank in the state of Jordan.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

A number of sources: [1] (Britannica) [2] (Jordanian reference) and [3] (OHCA - refuting a map User:Kingsindian by a more clear description: "The Jordan Valley is located in a stretch of land (about 401 km2) that lies adjacent to the Jordan Valley up to the base of the mountain ridge, east of the West Bank. It runs from the Sea of Galilee in the north to the Dead Sea in the south." (at the opening - before going into I/P politics). The source of the underlying confusion is political - not geographical. The politics of the west-bank contained Jordan Valley, Northern Dead Sea, and the back-side of the mountain-line (area west of the valley that is not the valley proper) - is a point of contention in I/P. When referring the Jordan valley in the very narrow sense of the Israeli/Palestinian post-1967 issues - and particularly from a Palestinian viewpoint (but not only, and in Hebrew the use of synonyms (Bikaa/Emek) also confuses the issue (as they both translate to valley)) - the valley (and often the northern dead sea area which is not always named separately) - is loosely defined as the area east of the main Palestinian settlements (which, with the exception of Jericho and small settlements/Bedouin encampments, are all high up in the Hebron and Samaria mountains and don't extend down into the rain shadow desert between the mountain and the valley) which is in Area-C post-Oslo. But this isn't geography (which preexists human existence in the middle east) - it disregards the Jordanian side (half of the valley), contains features that are outside of the valley proper (and are much higher than the valley - which is fairly narrow, but deep, depression), includes areas south of the valley (northern dead sea - if not mentioned separately (sometimes is), and disregards the stretch outside of the west bank to the north.Icewhiz (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not know the details, but it looks to me like the Britannica article is about the Jordan river; the article roughly corresponds to the Jordan Rift Valley (see for instance the mention of Hula Valley: Where irrigation permits, the Jordan Valley has been settled by Arab and Jewish agricultural communities. Notable settled regions are the Ḥula Valley in the north...) This article is about the (lower) Jordan Valley. Anyway, as I said, I do not know the details. If there are multiple terminologies, they should be clarified. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that geographically - the article is correct. When mentioning the Jordan valley in the narrow scope of post-1993 (Oslo) Palestinian-Israel politics - then one refers typically to the western side of the valley (and beyond) and only that portion within the west bank (excluding Israel & Jordan) - however this would only be used when the current-affairs Palestinian context is clear (in the same sense that a NJ state paper referring to towns on the Delaware Valley would implicitly refer to NJ's towns). However this is a contextual reference - Jordanian usage would in contrast refer to the eastern portion, disregarding the west bank.Icewhiz (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian The Jordan Rift Valley as a term in geography can be considered to include even the See of Galilee and northwards and the Dead Sea and southwards, I think. Debresser (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

One is bound to follow customary usage. It is quite clear that there are three Jordan entities: the larger rift valley, the Upper/Lower Jordan valley, and the Jordan Valley referring to the lower Jordan valley. The distinction in Hebrew has no weight here, since we are dealing with English usage. I have cited the geographical section in the article which states this article covers the Jordan Valley in the West Bank, which is what 99% of newspaper articles referring to the I/P conflict take it to be. 100% of news items are not referring to the Upper Jordan Valley when they simply refer to Israel's activities of dispossession, ethnic cleansing and infrastructure demoltions in 'the Jordan Valley', activities that no longer take place (since 1967) in northwest Israel. This is already set forth in the article, as I noted. It is not that geographically the article is necessarily misleading in the lead: it is that it gives an inclusive definition of 2 realities while leaving blurred the distinctions noted here and later, stating that the article deals with the West bank area taken over in 1967. If all of our sources clearly ignore the Upper Jordan as being implied, then so do we, apart from a clarifying note.Nishidani (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary news usage - which varies - should not be the basis of determining geography. If you want to an article referring to "The Jordanian Valley portion of the West Bank" - it should be referred as such. See OHCA's definition - [[4]] - of the Jordan Valley (which is the Lower Jordan Valley) - and this is a pro-Palestinian paper dealing with the issue - defining the geography as accepted. Geographical features such as rivers, valleys, mountains, etc. - really should not be defined on the basis of contemporary news items that currently focus on the I/P issue in part (around 33% (half on Jordanian side, 33% of the western side outside of the west bank)) of the valley. Just because that is the current focus in I/P related news (as opposed to the 60s focus on the eastern side - e.g. Battle of Karameh) - shouldn't be the basis for defining geography.Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The Israeli administrative unit Jordan Valley Local Council stretches northward only till the municipal area of Beit Shean, which is much farther south than the exit of the Jordan river from the Sea of Galilee. That fact might also have had its implications on the usage of the term in sources. Debresser (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Icewhiz is correct that the eastern side of the Jordan Valley is neither Israeli nor Palestinian, rather Jordanian, but is also part of the Jordan Valley of course. Debresser (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there any WikiProjects or experts that we can consult on this issue? Debresser (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

While we are on the vein of making everything IP related, we will have to rewrite Moab, Pella, Jordan, Tell Hammeh, a bunch of historic battles,and a large host of articles who mainly refer to historically rich area as usually defined by geography.Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No one choses how things play out. We describe what sources say, and if you actually read the article it is wholly focused on the West Bank area of the Jordan Valley. Therefore this is the understanding all previous editors, and this is the way the article is to be developed further. Eqauivocation for political ends is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It would seem some editors used an article on a clearly defined geographical feature as a COATRACK for hanging IP issues in the general area but outside of the valley proper, and in any event relevant only to a small part of the valley. This editoralizing criticism, whivh has nothing to do with geography should be removed or toned down, as per DUE. The religious significance to christians both as the first baptism site and early communities should definitely receive more space than a small minority group of herders, that are located a few miles west of the valley proper.Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, it would seem that the demolitions and evictions section was added by Nishidani in 2013. I propose to remove this, as most if not all of the alleged communities suppisedly evicted are quite a few miles west of the actual valley. They are in the general area of the valley, but not in the acutal geographical depression. Besides that the whole section has an NPOV problem in that it does not addreed the Israeli view and legal reasoning such as evictions of squatters invading into nature reserves.Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Don't do that. It is bad enough for Debresser to start reverting me when he had read neither the whole page nor knew of the relevant policy, while threatening to pursue me at AE on false grounds when he broke 1R. I'd like to inform you that I have editing rights on Wikipedia, and this behavior, of removing anything one detects as belonging to my contributions looks queer. You have no evidence for your assertion, mass removal of material is frowned on, and when reliable sources state people were removed from the Jordan Valley, you are not entitled to challenge that by original research. When hundreds of sources you can google in minutes speak of Israeli plans to annex the Jordan Valley, they are not speaking of israel annexing part of its own territory (the Upper Jordan), which would be a contradiction in terms, but are using the standard English term for the area in the West Bank. Lastly, please read NPOV. There are two constituent elements here, Israel and Palestinians, and adding material about the latter is required. If you wish to address the Israeli viewpoint, add it. Do not remove material on Palestinians because the article may lack balancing material. That is not how we do things here.Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The current material in there is poor, out dated, and refers to the entire area C and not just the Jordan valley area, but to areas on the other side of a mountain range. It could be brought up to snuff, and balanced, but it is simply a mess and places undue emphasis of IP politics into a geographical feature which is only partly, roughly a third, in the west bank. COATRACK.Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

