Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

/

Can we just use both namez with a slash?--Ipatrol (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Pathetic

There is not a single country other than Israel that doubts that the Golan belongs to Syria. There is not a single organization outside Israel that doubts that the Golan belongs to Syria. There is not a single non-Israeli reference that doubts that the Golan belongs to Syria. But for some reason the fucking pro-Israel Wikipedia chooses not to explicitly state that the Golan is located in Syria. The intro paragraph to this article is PATHETIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.220.100 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please review WP:NOTSOAPBOX and contribute appropriately if you have things you wish to discuss. Also, sign your posts. Breein1007 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically the IP was making the point that evidence in the article suggests that Wikipedia is being used as a soapbox so I assume they are familiar with the NOTSOAPBOX policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

IP address is correct, there are a group of people at Wikipedia that have done everything they can to remove corrected information from this article.

Even an Israeli newspaper labels the Golan in a more correct manner then wikipedia: "the Golan Heights, the Syrian plateau that Israel occupied in the Six-Day War." [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the text properly according to its context. This is not the opinion of the newspaper, this is how Syria defines the region. Not all citations are given within quotes. It would be better if the editor added "the so-called Syrian plateau", but this is probably an oversight. In this article, Ynet refer to the Golan Heights as part of Israel [2], and this is how this newspaper usually refers to the Golan Heights. DrorK (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient history

The quote is from the bible. Until-during, there are no new source supporting the change. That the Israelites invaded it is already written below, it doesn't have to be repeated and turned it into an Israeli-centric pov. What is written in the bible is not factual history and should not be presented as such.[3]

And also why is the word "foreign" put after Arab Ghassanids in this edit? Isn't the Israelites also foreign? Shouldn't the word "foreign" also be put after the Israelites in this case? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We are all foreign in a way, because none of us stays in the same place for too long. Recent researches suggest that only some people in central Africa can refer to themselves as locals, and even that is not 100% certain. Back to the point, the Bible is basically not a historical source (neither are other religious books, including the Quran), but it is sometimes used as historical reference, especially when there are archaeological or historical sources that support it, or if philological analysis show that the information included in it is likely to be factual. So, citing the Bible can be relevant in certain contexts. DrorK (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Biblical story should be in the article, but separated from the history. It isn't history. I suggest a separate section. Zero^talk 13:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I support having all relevant information from religious texts, but this can not be presented as "facts" or "history", and should be in a separate section, second of all, it already says that the Arab Ghassanids were immigrants, why did he put the word "foreign" after it? isn't the israelites also "foreign" in the same way? and the Assyrians? Persians? Romans? Druze? Circassians? and so on. Why was the "foreign" only put after the Arab Ghassanids? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The second problem seems to have gone away. ;) Zero^talk 07:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

my edit

My edit. I checked through the edits Gilbrand made on januari 1. I re added the entire dayan quote, there is no reason why it cant be in the article. It looked like Gilbrand had removed the parts she didn't like, and somehow interpreted "80%" to "some". "Israeli-occupied territories" re added to see also section since Golan is a part of that. Corrected Lake ram name. Re added the "due to UN and US pressure but resuscitated" reason for Israel stop of taking the water. I removed this sentence because it is unsourced: "Before the Six-Day War, Israeli farm communities in the Hulah Valley were subjected to constant shelling from the Golan. Syrian attacks killed 140 Israelis and injured many more from 1949 to 1967." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

