Talk:Canada Park

Propaganda

Avilyn, let's avoid an edit war. You removed my entry that provided some background for the Israeli attack on the villages. Without this information the reader is led to mistakenly believe that Israel arbitrary decided to attack those villages just for the heck of it, when any serious student of the region recent history knows this is just not true. Besides, the section on international law is hardly suitable for an article on a park.

I will restore the entry you deleted and I am respectfully asking you to remove the international law entry and replace it by a suitable external reference. Again, this is an article on a park, not a propaganda piece.

Danielcohn 07:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel I would be more than happy to avoid an edit war with you. Perhaps we can come to an agreement. I removed the section on 1967 because the sentences were incomplete and grammatically problemtic. Now that you have reinserted them in a way that is more comprehensible I have no problems with leaving the section as is. I must however insist that "occupation" remains "occupation" as opposed to "administration", which is factually incorrect (see International Law, United Nations resolutions, as well as statements by current and previous Israeli governments) as well as terribly misleading to the reader. The section on international law must also remain given its relevance to the topic as the site of a war crime. I am confident that readers would be interested in this.

This is an old topic, but I'd just like to clarify, as I've seen many people confusedly asserting (with no citations) that it's "occupied," but it is annexed not occupied as shown in the following article published by WP:V newspapers/reprinted by many other newspapers: Palestinians Launch Campaign To Regain 'Occupied' Latrun, e.g, "All peace plans have always put Latrun inside Israel" as Resolution 242 does call for "secure" boundaries. This was a salient/exclave, annexed from Jordan, not from any Palestinian entity, and Israel has since then made its peace/land-swaps with Jordan. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Scope

I'm sorry but I fail to see how an international law section is relevant to a site on a **PARK**. A detailed and balanced coveragae of the events of the 1967 war, including refugee and legal issues, belongs in an article about the war or about the refugee crisis, not in a site about a park! Can we agree on that?Danielcohn 09:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about the 1967 war has anything to do with an article on a park. I agree that it's ok to have a brief summary of the destruction of the three villages in this article, but it should not contain in-depth info about the villages because the article isn't about them, it's about the Canada Park. I will remove most of the article's current 'content' if no good reason is raised for why it should be in the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/both of these, and sadly, the topic is rearing its ugly head again. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The article is about the park not about the villages please read carefully Wikipedia policies and don't restore POV version of the article again|The article is about the park not about the villages please read carefully Wikipedia policies and don't restore POV version of the article again|Thank you.}}--Shrike 15:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do you understand about what is subject of article.On what ground you restored unsourced and POV material?Shrike 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also did you read discussion of the article such concerns were raised 2 month ago and there was no response.If have some answer in the talk.I like to hear itShrike 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. You were not involved in that discussion months ago and the discussion does not involve erasing the entirety of the article. I will be seeking mediation on this problem. -- VegitaU 20:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if I was involved or not the point still stands there and I didnt see you answer there about the scope of the article.Also the sources of the article clearly not WP:RS.--Shrike 20:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)The discussion never involved mass-removal of everything controversial. And whether or not the sources are reliable, there should be some mention of the controversy on the page, not a complete absolution. -- VegitaU 20:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Again my point still stands the villages has nothing to do with the park .There maybe a mention about a Palestinian claims but it shouldnt make 90% of the article you may create seperate article about that if you want.--Shrike 20:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but what you did was delete everything having to do with that issue. If you felt that a "mention" of it should be in the article, why did you erase everything? -- VegitaU 20:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Becouse I didn't saw any reliable sources on this claims--Shrike 21:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any sources at all for the park. -- VegitaU 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Shame.

It takes about fifteen seconds of research to discover that, yes, Canada Park is built on the remains of razed Palestinian villages, and yes, that's a highly salient fact if not the most salient fact about the entire park. I'm disgusted with those editors who blithely proclaim, "oh, it's only a park, stop trying to push Palestinian claims into the article". Shall we bulldoze Pittsburgh, rename it "Indonesia Park", and then declare that it's "only a park", therefore the history doesn't matter? Shame. Eleland 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute that it was founded on existent Arab villages. What disturbed me is you terminology. Words like "razed» or "demolished" is clearly POV. Also statements by Israeli leftists are hardly NPOV too it’s an opinion and polemical piece but defiantly not a news piece it doesn’t bring events from the spot. Present you changes in talk first so we can discuss them and reach consensus. Also mind WP:CIVIL.--Shrike 07:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't talk to me about WP:CIVIL. You are effectively denying ethnic cleansing, and your rationale is incoherent. The villages were demolished. You know it, I know it, and the sources say it. If it makes Israel look bad, that's not POV and it's not Wikipedia's problem.

Here is a Ha'aretz news piece - not an editorial - which says "destroyed". Here is a charming fluff piece ("Splendour on the Grass") from the Ha'aretz travel section, which says "Guidebooks note that Canada Park was created on the soil of four Arab villages - Deir Ayyub, Beit Nuba, Yalu and Emmaus - which were razed to the ground after the Six-Day War of 1967, leaving only their orchards. However, there's no need to think about that: this is a time to sit back and relax," which sums up your attitude nicely. Eleland 13:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh what are talking about? If it is another opinion piece. You know what I am ready to compromise with you we will keep NPOV term "the lands of the former..." and you can add a source about where Palestinians reside now and add the Haaretz link in external links section.--Shrike 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, the Ha'aretz article I linked is indeed an opinion piece. Of course, there is absolutely no prohibition against using opinion pieces as sources, since reliable newspapers vett the factual statements therein. In this particular case, the information has been published numerous times by numerous editorial writers, and in fact, the information has been physically posted on the park site (according to sources quoted by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well as pieces in Ha'aretz and elsewhere). Furthermore, the information is also in regular news pieces pieces, such as this one about highway expansion and this one about Palestinian fears of more expulsions. Human Rights Watch informs us that "The IDF razed the villages of Beit Nuba, ‘Imwas, and Yalu, located near the strategic Latrun salient northwest of Jerusalem, in June 1967; later, a recreational area called “Canada Park” was built in their place." If you want us to be sure to use the best sources available, that is one thing. We can certainly use the Ha'aretz news pieces instead of the Ha'aretz editorials which say the same thing. Human Rights Watch would be another excellent edition. But don't present a problem of verifiability where none exists. The destruction of those villages is clearly verified by reliable sources. Eleland 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, your proposal to mention that Palestinian villages used to be there, and now they aren't, without explaining how this happened, is considered and rejected. We do not "compromise" by removing sourced and factual information from articles for invalid reasons. The mainstream Israeli sources say "razed", "demolished", or "destroyed". Your proposed compromise simply blurs and confuses the facts in order to pretty up Israel. Eleland 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Arab villages

How should this article discuss the former inhabitants of the area?

just watch this to get a real opinion about this warcrime. http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-israels-apartheid-works-example-of.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.69.84 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I have split off the controversial item about prior Palestinian use and Israeli capture of the land into its own section. In my opinion, this material belongs in a separate section and not in the lead. It may appear that I'm trying to introduce a pro-Israel bias, but really I'm just trying to put the material in its proper place, not to remove any of it from view. I hope that's okay. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article does look better in sections but I think there should be a sentence in the lead about the prior Palestinian use as the lead should reflect the content of the article. How about taking the first part of the section The land on which Canada Park now stands formerly contained the Palestinian villages of Imwas, and Yalu, demolished by Israel after the 1967 Six-Day War. and adding this to the lead?

Also I think the section title could be better, perhaps Prior Palestinian inhabitants? --Kaly99 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is it anyway?