First things first. Icewhiz gave three links. The first is a Britannica link to the Jordan river; they use "Jordan Valley" to refer to the Jordan Rift Valley, because they talk about the entirety of the Jordan river. The OCHA page which Icewhiz linked to says: The area extends on the eastern side of the West Bank from Ein Gedi in the south, near the Dead Sea to Tel Mekhouz in the north on the Green Line borders with Bisan and from the Jordan River on the east to the slopes of the river’s west bank, accounting for about 2,400 square meters or 28.5% of the total area of the West Bank. I can't parse this sentence. Is it saying that the Jordan Valley forms 28.5% of the West Bank, and is, therefore part of the West Bank? Or is it saying that the part of the Jordan Valley within the West Bank is 28.5% of the West Bank? Furthermore, is this definition the one used in this article? The OCHA article does not talk about the eastern part of the Jordan Valley, as far as I can see. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Read the intro of the OCHA doc, which states from the dead sea to the sea of galilee (writing on tablet with poor copy-paste, I copied verbatim the section above.) The quote you provide, which appears later, refers only to the portion of the valley that is in the west bank, and also that somewhat broadly construed in terms of the western border, which is ok as they are referring to the "valley area" and not the valley itself, eg West bank jordan valley area.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The OCHA document in the opening section defines the Jordan Valley as constituted by the Upper Jordan Valley (Israel) and the Lower Jordan Valley (the West Bank), only then to contradict itself by specifying the green-bolded section which clearly and unambiguously, following English usage, uses the Jordan Valley to refer to that section lying within the West Bank. That this is the intended meaning, conforming to English usage, is underlined by all other mentions in the document, which deal with annexation and dispossessive practices, take place in the 'Jordan valley' as defined in the green quote. Israel does not annex itself, and both this, and all sources I am familiar with, speak of Israel planning to annex the Jordan Valley. This is obvious. One does, secondly, not use an ambiguity in one small section of one source to challenge a multitude of sources which state unequivocally the equivalence in English usage of Jordan Valley with an area in the West Bank. No one in his right mind can believe that in speaking of annexing the (unqualified) Jordan Valley, a hundred sources think this refers also to land in Israel outside of the West Bank. Look up the word 'prevarication'.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz: The OCHA article is very confusing, because it keeps switching definition. Later, it refers to "Israeli occupation of the Jordan Valley"; so does it mean that it is talking about the West Bank? I think the source is useless. I looked at a few other sources. For instance, this geography/science book refers to the "lower Jordan Rift Valley" as the "Jordan Valley". It includes all three portions (Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian) in the definition. The book given by Nishidani (by Elisha Efrat) is a political science book, and uses "Jordan Valley" to refer to the part of the West Bank which is in the (lower) Jordan Valley, defined broadly. This article uses "Jordan Valley" to refer to the entirety of the Jordan river.

Therefore, first we need to have a proper definition of "Jordan Valley" in this article. Can we agree that it refers to the lower Jordan Valley? If so, we can eliminate some sources which refer to the entirety of the Jordan river (like the Britannica article). Does "Jordan Valley" refer to the part in Jordan, or not? After that, we need to separate out the political divisions and discuss them separately. In my view, there are sufficient sources which use "Jordan Valley" to refer to the part in the West Bank; so this article needs to deal with the portion. If this article defines Jordan Valley broadly, it needs to make the definition clear, and demarcate the various areas; and then deal with the various areas. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:: Note I brought OCHA, even though it is a highly biased source which I wouldn't treat as reliable generally, to show that even OCHA doesn't argue basic geography - as in the Introduction (in the first infobox) [5] it clearly states - The Jordan Valley is located in a stretch of land (about 401 km2) that lies adjacent to the Jordan Valley up to the base of the mountain ridge, east of the West Bank. It runs from the Sea of Galilee in the north to the Dead Sea in the south. (parsing current states - half in Transjordan, of the other half - about a third in Israel inside the green line, two-thirds in the West Bank). It then goes on to deal with the west bank area next to the Jordan Valley (and actually including the Northern dead sea) - which basically corresponds to the large eastern Area C (West Bank) section. Regarding upper and lower Jordan valleys - the upper Jordan valley is more properly known as Hula Valley - and is entirely in Israel (also pre-1967) and ends in the Sea Of Galilee. "the lower Jordan valley" (which is in the article, and elsewhere, referred to as the Jordan Valley' runs from the Sea Of Galilee to the Dead Sea - and involves three different diplomatic areas - pre-1967 Israel from the Sea of Galilee until the beginning of the West Bank, the West Bank until the dead sea, and Transjordan along most of the length from the east (except around ~6kms from the sea to the beginning of TransJordan's western flank).Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Also note - the valley itself is a major geographical feature. Even though the waterflow isn't what it was in antiquity - this is a deep gorge (ending in the dead sea which is the lowest location on earth) - that is quite lower than its surroundings. Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest:

The Jordan Valley refers to an area of the West Bank which forms part of the Jordan Rift Valley that runs from the hills of the Upper Galilee in the north southwards as far as the Arava Valley and which is itself a section of the Great Rift Valley.Technically the term generally covers both sides of the Jordan river, denoting the Jordanian territory on the east immediately adjacent to the river, and the area on the Jordan's western bank. This article will deal with the Jordan Valley under Israeli control since 1967 within the West Bank.