your version slanted the article considerably toward the pro-Syrian POV. If there are unsourced sentences, you should tag them, rather than removing them. Please get consensus for your changes here before re-introducing them. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So if there is something anti-syrian that is unsourced, I can not remove it but have to tag them, and if there is a statement from an Israeli general, that is sourced, then that quote can be perverted and twisted and everything the "israeli side" don't like in that quote can be removed without any need of getting consensus at talkpage. Also notice that I added a "Citation needed" tag at one place but your disrespectful revert removed it. [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's something unsourced, be it pro-Syrian or anti-Syrian, you need to tag it. The issue with the quote you provided is differeent - it appears to be (a) too long, and (b) an attempt to "explain" certain actions, in a way that would be synthesis. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not up to you to decide if its to long or not, Its a informative quote and its presented as a quote in the article, nothing else. So if you wanted to remove everything from that quote not in accordance with your personal pro-israeli views and change "80%" to "some", then you should follow your own advise and get consensus at talk page for that. You are telling me that I have to tag it, but you didn't tag anything, you removed it instead. As I said I added a tag at one place that you removed so your post doesn't make sense, you are telling me that I have to do something (ad tag) that I did, and then you revert it and remove the tag that I added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dayan quote belongs and has been on this page for years. The idea that a Wikipedia editor thinks that what Dayan meant when he said that "80%" of the interactions with the Syrians were instigated by Israel means that "sometimes the attacks were provoked by Israel" is slightly funny but not in any way meaningful. nableezy - 18:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote be important because show how zionists precious" Dayan support genocide of Arab and other non jew living in Palestine. Israeli attempt to censor article by remove of IMPORTANT FACT will no be tolerate. Ani medjool (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not helping. nableezy - 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To Drork: Can you please explain what in this edit is pov, since you reverted it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Because you cite an irrelevant source and then jump to conclusions that are not derived from this source, and phrase them as an accusation against Israel. The fact that the British Mandate had a contract allowing French-Mandate subjects, or later Syrian citizens, to use the Sea of Galilee for fishing and drinking water does not entail that Israel was obligated to this contract (and we must bear in mind that Syria did not recognize Israel and declared the Israeli government an enemy). You say that Israel tried to prevent Syrians from exercising their rights without any proof that these rights actually existed, and without considering that the Israeli patrols in the Sea of Galilee could have been for other legitimate purposes. In my opinion, even without this edit the article is currently pro-Syrian biased, but this last edit is really a bit too much. DrorK (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this book:[5] and this UN document [6] irrelevant sources? The sources says specifically what the mandates had agreed, and that is what I wrote, that the mandates had given these rights, and the sources says specifically what Israel did not accept, and that is what I wrote. There is a UN document that I sourced from that clearly show that the rights existed, and the same rights are also mentioned in the book. You also removed the section that Israelis used to go into the DMZ. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The British Mandate and the State of Israel are two different things. Is that so hard to understand? DrorK (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? The sources do not say they were the same thing and nor had I written that they were the same thing. You have failed to defend your revert.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll explain once again: your sources indicate that there was an agreement between British Mandate Palestine and French Mandate Syria regarding the use of the Sea of Galilee and the northern part of the Jordan River. As far as I know, such agreement existed indeed and was implemented, and was probably honored after Syria gained independence. However, the British Mandate of Palestine ceased to exist at midnight of the 15th of May 1948. The Mandate would have ended on that time even if the State of Israel had not been declared, since it was a British decision, considering the fact that the UN did not extended the UK Mandate rights over this region. Eventually the State of Israel inherited the British rule in the region known as the Galilee, and yet Israel had no obligation to honor all of the British Mandate's international agreements, especially as Syria never recognized it and declared itself an enemy of the Israeli government. To sum it all