Talk:Wadi Gaza

Is the main source of the Besor stream Does the channel designated as the Nahal Besor start in the northwestern Negev (Mount Boker) or in the Hebron Hills of the West Bank? Or should both sources be treated equally (i.e. there is no main source)? Closetside (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be wise to wait until the discussion is concluded at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, unless there is particular urgency? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

AE is about M.Bitton's conduct not about content so I see no reason to wait. Closetside (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment This may be a skill issue, but I tried to check reference 2, "Confronting water in an Israeli–Palestinian peace agreement" I don't see the referenced definition in the summary. Looks like any discussion of the stream would be behind the WP:PAYWALL. Does anyone have access to sciencedirect?

I think it would be useful to see what the document says about the definition and how it was chosen. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It's available through Wikipedia library. I'm verifying now. Simonm223 (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I can confirm the source states The Khalil Besor river originates in the West Bank, flows through Israel and then reaches the Mediterranean in the Gaza Strip. Simonm223 (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Support Mount Boker. Every RS cited above that explicitly takes a position places the source at Mount Boker and the Hebron Hills as the source of an indirect tributary, the Nahal Hevron. Hevron-Besor stream is similar to Missouri-Mississippi river and not equivalent to Besor just like Missouri-Mississippi is not equivalent to Mississippi. Closetside (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment I could ony find sources talking about the streams source being at Mount Boker. Durraz0 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

We should probably look for a good source for usage of nahal to help clarify things a bit. What's clear tho is that nahal (and wadi) can be used to describe landforms, similar to gulch or valley and both tell us that these are ephemeral waters. That's important, these waters only reach the Med six or seven times a year. Neither term has the exact same meaning as stream.

It is evident that most of the drainage area of Nahal Besor is an Israeli territory, only a small portion of it is actually Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza (less than 10% of the total basin’s area).

— Bergman et al 2024

I think this quote makes it clear that those who write about the area can use the proper name "Besor" and refer to the basin or watershed.

But the article has stream in the title and that imposes certain conventions and understanding on readers. Most will probably think of this similar to a river system. We draw a blue line on a map from source to outlet and give that channel a name or names. If we are discussing the channel named Besor that line clearly runs from Boker to the Med in Gaza. Lesser waters (tributaries) join along that path and are given names as well. We can never say that Hebron Hills is the source of the named "stream" here, nor could we call it the source of headwaters of the basin. If describing the basin the headwaters are all those most distal to the outlet and include both Mount Boker and Hebron Hills.

One important channel in our basin is Hebron-Beersheva-Besor following the names from source to outlet. A source cited by that Bergman paper calls this the "main channel" of the basin, so we might be somewhat justified in stating that this is the "main source" for the Basin. That we have two papers differing as to what is the main channel is really not that big of a difficulty. One is seemingly going by how the channel has been named and perhaps the area drained and the other possibly by the amount of water which flows (such as it is) through the channel. In the context of modern water use issues it is readily apparent that this channel is the most interesting or "notable" in WP terms because it is transboundary. But this channel does not carry the name "Besor" throughout it length. The channel which does carry the name "Besor" for its length does not pass through the West Bank.

So for the RfC question what is the "source"? Well what are you talking about, the named channel or the basin? Our sources are really pretty clear here from context as to what they are describing and i'm a little surprised at the seeming difficulties here on the talk page. The important thing tho is that the resulting article ends up being clear about what it is describing when it mentions "source" or "headwaters" fiveby(zero) 15:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Fully agree. If you go up to the RM, my dispute with @Richard Nevell was about should there be an additional article called Wadi Gaza for the portion in the Gaza Strip and this article should be about the portion of Israel. To the best of my knowledge, he did not oppose the Nahal Besor naming of this article. In hindsight, the RM discussion was a waste of time; we both agreed this article should be named Nahal Besor, not Besor Stream, and your comment only strengthens the case for the renaming. Considering there is no opposition, I suggest a page mover should move this page to Nahal Besor. If Richard Nevell wants to expand Wadi Gaza into an article from a redirect, let him (it's against WP:NCRIVER imo) and a separate merge discussion would take place. Closetside (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Since the Hebron-Beersheva-Besor is the main channel, doesn't that explain the following statement by Bergman (the same source cited above)?