One can create an article for all of the Jordan Valley from the Galilee downwards, and both sides, inclusive of Jordan. But the need for an article specifically on the West Bank Valley of Jordan is obvious: it is what 99% of sources deal with, and the definition I have proposed essentially covers the content of the page we have. When all those sources state Israel creates settlements in the Jordan valley, they are not referring to Israeli settlements in Jordan or Israeli construction in the Galilee. Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources you brought - are all focused on contemporary Palestinian politics - so quite obviously they focus on the area within the west bank (pre Black September the east bank was actually quite "hot"). They are not an appropriate way to define a geographic feature. If you think a separate article is needed for "eastern area C" (which includes the northern dead sea - which is often bundled together in these sources) - then perhaps one should be created - but contemporary politics should define geography - especially geography accepted back to antiquity.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

How about moving this article from Jordan Valley (Middle East) to Jordan Valley (West Bank). This is basically a political article that seems to cover the West Bank mostly.Jonney2000 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems to me a very sensible suggestion.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No. As there are dozens of articles referring to Jordan Valley (Middle East) in its proper geographical sense (from the sea of galilee down to the dead sea). The Jordan Valley (Middle East) should be kept, and a separate Eastern West Bank or Jordan Valley region of West Bank created - dealing with the rather narrow contemporary politics.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Jordan Valley West Bank region is fine to. The Jordan valley when referencing to the west bank seems to be between the pre-1967 border and Jericho. The area is basically defined by the Allon Plan.Jonney2000 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is getting absurdly complicated, indeed stupid. We have an article. One may redefine it somewhat, but it must respect the fact that 99% of English usage refers to the Jordan Valley as in the West bank. That this happens to be a politically contentious area is totally irrelevant. We are not writing a knackered geography article. We are describing a region. I did na lot of work, and get dopey nagging that dismisses it as political. Stop the stonewalling.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Contemporary English usage in the context of Palestinian politics (which you are versed in). Period. In no other sphere (and in the Jordan Valley - this stretches both to Jewish biblical studies and Christian studies) - does one refer only to the western side limited to the portion in the west bank. Here are some sources:

[6] The Jordan Valley (Arabic: الغور‎, Al-Ghor; Hebrew: עמק הירדן‎, Hayarden Emek) forms part of the larger Jordan Rift Valley. The internationally recognized World Heritage values of the Jordan Valley are strongly related to its unique historic, religious, cultural, economic, and environmental values, due to its typical rift valley topography. The lower part of the Jordan River (LJR) originates at the Sea of Galilee and meanders along 200 km down to the Dead Sea through the Jordan Valley.. Also contains maps.

[7] - paper from 1895. Also includes map - page 3 - of the area between the two seas.

[8] - book with definition from Jordanian(State) perspective - from Yarmouk (border with pre-1967 Israel - northernmost tip of Jordan(State) that touches Jordan(river)) to the Dead Sea.

User:Nishidani inserted highly biased POV I/P content into this geographical article (which is linked to by a multitude of other articles - including those dealing with issues 3000+ years ago, and 2000 years ago (e.g. Jesus's Baptism)). Saying that this is what the article is about - after inserting this content in (and it still isn't the majority of the article) - is disingenuous.Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You are not focusing on the specific problem raised in this section. You are trying to read a legitimate issue of clarity of definition of a pov spin. Whern terms are ambiguous, they are clarified, and the article has the embryo of that clarification in its lead, not sufficient, but it's there. Now concentrate on each particular issue. This is not a geographic article. Places have people, and places have an identity. Now focus on the issue Kingsindian and myself raised and offered reasonable suggestions for.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree the conflation of terms in English (which also ties in the Jordan rift valley which in other languages doesn't contain Jordan) and to a lesser extent Hebrew (mainly due to use of synonyms) (Arabic, it seems, is actually clearer in terms of naming) may make the issue somewhat confusing to someone who doesn't have a working understanding of the geography in question. However the geographic feature - with lasting historic (existing in writing thousands of years ago) and archaeological finds - is quite clearly defined as can be seen in any topographical map. In terms of people in the valley and the area - it is actually quite sparsely populated. Extremely sparsely populated - both on the Jordanian side, in pre-1967 Israel, and in terms of both Jews and non-Jews (of whom a large fraction are Bedouin and not mainstream Palestinian) in the West Bank. There actually aren't all that many people - but there is quite a bit of politics on the west bank portion post Oslo-1993 - as both the Palestinians and the Israelis want control of the land, which is "area C" at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

See the pages which reference this page here. Some of them refer to a broad definition (see, for instance Kibbutz which refers to the upper Jordan Valley), some of them to a narrower lower Jordan Valley (see for instance Southern Levant), and some of them refer to the area of the West Bank (for instance Six-Day_War).

I suggest the following: This article should be renamed "Lower Jordan Valley". It should be defined to cover the geographical area. There can be one big section dealing with the geopolitics. In addition to this renaming, we can create a redirect "Jordan Valley (West Bank)" which goes to the big section dealing with the geopolitics. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Name - If we were a naming commission, I would probably agree that that English naming should be improved as it is confusing. But, as Wikipedia, we need to stick to established naming. In this regard, use of "Jordan Valley" by itself - usually refers to the lower Jordan Valley (from the sea of the Galilee / yarmouk down to the dead sea). And "lower Jordan Valley" - is hardly used at all - I won't say I never saw lower Jordan valley used - but it is close to no use at all. The link in Kibbutz needs to be fixed in my opinion - but note it uses a qualified "upper Jordan Valley" (and when referring to the Hula valley, one might use upper Jordan valley but not unqualified Jordan unless it is clear via context). The Six-Day_War actually mostly refers to the entire lower jordan valley (and not just the west bank) - it references a defensive Jordanian deployment in the Jordanian Valley (mostly on the Jordanian side) - which the IDF did not attack - this was the stop line. The Palestinian area-C claims (which has a minor amount of coverage) - all use "Jordan Valley" (and not lower). I suggest we keep the current name - but clarify with a redirect notice on the top (to jordan rift valley, and to Hula valley (upper jordan valley), stating this article is on the lower Jordan Valley and the area around it.