up - you cannot represent an agreement between the British Mandate and Syria as if it were an Israeli-Syrian agreement, and you cannot suggest Israel broke an agreement it never signed. DrorK (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The source do not say that the deal was for the mandate of Palestine but for "Palestine". I have not presented the agreement as if it was a Syrian-Israeli agreement. I have followed exactly what it says in the sources, deal between the mandates, that is what I wrought, Israel did not accept the deal, that is what I wrought. What you say about what Israel had no obligation to is OR. Bring sources that is directly connected to this issue. According to the source "UNTSO held that these agreements were still binding." You have not answered why you removed that Israelis used to go into the DMZ.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, I've seen this abuse of the verifiability rule too many times in articles related to the ME, and you are trying to play this trick again here. You present a pro-Syrian source that makes a far-fetched claim. When I point to the weakness of this source, you send me to look for a source that refutes the claim, rather than making the effort and look for a better non-biased source to support this far-fetched claim. This is not how we do things here. In the context given here, Palestine is British Mandate Palestine. There was no other geopolitical entity by this name at the time. Now, this is an article about the Golan Heights. How does a British consent that Syrians use the Sea of Galilee control by their mandate government relevant here? You suggest that the relevancy is the (alleged) attempt of Syrian fishermen to make use of this consent during the 1950s and 1960s resulting in exchange of fire between Israel and Syrian. There is a slight problem with this theory - the British Mandate ceased to exist at midnight, 15 May 1948. Hence, it is impossible to talk about Syrian rights per an agreement with that entity when this entity is non-existing. You can find many sources that claim UFOs exist, but you won't trust these sources, would you? It is also inconceivable to trust a source that talks about obligations of the British Mandate after it ceased to exist. Just to make things even clearer, here is a link to the the Palestine Act 1948 adopted by the British Parliament, which officially announces the end of the British Mandate and, more importantly, does not designate any successor entity to the Mandate. DrorK (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You still have not answered why you removed the DMZ part. How are the sources pro-Syrian? As I have already told you, I did not ad that Israel was obligated to do anything. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The DMZ are not part of the Golan Heights whatsoever. If you are referring to the British Mandate rule, then it ended at midnight, May 15, 1948, so I don't see its relevance here. If you are talking about the DMZ, then they are not part of the GH, neither politically nor geographically, so once again I fail to see the relevance. What point are you trying to make here? DrorK (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Large parts of the DMZ is part of the Golan: look at this map: [7] and even if it wasn't, it was where Israel provoked clashes, and this is connected to the conflict that led to the Israeli invasion and occupation of Golan. Mandate negotiations, it doesn't really matter if Israel was obligated or not, I have not written that it was, but the fact that UNTSO and Syria were still following these deals and Israel not, led to Israel killing 50 Syrian solders in the Golan, which is a an integral part of this conflict, and therefore belongs in the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Negev and Sinai lies next to each other on the map, but they are two distinct regions. Similarly, when you look at the map, you see that the DMZ are adjacent to the GH, but that doesn't make them part of it. The geographical border of the GH is very well defined by the slope from the Heights to the Hula/Jordan/Sea of Galilee valleys. Politically the DMZ were never part of Syria, unlike the GH that has been part of Syria for about two decades. The clashes in the DMZ have little relevance to this article. It was a struggle between Syria which wanted to take control of territories inside the former British Mandate, and Israel which sought to gain sovereignty over the whole former Mandate territory. The GH were captured by Israel following attacks from Syria beyond the DMZ on Israeli undisputed territory. This is a description of these attacks [8]. DrorK (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I re added the USCRI part based on my comment here: [9] I changed the chronology of the "Towns, villages and settlements" section, since the towns and villages are Syrian and the settlements are Israeli, the Israeli section should come last. I also changed the picture from Quenitra, it didn't show much, a picture where the city is still intact, I have replaced it with a newer one better showing what happened there. I have also labeled CAMERA as pro-Israeli so people can see where that info is from. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, I wish that you will give a proper explanation to why you reverted every single one of the points here above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Very simple: (1) The picture - I have added a picture of what was left from Quneitra after the Six-Day War. I believe it is interesting to see how the deserted city looked after that war. The picture comes from the archive of Kibbutz Merom Golan. Members of this Kibbutz resided in some of the deserted buildings shortly after the war, and even operated a canteen for soldiers there. You changed the picture into a recent picture of a destructed building. We don't know exactly where the picture was taken, when the building was destructed, by whom - the picture, in fact, illustrates nothing relevant to this article. (2) You try to bring more sources to support the allegation that Israel leveled Quneitra before handing it back to the Syrians. We have enough sources for this allegation, and quite a few sources that seriously question it. This is quite enough. What you are trying to do is artificially make one claim seem stronger than the other. (3)The is no need to use terms like "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Syrian", information about the relevant bodies is available on WP itself, and there is no need to describe them with tendentious terms. DrorK (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The picture after the six day war show the entire town intact, before it was destroyed. It doesn't show anything really, the picture I added show what had happened with the town, it shows several buildings collapsed with their roof still intact, so how is it not relevant to the topic when the topic is the towns destruction? It is from Quenitra. No its not "enough", the USCRI is a serious notable organ, you added comments from an unknown Israeli soldier, this is the USCRI, you removing this is pure censorship. If you do not like it, get consensus for its removal. You have not answered why you changed the chronology of the Syrian/Israeli towns/villages/settlements. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Supreme, please bear in mind that we are here to convey information. We are not campaigning here. You seem to be very eager to tell the world "Israel destroyed Quneitra", but as I said, we don't know that, and it is not the topic of this article. The picture of Quneitra following the Six Day War conveys valuable historical information. The city looks damaged, but still standing. The viewers are informed about the date of the picture, so there would be no misunderstandings. As a side remark: it might interest you that the Syrian army heavily bombed Quneitra after the Six Day War, because they wanted to hurt the Israeli soldiers and civilians who used the city's buildings. I know this because I talked with Israelis from the Golan Heights, and some of the older people lived in Quneitra for a while and remember the bombing. Perhaps I could also find a written document and incorporate it into the article. The picture you added show a leveled house sometime in the last decade. We don't know why this house was leveled. Perhaps the Syrian authorities had to level it due to a collapse hazard. From the picture we cannot tell that it was taken in Quneitra. Considering the amount of disinformation we have about the subject, your picture creates more damage than benefit. The source I brought is from Time Magazine. We know who the reporter is. The reporter did not bother to write the soldier's name, but we can trust the reporter that he wrote what he heard (why would he do otherwise?). His testimony is valuable because it brings the Israeli view of the controversy. USCRI merely reiterates information that appear in other sources. There is nothing new about it, and USCRI do not say they conducted a research of their own. Mentioning it here is simply redundant. If you want to, you can add this source to the footnotes. You can write that the Syrian Government maintains that the city was deliberately destructed, and this view was adopted by several bodies (footnote: the bodies' names and links to their websites), and then write that Israel denies this claim and bring the relevant sources in a footnote. DrorK (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not ad that Israel destroyed Quneitra although that is what all reliable sources say. The topic of the Quneitra section is by large its destruction, your picture shows almost the entire town standing, mine shows what happened there - the destruction. Therefor it is more fitting to be in the article. If you want we can have both pictures. The soldiers "testimony" brings his own personal views, not Israels. And maybe not even that, what was he supposed to say? "Were destroying all these Syrian villages so the native people cant come back so we can bring in russians to live here instead" ? No, he is not gonna say that, so he pulled the dogs and cats story instead. You don't know what the USCRI had investigated or not. Its a notable organ and mentioning the view of it is important. You also changed place of the Beer Ajam picture where it doesn't belong, Quenitra province is different then the town of Quenitra. You have not answered about the chronology of the "Towns, villages and settlements" section. I have reverted most of my previous edit and added the Al-Marsad link to see also section as it is related to the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