The article should describe where the park is: Israel-pre-1967, West-Bank, or East-Jerusalem. -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It was occupied during the 1967 war, so it is in Occupied Palestinian Territory, more specifically in the Latrun salient of the West Bank. Tiamut^talk 00:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll edit it this way then. -DePiep (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we need subsection on "Location". This map indicates that Canada Park is largely located to the east of the Green Line (i.e. in the West Bank) and that a small part of it is in what was the no man's land after 1967. The green line shifted from `1967 onward, but even after the shift, it lies to the east. There used to be a "Location" section before, but it was removed. Anyone interested in restoring and adding to it? Tiamut^talk 15:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I will and add to it. Tell me what and where I should add the content, Tiamut and DePiep. (Ping to grab attention, this was very long ago) Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Your edit was incorrect. Only a small part of CP lies in the Latrun Salient. Most of it lies in the West Bank according to both Israeli and Palestinian reckoning. Look at the map in the article. Zero^talk 07:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the park

not about what was there before. This artcle is about 75% about that right now, and i think that there should be more mention of access, activities and the uses of the park as opposed to whatever villages might have been there before. There is no question that the neutrality of this article was compromised when it starts talking about the villages. If you think that this article can accurately describe the park while talking about this, then you're mistaken. Make up an article about the displaced villages if you like, but take this info out.

Maximum927 (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We write using WP:RS. The majority of reliable sources that discuss Canada Park discuss the history of the site upon which it was established. The park derives much of its present day notability from this history. I am against creating a WP:POVFORK to discuss the controversial aspects of the park, so that this page is only about the nice trees and recreational uses of the park today. Per WP:NPOV, we represent all significant viewpoints regarding a subject on Wikipedia. Not just the nice stuff. Please do add more though on the park's activities and uses today using reliable sources. Tiamut^talk 14:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

area

It can't be both 7,000 dunams and 1,275 dunams. One of the sources given for 1,275 even says "32,000 hectares" which is 320,000 dunams! Zero^talk 12:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The green area on the map, which comes from a national park map I found on the internet, measures 8,800 dunams as near as I can measure it. Zero^talk 13:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Same POV dispute as that which has dominated this Talk page for the past several years: 3 options presented herein.

The majority of this Talk page's "complaints/New Topics opened" are from people who, like me, saw with a "dry reading" of Canada Park that a certain political faction is attempting to politicize this article with a one-sided argument and telling "half-truths," making the lede & First Section focus too much on recent events rather than the archaeology contained within the park. (WP already has other articles for those "recent events" and I don't mind if Canada Park links to those, as my past edits show, so long as those articles and/or Canada Park balance and show the "background" (to quote another complaint in this Talk page) for why IDF counter-attacked & razed these villages, etc, as I linked to even a United Nations report showing Latrun (Canada Park's hilltop) was being used to shell UN convoys, and to shell Israeli civilians in the valley, for the purpose of blockading (starving Jews out of) Jerusalem... telling half-truths as people on this page have pointed out it makes it seem Israel "arbitrarily" depopulated these villages: the full history...full truths [balance], not half-truths [POV-pushing].)

Additionally, as an archaeologist, I think the ancient History of what makes this Archaeology Park important should be told in this article, if we keep the "History" section. Before I even saw this Talk page (and hadn't seen that there's a 1RR protection on it, as can be seen by my last edit in "History" page), I didn't know that so many others (on this Talk page) had noticed the same bias that I noticed. Three options:

1. The page as I found it and as most of this Talk page's New Topics complained about: diff

2. Fuller history (because this IS an Archaeology' Park, ancient history is the most relevant -- although I don't object to the modern history so long as it's balanced, in a way that addresses the majority of complaints on this webpage, e.g. 1 edit that I tried is as follows: diff or even better (toning myself down) diff and was deleted within hours by username zero0000 who has a long history of POV'ed edits & disputes[1], appears to no longer have privileges he once enjoyed {though I haven't investigated the next one fully, so pls forgive me if this is no longer the case; I just don't see any 'badges' etc on his userpage: [2]}, etc).

3. We could delete the whole history section & rely instead upon the "See also" links near the end of the article, which do contain the region's full history, both ancient & modern, as these "See also" articles contain the info and much better-written & less POV that this (Canada Park's) "History section, such as (chronologically): --See also--

• Ayalon
• Latrun
• Yalo

...and do note that I was willing to include "Yalo" (and/or a "History" section that does include anti-Israel sources; if we include a "History" section [despite that it's redundant since other WP articles cover the topic: Ayalon/Latrun/Yalo articles cover it all, and in a less POV way than this article's one-sided "History"] which shows that I'm not trying to hide the history of the Palestinian ruins on this site (the way that SEVERAL ppl besides me noticed that one or more ppl are revrting, over years as this Talk page shows, any attempts to show that the IDF didn't depopulate the village "arbitrarily" (to quote 1 person's complaint on this Talk page), but it's just not appropriate to politicise an Archaeological Park: this region has a long (millennia-old) history of being a point of strategic high-ground which defends the (Mediterranean) seaborne path up to Jerusalem...which is the main reason why Canada Park contains ruins of old forts (a main reason why it is even a Park today!), and its long-term strategic value is indeed still relevant (noteworthy in a WP article) even in a "Modern history" section discussing the recent (1948 & 67) history. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what would be the pov issues in this article.

It is not because apologetic arguments are not presented trying to justify what happened that an article is not neutral.

Neutrality means:

1. just giving the facts (option in this article)

2. addtionnaly explaining and justifying them but that means finding WP:RS sources that state these explanation (not just inventing these per WP:OR and proving all the pov's on the issue (per WP:NPoV.

In the current case, option 1 is the one currently used in this article.

Option 2 requires sources before all.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can see why the current re-write you made avoids POV; thanks.

I just reviewed other people's complaints on this Talk page, and diff's of work they had added to remove what they (agreeing with me) saw as POV... but their work was quickly deleted by The Usual Suspects...often years ago, going years back into the History/diff's: indeed as I suspected, plenty of their attempts to show the IDF's reasoning, etc, came from sources that were WP:RS / NPOV etc, but deleted nonetheless. And deleted, again, with no reasoning having been given by the anti-Israeli editors (i.e. no reasons stated for why they are challenging/deleting the sourced additions, which complied with those WP policies) in most of the cases. As for today: Yes, of course I cited non-fringe/etc professionals; the people removing my content only gave any reasons to complain about a two-word rewording of 1 of my cited sources, an issue on which I agreed with Hulda was correct; yet they were removing way more than that mere 2-words re-statement which was needed -- continuing a long line of Removing Inconvenient Facts / telling a "half-truth" (despite that the sources for the "other half's" side of the story fell within WP's acceptable srcs and they failed to even give a reason why theose srcs shouldn't be WP-acceptable in most of the cases) and they've continued that sort of shenanigans for literally years in this article's history. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Rants like this will only hasten your enforced departure. If you listen to other people instead of attacking them, you might find they have knowledge you don't. For example you think that Canada Park is in the Latrun salient, but in fact only a fraction of it is. Most of it is in the West Bank, as in the statement you deleted, regardless of what you think the status of the salient is. The sites of the three erased villages are in the West Bank. You are not allowed to add nonsense from settler organisations either. Zero^talk 00:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, and you've never "ranted" at me nor "attacked" anyone. "you might find they have knowledge you don't. For example you think that Canada Park is in the Latrun salient, but in fact only a fraction of it is" followed by "Yes, I have not been quite accurate" is WHY I "attack" you (but not others here): What you're saying is, "Yes, we will outrageously POV-push (and with issues regarding legal status of the land that you admit, below, that you are the one who doesn't comprehend), and if you react to my outrageous behavior with...the natural human reaction, outrage (or a "rant" as you call it, despite that I provide reasoning, evidence, and the Consensus [which WP says is to be respected] is behind me), I will claim that you are the one behaving outrageously." ;-)

It is not in the Occupied West Bank; as shown in the next link, it was annexed in 1967, a legal status different from "occupied" territory; none of the Arab parties (Jordan & PLO/PNA/State of Palestine) ever disputed this (and Arafat+Abbas both placed Latrun -- and thus Canada Park -- into Israel's land-area during EVERY stage of the Peace Process), until 2013: [Palestinians Launch Campaign To Regain 'Occupied' Latrun]; as you can see, they've reversed position out of the blue and claim it's "occupied"...but they never held it (even in 1948), Jordan did. Jordan then gave the West Bank to Arafat, but gave Latrun to Israel...