Area - I agree we should include the area around the valley. Note we need to be careful here, as the current (and I stress very current) Palestinian use is to treat all of the Jewish majority "area C" east of the main Palestinian cities as "Jordan Valley area" (including areas around the dead sea) - we should not ignore this use (it can't be ignored) - but this division is possibly transitory in nature (as it will change as per the change in "area C") - it includes areas (the whole backslope of the mountain ranges) - which wouldn't be "lumped into" the valley if the administrative areas change.

Geopolitics - should be in the article in a proper section, but without UNDUE emphasis on the Palestinian view, and without UNDUE emphasis on the West bank portion (which is only ~33% of the valley!). Proper emphasis should be placed on the Israeli view and the views of the Jewish inhabitants (who are a majority of inhabitants with the exception of a small area around Jericho). See for instance how Delaware Valley (that span 4 US states) treats issues in each state. We should also properly address recent history in terms of weighting - in the grand scheme of things Black September (and the PLO use of the eastern bank as their main operations base in the late 60s) - is probably of greater lasting significance than the current land issues (of course - if some settlement or conflict develops leading to resolution - weighting may change) - and is currently limited to a single sentence.Icewhiz (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I gave up on reading.'without UNDUE emphasis on the Palestinian view, and without UNDUE emphasis on the West bank portion (which is only ~33% of the valley!). Proper emphasis should be placed on the Israeli view.'

I did so because (a) In the universal acceptance of international law, this is not Israeli territory, but Palestinian territory, and you cannot squeeze in a parity between an occupying belligerent and the occupied people.

(b)You clearly are totally confused and are not examining with any attention the material provided for you by other editors.

(c) The Jordan Valley and the region of the northern Dead Sea cover approximately 160,000 hectares, . . make up about 28.8% of the West Bank (see accompanying map) (per Kingsindian)

(d)You keep insisting the 'West bank portion is only ~33% of the valley!' (I don’t know where you get that figure from) The key point is that the Jordan Valley, as narrowly defined in this article, with the Dead Sea Region, makes up almost 29% of the West Bank, roughly a third, and this is not negligible. Indeed, given the strategic aim of settlement and military use, of foreign land it is crucial to the article. WP:Undue goes by source weight, and virtually all serious sources deal with this Jordan Valley in terms of the conflict you wish to erase or render all but invisible.Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Since large parts of the Jordan Valley lie in Israel and Jordan, the title "Jordan Valley (Middle East)" is perfect. The so-called argument to call it "Jordan Valley (West Bank)", that the Jordan Valley forms 29% of the West Bank, is a logical fallacy: even if part of it is (officially albeit not practically) part of the West Bank, that statement ignores the parts that aren't. Even if only the tiniest piece would not be in the West Bank, and in reality I estimate that piece at more than 50%, that would preclude the possibility to use that name. I have hardly ever seen a more ridiculous and POV proposal. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The eastern Area C in the west bank between the top of the mountains and the Jordan valley and the dead sea does indeed make up 28-32% (varies by what you include in this ill defined area, as this is not all the C block) of the west bank. However the jordan valley, a major geological formation that predates Cnaanites, Israelites, and Palestinians and that was a scene to a number of historical and mythical events (Joshua's crossing, Jesus's baptism, wwi campign, and in the Palestinian context black september in which Jordanian authorities depopulated the eastern side of the valley in Jordan in 1970) extends northwards into pre 1967 Israel, and is divided in half along the entire length with the international border with Jordan. If you will look at any map, you will clearly see the situation, half is in Jordan (along the entire length), and the other half is part pre 1967 Israel, and the rest is West bank (area C). The west bank portion is only about 33% of the Jordan valley and should not receive undue weight in the geographical entry.Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments are meaningless because you do not bring sources and you do not reply to the specifics raised by myself and the other editor here. You waffle. Focus, please, and always adduce sources for your contentions.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I actually brought quite a bit of sources. Including pro-palestinian I/P sources (which I wouldn't use as a source for a geography article). Conversely - each and every single source you've brought up here - is a pro-Palestinian publication on area-C post-2000, which obviously focuses only on the West-Bank and doesn't purport to do otherwise. In addition - I brought up the mass of wikipedia articles linking to here (not as West Bank). For instance, I've brought:

[9] OHCA (a pro-Palestinian publication dealing with area-C in the west bank, west of of the Jordan Valley) clearly states in the very beginning - The Jordan Valley is located in a stretch of land (about 401 km2) that lies adjacent to the Jordan Valley up to the base of the mountain ridge, east of the West Bank. It runs from the Sea of Galilee in the north to the Dead Sea in the south. (to parse - from a location in pre-1967 Israel to a terminus in the West Bank, with Jordan (the state) being on the other side)

[10] The Jordan Valley (Arabic: الغور‎, Al-Ghor; Hebrew: עמק הירדן‎, Hayarden Emek) forms part of the larger Jordan Rift Valley. The internationally recognized World Heritage values of the Jordan Valley are strongly related to its unique historic, religious, cultural, economic, and environmental values, due to its typical rift valley topography. The lower part of the Jordan River (LJR) originates at the Sea of Galilee and meanders along 200 km down to the Dead Sea through the Jordan Valley.. Also contains maps.

[11] - paper from 1895. Also includes map - page 3 - of the area between the two seas.

[12] - book with definition from Jordanian(State) perspective - from Yarmouk (border with pre-1967 Israel - northernmost tip of Jordan(State) that touches Jordan(river)) to the Dead Sea.