Nahal Besor is a large transboundary ephemeral river shared between Israel, the West Bank (Palestinian and Israeli territories) in the northeast, and finally, its western outlet into the Mediterranean Sea is in the Gaza Strip.^[1]

You also raised an important point about the notability: if this article is about the notable part of the Besor/Wadi Gaza, i.e., the basin/watershed, then the sourcing will be a lot easier. M.Bitton (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Abstracts are not reliable and often contradict the body of a research paper. From the Wikipedia article (emphasis mine):

It is generally agreed that one must not base reference citations on the abstract alone, but the content of an entire paper.^[2][3] This is because abstracts may not be fully representative of the full report or article. Therefore, basing reference citations solely on the information present in the abstract could be misleading.^[2][3]
According to the results of a study published in PLOS Medicine, the "exaggerated and inappropriate coverage of research findings in the news media" is ultimately related to inaccurately reporting or over-interpreting research results in many abstract conclusions.^[4] A study published in JAMA concluded that "inconsistencies in data between abstract and body and reporting of data and other information solely in the abstract are relatively common and that a simple educational intervention directed to the author is ineffective in reducing that frequency."^[5] Other "studies comparing the accuracy of information reported in a journal abstract with that reported in the text of the full publication have found claims that are inconsistent with, or missing from, the body of the full article."^[2][6][7]
According to the Modern Language Association, there are almost no circumstances in which it is acceptable to cite an abstract: "It only makes sense to cite an abstract if you are writing about the abstract as an abstract and not about the work it summarizes: for instance, if you are writing about different styles of writing abstracts used in the sciences and humanities."^[8]

In the article's body, the map clearly shows the stream originating at Mount Boker in the southern Negev, not in the Hebron Hills. Closetside (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a definition in the text of the full article? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Within Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS) there are 15 streams that cross the Palestinian/Israeli Green Line. Twelve of these are major streams that flow year-round in a westward direction toward the Mediterranean Sea and the other three flow east to the Dead Sea or the Jordan River. All of them originate in watersheds located in the Palestinian Authority, or in lands that will eventually be outside Israeli jurisdiction, and then flow into Israel (these include: the Na’aman, Zipori, Kishon, Taninim, Hadera, Alexander, Yarkon, Ayalon, Soreq, Lachish, Besor, and Beer Sheva streams).^[9]

As I said, making this article about the Besor basin/watershed (a notable subject, unlike the stream) will solve the problem. M.Bitton (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

All of them originate in watersheds. The drainage basin of the Besor originates in the West Bank, not the stream itself. Closetside (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

In that very paper (use Springer on the Wikipedia Library), figure 2 on page 5 of the pdf clearly shows a northwestern Negev origin. Closetside (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the reliability of government sites for this particular issue, but these people seem pretty confident:

Drainage administration site: River drainage authority

• Background – The catchment basin of Nahal HaBsor is one of the largest in the basins of Nahal HaBsor. Its total area is about 3,500 square kilometers, and the Besor River crosses and connects a special variety of landscapes and geographical units. It descends from the high Negev Mountains in the south, through the arid plains of the Negev Plateau, to the "Green Negev" and the Gaza Strip. In the center – Nahal Be'er Sheva descends from the Hebron Mountains through Be'er Sheva and connects to Nahal HaBsor in the area of Be'er Osnat – Tze'elim in the north – Nahal Gerar – from the hills of Lahav, Rahat and the western Negev until it connects to Nahal HaBsor near Tel Jama – Re'im. The main streambeds in the entire area create a dramatic contrast in the structure of the landscape and serve as connecting arteries to the units of landscape, nature, settlements and populations, history and agriculture. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