So I never asserted "what I think" (as you just falsely-accused) the status of the salient is, I provided a source (known for fact-checking/etc) to PROVE what its status is (during the flurry of edits, someone removed it & Pluto seems not to have seen it, but since you were the 1st to edit-out the source I provided, you should have seen it. So, again, to edit-out a ref I added and then claim none exists [which magically becomes your false-accusation against me, that only "what I think" existed [that I had no evidence/ref/citation], is consistent with your guerilla-style of editing/POV-pushing.); until you provide a contradictory source (e.g. a United Nations/ICJ ruling saying that Israel's annexation of Latrun from Jordan (not from any Palestinian authorities) is null/void/illegal, etc), then it is you asserting merely "what you think" (as opposed to "what a WP:RS source like jpost can provide"). However it would be appropriate to add that Palestine has contested this after 2012, (see, again there goes my uncanny instinct to be balanced) and I'll suggest to Pluto to add that (as so far I prefer his edits and semantics even better than my own edits :-) ). I had already removed the "settler" org by my own choice, because it was wordy & didn't fit in, but the following just re-exhibits your POV-pushing:

What you're calling a "settler org" is an official branch of Israel's government, and what you're calling "nonsense" is Primary Source history from a Brit who observed the Battle For Jerusalem (there you go again...), which is WAY less "nonsensical" than the several self-admitted biased/pro-Palestinian Secondary Sources that your side relies mostly upon; however, partisan sources ARE valid per WP:POV (both pro- and anti-Israel sources...oops, there I go, being anti-hypocritical & non-POV again ;-) ), so long as they're properly attributed (WP:POV 3.1) and "balanced" with the other side's sources...once again exhibiting that I want an article to be balanced; that is the only 'side' I'm taking. Such POV-pushing/attempts to UNBALANCE every article by hypocritically: 1. adding srcs that fit WP:POV 3.1, but 2. then arbitrarily declaring anything that supports the other side effectively is a "nonsense" is 100% unacceptable, and has been such a consistent & flagrant violation of WP's POV policies that it should've gotten you banned from WP long ago:

You've already been disciplined for similar issues of bias which can erode public confidence in WP's reliability and balance, but not banned...yet. So don't act like my accusations that you're a recklessly-biased editor make me the bad guy; I'm only re-stating what dozens of ppl (both inside WP's "higher-up management" and outside of it) have noticed.

72.183.52.92 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Zero0000,

What is the definition of the Latrun salient ? On my side, I would have said that it is fully in the West Bank so I don't understand some parts of your comments...

IP 72.183,

I suggest that you follow Zero0000's advices in trying not to attack other contributors even if or because you are convinced they are pov-pushers. Often, we consider others as biaised because we are not aware of the full knowledge on a topic ourselves.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have not been quite accurate, and this is one of those messy naming issues. There were two armistice lines defined in 1949 with a "no-mans land" between them. The two lines can be seen on the map (based on an official Israeli map of 1956–8). Its status in the 1949 armistice agreement is unclear. The no-mans land is usually called the Latrun salient. Some time after 1967, Israel started treating the northern-western armistice line as the real one and ignored the south-eastern one. Despite the JP article stating that Israel annexed the salient, I don't think there was ever a formal action (e.g. a Knesset decision) of annexation like there was for East Jerusalem and Golan. I think it was just an administrative decision to start pretending that the salient was Israeli. There was a report on Jan 17, 1970 about Israel amending armistice lines, see this (p576)). It says (not wholly visible in snippet) "In this amendment the Latrun area and the villages of Imwas, Yalo, Beit Nuba will be annexed to the areas occupied since 1948". The Palestinian side never accepted this action and always insisted in negotiations that the salient is part of the West Bank, while Israel claims it is Israeli and there is nothing to discuss. I can't find a UN resolution on it, which probably reflects the fact that it was not a formal action taken at a specific moment, so it is hard to cite the international opinion on it. If you can find a good source on this question, I'd be interested. Zero^talk 07:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I should add that between 1949 and 1967 the salient was under Jordanian administration. Zero^talk 09:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

10000 people expelled

I was amazed by this number that semms very high to me. So I quickly checked the population of each village and I found that Yalo is claimed to have 16,000 unhabitants in 1961. Does someone know the source of this ? This still seems extremely high for me. I don't see 16,000 people leaving there... It is a city, not a village... The article about Yalo also talks about 593 hours that was destroyed. That would make more than 25 people per house as an average. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is exaggerated, but maybe not by much. Segev ("1967", p407) says 8,000. Avi Raz ("The Bride and the Dowry", p108) quotes UN sources for 7,000. Raz also gives Arab sources for the number of destroyed houses (same page): Imwas 375, Yalu 539, Beit Nuba 550. Compare to 1931: 224,245,226 — slightly more than doubling in 36 years is plausible. That many houses means about 7,000 people. Morris ("Righteous Victims", p328) suggests there were also people living in Deir Aiyub who were expelled. A population of 16,000 for Yalo seems highly dubious. The best source would be the Jordanian census of 1961, but I have no idea how to get access to it. Zero^talk 09:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Jordanian census of 1961: Imwas 1,955, Yalu 1,644, Beit Nuba 1,350; Total 4,949. Normal growth for another 6 years could bring it to 5,500 or so. Probably 16,000 for Yalu is a typo/misunderstanding for 1,600. Zero^talk 13:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion.

When we see where is this village, 16,000 is certainly a typo for 1600; in particular with the results of the Yalu census of 1600.

I wonder why nobody talks about Latrun village that was next to the monastary and the police station. Maybe it was emptied in '48. I will check with Morris.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a 1948-village (Khalidi pp 392-3). See also the last section, on the bottom of this talk-page, Huldra (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There were soldiers, and presumably support staff, in the fort. However, the 1961 census doesn't mention Latrun, which either means the population weren't considered as residents or that there were less than 100 of them. Localities smaller than 100 people are not listed separately. Zero^talk 23:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"10,000" and miscellaneous

For Yalo, but not the other villages, that does seem suspicious because Yalo was on a hilltop (hard to support even 1/10th that population at that elevation, given the typical potable-water acquisition technology they'd have had in 1967); if you enter "Ha-Totakhim Ridge" into GoogleMaps, Yalo was near or NE of that Ridge, as you can also see (but without the TOPOGRAPHY MAPS that GoogleMaps provides) Yalo's location in:[3]. You could mark it so ppl know we're seeking other (reliable) sources. ...however, note that refugees from other villages had gathered in Latrun, so it wouldn't surprise me if the villages at the base of the hill had larger numbers of people...but even still 10,000 does seem suspect. I'm not going to research the population...so it's up to you. What I'd like to discuss is:

1. Here is the ref you were looking for, stating that Latrun was indeed annexed (in 1967. And "annexed" is a legal status different from "occupied."

Well, I sort of just edited all of this once I got started...:-) I figured it's better/easier for you to just see "how it looks" instead of you reading the below proposals...so feel free to switch things back to your original text if you think that I corrected your grammar wrongly, clarified any parts that you were saying wrongly, etc:

1. (continued) In all fairness to both sides, the article should note that none of the Arab parties (Jordan & PLO/PNA/State of Palestine) disputed Latrun's status as "annexed" and Arafat+Abbas both placed Latrun -- and thus Canada Park -- into Israel's land-area during EVERY stage of the Peace Process ...until 2013, and now Abbas has contested Latrun's status in order that you reflect what the JPost article describes; if it becomes too wordy, it may be best to return to the word you used before "annexed" and include the jpost ref just in case someone wants to challenge it, or finds a source that updates the jpost article: e.g. hard to say if Abbas capitulated quickly after that 2013 article. You also might want to give Zero another day to come up with any sources that rebut it. Long-form of the "< #ref# >":

2. Could be nice to add a section on Ancient history since the hilltop's usage in past wars has guarded the (Mediterranean) sea route to Jerusalem -- and because the remains of those forts are the largest ruins still standing in Canada Park [EDIT: I just added 1 line, not a "section"]: e.g. Ayalon will have plenty of source-material, as well as translated version of "Castellum Arnoldi" (Arnoldi is mentioned...not sure if anybody wants details about it in the 3rd section/topic of Canada Park.)

3.Perhaps "in a strategic zone of the First Arab-Israeli War, blockading Jerusalem that was assaulted 6 times without success by the Israeli forces" is easier to read if changed to "...in a strategic zone of the First Arab-Israeli War, blockading Jerusalem where a blockade of Jerusalem (ALT/optional: by Jordan's Arab Legion) was assaulted 6 times without success by the Israeli forces..."