+ I would add - just look at a map. You are not being constructive here - in addition to blatant POV-pushing, you are really arguing something that is quite pointless. Contesting the location of the Jordan Valley, or ignoring the Jordanian half (the international border runs right in the middle of the river) and the pre-1967 (inside) Israeli portion - It is really a pointless argument. Just because Palestinian papers post-2000 (which is when this issue really began to be pushed) refer to the Jordanian Valley in the context of the west bank, since they deal to begin with with only the west bank, is not a basis to claim that a large geological feature (which is quite distinct and major) exists only in the west bank. Regarding your claim this is "99% of coverage" - I would beg to differ. It is perhaps 99% of coverage in Btselem's website, and in pro-Palestinian literature post-2000. We are talking about a valley with written documentation stretching back to the Bible and Roman writers (e.g. Josephus Flavius).Icewhiz (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

And here's one I wouldn't use as a source (Would use some his sources, mostly offline), but has an excellenet 3-d topographic map: [13], specifically this: [14].Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz Don't worry: Nishidani always cries "no sources quoted" or "no policies quoted" when he disagrees with something, regardless of how many times you refer him to sources or policies. You are completely right: some editors are trying to politicize geography, but that should not be allowed. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It is one thing to politicize geography when there is some basis for it, even if it is a marginal viewpoint (which would be against wiki policy). This is beyond that. No Palestinian source claims the entire Jordan valley is in the West bank as that is absurd. They do write of the Joranian valley area within the west bank. It would be one thing to make an honest mistake and then own up to it... But insisting on a patently wrong assertion, with no basis, for so long is well beyong that.Icewhiz (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we focus on the point at issue? The discussion about UNDUE etc. is pointless unless we agree on the scope of the article. We can talk about UNDUE later.

It seems that the name "lower Jordan Valley" does not have any support, for various reasons. We, therefore, stick to "Jordan Valley", while keeping in mind that it is really talking about "lower Jordan Valley".

Now, we need to define the scope of this article. Is it to be lower Jordan Valley - the broad area in Israel, Jordan and the West Bank; or Jordan Valley - the part of the West Bank? Both of them have sources as I and others show above. If we use the latter (narrower) definition, we would need to fix a lot of links incoming to this article, because the links do not refer to only the part of the West Bank. Also, if we use the narrow definition, WP would not have an article dealing with the broader version. We would have an article on the whole Jordan Rift Valley and the narrow "Jordan Valley (West Bank)", but no article on lower Jordan Valley as a whole. There are several sources which talk about the water situation in the area (and there is a discussion of the Jordan Valley Authority, which is not covered in this article). Therefore, I prefer the former definition.

So another suggestion, a tweak on the suggestion above: we call this article "Jordan Valley (Middle East)" as it is now. It deals with the general geographic area. It has a separate section on the geopolitics which deals with various things, including the situation in the West Bank area post 1967. We also create a redirect "Jordan Valley (West Bank)" which goes to this section (or subsection). We can decide the details later. But is the scope of the article agreed upon? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The article is somewhat confusing, but from current lead and sentences like "part of the valley that lies in the West Bank" one can understand that the article deals with the whole (lower) valley and not just the West Bank portion. “WarKosign” 08:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I Agree on scope. Jordan Valley (Middle East) on the wide area in pre-1967 Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan. Redirect Jordan Valley (West Bank) - maybe - not sure it is needed. I will add that the Jordan Valley (between the sea of the Galilee and the dead sea) - is highly important from a historical and biblical standpoint - as well as current issues. Regarding DUE and NPOV - I agree this is a separate issue from scope. The lack of use of "lower Jordan Valley" is due to the fact that the lower Jordan valley is much more significant (in terms of land features, history, etc.) than the upper Jordan valley - and is disconnected by a large lake as well as the Yarmouk joining after the lake (Sea of the Galilee). I added an About to the top of the article to point out Hula Valley and Jordan Rift Valley to avoid confusion.Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Perfect edit. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz. Where is your source for your argument that the Jordan Valley, is a third of the Jordan Valley?

I am quite happy with Kingsindian's suggestions.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are asking "Where is your source for your argument that the West Bank portion of the Jordan Valley, is a third of the Jordan Valley?" This is clearly evident by examining any map (for instance - use a measurement on [15]), and I might be off by a few percent. A bit less than half is on the Jordanian side (the international border (see clause 2(B) in [16], alternatively one needs to go back to the Palestine mandate partition in Palestine and Transjordan - however the 1994 agreement pretty much followed the mandate on borders) runs down the middle of the river - most of the course - with the exception of 6 kms in the beginning where both sides are Israeli (from the tip of the sea of Galilee until the Yarmouk). Around 35 kms are in pre-1967 Israel, 70 kms run from border of the west bank to the tip of the dead sea. Note that any alternative formulation of Jordan Valley (e.g. including the upper Jordan Valley, or including the Dead sea or the Arava) would place a much smaller proportion of the valley in the West Bank.

I'm sure that it is possible to find someone who spells this out - however this is 100% clear after looking at any map - which is a PRIMARY source (but there are several). For a simple fact (and this is really a simple fact) a primary source should suffice.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't be naïve. To make a deduction from a map is a classical example of WP:OR. I asked for a textual source, not an inference. Inferences of this kind, nearly everyone knows, are not permitted. You are wasting editorial time.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles. A map is a perfectly acceptable source (could even be placed in an article, all the more so in a talk page). This is not a deduction or inference, nor is it OR or SYNTH. A straight line measurement on a reliable map (and in this case it ia possible on several differenf maps, all yielding the same approximate result) is perfectly acceptable source. Your attempt to contest basic geography, which should be clear to you, is not helpful editing.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It would not be permitted to use a map in the article to say "X% of the Jordan Valley lies in the Jordan". However, if you are just using the map to argue on the talk page that a significant portion lies within Jordan, it is permitted to do so. It is also permitted to add a map to the article, without saying anything about percentages (subject to consensus of course). To add stuff to the article, definitely talking percentages in each country, we would really need a source which specifically states the percentages. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, glad that everyone agrees on the scope. I'll try to get to this article in a couple of days. It would need a lot of expansion. Plenty of things aren't covered. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Demolitions and evictions in the West Bank - NPOV and UNDUE

Seeing that the West bank portion of the Jordan Valley is only around 33% of the valley, and the lack of material on other notable incidents (e.g. WWI history, Black September, situation on the Jordanian side, etc. etc.) - the coverage here is out of proportion. In addition there is an NPOV issue from the title, down to the text which is entirely one-sided, to the extreme, in the way the eviction of invading pastoral encampments into nature reserves and military training zones in described. When adding content - even if one has a POV, one should exercise some balance.Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