That's an Israeli government site. Considering the State of Palestine doesn't disagree, it's a valid source. Regardless, there is a preponderance of sources with a northwestern Negev origin and none for a Hebron Hills origin. Closetside (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

These sources (as well as others) disagree with your none assertion:

the Hebron /Besor Stream that originates in the Palestinian Authority territory (West Bank), flows westward, crossing into Israel, and ultimately crosses again into the Palestinian Authority territory in Gaza Strip on the Mediterranean coast."^[10]

The Khalil Besor river originates in the West Bank, flows through Israel and then reaches the Mediterranean in the Gaza Strip.^[11]

M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Those sources seem much more general than the specific ones such as the drainage authority. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

They are specific, secondary reliable sources about the subject (water management and hydrology). They are also WP:THIRDPARTY. M.Bitton (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

See above where I rebut the use of those sources. I'd entertain a response but repeating the argument without acknowledging the rebuttal is problematic and won't get you anywhere. Closetside (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

See above where an editor agrees with me. Moreover, I'm suggesting a compromise that will solve the issue of what is barely covered in RS. M.Bitton (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

You assert that without addressing the fact that '...Water Management in the Middle East' and "Confronting water in an Israeli–Palestinian peace agreement" are much more general than ones specifically discussing the Besor and/or this specific basin.

As you've been told by neutral editors before, ignoring sources that you don't like isn't how Wikipedia works. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

1) The RS dictate what is a fact and what isn't, and when they disagree, we state what they say and let the readers decide by themselves. 2) Nobody's ignoring anything. 3) I also made a suggestion about the scope of the article. M.Bitton (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

If you prefer that I say 'read but then refuse to engage with in a constructive manner' instead of 'ignore', that's fine. Either way, this is why you keep getting blocked by admins. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, the paper uses the terms Beer Sheva Stream and Hebron Stream many times, implying that they are separate from the Besor Stream. Your position would support the articles for those streams into this one and new articles for what my position calls the upper Besor and perhaps the upper Be'er Sheva. Closetside (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to my suggestion (regarding the notability of the subject). M.Bitton (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

This violates convention per WP:NCRIVER, where the article is titled by the principal watercourse and tributaries (i.e. its watershed) are discussed within the article. I have no opposition to writing that it has tributaries in the West Bank, or its drainage basin extends into the Hebron Hills of the West Bank (it's true and should be written); my only opposition is that those tributaries are not part of the Besor stream itself so therefore the Besor doesn't originate in the West Bank. See my on-deck version where I mention it. Closetside (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The reliable sources decide what's WP:NOTABLE and what's not, and when they certain terms interchangeably, it's usually a good sign that whatever they keep referring to (the watershed in this instance) is the notable subject. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Find me another river or stream where the river is not the name of the article but rather its watershed. Rather, WP:RIVER clearly says the article should be about the main river or stream and the article should talk about its drainage basin. Closetside (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I said what I needed to say. I'll await input from uninvolved editors (especially, with regard to the scope of the article). M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

