Talk:Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab–Israeli conflict

Another discussion about some of the disputed matters in this talk page, is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#User Gilbrand renaming article without consensus.; please do not edit there any more, as it is in a talk archive page.

Article name

No issues with content, provided WP:RS, however the title should probably be changed to reflect current WP naming on similar articles, like the List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus, which is mentioned in the "See also" section. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 16:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that but, Quneitra for example was demolished in 1974, and some other villages were demolished in 1971. And I dont know if some were demolished after the six day war in 1967. More sources are indeed needed, there should be at least 25-30 more villages to ad to the list. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a notation of the year included next to villages for which WP:RS year can be found, example: "Quneitra (1974)" --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 16:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. The discussion here predates the closure of the recent AFD, so it is not clear that a further rename would have consensus. Aervanath (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

---

List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel → List of Syrian towns and villages depopulated by Israel — To remove potential POV and standardize per existing articles such as List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus and List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict. nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 19:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

The article should be renamed and moved to List of Syrian towns and villages depopulated by Israel due to potential POV in the title name and to conform to the names of similar articles ie: List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus and List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 19:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. The current title is POV and chosen intentionally to push a political agenda. Furthermore, it is not a list.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Its a list, so please do not ad anything else that has nothing to do with the article topic, as you did.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is NOT a list, and it wasn't, long before I got there. Don't tell me what to add or not to add, SupremeDeliciousness. The whole article deserves to be speedily deleted. It is based on falsehoods, such as the claim that Quneitra was destroyed by Israel. On October 21, 1973, for example, the Times reported that Quneitra was "a bombed-out military town the Syrians lost to the Israelis ." --Gilabrand (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is your own opinion. I have created this list, now please do not transform it into something else, there are over 100 villages in this list. If you do not want to contribute to this list then maybe you shouldn't edit it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Where is the POV? All the towns and villages in the article were destroyed by Israel. This article can not be compared to List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus because some of those city's were taken over and still exist today like Ashkelon and Beersheba for example. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If they exist today how can you say they have been "destroyed"? Stellarkid (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

When did I say that Ashkelon and Bersheeba were destroyed? You have confused the Syrian list with the Palestinian list. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. Make it consistent with other article titles, and get rid of the anti-Israel bias. --99.253.230.182 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support per 99.253.230.182 and agree with Gilabrand that a speedy delete would be appropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The towns and villages have indeed been destroyed by Israel. They existed before they were occupied in 1967, and they no longer exist, while their inhabitants live, for the most part, elsewhere in Syria following their expulsion. The fact that another article is possibly misnamed is no reason to misname this one too. Regarding Quneitra, I saw a film many years ago which established beyond doubt that it was still standing for many years after 1967, but was deliberately destroyed by Israel before a disengagement agreement. I will see if I can locate this. The unspecified Times report may be a reliable source that Quneitra was "bombed-out" in 1973, or at the time when the article was written; but it tells us nothing about its status in 1967. RolandR 22:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

oppose rename of article be no more than attempt to deny arab culture and promote zionist propaganda that seek to discredit horrible genocide and other atrocity commit by israeli government. in fact some one should change change name of other two article mentioned by nsaum that say "depopulate". no thing "depopulate" about them, they savagely destroy at hand of brutal israel government! Ani medjool (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It would be helpful if reliable sources were cited by either side in this argument, particularly for the myriad towns and villages other than Quneitra. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources: http://www.golan-marsad.org/pdfs/Israeli_Settlements.pdf http://www.golan-marsad.org/pdfs/Report-_Separated_Families.pdf http://www.badil.org/en/documents/category/33-ongoing-displacement?download=586%3Amarsad-israel-s-gross-violations-of-international-law-in-the-occupied-syrian-golan the list in the article is not perfect, but I will try to fix it tomorrow. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment You seem to have ignored the "reliable" part of "reliable sources". And of course, we have ani medjool joining in here with some more of his bullshit to top it all off. 99.253.230.182 (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

oppose. "Depopulate" and "destroy" are synonymous (by mutual implication) in the case of towns. Therefore, the only question is which one is a more common English word, and clearly "destroy" wins. Homunq (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To destroy a village is to physically destroy its buildings, whereas depopulation means to empty a village of its previous residents. While the the destruction of a village almost always results in its depopulation, depopulation may be the result of many other causes, and the two are hardly synonymous. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. The existing title is tendentious. It prejudges and presents a conclusion at the outset, one that the discussion here demonstrates is far from clear-cut and neutral. This is not the first time S.D. has originated an article with a tendentious title (the previous one was speedily deleted). Dump the strongly biased title; better yet, delete the article. The same, of course, goes for the closely-related Template:Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Name change to List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict. Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