True. But frankly, I'd prefer to see improvements on both fronts: add new material that is relevant, and remove undue attention to recent political events. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that other historical and contemporary issues should be expanded.Icewhiz (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The way out is not by removal, even if you think, wrongly, that there is an Undue problem. It's lazy to remove, when the perceived issue can be overcome by adding material you think is lacking on other aspects.Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

To begin with, when adding new material (in this case - an entire section), one should take a balanced POV approach showing all sides. Beyond that - there is a problem with undue weight. It isn't that I don't think this should be mentioned - but it should be downsized to 3-4 lines, and not necessarily in a separate section from the rest of the West Bank section.Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Listen. Articles are writing according to sources. If we have numerous quality sources we use. There are no rules about what to add or not to add. One adds whatever is well-sourced, and relevant to the topic. You appear to know nothing of WP:NPOV, since you have emphasized downplaying the Palestinian view, and giving due weight to Israel's presence in this area. There are no 'should's here, unless 'should' means WP:IDONTLIKEIT. From one of the two POVs to be handled here, it is significant that the Jordan Valley stricto sensu once had, in 1967, an estimated Palestinian population of Prior to the Israeli occupation in 1967, the Palestinian population of the Jordan Valley was estimated as between 200,000 and 320,000, and is now, as a result of Israeli policies, thinned down to 56,000, i.e. a 75% reduction via ethnic cleansing. This and many other elements of Palestinian experience in what is nearly 30% of their West Bank, a third of their legal geophysical reality, cannot be thinned down in a descriptive article in the same way that the Israeli government thins down their numbers in reality. To do this, which seems to be what you are proposing, is to edit on behalf of a government, and not in accordance with the exigencies of encyclopedic coverage.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Your claim of pop reduction, via ethnic cleansing, from 200-320K TO 56K is pure OR. Pro-Palestinian sources, with dubious reliabilty, are claiming much liwer demolition rates.Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The source for reduction of population from about 200-320k in 1967 to 56k in 2012 comes from here, quoting an EU report. Are there other estimates of population? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The entire west bank population pre war was around 850k, and post war around 700k, and mostly in cities and villages outside the Jordan valley. I'll try to get to the EUObserver's source, it is probably a population projection (e.g. would have been 200-320k had not the Israeli policy been what it was), and not an eviction figure (320-200 less 56 evicted). It is also possible they are counting multiple eviction events of the same people. The number otself does not add up to census data and census estimates. EUObserver probably got the 200-320 figure correctly from the report, but not what it was referring to.Icewhiz (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm that the 200k-320k is not a projection. The summary of the EU report is reproduced here. It says: The Palestinian presence in Area C has continuously been undermined through different administrative measures, planning regulations, and other means adopted by Israel as occupying power. Prior to 1967 there were between 200,000 and 320,000 Palestinians in the Jordan Valley. Today the number is 56,000 (of which 70% live in Area A in Jericho). They do not say where they got the number from. If other estimates are available it would be good to look at them. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

You got me curious - this is the full text (not just excerpts) - [17] of the internal EU document. As per [18] (your link) - this was for internal use and was leaked. I'm not sure it was published beyond the leak. The full (unpublished?) document doesn't actually make this assertion but says this is according to save the children (SCUK) fact sheet from 2009: "According to Save the Children UK (SCUK) Fact Sheet on the Jordan Valley of October 2009 more than 90% of the Jordan Valley is designated as Area C. Prior to the Israeli occupation in 1967 the Palestinian population of the Jordan Valley was estimated at between 200,000 and 320,000. As of 2009 the population is approximately 56,000 with roughly 70% of residents concentrated in the City of Jericho (located in Area A). According to SCUK survey 31% of the surveyed households in high risk areas in the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley, have been either temporarily or permanently displaced at least once since the year 2000, primarily as a result of Israeli military orders (31%) and house demolitions (23%).". This SCUK document is available here: [19] and contains "Prior to the Israeli occupation in 1967, the Palestinian population of the Jordan Valley was estimated at between 200,000 and 320,000. [MA’AN]". This is sourced to a dead-link on [20] - Ma'an Development Center (not the news agency). This sourcing is more than a bit dodgy - and tends to contradict estimate of the population in 1967, for instance here - [21] a paper from 1990 by Dr. Wael R. Ennab (of Al-Najah University, the West Bank) or the Israeli census in 1967 (see here breakdown to region) - [22]. Some of the sourcing in Ma'an development center can be supposedly traced here (Hebrew): [23]. The 200,000-320,000 figure did bounce around a bit in some "solidarity" pages (e.g. [24]).Icewhiz (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The Ma'an reports (note sure if the same ones from the dead-link, but repeating the figure) are here: [25] (in this case they are citing the leaked EU report which cites them), here: [26] (unsourced claim), and here: [27] where this claim is sourced to a dead link on jordanvalleysolidarity.org. The sourcing here is dodgy - and doesn't add up with 1967 population estimates (also by Palestinian researchers).Icewhiz (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That is interesting. It's always good to get better estimates. I tried to read the UNCTAD source but it's not clear to me if it contradicts these numbers. Which part of the source are you referring to? The only reference to Jordan valley in the document I found says:In addition, the land confiscation that accompanied intensive Israeli settlement in the lower Jordan valley caused the Palestinian population to move to other areas. It does not give any numbers. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem reading UNCTAD is that the source doesn't provide a map with the administrative divisions. However, this source (Doctoral thesis of a Palestinian born in Nablus) does: [28]. Specifically, the Jordanian divisions can be seen here in page 28(31) and the Israeli in page 29(32). The area relevant to the Jordan valley is the entire Jericho sub-district, and for the Jordanian pre-1967 also part of the sub-district of Nablus. Population estimates per the UNCTAD paper [29] are in page 73(84) - and show a 1961 population for Jericho sub-district of 66k, and 1967 10.8k. For the entire Nablus sub-district (which is mostly not relevant) - in 1961 173k and in 1967 108k. This gives us a population bound greatly biased upwards (Noting that the Nablus sub-district is mostly irrelevant while Jericho is completely relevant) of 66+173=239k for 1961, 11+108=119k for 1967. Alternatively, the doctoral thesis has an excellent series of maps - [30] pages 49-52 (52-55 in PDF) - Which show settelment location and density in the entire West Bank. As can be seen in 1961 (and in 1967) - settlement along the Jordan Valley is limited to Jericho + 3 small dots in the eastern area of the Nablus sub-district in the valley denoting villages of under 2,000 people. I actually, after looking at this, understand how the 200,000-320,000 figure came to be - it looks like this is a combination of the pre-war 1967 projection (from 1961) of the entire Nablus sub-district with the Jericho sub-district. However - the vast majority of the cities and villages in the Nablus sub-district (which extended from the Jordan river to the green-line (western border)) - were not in the Jordan valley. This is also pre-war figures - not accounting for migration during the war itself (see 1967 Palestinian exodus). I'm sure additional, well-founded, sources exist - West bank demographics is a topic area that received quite a bit of attention from Jordanian, Israeli, various UN bodies, Palestinian, and other researchers - there are reliable estimates out there (I will note that from my knowledge reliable sources - Palestinian and Israeli - roughly agree on the numbers - they aren't an order of magnitude off from each other. At most you see "population inflation" bias of +10%-30% - not a blatant x2,x3,x5,x10...). You just have to go down into the weeds to understand the Jordan valley population - as this wasn't an administrative division until 1967 (The Israeli Jericho sub-district is the entire west-bank valley), and eastern "area C" (or the greater Jordan valley) only become an activist issue after 2005 or so (beforehand - the major population centers and connecting fabric was in the forefront, and of course the second intifada).To summarize - pages 50(53) and 51(54) in this: [31] clearly show the density of settlement along the Jordan Valley in 1961 and 1967 - and do not support the 200-320k figure (which is an order of magnitude off).Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Another note on terminology in sources, while the post-1967 Jericho military administrative district did contain the entire valley, the 1994+ Palestinian administrative division - which can be seen here Governorates of Palestine again splits the valley into Tubas Governorate (with settlements mostly outside of the valley) and Jericho Governorate (all in the valley) , with Bethlehem Governorate and Jerusalem Governorate also extending to the east border (to the Dead sea) - so looking at post-Oslo data you are again forced to usually aggregate parts of districts or go down to settlement level data outside of Jericho Governorate. There are similar issues on the Jordanian side - the valley is part, but not all, of several Governorates of Jordan - so official census data doesn't give you a figure. The Israeli regional councils and cities (Beit She'an which is counted seperately) are also a bit of a mess (and the article is currently actually wrong - I will fix).Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't follow all the details of your argument above, but your point about Nablus sub-district and Jericho sub-district seems pretty good to me. Since the vast majority of the population of Nablus sub-district of the Nablus district (as defined pre-1967) does not lie in the Jordan Valley, the estimate of 200-320k population in the Jordan valley does seem high. Unfortunately, we still don't know what the actual figure is. The topic should be well-studied, so I would prefer a more careful and documented survey of the population rather than the EU report which seems rather thin on documentation. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes - getting to an exact figure here is hard (Saying 200-320k is way off is easy, getting beyond a ballpark figure is hard). The problem is that WP:RS would usually follow administrative divisions (which for the most part don't follow the valley) - leaving one (if we were to attempt to tackle this) to dive into the weeds of settlement level data and aggregating them. This is also a problem on the Israeli and Jordanian side.Icewhiz (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