What is an "on-deck version"? Richard Nevell (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The second-most recent version; which I plan to instate once consensus emerges that the main stream of the Besor originates at Mount Boker, not the Hebron Hills. Your position is unclear so could you please restate it, considering my rebuttal of M.Bitton's sources? Closetside (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's a link . On-deck is an expression that comes from baseball. Closetside (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Please let us know what you think of my suggestion (regarding the scope of the article). M.Bitton (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Framing the article around the basin sounds feasible. It would probably mean renaming this article to reflect that, but given there was no consensus on the title last time around that may not be a bad thing. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Our disagreement was about whether there should be a separate Wadi Gaza article, not whether the Besor article should be Nahal Besor (which is the most common name per the analysis above I did and you did not dispute). Regardless "Besor basin" would violate NCRIVER and is a middle ground between what the RS say and a notion without unambiguous support from RS. Closetside (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment suggest that you get editors who have more experience with how river sources are usually determined in cases of conflicting evidence and who are au fait with the technical literature from Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers (and at all costs avoid pinging Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel or Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine). Samuelshraga (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment There is no source that unambiguously places the origin of the Besor in the Hebron Hills, and many sources unambiguously place the origin near Sde Boker through maps and text. Meanwhile, no map places the origin in the Hebron Hills. Finally, the Nahal Be'er Sheva and Nahal Hevron exist, but no Hebrew name exists for the supposed tributary that starts near Sde Boker (it is the Upper Besor per the RS). Therefore, any compromise between these 2 notions is the middle-ground fallacy. Nobody opposes discussing the West Bank part of the watershed in the article (see the on-deck version). Numerically, 4 editors support Sde Boker, and 1-2 support the "middle-ground". Assuming no further comments, I say close this RfC and move to Nahal Besor while we're at it; this is the common name and there seems to be no opposition from anyone but M.Bitton for it. Renaming this article Besor watershed or keeping it as Besor Stream violates NCRIVER and COMMONNAME IMO. Closetside (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This Differentiated suspended sediment transport in headwater basins of the Beso...: The Wikipedia Library. has, on page 179, both a map and text that show the Besor running generally SE from the coast while the tributaries from the east and northeast are given different names. As you can see by the name, it is specifically about the Besor system. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

That source says: "Nahal Besor drains a large part of the northern Negev and the Hebron Mountains". M.Bitton (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of what is claimed above, numerous RS (about the subject) describe, in no uncertain terms, the stream as originating in the West Bank. Obviously, that doesn't mean that the stream can't have another origin (this is the part that some editors seem to be struggling with).

Framing the article around the basin sounds feasible. Indeed. It will also allow us to address the root of the problem (the issue of the terms that are used interchangeably in various contexts). M.Bitton (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Please stop trying to pretend that anyone is not "getting" something just because they disagree with your feelings of ownership around this article. Remember WP:AGF. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. M.Bitton (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that this reply did not include an apology for the way M.Bitton chose to pretend that disagreeing with them means that people are struggling with something.

At some point you're going to need to read and start following all the articles you throw around in response to everyone else, or you're going to get blocked again. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

M.Bitton, since the AE admins seem incapable, i'll say that either you are either purposefully misrepresenting sources or lack the competence to edit articles concerning physical geography. Regardless, you should not be editing this article. fiveby(zero) 18:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fiveby: You cannot just throw accusations without substantiating them:

Which source am I misrepresenting and how? M.Bitton (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

As has been explained to you ad nauseam the sources you are using to try to alter the origin concern the watershed, catchments, or tributaries as the one you quoted above. You keep insisting as you said above the source says "Besor Stream" and that's all I care about and continue to fail to read and understand the sources or educate yourself in basic physical geography. A river or stream drains it watershed. The Hebron Hills are a source of the Besor watershed or basin, the Hebron/Besor catchment, the Hebron-Beersheva-Besor tributary, but they are not the origin of the Besor. This ain't the fucking Nile. fiveby(zero) 19:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, there is at least one editor who agrees with me, so your opinion is just that and nothing else.

This ain't the fucking Nile. this is what I call a super-unconvincing argument. I will also note that you have failed to substantiate your uncalled for and totally baseless accusation of "source misrepresentation".

Now, since the editor who started this RfC insists that "Wadi Gaza" and the "Besor stream" are one and the same, can you explain to me (ideally, using reliable sources) how one can claim that "Wadi Gaza" has just one origin (which happens to be the one that the OP thinks it is)? M.Bitton (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted by strawman arguments, the RFC is not about whether Wadi Gaza has "just one origin".

Please stick to the topic and try to address what people are actually saying without attacking them. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

the RFC is not about whether Wadi Gaza has "just one origin" Does that mean that you agree with the fact that it has more than one (which would mean that this RfC is badly framed)? M.Bitton (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

In future, please assume that I mean the words I posted, and not some set of different words that you'd prefer I had posted, it will save us all a lot of time. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

To set the record straight, the Wadi Gaza is not equivalent with the Nahal Besor. This is because the Western and Arab way of naming watercourses is different.