4. Your src, Battles_of_Latrun_(1948) says there were only 5 assaults ...as I fixed that:

4b. I wikified 2 other things (EDITED LATER: ok, maybe more like 4), and

4c. The lede had self-contradictory statements ("The whole Latrun salient was annexed by Israel in 1967" and another stating it's still "occupied"); since the only src we have says "annexed" not occupied (until someone provides a contradictory ref), I stated Israel "claims" it's annexed. I'll let you decide how to word the part about its legal status in the "Establishment" section and ofc as new info comes in, if anyone can provide a ref that shows the UN/ICJ has ruled against Israel, etc, what I just put in the lede will need to be worded similar to the many articles about Israel (stating that Israel has de facto annexed Latrun, but that the UN/ICJ has ruled specifically to reject the annexation of Latrun, etc). Either way, it'll be subject to final negotiations per UN Res 242 and the Oslo process, and barring their ability to agree, it'll be settled the way every piece of land's status was settled: war (as an archaeologist, I just see it in the long-term context: a long succession of "occupations," none of which need to be legal or approved of to be...REALITY :-) ). I was telling Zero yesterday that I'm a Hindu (migrant to USA) and former bioengineer: I still know bioengineers, despite that my own path took me more toward archaeology...exploring old battlefields like Latrun's; and seeing Latrun's strategic position and the firm language the Israeli rep uses in that jpost article about the security threat of giving Latrun back, and knowing the status of India's biotech even 3 years ago (which isn't covered by any NPT because it's so advanced, nobody foresaw this type of tech as of the last round of ABW [adv biowar] treaties), and knowing our recent tech-sharing treaties with Israel, I would hate to be anyone with too much non-Jewish/non-Hindu Mideastern DNA with even 1 violent thought in my head anywhere between the Mediterranean and the Indus River if it comes to war (those without "violent thought" can be de-selected as a 'targeted individual' by a reduced version of fMRI mind-scanning tech...if they were able to add fMRI. Last I heard, they weren't & thus Israel allegedly told my friends/colleagues that it's too "inhumane in current form"). Meanwhile, Iron Beam and Hetz 3 seem to be making Israelis feel fairly well-defended from WMD-based or other counterassaults. So reading that jpost article about Latrun, I thought, "Uh oh, is Latrun gonna be the sticking-point that leads to WMD...and not the little bombs like Hiroshima/Nagasaki?" :-)

72.183.52.92 (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I made a global revert when I read that you had removed "occupied territory" and replaced this by "territory claimed by Israel".

I am sorry but that is simply not acceptable to discuss on that basis.

I didn't read all this here above either.

Anyway, any editor is welcome. I suggest you make a proposal here or in the article a "basic" and "small" edit that you are confident is not controversial and that we move forward that way.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I forced myself to read 72's long long monologue, for what was probably the last time. Don't bother reading it; the information/word ratio is miserable. In fact it is negative since the "information" is generally wrong (eg. preposterously claiming that the Palestinians agreed to Israel's annexation until 2013; it was a major issue at the Camp David talks for example.). Meanwhile I won't be confident that Israel annexed the salient officially (not just de facto) until someone comes up with a source giving a primary reference for the act of annexation. Zero^talk 08:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Zero claims: “never accepted this action” and “always insisted in negotiations” FALSE: Zero not only has no source to backup this claim about the “negotiations” (including Jeremy Pressman, as I'll show in the "annexation only" section below) but also the jpost ref that's already in the article directly contradicts you, Zero ...from jpost's editorial board which is 'known for fact-checking' etc per WP:RS guidelines; you and especially Huldra really SHOULD HAVE read that jpost article fully, BEFORE editing the sentence related to it. :-) )

...And here you are accusing [falsely] that MY info is “generally wrong”...based on what? Based on your UNCITED/UNREFERENCED PERSONAL OPINION... in contrast to the way that I CITED the jpost article: proof that it is you spreading disinfo. Please understand my perspective and why I edited Canada Park initially: the reality is that it doesn't really matter whether Palestinians or even the UN approve...as my profession (archaeology) makes me familiar with The History Of Warfare, I'm VERY confident that during the foreseeable future, Palestina won't be able to return to these or other villages (thus it's a de facto annexation)...and likely will lose more land if they keep choosing war instead of peace, as they are fighting a nuclear power with the world's only reliable/highly-accurate missile/WMD shield (e.g. Hetz 3 and Iron Beam: Iron Dome was shoddy & not really for the same purpose.) as well as tech that even USA/EU are lightyears behind Israel on, e.g. Artificial Intelligence software being developed jointly with nanorobotic-soldiers based on the Art. Intel. of S.Korea's bots which already patrol the Korean DMZ... and because my take is that Israel CANNOT lose in the foreseeable future, that you and I and any Wikipedia-Propagandising WP:Coatracking will not change THAT, I therefore have no REASON to POV-push at all; I just wrote what the WP:V source (jpost's editors) decided to publish; it is not WP:POV to add any MATTERS OF FACT (if it was the source's MATTER OF OPINION, that'd be different). What the majority of people on this Talk page (as it dominated MOST of the 7 topics that were present, as of yesterday) and I want is simply: this article SHOULD NOT SUCK, e.g. by going off-topic as your crowd is trying to call-attention to/force the casual reader-of-Wikipedia to read your Activist Annie whining & ranting and, what was -- before my first edit (last Thurs or Fri) -- a one-sided argument filled with half-truths...on a topic that only is only peripherally relevant to the park (WP:undueweight & CoatRacking). Capiche?!

72.183.52.92 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

References

April 2014 - Canada Park

Regarding your edit to Canada Park:

Pluto2012 stated "there are several interesting edits" in 72.183.52.92's edits, and cited one line, "territory is claimed by Israel", as the reason to revert the entire set of edits. Following WP:Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, I restored the reverted edits, since it sounded like the edit was mostly good, but had one problem. I was in the process of trying to find and remove the line that Pluto2012 complained about when you made your edit, reverting my revert of Pluto2012's edit within six minutes.

If you feel that 72.183.52.92's edits were more than 50% junk, then you made the right call in reverting my reversion. However, if you feel that more than half of his edit was worthwhile, I think it would be better to just remove the sections which you find disagreeable, and leave any sections that you feel are valuable or worthwhile contributions to the article.

I'm not familiar with this subject at all, but the constant edit warring on that page is sending me messages every time the page is relinked to a page I created. Since you seem to have a stronger opinion about the subject, I'll trust that you know more than I do about the subject and have better judgement about what is accurate, impartial, and reliable information, etc. However, I would appreciate it if you and the rest of the people involved in the edit war could please talk things out and try to find some kind of compromise, rather than feverishly making and unmaking edits. Thank you. -NorsemanII (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There are some "trigger words"in the I/P area, as anyone with just a few edits in the area will know. One of the strongest "trigger words" is "occupied". There have been kb upon kb written on Wikipedia about the lands conquered in 1967 by Israel. I don´t know how many "tons" of citations that have been brought forward, supporting the view that the land is regarded by International community as "occupied". Pluto2012 argued (on the talk-page here) that he "made a global revert when I read that you had removed "occupied territory" and replaced this by "territory claimed by Israel". It is simply completely unacceptable to remove "occupied territory" from this, or any other article, about land occupied in the 1967 war. We are taking Wikipedia 5-10 years backwards if that becomes accepted.

I don´t really see this as an edit-war: it is one IP who wants to force his (her?) view on the article.

Also, a statement like "which Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have agreed for decades, during all stages of the Peace Process, would become incorporated into Israel, until June 2013" (unsourced) belong more in a political article than in an encyclopedia.

BTW; I can understand your frustration: the IP could argue his/her insertions one by one on the talk-page, and then get some accepted. This is what is normally done on such very contested articles (like Canada Park and Yalo). Instead they try "mammut changes" and leave it to us to try to sort out what can be salvaged. I don´t think this is an accepted way to proceed anymore, in the I/P area.

