Talk:Jordan Rift Valley

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

Merge suggestion premature[edit]

The tag applied suggesting a merge is premature. The Jordan Valley (Middle East) is not synonymous with the Jordan Rift Valley. The first refers to a subsection of the Jordan Rift Valley, discussing it as a geographical and geopolitical entity, while the second focuses more on the Jordan Rift Valley as a geological and physiological feature that forms part of the broader Great Rift Valley. Both articles are new and have been tagged as stubs. As they expand (or do not) a reevaluation of whether they can be merged can be undertaken. As it stands, these are less than two days old and need time to develop. Tiamat 05:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Actually better to merge both to Jordan River. Tiamut, tagging an article as a stub is not the same as using one of these templates WP:TMAIN and even those templates are supposed to be used temporarily. I am trying to AGF, but the Jordan Valley ME article reeks of POINT at this point. No merge suggestion is ever premature, only the article itself. I would actually merge it with West Bank, but I'll let this merge go through the paces first. As for the Jordan Rift Valley article, that should be merged with Jordan River. To AGF, it would have been written with the rest of the countries involved as well, not just Israel. I suggest you stop editing all other articles and please expand ASAP. --Shuki 18:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not sure if Jordan River is the right place though as this is specifically about the geological side (i.e. the valley). 08:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC) --Preceding comment was added by Number 57. nadav (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose Please read each of the articles again, and keep in mind that two of these articles are new and under development. Time should be allotted to allow for the articles' further development and then we can again consider whether one or more can be merged into the other. However, it is inappropriate to merge into Jordan River, which does not at all encompass the other two. The Jordan Rift Valley and the Jordan Valley (Middle East) both extend well beyond the Jordan River. The Jordan River runs through the Jordan Valley (Middle East), a geographical sub-region in its own right. The Jordan Rift Valley is a geological feature that forms part of the Great Rift Valley. Each of these items deserves their own page. They discuss different phenomenon and cover different geographic, geological and/or geopolitical areas. Tiamat 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge to "Jordan Rift Valley", since this refers to a unitary geographic/geologic entity. Some information about the various geopolitical issues are in order, and the rest can be moved to West Bank and the plethora of other entries related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. TewfikTalk 17:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jordan Valley is an already existent disambiguation page. Is there any consensus among those proposing moves and mergers as to what is going where? Why not try building these articles since separate treatment of these areas and features seems to have been overlooked, and might actually turn out to be useful? Tiamat 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is an article that should probably be merged with Jordan Rift Valley, that is Dead Sea Rift, which I only saw today. Tiamat 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TewfikTalk 05:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I just heard on a TV show, Middle East Today, through the words of two white and english women, that the Jordan Valley is one of the most impoverished lands in the Israeli occupied territories. For example, one town has one bathroom for the whole town, which Israel intends to demolish. Towns within the Jordan Valley have to buy the land's water from Israeli settlements, many of which are luxurious government funded estates with swimming pools. The channel can be accessed here: mms://217.218.67.244/presslive I can only assume the Israeli editors want this article deleted to draw attention away from this problem. Here are two articles on the Jordan Valley's abysmal living conditions [1] [2] --Vitalmove 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment You know that seperating JV from the rest of the WB is an Israeli idea as if the WB can be abandonned of Jews, but the JV is a different entity for other negotiations. No one else in the world knows there is a difference, so maybe I should change my mind and support this article so there would be an additional platform to explain Israeli opinion. Hmmmm... I don't know where anyone would actually be able to find any references about the boundaries of the JV area (besides the extremist b'tsalem source), but hey, let's use WP to create it. --Shuki 13:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's odd you know because a simple search of "jordan valley" shows the term is used by (among others):
Sort of proves my point actually. The Israeli foreign ministry mention just mentions JV as a region, like the others, (there is no Nablus region article on WP, should there be?), and the other articles are based on the same uncredible B'tsalem group. This article should be merged with WB, especially if that's the best you can provide. --Shuki 18:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do four sources that refer to the Jordan Valley as a unique area support your argument for merger into another article. Is there a wikipedia policy that precludes the possibility of writing about a region? If there is, why are there articles on the Loire valley and Death valley among others. A google search for "jordan valley" brings back 823,000 hits and a google scholar search over 5,000 hits. Surely that is notable enough for its own article? Tiamat 15:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are already geographical articles on the rift valley and river. How many of those 823 000 pages discuss a Jordan Valley political region? --Shuki 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Jordan Valley is a geopolitical and geographical region formed by the geological phenomenon of the Jordan Rift Valley through which the Jordan River runs. None of these things are synonyms. There is ample evidence that the Jordan Valley is both geographically and even politically distinct from other parts of the West Bank and may have a completely different destiny under joint Jordanian-Israeli control. Tiamat 18:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is a Jordan Valley Government, I see no reason whatever information relates to politics can't be discussed with teh rest of the West Bank. TewfikTalk 04:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the Jordan Valley is located in present-day Israel, the West Bank and Jordan, it doesn't make sense to merge political information in this article into the West Bank. And as the sources point out, there is a developing cooperation between the government of Jordan and Israel to carry out joint projects in the region. (Something that needs to be added to the article). How does that fit in an article on the West Bank? Why can't the West Bank article link here for more discussion on the Jordan Valley itself? The region has a long history, site-specific history as well that should also be discussed in more detail. Tiamat 17:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"highly contested"[edit]