In the West, watercourses of a drainage basin are named in a tree-like manner, with the root being the watercourse's ultimate mouth (the Med here) and side branches (tributaries) break of the main branch (the principal watercourse). Sometimes at a fork, the main branch terminates and both feeding watercourses recieve a different name. Here, the Nahal Besor is the main branch, going from the Med to Mount Boker, and the Nahal Gerar, Nahal Be'er Sheva, etc. are tributaries branching off the main stream.

In the Arab world, the names of watercourses are more fluid with residents of a settlement naming the watercourses around them, without coordination from distant settlements. Hence, the Nahal Besor is Wadi al-Shammen near Mount Boker, Wadi al-Khalasa in Elusa and Wadi Gaza in Gaza. The Wadi Gaza originates at Mount Boker as much as it originates in the Hebron Hills for both are tributaries and the watercourse is no longer called the Wadi Gaza east of the Gaza Strip.

On the English Wikipedia, we use the Western way because English RS use the Western way. Not saying the Arab way is inferior, but it's bizarre to most English speakers who are used to the Western way and unfamiliar with the Arab way. Here too, most of us are used to the Western way, while @M.Bitton is familiar with the Arab way due to his background and @Richard Nevell through his research.

That's why I kept asking: "What is the tributary of the Besor Stream that originates at Mount Boker?" If the Besor originates in the Hebron Hills, the Western way requires a label for the branch that originates at Mount Boker. The Arab way does not for names are fluid. Nothing has ever been provided, despite a major archaeological site (Elusa (Haluza)) on its banks. This refutes a non-Mount Boker origin for the Besor.

I hope this is a nice explanation that explains both the majority and minority position and why they differ. Closetside (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

the Wadi Gaza is not equivalent with the Nahal Besor Then why did you write this (to oppose the split that was proposed by Richard Nevell)?

You also wrote: There is no other tributary of the Wadi Gaza; it is the same stream as the Besor. M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Your question is answered in the Requested Move discussion if you read the whole thing in context. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Replace "The Nahal Besor and Wadi Gaza are the same stream" with "the Wadi Gaza is part of the Nahal Besor, not a different stream" and the rest of my rationale reads fine. I wasn't aware of Arab hydrology nomenclature at the time, and most of our readers aren't aware of it either. Closetside (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

First, that's an unsourced claim, and second, it doesn't address the issue that I raised above.

I wasn't aware of Arab hydrology do you have a reliable source that links the subject to "Arab hydrology"?

You also said (after being aware of Arab hydrology) that the Wadi Gaza is not equivalent with the Nahal Besor. M.Bitton (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

This is an observation. For example, Wadi Qelt has three names despite being a small wadi. Same for Nahal Hevron in Arabic and here as well (see above). Nahal Og is named after its Hebrew name because in Arabic it has multiple names which leads to the Hebrew name being the COMMONNAME. The multiple names correspond to different sections of the wadi. In contrast, in Hebrew there is only one name from source to mouth.

Of course after knowing Arab hydrology the Nahal Besor is not the Wadi Gaza, the latter is a section of a former that ends somewhere on the Gaza Strip-Israel border.

Yes, the Wadi Gaza has multiple origins. This is because no headwater of the Besor basin is labelled the Wadi Gaza in Arabic. However, Besor is the common name of the watercourse and RS identify its source as Mount Boker. When you tell me the tributary name (in Hebrew) that goes from Mount Boker, we can talk. Otherwise it is clear where the Besor originates. Closetside (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's a more interesting observation:

1. To prevent the article from being split, you argued at length that "Wadi Gaza is the same as the Besor stream".
2. To deny a sourced origin that you disagree with, you claimed that "Wadi Gaza is not equivalent with the Nahal Besor".
3. To justify the above contradictory claims (after being confronted with them), you claimed that you weren't aware of "Arab hydrology".
4. When asked to provide a reliable source that links "Arab hydrology" to the subject, you ignored the request.
5. You then stated that "the Nahal Besor is not the Wadi Gaza" while mentioning "Arab hydrology" again (without a source in sight).
6. After wrapping the lot in more unsubstantiated claims, you are now setting some irrelevant condition which needs to be met (in the language of your choice) before "we can talk".