This discussion really belongs on the talk-page of the article, IMO, so if you don´t mind, shall we continue there? Thanks! Huldra (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful. Now a "brand new" user, Chief Truck (talk · contribs) has appeared on the scene ....like they alway do, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject at this point, since Huldra has made false accusations against me (in a private conversation...then added it to the Talk page after you continued talking to Norseman, trying to convince him that he was wrong to re-instate my edits.):

1. You're calling the following “unsourced,” so TRY READING THE ARTICLE (the 1 that I cited as my..."SOURCE," here before embarrassing yourself with false accusations again: “[Palestinian rep's agreed] during all stages of the Peace Process, [that Latrun] would become incorporated into Israel, until June 2013" (unsourced)“ (emph added). But as the REFERENCED SOURCE who is well-regarded for fact-checking (jpost) says: “All peace plans have always put Latrun inside Israel, the official said” and if you'd like to contest that part of it, or any other parts of what I wrote into the lede (although I'm fine with Norseman's curtailed version), then you need to GET A CONTRADICTORY SOURCE. You're only impugning your own credibility by making such False Accusations against me: Are you too illiterate to read that jpost article and/or unaware that the way WP works is that you need to GET A SOURCE for why you have removed my WP:RS-sourced info, if you think jpost's editors, despite having a reputation for fact-checking, published that erroneously somehow?! ...As I already needed to state to Zero 2 days ago (after which he replied but didn't contest the following claim): “...So I never asserted "what I think" (as you just falsely-accused) the status of the salient is, I provided a source (known for fact-checking/etc)...” I also needed to call-out to him his own admission that he doesn't know much about legalities of Latrun's annexation and needed to again tonight when he referenced Pressman, despite that Pressman actually supports me instead of Zero. :-)

2. Another false accusation: "I don´t really see this as an edit-war: it is one IP who wants to force his (her?) view on the article" but if you read this Talk page & the article's History/diff's, the majority noted that the article has become a constant source of politicisation (WP:Coatrack) and my edits largely (but not fully) addressed those complaints, as others have needed to sporadically in the past, if you look at the diff's (but after those others stopped occasional WP:Coatrack attempts, people from your little POV-pushing cabal came back again). It is a small cabal of political-activist editors versus the mainstream opinion on this Talk page that your little buddies are abusing Wikipedia.

3. Lastly, I don't even know who Chief Truck is...and I could just as easily say, “Funny, Sean.Holyland showed up outta nowhere,” but I'm not going to stoop to your level of making TACIT False Accusations; indeed I wouldn't really even care if you'd contacted Sean, so long as he added content that wasn't violating both:

• WP:Coatrack policy but also
• the clear majority who've said that this Archaeology Park article should not be politicised (Coatracked) into a political bitchfest...other than perhaps 1 line with a wikified link to bring people to the Yalo or other articles). I can understand that everyone makes occasional mistakes, but that's quite the CAMPAIGN of lies. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds like we ought to discuss this on the talk page so that we've got a discussion going on that page to provide guidance to anyone else who might come along. Do you mind if I copy over my initial post and your reply, or would you like to do the honors? -NorsemanII (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Done! Huldra (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Huldra: Okay, so since Chief Truck (talk · contribs) has reverted the article again like you mentioned, let's discuss what needs to be changed so that we can get it back to something you and Pluto2012 would accept. You and Pluto2012 have addressed two points so far:

• You both disagree with the appropriateness/accuracy of the phrasing "territory claimed by Israel", and you prefer "occupied territory." Pluto did not state his preference for that wording, but you two seem to be on the same page, so I would guess his position is aligned with yours.
• You disagree with the appropriateness of the statement: "which Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have agreed for decades, during all stages of the Peace Process, would become incorporated into Israel, until June 2013"

Is this a complete list of your objections with 72.183.52.92's edits? Do you see these issues in more than one place?

I should add that I'm pretty sure I don't understand the "occupied" vs. "claimed" objection. I interpret "occupied territory" as territory controlled by but not officially part of a foreign power, like Iraq was occupied by the United States during the Iraq war, yet the United States did not make any claim that Iraq was part of the United States. I interpret "claiming" a territory to mean that a country extends its claimed national borders and thereby claims full legal jurisdiction over a territory, like when Haiti was claimed by Spain during the colonial era. So, would it be correct to say that the international community views Canada Park as a part of Palestine (?) which is under military control by Israel? I see that the category for the article lists it among national parks of Israel, and that was not introduced by 72.183.52.92's edits, so that makes me think my understanding is not correct. I'll go ahead and add a disputed tag to warn people to take it with a grain of salt while we work out what it means and what to do about it.

I understand and agree with your second objection. 72.183.52.92 made a pretty big claim with that statement, and it ought to have a very reliable and unbiased reference if it's going to be on Wikipedia. I didn't see any reference which actually made that claim, let alone an impartial and highly trustworthy one, so I think it's safe for me to go ahead and remove that line. -NorsemanII (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@ NorsemanII:

The "Latest revision as of 10:48, 20 April 2014" by Zero0000 is concise, well-written and sourced. It contains all the relevant information that was discussed on this talk page up to now. (In other words, it keeps the "baby"). It gets my approval and any additional material should be discussed first on this talk page. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously Chief Truck (talk · contribs) is a sock, (genuine "new" accounts do not edit like that; reverting, without participating on the talk-page,) Probably some banned user: there are a few very active ones. As such, this sock should simply have been reverted; now we are in effect encouraging dishonesty by rewarding it. And no, I have not "Insinuated" that Chief Truck is IP 72.183.52.92 (.......Heh, if Chief Truck starts posting endless accusations on talk-pages, well, then I might change my mind...) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Anecdote

There were indeed 6 assaults on Latrun :

• During Operation Maccabi
• Operation Ben Nun
• Operation Ben Nun Bet
• Operation Yoram
• An assault by the East on 16 July (during Operation Dani, after the fall of Ramla)
• A frontal assault by the West on 18 July (the last action of Operation Dani).

Anita Shapira talks about 6 operation, I don't know which one Benny Morris, who talks about 5 operations, forgot. Anyway it doesn't matter at all.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just going by the article that you wikified to when stating "assaulted the hilltop X times without success..." to be consistent w/that article. Whether one operation is "separate" from another may be interpreted by historians, as you call out. You could always add the Anita Shapira source to that article ("Battle for Latrun" or whatever), but I wanted to stay with what was given with WP:RS sources in that other article. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No worry. :-) Pluto2012 (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Did Israel annex it?

Please restrict this section to the annexation issue and write about other issues in other sections.

Two sentences in the article claim that Israel either annexed the Latrun salient (which includes a fraction of Canada Park) or "claimed to have annexed" it. As far as I can tell, no source at all has been provided for "Israel claims to have annexed" but only a Jerusalem Post journalist making that claim [4]. Said journalist also quotes some unnamed official claiming that "All peace plans have always put Latrun inside Israel", which is false: every Israeli offer has included Israeli annexation of the salient but this has always been opposed by the Palestinians (see any account of the Camp David meetings in 2000, for example). In contradiction to that source's claim that "Israel annexed the Latrun salient ... soon after the Six Day War", a historical article in Haaretz said "The enclave has yet to be annexed" [5]. Faced with two newspaper articles making opposite claims, we certainly can't insert one claim and ignore the other. We have to mention either or both. Better would be to find a stronger source, such as an academic article, that establishes the facts with citation of original documents. I have found a few books that make each claim but none give any details or cite evidence. I also looked in several book-length accounts of the occupation starting in 1967, including the negotiations and discussions over the following decades, and did not find any mention of the Latrun salient being annexed, though plenty of proposals for that, eg. in the Allon Plan. Zero^talk 11:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Even your own source says “The Palestinian figure included Israeli annexation of...parts of the Latrun salient,” indicating that Arafat's “figure” concurred with Israel keeping it. When you claim Arafat's rep rejected annexation [by Israel] ("insisted in negotiations" against annexation) based on this [the Pressman document that I've just quoted, showing it supports parts of what jpost & I said, and NONE of what you're claiming], how can anyone trust you: It's not just a , this part of the doc which you cited even refutes you, and lends even more support (when we add it to the jpost's article) to what the jpost and I said in the lede to start with! ...N.B.: What they did disagree on is whether the No Man's Land (search for that term in Pressman's paper) is to be counted in the percentage (IIRC, it's 3%) of the West Bank that Arafat agreed Israel may take for security purposes, that is not the same as disagreeing whether or not the NML is already (whether de-facto or de-jur) annexed. Your vague citation made it difficult to see whether Pressman supports you or not, but I guess that if I was in your position (not a leg to stand on), I'd also refrain from citing the exact page-number or exact quote. ;-) As I already observed: you were exhibiting utter cluelessness on legal agreements RE: Latrun when you wrote about it to Pluto, and now you're so blinded by your bias that you're using a source who even HIMSELF contradicted the particular point that you're trying to make. I'd be crying if I wasn't laughing right now. But I wouldn't mind if you modify it to say: "...land that Israel may have annexed..." 72.183.52.92 (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The source says that Arafat's calculation of percentages of the West Bank to be lost under various plans was different from Israel's calculations, because Arafat did not consider the Latrun enclave and East Jerusalem to be part of Israel already. This is clarified at the bottom of page 16. Please read more carefully in future. Incidentally, the next personal attack will get you reported, my patience has worn out and I only didn't report you already because it is a pain to do that. Zero^talk 05:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking at the bottom of pg. 16, and it says:

"Israel, however, omits No Man's Land (50 sq km near Latrun ... The Palestinian figure included Israeli annexation of...parts of the Latrun salient"

and you're only considering the 1st half of that: whilst I already shared your view that citing Pressman shows the fact Arafat didn't accept that there has already been an annexation of Latrun which is legal (however, we don't need to prove or disprove Arafat's or even the UN's approval to meet the definition of an "annexation"; see below sub-section), but what I was pointing out on 21 April 04:23 (when I quoted the 2nd half of the last blockquote) is that page 16-18 of Pressman ADDS support to what Norseman and I both had written in the lede (which I sourced from jpost...but now Pressman also ADDS support, in addition to jpost, to the following); here is what I wrote into the lede, which the above blockquote (from Pressman) SUPPORTS:

"Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have agreed ...during all stages of the Peace Process, [that Latrun] would become [NOTE: future tense here...whereas you were talking about citing Pressman to show that Arafat in the 1990's wasn't accepting that Israel had "already"--past tense--annexed Latrun...see the word "already" in boldtext, a few lines above this] incorporated into Israel"

i.e. you only showed that Arafat disagreed whether Latrun should be counted toward the "percentage" (and to that, I've already agreed: see "percentage" in what I wrote yesterday) but what I wanted you to notice yesterday is that what Arafat & Israel DID AGREE on is that Latrun's Final Status = part of Israel [i.e. "ANNEXED" as Norseman & I claimed in the lede], instead of Latrun being within the new Palestinian state.)

...or as Norseman had re-phrased my words...but his words, below, also still never contradict Pressman, nor jpost, nor my words in the lede, AND with the jpost:

"[Abbas's team] stated their desire to reverse planned agreements for the land to be incorporated into Israel".

I was saying that in THIS regard, your own source (Pressman) agrees with jpost and me (that Abbas is "reversing" what he agreed to earlier, in the 1990's part of the Peace Process which Pressman's paper covers); Pressman doesn't fully confirm what Norseman and I added to the lede [but jpost does FULLY support what Norseman or I added]; Pressman only shows that the jpost's portrayal is true, at least for the particular round of negotiations that Pressman was discussing on pp. 16-18 RE: who will get to keep Latrun indefinitely. Now, on to the other issue of whether Arafat & his team needed to accept that the "annexation" is 'legal' in order for it to be defined as an "annexation." I thought you'd have known the definition of "annexation" before lecturing me about its application to the Latrun situation and/or that definition's application to what Pressman did (or didn't) say, and it seems our differing definitions of "annexed" are what caused you to think that I was claiming Pressman said Arafat approved of the annexation (I don't care whether Arafat approved of it or not, because his approval isn't needed for it to be defined as "annexed," as I'll use Britannica to show below [thus "annexed" still is the proper word] 72.183.52.92 (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(1) You don't seem to understand the difference between negotiating positions and agreements. (2) In negotiations the Palestinians have sometimes agreed to a map that placed a part of Latrun in Israel, but they never agreed that it was Israel's by right. From 1967 until now, with no exception whatever, it was to them a piece of Palestinian land whose loss would need to be compensated for. (3) An unnamed Israeli official quoted in JP is not even a reliable source for the official Israeli position, let alone for the facts. Zero^talk 02:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I found two things in articles of Shaul Arieli that tell a third story. I'm not yet addressing the issue of whether these are citable.

• [6] "After the Six Day War, Israel did not apply its laws on this no man’s land. This is in contrast to the manner in which it treated East Jerusalem. In spite of this Israel treated the Latrun region as Israeli territory and built settlements there including Kfar Ruth, Shillat, Macabim, Nof Eilon, Lapid, and Neve Shalom. There are contradicting legal arguments related to the status of the no man’s land, the origin of which are two contradictory claims. Those who see this region part of Israel argue that because Israel was the first to implement effective governing of the region, it is part of their country. Those opposing this idea believe that this established reality negates Palestinian claims in previous rounds of negotiations. The Palestinians claim that the region was captured in the 1967 war and, therefore, should be included as part of the occupied territories. Moreover, it was supposed to be included in the Arab state according to the UN Partition Plan of 1947. In 2012 the European Union announced the zip codes of settlements that their exports are not exempt from taxes. In addition to the settlements in East Jerusalem the list also included Israeli settlements located in the no man’s land of Latrun."
• [7] "Israel claims that it was the first to apply effective control and therefore has sovereignty over it, according to customary law." Reference is made to a High Court court case: "State of Israel v. Eitan Kramer, 3/3/2004. (criminal)1193/04". However, case 1193/04 seems to be the wrong one. Or maybe the "criminal" indicates a different series; if someone with good Hebrew can search for this case at http://court.gov.il we'd appreciate it.

That is the most knowledgeable description I have found so far. If Arieli is right, Israel's claim is not based on annexation but on legal argument. Zero^talk 12:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I heard from Dr Arieli that this is not a High Court case but a case in a lower court. Zero^talk 13:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Benny Morris, in Victims, p.328 writes:

In addition, four villages in the latrun salient -Imwas, Yalu, Beit Nuba and Deir Aiyub- were leveled and their inhabitants sent to exile, with at least postfactum cabinet agreement. Dayan later explained that Israel's international airport at Lydda had been shelled from the salient, so Israel could not afford the area to revert to Arab rule. There may also have been an element of revenge for the events of 1948. (The destruction, it was understood, would also facilitate Israel's retention of the salient under any future peace settlement.)

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In Nov 1969, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) director I. Levy denied that JNF funds were being used to support settlements in the occupied territories. "The only exception, Dr. Levy says, is the area around Latrun which was accorded to Israel at the time of partition in 1947, but was won by the Arabs during the 1948 war." (The Times, Nov 15, 1969; p. 7) Dr. Levy was lying, both about JNF activities and about the partition plan. Zero^talk 23:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports:

• July 20, 1967 "The Jewish National Fund has started clearing some 11,000 acres of land in the Latrun area and in the former demilitarized zone along the Syrian and Jordanian borders. ... The area includes pre-war Israeli territory to which access had been denied by the Arabs."
• Feb 14, 1969 "The Jewish Agency announced today that some 2,000 acres of the former “no-man’s land” in the Latrun area will be divided between seven hill villages and two kibbutzim in the district, which lies on the main route between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Part of the land will go to the new village of Modiim established on the site of an abandoned Arab village."
• Oct 16, 1969 "The first Israeli settlement in the Latrun area of what was formerly Jordan will be established next week by Nahal members of the Poalei Agudat Israel youth movement. "

No official act of annexation is mentioned. That's because there wasn't one. Zero^talk 00:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

David Newman in 1995 quotes Yishai in 1985 saying that there was no formal act of annexation: [8].— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like that, but Yishai's paper (Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jan., 1985), pp. 45-60) does not mention Latrun. Still, Newman is a citable source that no formal annexation occurred. Zero^talk 05:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked for "Latrun salient" in google book and I found several references discussing the idea that it should be annexed by Israel for security reasons in peace negociations. It was also discussed at Camp David. I think we can conclude there was no formal annexation and discard this idea. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Latrun enclave" and "Latrun region" are pretty common too. Zero^talk 07:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "annexation" (Britannica)

This definition is already cited in other WP articles, e.g. regarding Russia's recent "annexation" of Crimea, which Ukraine (and the UN) does NOT accept: "a unilateral act made effective by actual possession, and legitimized by general recognition." So, what we have is that if Israel says it's already annexed (even if they say this "unilaterally"), it is... However, you could say it's an "illegal" annexation if you find the UN General Assembly denouncing Israel's annexation (as the UN's GA recently denounced Russia's annexation of UE) ...or I don't mind if you call it "an unrecognised annexation" whether or not you find any sort of denunciations from the UN.