USCRI

I reverted an edit introducing this source [10] for two reasons:

1. We have enough material about Quneitra already. This article is an encyclopedic account about the Golan Heights, it is not a court debate or a fact-finding committee's report. We've brought many attributed statement and counter-statement. We are not going to bring every source that commented about the matter.
2. If this source is to be relied on, we should write that the pre-1967 Syrian population fled the region. We agreed on a non-committing phrasing of this issue since there are conflicting positions about what actually happened during the 1967 war and shortly after it. If you really think this source is sound and reliable, it means that we should change that phrasing as well. DrorK (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If it can be added to the article a sentence from one unknown Israeli soldier that "'They had become a health hazard, 'They provided refuge for stray dogs, cats and fedayeen." then it certainly can be added a sentence from the USCRI. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Before I make any reverts

I am not at all comfortable with this edit: [11]. I'm afraid it skipped my eyes, but with so many edits and information, it is very hard to trace them all.

1. The UN committee mentioned in the paragraph was not established to investigate the issue of Quneitra. It is a committee established during the 1970s for several purposes. I don't know if it still exists. I did a lot of effort to bring an accurate description of the major events in this story. According to UN documents available on the web, the committee was entrusted with the task to investigate the case of Quneitra. The major step taken by the committee was hiring Engineer Eduard Gruner to conduct a professional investigation. While the UN GA decided to adopt his opinion, the credibility of his report is questioned. As I said, no one really knows whether Quneitra had been deliberately destroyed. Gruner himself noted a significant damage caused by the war. He claimed several thousands of houses were deliberately destroyed, but this report of his is problematic for various reasons (Tamar Sternhal pointed to the major one). In any event, it is important that a reader of this article know about the process that led to the UN GA determination.
2. As long as we don't know, we should not imply a deliberate destruction. We cannot say "reportedly destroyed", it should be either "allegedly" or "said to be" or something else indicating that these are claims not fully confirmed. Also, saying "Quneitra was ruined" is better than "Quneitra was destroyed".