The article states that the tectonic origin of the Jordan valley is currently "highly contested", in terms of contrasting models of strike-slip versus an extensional regime. I don't think that is any longer the case with a broad consensus that the valley has formed by movement on a set of left lateral strike-slip faults with extension caused locally at overlaps between the mainly left-stepping fault segments. In fact the term "Jordan rift valley" is, like the larger feature the Great Rift Valley, mainly a historical concept and not much used by geologists any more (although it still turns up in the geographical, political and hydrological literature). I'm currently working on an expansion of the Dead Sea Transform article and intend, when that's complete, to return here and substantially rewrite the relevant section. If anyone has evidence of any continuing controversy about the valley's origin it would be useful to see it, as I haven't been able to find any. Mikenorton (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got around to making the two articles consistent with each other and the literature. Mikenorton (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved to Jordan Valley (Middle East)[edit]

I've move the tourism section and agriculture section (merged) to the Jordan Valley (Middle East). The agriculture section was basically already there. This article is about the geological rift valley and should focus only on that. The demography section should also be moved/merged there. Vsmith (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged the demography section there also, as it was mostly duplicated and not relevant to the geology of the rift valley. Vsmith (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency?[edit]

Could somebody please explain what this edit is consistant with? If no reasonable explanation is given, I will revert. --GHcool (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made it all countries rather than two countries and an area. Sepsis II (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Wikipedia should not take a stance on the recognition of the State of Palestine. I hope to revert unless a more reasonable explanation is given. --GHcool (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't engage in delegitimization of Palestine, no one would ever do it here about Israel so don't even start. Sepsis II (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about. WP:NPOV is not about delegitization of anybody. Wikipedia must not take a point of view on a topic upon which the international and academic community have not taken definitive stance. --GHcool (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then why aren't you deleting Israel too? No one is falling for this shit, just stop it. Sepsis II (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but WP:NPOV dictates that we write West Bank. Wikipedia must not take a point of view on a topic upon which the international and academic community have not taken definitive stance. I hope to restore unless reasonable explanation is given why we should not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV rule. --GHcool (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV does not say we must delete all reference to Palestine because of your POV. I'll take you to arbcom later today, you're clearly not suited to editing articles related to Palestine, hopefully next time after your ban is complete you don't choose to push an anti-Palestine agenda again. Sepsis II (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable approach would be to follow the ISO 3166 standard for all states. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jordan Rift Valley. 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghor/ghawr: pls define[edit]

An etymology is needed. See also Ghor es-Safi, in Syria Ghawr Gharbiyah and Ghawr al-Assi, maybe also the Saudi Ghawar Field.

In the Southern Levant it's a plain inside the deep, hot Jordan Rift Valley, or the entire JRV from the Sea of Galilee till the end of the Dead Sea basin, right? But it probably has a more general meaning, defining a certain geogr. feature. What's the root?

A job for Arabic speakers. Arminden (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest point?[edit]

"The lowest point in the Jordan Rift Valley is in the Dead Sea, the lowest spot of which is 790 m (2,590 ft) below sea level."

Gulf of Aqaba: 1,850 m, so over 1000 m deeper. Confusion between just on land as opposed to altogether, so also under the sea? But the next sentence deals with exactly that, the lowest point on dry land being the Dead Sea shores! Plain mistake due to misunderstanding and OR (unsourced passage!), or is there some additional parameter or caveat that was left out of the sentence? I can't think of any other than the Gulf of Aqaba not being considered by some as part of the same tectonic fault, but is there such an opinion out there? Or was this just written from an Israeli or Jordanian perspective, forgetting altogether about the gulf? Arminden (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jordan_Rift_Valley&oldid=1209975803"