M.Bitton (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how widespread this phenomenon is; all I know is that the Wadi Gaza definitely loses its name by the Eshkol National Park, where the Besor is known as Wadi Shellal (see brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004400504/BP000016.xml; www.kkl-jnf.org/tourism-and-recreation/israeli-heritage-sites/anzac-trail/sites/eshkol-park-nahal-besor/). Further south, at Elusa, the Besor is known as Wadi al-Khalassa (see www.researchgate.net/figure/Preliminary-layout-of-the-city_fig2_350453543).

This is also true for several other streams (see above); I am not a hydrologist and can't confirm if this is universal. However, that is irrelevant; the point is that the Besor has multiple names in Arabic and Gaza is only the name of its most downstream section; Shellal (even per your notion) and al-Khalassa (per the RS but not your notion). In English and Hebrew, the entire stream is the Nahal Besor (see sources above) and per WP:NCRIVER, we write articles about streams, not sections of streams.

If Mount Boker is not the origin of the Besor, it is the origin of a tributary. What is this tributary called (in Hebrew)? Meanwhile Nahal Hevron and Nahal Be'er Sheva are tributaries of the Besor (see the articles with sources). Closetside (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Given that this observation (which speaks for itself) is followed by another pile of unsubstantiated claims (about what is what and what isn't), I'd say it's high time to let the RS and the polices do the talk (ideally, by some editors who haven't been invited to this RfC). M.Bitton (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have 3 editors already that came on their own volition (Fiveby, MilesVorkosigan, and Durraz0) which all agree with me. With Richard Nevell agreeing with you it is 4-2 and considering your side hasn't provided one map in your favor or named the alleged Mount Boker tributary, I look forward to a closing in my favor. Closetside (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read this very important observation, as well as what I said here. M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact that the Besor has multiple names in Arabic based on sections is based on RS (see my post above); whether Arab hydrology generally does this is conjuncture (at least to me, a non-hydrologist) and not relevant here. A preponderance of maps and scholarly papers have shown a Mount Boker origin. Not a single map shows a Hebron origin, nor does a single paper communicate that unambiguously. No paper has named the alleged tributary, which would have been trivial to find because Elusa is a major archeological site. With this, I rest my case. Closetside (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

All in all, I'd say that this a further proof that as long as the issues that have been raised by Richard Nevell and myself haven't been addressed, we will have conflicting claims that we will need to represent per WP:NPOV. I will also note that so far, I only listed the sources that mention the word "Besor", but should this article end up conflating the Besor stream with Wadi Gaza, then the situation will become worse (a lot worse, since the latter is more notable, and the RS covering it much clearer). I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

This paper^[12] equates the downstream Besor with the Wadi Gaza. Countless sources show the Hebrew name for the Wadi Gaza is the [lower] Nahal Besor. Here's another paper ^[13].

Once again, I have rebutted all your sources as ambiguous at best, not been shown a single map or a name of a tributary that must exist per your notion. There is no other POV. I have shown here that Arab hydrology divides the Besor into sections through RS. You have a tendency to ignore my arguments and beat the same drum like a proponent of a canard long after it has been refuted. I truly rest my case here until I can get an unambiguous source, a map and the name. Closetside (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You have a tendency to ignore my arguments you have a tendency to contradict yourself and make unsubstantiated claims (depending on what you're after).

You also seem to be conflating the "Wadi Gaza/Nahal Besor" (the watershed) with the stream (above source). Incidentally, making the article about the watershed is one of solutions that was proposed above.

Anyway, you'll be glad to know that WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what you're trying to claim is non-neutral here? You implied before that you're trying to bludgeon this discussion because it has some vital connection to politics, but I don't think you ever said specifically what it is.