After updating the article with current B'TSelem figures - this whole section of "Demolitions and evictions in the West Bank" deals with less than 2,700 people who live in small Bedouin and herding communities (as of 2009. In 1967? More complex to answer, but a few hundreds to a few thousands for migratory/semi-permanent herding communities is stable for past 2-3 decades there - these are small herding communities in an arid environment (the valley floor is not arid - the surroundings very much are) that move around in tents and/or set up ramshackle dwellings). This should be mentioned briefly - but only briefly, given that this is a small fraction of the valley's population.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

One doesn't judge WP:Undue by making calculations of percentages (a 'fringe' thesis), but by evaluating the weight given the facts in sources. One reason the numbers diminished rapidly is that immediately after seizing the Jordan valley the IDF smashed 140 water pumping structures, denying the traditional communities the very basis for their continued agriculture and herding.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Coverage of this issue (and the concurrent political campaign to expand the PA's area of control eastward, including funding and encouragement of illegal squatting in nature reserves and firing zones) is fairly recent, and is fairly limited to the usual pro-Palestinian suspects. Yes, there is some coverage. But it isn't very wide. Lets put it this way - the alleged baptism of Jesus (in this location) has much more coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

In terms of numbers - it is fairly clear that following 1967 Palestinian exodus - which was actually a very significant event for the Palestinian population in the Valley (in Jericho sub-district (which is entirely in the valley and the area of the valley) - if we take [32] (page 73 (84 in pdf)) as a source (we need more than one source, this particular one may be biased pro-Palestinian) - we have a drop from 66,000-80,000 pre-war to 10,000-11,000 post-war in 1967 - so more than 50,000 people who left - 80% of the population). The following enforcement of zoning laws, nature reserves, firing zones, etc - has had a much more minor impact.Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

At the moment, there is a lot of missing stuff which can be covered in the article. This article could be significantly expanded with other material. I'll try to get to this article in a few days when I get the time. In the meantime, one can leave the section with an UNDUE tag. One can also add an "under construction" tag if required. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I am going to have a go at this one tonight, covering the 20th and 21st centuries, and after adding other events, integrating this as well into the flow and balancing. Would be great if you review and add whatever I miss.Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:: Take a look. This needs editing. 1948 war is probably too long. I tried to leave the NPOV other articles reached (lots of copy-pasting, though some new information from new sources (e.g. the UNCTAD paper we discussed above, or a source for black septempber and the valley depopulation) - and mainly integrated information specific to the valley (so e.g. Black September - is interesting because of the Battle of Karameh and the massive depopulation (63,000->5,000 according to some) of the Jordanian side of the valley.... 1948/1967 - because whatever happened in the valley. The water plans - because of its effect on the valley (which is now a small trickle - almost dry). I got most of the Ottoman up to Black September covered. Oslo, Israeli intentions on area-C and the valley, and the current "hot" activist issue of herding communities in the greater valley area - still need to be integrated and balanced - but I'm done for this evening.Icewhiz (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Completed to present (and future Palestinian aims), integrating current content. This needs editing - but at least major events are covered.Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 July 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• Jordan Valley (Middle East) → Jordan Valley
• Jordan Valley → Jordan Valley (disambiguation)