I am going to reintroduce these phrasings into the article unless I hear good reasoning why I shouldn't. DrorK (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to find something better than an automatic rejection from someone at CAMERA if this source isn't to be used. Zero^talk 10:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

She points out to the fact that he had conflict of interest and explains why. You don't need to be Einstein to do it. His businesses in the Arab world are well attested from other sources as well. DrorK (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, you have no support for any of your reverts.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't counted on YOUR support. DrorK (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we have many sources saying that Quneitra was deliberately destroyed by Israel, not "allegedly" and that is what it should say. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, the good reason is that instead of simply presenting both "sides" you instead try to rebut one "side" with the other. Saying things like "On the other hand" read like such a rebuttal. And it was "reported" to be destroyed, not "alleged". Several reports of the destruction are cited, it is only because you are raising such a fuss that we include the word "reported". Several RSs say that it was destroyed, we can just say "Quneitra was destroyed", but to appease you we say "reported". Also, see WP:WTA. You also introduce the word "accused of X" when the source says that X happened. Britannica say when the Israelis withdrew in 1974, they systematically stripped and destroyed the town, not that they were accused of doing this. You cannot keep adding these phrases to make it seem as though most of this is simply a few loose accusations. I reverted the changes. nableezy - 15:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, please dont continue to try and push in a favored version. Several problems with your version have been raised and you have not addressed a single one. nableezy - 16:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We Have EB that talks about Israeli "systematic destruction" and we have some UN reports. We have many other reports that say the city lies in ruin without saying who destroy it why. Now, EB does not give any reference to their claim. If you want to trust their staff, you should be consistent and adopt their description of the State of Palestine as a "quasi-state" (to which you object), and their saying that the pre-1967 Syrian inhabitants "fled" the Golan Heights. If you don't accept their opinion on the latter points, why should you adopt the former? Now, the issue of deliberate destruction is an accusation, not a fact. It might be true, it might be false and it might be partially true (e.g. too many houses were on the brink of collapse after the war, so the IDF forces decided to level the town in order to protect their soldiers). All of these speculations are equally valid, we simply don't know what happened there. Now, if Syria and the UN makes an accusation against Israel, you should write they make an accusation. You cannot present the accusation as a fact. You can improve my phrasing a bit if you think there are problems with it, but don't delete attested relevant facts, and don't introduce false information. As I said, the UN GA affiliated committee was not established especially for this end, and it is extremely important to describe the method of work as elaborated in the UN documents available on the net. DrorK (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, include whatever you like from Britannica, you will not see me remove it. And a RS reports it as a fact, not an accusation. We do the same. And I re-added what you had about the committee, if there is something incorrect then re-introduce it. But do not continue trying to rebut the report with something from CAMERA. I dont think that should even be used as a source, but if it is presented as their view, and only that, then fine. But when you take that to rebut actual reliable sources it is a problem. nableezy - 16:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, don't cite EB, because when you cannot base accusations upon encyclopedic article. It doesn't work that way. You can avoid accusations at all, but if you want to mention them you have to attribute, you cannot present them as facts per EB. As I said, CAMERA is not necessarily a RS. It is a RS in this specific context. Why? First of all, because the criticism is attributed to a person called Tamar Sternhal, and the orientation of the criticism is clear, so it's a fair play. Secondly Sternhal's criticism cites RS such as reports on the Los Angeles Times. Thirdly, Sternhal bases its criticism on Gruner upon his own report. She makes a very logical claim that a person with large-scale businesses in Syria is very likely to produce a report that would satisfy the Syrian Government. Actually, if you ask me, the UN chose one of the worst candidates to this mission, but that's not our problem. The fact is that Sternhal points to a serious issue, and her background doesn't make her claim weaker. DrorK (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You write that the Encyclopedia Britannica claims X and do not even attribute CAMERA's opinion. Lovely. nableezy - 16:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Encyclopaedia Britannica claims that "when the Israelis withdrew in 1974, they systematically stripped and destroyed the town".... Drork, you need to stop this nonsense immediately. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody revert that garbage edit? CAMERA is used as an authoritative source but the Encyclopedia Britannica makes "claims". nableezy - 17:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, I have reverted your edit. You must follow policies. If you can't follow policies you must stop editing. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Violence works. Nableezy, Harlan, Supreme Deliciousness, Tiamut are all aggressively insert their political views into articles, and "hijack" articles in a way that any edit which does not comply with their views is reverted. This approach gains a lot of support from editors on WP, and therefore this violence will persist, and violent editors will have their way. This article contains slanderous remarks backed by EB and Lonely Planet. That makes WP ridiculous to say the least. Slanders against Israel are not uncommon these days, and the way articles are edited on WP is probably part of this wave. The hope that WP would stay out of this unpleasant political arena has been proved unrealistic, especially when so many editors cherish this violent slanderous approach. DrorK (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have this article watchlisted, but have refrained from participating in the discussion or edit war that you instigated here to insert your views against consensus. However, you still see fit to slander me, and others, simply because we do not agree with you view at various articles about how events should be described here at Wikipedia. Editing with you is impossible because it is your view that only you know how to write articles neutrally, while everyone else is writing here with an agenda. How offensive! You are making no friends here because you do not know how to collaborate, nor do you seem to understand NPOV or OR. When you learn these things, perhaps you will find your editing experience will improve. And please do not mention my name again when I am not involved in the edit war of the day that you are carrying out. Tiamut^talk 19:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How incredibly foolish I was, thinking that we could use the Encyclopedia Britannica. From here on out I will only use CAMERA, HonestReporting, NGOMonitor, and other such fine and unbiased sources. I have seen the light Drork, you should be proud of yourself for showing me the way. nableezy - 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you (Drork) made some edits yesterday which removed referenced text without explanation. There is an option that you can tick on the Editing tab of the my preferences' screen which reminds you to provide an edit summary. Please tick that. Otherwise people might interpret such actions in a way that does not WP:AGF.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying Israel deliberately destroyed Quneitra is a slander, unless properly proven. We CANNOT use Ecncyclopaedia Britannica and Lonely Planet to validate such an accusation, especially as we have sources saying the city was already in ruins long time before the time referred to in the accusations. Since we are talking about accusations, we cannot simply bring the UN opinion, without describing how the UN reached its conclusions, as reported by the UN itself. Since we are talking about accusations, it is perfectly legitimate to bring pro-Israeli sources pointing to the weaknesses of the UN report. Currently this article contains slanders, not in the pure legal sense, but in the moral sense, namely poorly based accusations against a group of people. I have done a lot of effort in order to retrieve more information about the issue and present a more balanced picture, but apparently people here don't care too much about the real picture. This is not what Wikipedia meant to be. DrorK (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, we shouldn't use Lonely Planet as it is too tertiary. Otherwise, you are completely and totally off the mark on this. I can't see any connection between your comments and Wikipedia policy. Meanwhile I read Gruner's report and was surprised at how thorough and conclusive it is. Zero^talk 07:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That premise is patently false and everything that follows from it is as well. But if the Encyclopedia Britannica is not good enough, and it is, here you go:
The Middle East and North Africa 2003, Routledge, 2002. p. 581:

Prior to the Israeli occupation, the Golan Heights were incorporated by Syria into a provincial administration of which the city of Quneitra, with a population at the time of 27,378, was capital. The disengagement agreement that was mediated by US Secretary of State Henry Kiddinger in 1974 (after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War) provided for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Quneitra. Before they withdrew, however, Israeli army engineers destroyed the city.

According to you the Golan Heights is not only not occupied, but it is in Israel. Thankfully your delusions are not valid sources. The Encyclopedia Britannica and the source quoted above are. nableezy - 07:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Zero, I cited Gruner's report, but it was reverted. Then again, Gruner's biography as mentioned by Sternhal and the Swiss Encyclopedia (an article signed by a specific person, so it can be specifically attributed) clearly shows he had large-scale businesses in the Arab world, and therefore he indeed had conflict of interests. That's the problem here - you can decide you trust his work, but you cannot ignore the conflict of interest, which leaves the issue of deliberate destruction open. We'll probably never know for sure what happened there, and we cannot present accusations as facts. DrorK (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, EB also says: "The Israeli portion of the Golan rises to 7,297 feet" (you objected calling any portion of the Golan "Israeli"), about the the 1967 battle they say: "The Syrian defenders and most of the Arab inhabitants fled, and Syria asked for an armistice" (you insisted on "expelled", both citations taken from here). On another subject, the State of Palestine EB says: "On Nov. 15, 1988, the PLO proclaimed the “State of Palestine,” a kind of government-in-exile; and on April 2, 1989, the PNC elected ʿArafāt president of the new quasi-state." ([12], fourth paragraph, you insisted on that article that SoP is an actual state). So you have to decide whether or not you trust EB, you can't be so selective. Now, you cite sources offhand as if it were a game of who scores more points. Have you checked who Routledge bases his claims on? The Los Angeles Times, for example stated they based their accusations on the UN report. If so, why not cite the report itself and the criticism of it? Did Routledge conduct his own investigation? If so, it is a valuable source. If it merely cites the reports we already know, why bother mentioning it? It is like "proving" a point by showing different copies of the same newspaper. DrorK (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that? The only thing I see from them is that it was "occupied" in 67 and "unilaterally annexed". And "expelled" is a refernce to the other destroyed villages, were does Britannica say that they "fled" from there. And I think you are confusing what EB gives as "External links" and with actual citations. And I have provided you many high-quality sources that say Palestine is a state, but in your zealous adventures to protect your country you may have missed those. AGF and all that. And I dont have to check to make sure that reliable sources are correct, that is kind of the opposite of what we do here. If reliable sources say something as fact then we say it as fact. Verifiability, not truth. nableezy - 07:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot read a plain simple text, I can't help it. Use the links I provided. Now, when it suits you, you settle for EB, when it doesn't you want better sources. This is very convenient, and yet inconsistent, unfair, and eventually misleading. Either you trust EB or you don't (and read the text in the links, it is not that hard). As for Routledge, unlike EB, Routledge does bring his sources, so it won't be hard for you to check what it bases its claims on. Unfortunately, "Google Books" does not show page 585 where the references about the Golan Heights should appear ([13]) so you'll have to use a hard copy. DrorK (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot understand what Encyclopedia Britannica does or does not say I cannot help you. The Encyclopedia Britannica does not say any one of the things you wrote above. If they do please provide a direct link to the article on the Encyclopedia Britannica that says those things, not a link to the JVL or another 3rd-party site. And I do not have to do any such thing, if a RS says something is true I do not have to then check that RSs source. That is not how it works. nableezy - 07:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Really, I don't get it. If I point a gun to your head and you run away, it is fine to say that you "fled". The word "fled" doesn't indicate the reason, though it does give the feeling of running from something, not just for the fun of it. Similarly "Israeli portion of the Golan" is just a convenient way to refer to the part under Israeli control and doesn't mean anything I'd disagree with. Zero^talk 08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, I have given you direct links. Did you use them? And what about Routledge? Did you look up page 585? You are so keen about sources, but it seems to me that you don't know how to use them. Zero, if you want to interpret EB's language, so do I. I want to write that Israel had done a huge favor for the Golan Heights' residents because they now enjoy better economy and better freedom of speech. I can source it by showing the difference between the quality of life in Israel and Syria per EB. Would you allow it? If not, why do you expect me to accept your interpretation? DrorK (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to an Encyclopedia Britannica article that says any of the things you claim they said. Not a link to a third-party site that Britannica includes as "External links", but an actual Britannica article that says those things. I already know the answer is "no", but I would like to see you admit it. And no, I would not accept such an edit relying on a source like that. The source would have to make the conclusion that you are making. Otherwise it would be your personal interpretation that the source does not support. nableezy - 16:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My "interpretation" is just an explanation of plain English, take it or leave it. As for the rest, if you had asked whether I'd support a report of socio-economic indicators from the best possible sources over a period extending both before and after 1967 I would agree and help. But you asked whether I'd support your POV pushing, so no thanks. Besides, writing "huge favor for the Golan Heights' residents" when the vast majority lost their homes and land and were exiled out of the area seems a little rich to me. Zero^talk 10:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, these kind of edits I do not introduce. But other people do introduce similar ones, providing they back pro-Syrian POV. DrorK (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)