Or are you just bringing up NPOV to wave policies around because you can't answer the question about what the stream is named at Mt. Boker? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

1) According to M.Bitton, my position somehow "erase[s] Palestine". Steelmanning his argument, relegating the West Bank portion of its drainage basin to its tributaries would draw less attention to this fact. However, the Mt. Boker origin is not my invention, it is the position of the RS with no unambiguous dissent. Furthermore, the Mt. Boker definition pre-existed the State of Israel and the West Bank so "erasing Palestine" cannot be the motive. In fact, the explicitly pro-Palestinian Arabic Wikipedia does not dispute the Mount Boker origin.

2) Pretty much. NPOV considers actual POVs, not mere ruminations of anonymous Wikipedia editors, and if it actually existed, its proponents would have several unambiguous statements, maps, and a name for what they would consider the Mount Boker tributary to the Besor.

I recommend that both of us ( @MilesVorkosigan and I) rest our cases in this dispute. Any closer will realize the "undetermined source" is a false middle ground between the RS position and an unsupported position. Furthermore, this editor got blocked two months ago for this exact behavior and will probably get blocked again. Thanks for having my back. Closetside (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Gotta right the great wrongs. That would explain it. Good idea, I have nothing further to add. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The mere mention of the NPOV policy,
And the air thickens, they can't see.

— Unknown author, who also coined "veni, vidi, risi"

. M.Bitton (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Please remember that the talk pages are for discussing the article, not taunting other editors. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't much discussion in the above walls of mumbo jumbo and aspersions from those who panicked at the mere mention of a policy. M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Multiple origins (per RS and WP:NPOV). As well as the other RS that I cited previously, and given the ongoing RM and the refusal to address the scope issue, I will list some of the reliable sources that mention the origin of Wadi Gaza (the common name of the stream).

  1. Wadi Gaza which flows during the winter season , originating from the Hebron mountains in the east and ends at sea shore south of Gaza, has been blocked by Israel. Several damns were built all along the way preventing the water from flowing into the Gaza Strip which otherwise would have provided a valuable source os water to be used for irrigation and for compensation for the lost pumped out water.^[14]

     
     

  2. "The mat samples used in this study were obtained from Wadi Gaza, Gaza Strip, Palestine. This wadi originates at Hebron in the West Bank and flows in the east-west direction across the Gaza Strip".^[15]

     
     

  3. "The sources of Wadi Gaza originate in the hills above the village of Samu'a in the Hebron hills.."^[16]

     
     

  4. "Historically, Wadi Gaza (a stream originating in the West Bank) used to flow through Gaza to the coast, providing an additional water resource. However, the vast majority of flow from this stream is now diverted into a dam in Israel, and no longer reaches Gaza (Amnesty International Citation2009)."^[17]

     
     

  5. "Wadi Gaza which flows during the winter season, originating from the Hebron mountains in the east and ends at the sea shore south of Gaza."^[18]

     
     

  6. "Wadi Gaza, a natural stream that originates in the Hebron Mountains and flows to the Mediterranean Sea."^[19]

     
     

  7. "Wadi Gaza, on the other hand, is the only form of runoff that exists in the Gaza Strip. The Wadi is 160 km long and 1.5–3.0 m depth in some areas. The Wadi is considered a trans-boundary watercourse with Israel, as it originates in the Hebron Mountains in the West Bank, crosses the Green Line passing through Israel, then crosses the territory of the Gaza Strip to eventually reach its final destination, the Mediterranean Sea."^[20]

     
     

  I can add more if needs be. M.Bitton (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  How about a map that conforms with your notion or the name of the alleged tributary that originates at Mount Boker? All these articles talk about Israel-Palestine water relations, correctly mention that part of Wadi Gaza's headwaters are in the West Bank, and do not give a hydrogeological overview of the watershed. Closetside (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• This section has 7 editors and over 5,000 words. Editors are limited to 1,000 words in WP:ARBPIA discussions. Please follow this rule. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support Hebron Hills per most reliable sources. Skitash (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Starting this section proactively, in lieu of in an edit summary, because I know how contentious this topic is.