– With due regard to the thread above, I think the primary topic for "Jordan Valley", where it is not the Jordan Rift Valley, is what is currently Jordan Valley (Middle East). Remove the "Middle East" disambiguator and move this article to the base name; move the disambiguation page to a (disambiguation) title. Note that there is a comprehensive hatnote at the current Jordan Valley (Middle East) article referring to Jordan Rift Valley. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The Jordan Valley is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in relation to various namesakes - Jordan Valley, Hong Kong, Jordan Valley, Oregon, Jordan Valley (UTA station). As for the confusion in regards to the larger Jordan rift valley and the upper Jordan valley - an about is sufficient (and the disambig wouldn't be "Middle East" - as all 3 are in the ME and part of the same valley).Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Primary topic, more frequently covered in written sources. User:Dimadick 12:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Yes. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support, per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Seems reasonable. "Middle East" is not much of a disambiguator anyway. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bulk-reversal, aggressive language, unsupported changes & claims

@Debresser: Hi, good morning. I am sorry if I offended you, because your reaction seems to show that I did. I will answer to each topic one by one.

• "Inferior edit". This is your private opinion, please don't use such language.
• [Me] "introducing "narrow" and "broad" definitions. a) No I didn't, at least not in this edit. The lead already contained the distinction. b) ... and so it should. The Jordan Valley is the only case I'm aware of where the term "X Valley" doesn't refer to the entire course of the respective river, but only to a segment. The upper course is called "Huleh Valley", only the segment south of the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea goes by "Jordan Valley". Seldom does the valley along the entire length of the river get treated as "the Jordan Valley". So yes, the distinction is crucial in an encyclopedic context, not just a whim.
• "Unnecessary edit to layout". Meaning what, those useless intervals before & after headings? a) Layout tends to mean: what is visible on the article page. This isn't. b) It is, at best, a personal, subjective opinion on aesthetics. You might find it pleasing; for me it's unnecessary ballast. As I have written in the edit summary, "There is NO layout loss in removing useless empty spaces in headings. It's up to our choice. WP in other languages have different rules; English WP supports this." And that's true, look up the manual (although I prefer common sense to "manuals" with ever-changing rules and exception paragraphs).

If what you mean though by "unnecessary edit to layout" are the added intervals in the citations: if you edit on your phone, you'll notice that long uninterrupted rows of signs are killing the layout, making work difficult in the most immediate, concrete way.

• "[inferior edit] made in bad faith": that is aggressive, unwarranted - and wrong. You know me better than that. It's below the belt and unworthy of a colleague.
• "Keep capitalization changed by previous editor." Meaning what? Ghor al-Urdun? In all academic contexts, the Arabic article is written small, by some even at the beginning, by all if in the middle of the name. Btw, you didn't actually reverse it :) There is a tendency in non-academic contexts to over-capitalise, but WP has some ambition of proving its level in this regard.
• Bulk reversal is not allowed. You've eliminated also other edits, which are perfectly legit:
  • I've streamlined that repetitive, clumsy sentence about "elevation" and "deepest valley" (which can mean: deep like the Grand Canyon, so from top to bottom, not in elevation relative to the sea level).
  • Links: sea level, river delta. No comment...
  • Commas. Really?
  • "as the crow flies": it makes a difference how you measure.
  • Eilat/Elat: as I wrote in my edit summary, I've quoted a scientific paper. They wrote Elat - so be it. The link proves it's the same as Eilat. Maybe in ornithology they have a long-established English term, "Southern-Elat Mountains Route"; unless you want to do the research and prove the opposite, let's leave it as the quoted source spells it. That is, I believe to remember, also the WP policy: not to gloss over existing variations of a term.

I find every edit I've made to be legitimate and justifiable, as you can see from the list above. I won't fight over intervals in headings and Elat; the rest though is correct and should be respected. As I have written in one edit summary, please let's not go into war-editing over pedantic stuff, it's absurd and takes us both to a demeaning place. There's plenty of substantive work to be done, let's try to bring in our knowledge and effort where it is meaningful. Thanks and cheers, Arminden (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that you didn't introduce the distinction between the broad and narrow definition. Mentioning it in the footer of the infobox, before the terms are introduced, seems like a bad idea to me though.

I indeed kept your capitalization of Ghor al-Urdun, which is precisely what I said, that I kept the capitalization as you changed it. :)

Regarding Eilat/Elat, we keep the spelling of sources only in direct quotes. When paraphrasing, we use the spelling as it should be, that is, as in article names.

I agree with you that with the comma was indeed better. The links for sea level, river delta seemed unnecessary to me, but no real problem here.

In short, I have reverted most of my undo. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I got an email pointing to your reversal, with the explanation: "Undid revision 936487631 by Arminden (talk) The editor who made a bold change should go to the talk page: WP:BRD." This AFTER me writing half a novel on the talk page. That was too much. I didn't notice your zigzag from the meantime, reverted, but did keep your last small edit. Not because it convinced me (Jordanians & Palestinians etc. prefer their own, Arabic name, "Wadi" Arabah, and it's a valid point, even if you much prefer the biblical version); but because I do NOT want to go into a silly fight. I've had enough, let others have a look. I'm out, enjoy. @Doug Weller and Zero0000: What is your opinion, if this topic happens to be of any interest to you? Sorry to bother. Thanks and cheers. Arminden (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD says to discuss first and only then repeat changes that have consensus. Thta is, not repeat your changes before that.

I don't prefer the biblical name, as a matter of fact. I prefer the Wikipedia name, as based on the article. In addition, using "Wadi" when it is not a wadi in the narrow meaning of the word and it is not the common name in the country it is located in, is doubly not okay. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Population

With the definition of the geographical area as "Jordan River... which ends at the Dead Sea.", should we include the population of the Megilot Regional Council in the demography paragraph? Four out of the six communities in this council lie north of the Dead Sea within the topographical Jordan valley. The other 2 lie adjacent to the Dead Sea. Chocom (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

"Shunet Nimrin" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Shunet Nimrin and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#Shunet Nimrin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)