But even an "unrecognised or illegal annexation" is not equivalent to "no annexation," per the above; such annexations are "effective" to quote Britannica's definition, or we'd usually replace the term "effective" with the Latin term, de facto. But as I said yesterday: feel free to write that Israel only "may have annexed [Latrun]" instead of what's currently written in the lede, that's not a big deal. But to go further than that will mislead WP readers, given the info and sources that we do have: de facto it is indeed annexed, and de jure we have inconclusive & conflicting info, so far. The de facto status of anything is the REALITY anyway; you can theorize all that you'd like about legality, but to add the de jure status you'd need a different source (besides the jpost link that I gave). jpost already states its de facto status, and now the Brittanica definition showing that even if it's only "unilaterally" (de facto) annexed, it's still "annexed" (to quote jpost).

The Ukraine also doesn't accept that Russia annexed the Ukraine, but they comprehend that "annexed" is the proper term...it's being called an "annexation" by both sides (and of course now that the UN General Assembly reacted & called Russia's action illegal, ofc Ukraine and their supporters call it an "illegal annexation"...but still "annexation"). Likewise, the State of Palestine has accused that the Separation Barrier is "The Annexation Wall" :-) ...and whilst I don't intend to insert the following paragraph's information into any articles (it'd be highly WP:OR), and you don't need to read it, I hope it deepens others' comprehension:

Palestine's supporters such as Alhaque.org (as I think this article already quotes alhaque.org?) also call it the "Annexation Wall"; and whilst that alone wouldn't be enough to say "annexed" in the article, jpost, a WP:RS source, is. Let's stop beating around the bush: the reality is that Palestine & their supporters comprehend that it's an "Annexation Wall" (whether or not PNA/State of Palestine ACCEPTS the righteousness of it...contrast "accept" with the above word "comprehend"), and that they're in no position to fight for it, nor to dictate terms of the land-for-peace deal and change Latrun's status unless Israel voluntarily gives it to em out of the goodness of their heart and out of TRUSTING the Arabs not to use this high-ground to attack Israel again... A party of Arabs, "Fatah," that was: 1. founded by Arafat, whose mentor, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was HITLER'S ally and a Muslim convicted at Nuremberg for his own racist mass-murders and coined the concept of the "Palestinian" identity (mirroring his German allies/trainers who coined an "Aryan" identity), 2. as Fatah soldiers still throw "Seig Heil" salutes even today. LMAO, as the jpost's Israeli official showed, the state of Israel's reps are not insanely naive enough to give LATRUN's high ground to THEM! ...as the jpost's Israeli official confirmed using strong words that this remains their position as of 2013. So, "adding up" the many facts-on-the-ground that we do know, do you think there's even a 1% chance that Israel will treat this hilltop that protrudes westward toward Israel's main cities as "occupied" like the rest of the West Bank and give it away, or that Abbas can win it in a war?! Israel acknowledges they WANT to give Fatah most of the West Bank, but their maps during the peace process (and the jpost's Israeli official...) show that Israel recognises Latrun as one of if not THE most valuable piece of land that they'd keep, per Arafat ageeing in the 90's that they can keep some hilltops... Whilst I can't put my personal opinion into WP articles, the jpost article which cites both governments' sources can be used in WP articles -- but I'd agree to it being marked or the like -- and I do recognise that THIS PARAGRAPH is "only my opinion"...but a well-supported opinion, showing that both sides know that Palestine would need a miracle to get Latrun back in the foreseeable (indefinite) future; that is the realpolitik. :-) Fatah has no chance of re-taking it militarily and Israel won't volunteer it; these villagers might get money [or Abbas might put it into his Swiss Bank Account instead ;-) ], but whilst money is an option, I can see why the Israeli official in the jpost article said they're going to return Latrun to Fatah (to paraphrase) "when hell freezes over." (an occupation, in contrast, is temporary: and Israel DOES acknowledge that they INTEND not to annex most of the West Bank, but Israel has said during negotiations [as Pressman, and minutes of Oslo, etc exhibit] that they WILL demand to keep parts of the West Bank, and based on jpost, the Israeli official is saying Latrun, as of 2013, is a place they still see as too valuable to give away: whether or not Abbas accepts that Latrun was already de facto annexed or not is irrelevant, because, per the above definition and other definitions cited in Russia-related WP articles, unilateral annexation still is called "annexation" and the jpost article uses the Israeli official to confirm the official disposition toward whether they will keep Latrun, and that is NOT a new disposition, not any sort of surprise that should require massive sources to confirm (as Pressman confirms it was Israel's position even way back in the 90's...how is this even "news," let alone a shocking piece of news??). I'm shocked that you'd have wasted your time looking for a disproof of it being an "annexation" (especially if you had researched the fact that "annexed" includes unilateral/de facto situations, meaning that the BEST you can look for is material to call it an "illegal annexation" (I feel like I might be about to help you achieve your goal since so many people enjoy bandying about the word "illegal" as in "illegal annexation," but as I said, I don't take sides, so there ya go, a little help as to what you could research to make Israel look bad ;-) ), and I say 'big whoop' even if you can find sources to prove it's an "illegal" annexation: nobody like Israel or Russia--nuclear powers--pays attention to the UN. :-) How many times has the peanut-gallery of 2-bit despots, i.e. the UN's General Assembly, "deplored" Israel? Israel never has cared if the UN disapproves, honey... And you think that Israel would BEGIN to care about world opinion, on this issue -- Latrun's refugees taking back the hilltop, which would force Israel to risk tonnes of their civilians' lives if Fatah uses a powerful place like Latrun to shell MOST of Israel's LARGEST cities from it?! That's just not going to happen, and that's WHY I'm not sure why you or Huldra waste time dreaming of it NOT being taken permanently (annexed) or editing this article as though, by putting such words on paper, you can help any Palestinians, nor help WP readers to realise the desperation of one side [inability to take it] and desperation of the other side [inability to risk giving it away, when they have opportunities to give away much less valuable & less risky lowlands to the Palestina].) 72.183.52.92 (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This is fascinating, but it doesn't speak to the immediate question, which is that the article states that "Israel claims to have annexed it." You argue that they've de facto annexed it, but have they claimed to have done so? I think that's the crux of what we're discussing above.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Newman (2005[9]) calls it "a defacto annexation which was not accompanied by any formal government decision". Dlv999 (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Alf, that's why I say: feel free to write that Israel only "may have annexed [Latrun]" instead of what's currently written in the lede. As an editorial staff known for fact-checking their authors, I presumed that statement meant they were citing gov't officials as taking that position, but DLV's source seems more exacting, and in any case is the safer option, so I'll change it.

Thx for the googlebooks link to confirm more about that. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This Hebrew article says that the salient was "effectively annexed" to Israel by the separation wall. Which is, again, about de facto annexation only. I don't agree to "Israel may have annexed"; it is like "Israel may have landed a man on the moon", namely true but content-free. Zero^talk 02:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Who ordered it?