The lead of this article referring to the "Negev region of Palestine and Israel" does not make sense. The Negev was a region of Mandatory Palestine, which is no longer a geopolitical entity. The Negev "is a desert and semidesert region of southern Israel." This is backed up with simple searches in reliable sources ("The Negev desert, or al-Naqab in Arabic, in the southern part of Israel has faced dramatic demographic shifts since Israel’s creation" ) ("Until 1948, the Negev — or Naqab — was a region of Palestine" ).

I'm updating the lead to reflect the Negev's current designation as a region of Israel. In any case, the Palestinian portion of the river is already mentioned as being "in the Gaza strip." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that here, PhotogenicScientist, especially as it’s not easy stepping into a contentious space. I endorse the principle behind your edit as the most practical way of describing the location is in respect to current boundaries. The previous wording was ambiguous, but the new wording is too. It could be read as the Gaza Strip being part of Israel, and now Palestine isn't mentioned in the lead. As such I have changed the text to read "...parts of a river system in the Gaza Strip in Palestine and the Negev region of Israel". If that is too clunky, an alternative formulation would be "...parts of a river system in the Gaza Strip and Negev region of Palestine and Israel respectively".

On a related but separate note, I have removed the map image that you added to the article. Unfortunately, it misses a couple of major archaeological sites and is therefore not good enough quality. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with that new wording for the lead.

As for the map - why let "perfect" be the enemy of "good?" As a reader, I really appreciated seeing this image on the Nahal Gerar page, since it showed how these three rivers run and combine, in addition to showing some major historical sites.

If you have another map that provides those benefits plus what you're looking for, then by all means add it. But if not, having this image in the article is a net benefit. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

That's certainly a principle I'm in favour of, but it's not clear to the reader that the image is missing important information. In this case the map isn't so much "good" as "misleading", which is problematic. As the Nahal Gerar article has a different focus the omission of significant sites along a different watercourse to the subject of the article are less problematic, though I would still recommend it not be used there.

An alternative approach could be to adapt what is done at Blakhiya Byzantine cemetery#Discovery and excavation. It wouldn't highlight the watercourses in the same way, however. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a fine map at the cemetary article - however, I don't know how to make one of those. If you do, and you'd like to make one for this article, then by all means.

However, in the meantime, the map I added is in no way "misleading." It never claimed to show ALL archeological sites along these rivers. Only some. Prodigiously few informational graphics made in the entirety of humanity can be said to be completely perfect and lacking in nothing... so that's a decidedly odd criticism to make in favor of removing the map entirely...

Would changing the caption to "Various Bronze and Early Iron Age archaeological sites along the Nahal Gerar, Nahal Be'er Sheva, Nahal Besor" make its inclusion better? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The caption didn't say that only 'some' sites were included, so without that context it would be entirely reasonable for a reader to conclude that the "Bronze and Early Iron Age archaeological sites along the Nahal Gerar, Nahal Be'er Sheva, Nahal Besor" included are comprehensive.

If the image is to be included, its limitations need to be made clear to the reader.

I can have a go at setting up the interactive map later in the week. I may experiment with just a couple of points to begin with rather than the whole lot so we can see if it's a workable format, and post it on the talk page rather than in the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Which of the sites that aren't on there are considered major, and by whom? What should we look for in a map that shows them? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Tell es-Sakan and Taur Ikhbeineh. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Look, you can just say 'the ones in Gaza', that's fine. I don't see any point in trying to exclude Palestinians from the article.

I think the map from the sediment article has all the streams labeled just as well as this map and (IIRC) doesn't show any archeological sites. That way we wouldn't to worry about any of them missing. I'll try to find it again and see if I can figure out how to upload images. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing that map as it sounds suitable. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not certain what the licensing status of the image is, I'll have to read WP:Image and try to figure it out.

In the meantime, this is the map I was thinking of. I had forgotten, the study it's from was published by the Israel Journal of Earth Science. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)