The article says "The 4 Arab villages there were razed on the orders of Israeli general Yitzhak Rabin". Three citations are given, but the only one that indicates Rabin as responsible is this al-Haq legal brief, which quotes Rabin from a 1991 Canadian TV documentary saying "I gave the order". However, the book "The Bride and the Dowry" by Avi Raz (pp. 112–113) mentions two other claimants. Uzi Narkiss, commanding general of the Central Command, claimed at least five times between 1994 and 1997 that he alone gave the order. According to Narkiss, Rabin was unaware of it until afterwards and threatened Narkiss with a commission of enquiry. Raz cites archival documents in support of Narkiss' claims. Moshe Dayan also at one time claimed to have given the order himself, though Raz doesn't believe it. Zero^talk 13:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

West Bank - Occupied territory

I had added Canada Park is in the Occupied Palestinian territories. We could also state it is in West Bank. But currently it is stated it is located North of a Highway, which sounds strange. Any comment ? Pluto2012 (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: I think your edit may not have gone though, because I don't see that in the article. Review the changes made in your most recent edits. Also, when you do get the edit in, please remember include a reliable and unbiased source, since there's apparently some disagreement over the phrasing "occupied" vs. "claimed" (and possibly other choices of terminology?) I still haven't gotten an answer regarding the exact difference in meaning between those two terms, or why it matters, but apparently it does. -NorsemanII (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@NorsemanII:

I am sorry but how do you want to mediate here if you don't know the topic. How can you make the difference between a case where we would discuss (and have to source) that the "sky is blue" or a case where "Hitler is a gay"... ? The reaction of a mediator is expected to be different in both these cases...

FYI : Israel officials but in fact more often pro-Israelis claim that West bank, East-Jerusalem and Golan Heights are "disputed" (because they claim this and because they annex East-Jerusalem and Golan Heights and settled more than 600,000 people there. The remaining of the world consider that these annexations are not legal and consider the "settlements" as illegal too.

Nobody wants to lose time in discussing this. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is not satisfactory. It is located in territory that was captured from Jordan in 1967, part of which was in the no-mans land defined by the 1949 Israel-Jordan armistice agreement. Can we write something like that? The fact that Israel claims the no-mans land as its own can be mentioned later in the article. Incidentally the fraction in the no-mans land is about 25% but I don't know a source for that and my map measuring might exceed WP:CALC. Zero^talk 13:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on the book DLV just linked to (pg. 16 of [10] from David Newman of the International Boundaries Research Unit:

"Near Latrun, the planting of Canada Park stretched from the 'no man's' zone over the boundary into the West Bank. [The next sentence notes "the major highway" also goes thru the No Man's Land; I'll note that Rte 1 even goes into (the traditional limits of) The West Bank, as does Canada Park, not only into the No Man's Land.] This amendment of the boundary was in effect a de facto annexation which was not accompanied by any formal government decision".

‎ This annexation takes place in the 1970s; the article for West Bank only notes the UN barring/delegitimising "whatever agreements have been made between Israel and Palestinian authorities since 1993," and thus these 1970's annexations may also be de jure (legal) annexations, but I wouldn't add anything to the article stating that we've confirmed it's part of the West Bank (legally) OR not part of the West Bank (legally), without an actual source explicitly saying that the court rulings have confirmed one or the other.

I also thought it was a bit queer that someone long ago wrote in the lede that the park is north of Route 1; it's really north AND east of Rte 1.

As there are no more Palestinians living in Latrun (but ofc plenty living in West Bank), I'd be careful to conflate the two. Also consider the fact that Israel indicates/acknowledges that they plan to give the West Bank back (occupation=temporary), but that they won't even consider changing Latrun's status and make it be included in Palestine (annex=permanent, in contrast to occupation), and per this mainstream definition of "annexation": annexation includes "a unilateral act made effective by actual possession [and legitimized by general recognition]. ("effective" = de facto, and "legitimized" = de jure). As Newman's book calls what Israel has already done with at least the Canada Park [and Rte 1] part of Latrun a de facto annexation, it is indeed "annexed" as jpost said (whether you can say that this annexation was "recognised"/"legitimised" at any later point is something that you guys can determine later if you're interested in that sort of thing and assuming you can source that, but either way, it's "annexed" (either legally or illegally, per Britannica noting there are both legal & illegal forms). I wrote more details in the annexation-specific section that Zero began, and then I saw the link to Newman's book. I'd suggest:

The park is located on the lands of three Palestinian West Bank villages,[5] partly on land that Israel claims to have annexed. The park is located on land that Israel de facto annexed. then citations to Newman pg. 16 AND to jpost

because you can just as easily say it's located on "three Palestinian villages, some of which were, in turn, built upon Hasmonean and Christian villages or forts": I agree with Pluto's comment that the article was balanced as of the left pane, in this diff, and now I'm seeing a "creep" of the WP:Coatrack violations back into the article which caused a majority of commenters on this Talk page to complain (especially in Sections 1-8 of the Talk pages; the 3 of us basically added all the other sections after that ;-P ). There's nothing wrong with 1 sentence about refugees AND the wrecked villages, wikilinked to an article like Yalo so that those interested can Read More there, and Ted Swedenberg's ref is fine in the 1st section or articles like Yalo, but Sean's FULL SECTION about refugees "request to return" belongs elsewhere because they are not "requesting to return" to Canada Park they are requesting to return to Ayalon Valley/Yalo and the other villages/etc; they are only cursorily related to Canada Park, and should be treated as such with DueWeight...they are more than cursorily related to Yalo/etc, and thus the bulk of this info should be relocated to those "more topical articles"...with a link in this article for people who are interested in them -- or interested in The Hasmoneans...but you don't see me add a FULL SECTION about them or The Crusaders; that's why we have other articles, namely Hasmonean and Crusades :-) ). The timeline does not start on the same day Islamists were aggrieved; to keep it neutral, it must be noted there is a series of "occupiers" replacing each other.

72.183.52.92 (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Several points, I will try to keep it concise.

• Regarding your suggestion for the lead, Newman says the park is built on land that stretches from the no man's land (de facto annexed by Israel) over the boundary into the West Bank. The text should reflect the source.
• I cited an academic source directly related the topic that describes the topic as: "Canada Park, planted on the lands of three West Bank villiages in the Latrun district." What we are here to do is accurately represent how this topic is covered in RS. If you have similar quality sourcing that discusses Hasmonean villages when describing the location of the park you can include the details.
• High quality academic sources treat the destruction of the Palestinian villages, the expulsion of the population, and suppression of their existence as central to the coverage of this topic. We are obliged to follow how the topic is covered in RS. See e.g article cite note 10 (Falah 2004) who describes the establishment of the park as part of a "policy of land acquisition, demographic cleansing and subsequent obliteration of any visible sign of previous settlement, the erasure of memory." Dlv999 (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile at Latrun

Meanwhile, our anon has turned Latrun in a long rambling mess like his comments here, full of personal analysis and wild claims. Zero^talk 01:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The historical remains

Before this removal, it was stated historical remains included "the ruins of Palestinian villages". Does anyone got the book and can check if that was indeed mentioned? As this was typical editing and no explanation was given, it could actually be reverted straight away. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The version that I can see at Amazon does not mention the Arab villages, which only goes to emphasise that travel guides are poor sources. Zero^talk 08:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canada Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=%20420153&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"extending from No man's land across the Green Line into the West Bank"

That text follows the source, but it should be noted that it assumes the minimal Israeli interpretation of the green line. The Palestinian interpretation of it is at the outer boundary of the no-mans-land, consistent with physical control during 1948-1967. In the Palestinian interpretation of the borders, none of Canada Park is in Israel. This should be mentioned and sourced. Zero^talk 13:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

‘A few years later Canada Park was established there, giving visitors the illusion they were not crossing the Green Line into the West Bank’ Raja Shehadeh Language of War, Language of Peace: Palestine, Israel and the Search for Justice, Profile Books, 2015 implies, and RS is a lawyer pretty familiar with these details, that it is all in the West Bank. I've had it in my notes for some time, but having used it because I can't come up with the right page number, though it is in chapter 1 (pp.1-17). Searching inside Amazon usually will give the page number, but my check failed on that score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) .

The boundaries of the Ramallah and al-Bireh Governorate as defined by the Palestine government include all of Canada Park, as in these maps: [11] [12] [13]. The difference between the Israeli and Palestinian positions on the Latrun Salient is the main basis of why the two sides disagree on percentages (as in "we offered them 99.99% of the West Bank and still they wouldn't agree"). Searching for Latrun Salient provides more sources for this, but I have so little time.. Zero^talk 23:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)