*Support as the new title is less POV and more accurate given that not all village were destroyed. And I agree that if no reliable sources can be found soon this article should be deleted, but for the time being a tag would suffice. Pantherskin (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, but change to List of Syrian towns and villages abandoned during the 1967 war as this most accurately reflects what the only reliable source (Aron Shai, "The Fate of Abandoned Arab Village in Israel", 1965-1969, History & Memory, 2006) has to say about the village (i.e. that the villages were abandoned first, and the remains of some of them were subsequently demolished). Pantherskin (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose As far as I know, all of the Syrian towns and villages depopulated in 1967 were also destroyed. I see no reason why this salient fact should not be mentioned. Tiamut^talk 18:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Baruch Kimmerling writes Israel conquered the territory [... and expelled about 80,000 Syrian Arab peasants before completely levelling almost 130 villages]. Tiamut^talk 18:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. Vast majority of this list is unreferenced - either OR or pure speculation? Even for the few purportedly substantiated instances, this list provides no context, is clearly being used to push a propagandist POV and is inherently un-encyclopedic - can put the information for which appropriate reliable sources exist in the relevant existing article about the Arab-Israeli conflict.Chefallen (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• It depends If Roland finds his reliable source stating that they have all been systematically destroyed, then I would oppose the move. If not, then it may be better to move because there may be some still standing and Wdepopulated" would then be more acccurate.

The report cited by Supreme Deliciousness below goes a long way towards establishing this. It is written by a senior lecturer at the National University of Ireland, Galway and is extensively footnoted. It should be regarded as a reliable source. I hope to find some other sources; one problem is that the Golan Heights have not received a fraction of the interest and study devoted to the West Bank and Gaza. RolandR 15:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay it says that all apart from the five named villages were destroyed and has a list at the end. So Oppose.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes what Peter cohen say. Even though five village not all destroy, most villlage be destroy by israeli government and those few remain be esentially destroy because they no longer the arab and muslim community that they be founded as; they now be israeli and jew community. So all village be destroy either physical or de facto. In survive community, way of life be destroy, history be destroy, family be destroy, so essence village be destroy. That why destroy be term to use not depopulate. Ani medjool (talk)

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

discussion of references

Footnote #1 is a paper by Uri Davis with the disclaimer "Views and interpretations in this paper are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Centre for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies or the University of Durham." Is Uri Davis a RS? Stellarkid (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The only info used from that source is from chapter two were the info is collected from the 1965-1966 statical data of the Syrian Arab Republic, and is not a view or an interpretation.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)#

Uri Davis is a reputed academic, with appointments at the Universities of Bradford, Durham and Exeter. Of course he is a reliable source. RolandR 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

He is an activist. His WP bio says : "A member of Fatah since 1984, he was elected to the Revolutionary Council for the Palestinian party in 2009." Somehow that wouldn't seem to me to qualify on the face of it. Stellarkid (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thousands of academics are members of political parties. This does not, in itself, invalidate their academic work. Since these universities employed, and in some cases continue to employ, Davis, thewy must be satisfied with his academic credentials, regardless of his political positions. That should be enough for us; don't try to institute a witch-hunt. RolandR 08:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That this paper - despite being from 1983 - has not been published in a peer reviewed academic journal raises some red flags, in particular given that Uri Davis is not only an academic, but also an activist with some rather unusual political affiliations. In general the references here are something that should be worked on very soon, as at the moment we have only partisan sources and no sources that we would without any doubts classify as reliable. Pantherskin (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Read above, The only info used from that source is from chapter two were the info is collected from the 1965-1966 statical data of the Syrian Arab Republic.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Different accounts on whether Golan inhabitants were forcefully expelled or whether they fled (1997-2002) Stellarkid (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect many of the so-called Syrian villages on this list are a fabrication. Ad-dananir, for example, is in Jordan. See [[1]]--Gilabrand (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Uweinat seems to be a mountain in Libya. See here [2]. Other names, like Qtua sh ali, Amert Lferj and Kreij al-wawi seem to be made up. --Gilabrand (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Many places in the Arab world, and the rest of the world have the same name. There are 15-20 towns in USA only that have the name "Lebanon". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a map from 1943 that shows a majority of the places in the list, plus some and minus some. To determine what was there in 1967 is seriously difficult. A few times villages in exactly the same place seem to have changed names, is there a reason for that? Zero^talk 01:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Gilabrand tampering with the article

Gilabrand is tampering with the article by removing source that Israel destroyed the villages, and removed several templates, categories and an image without explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Syrian_towns_and_villages_destroyed_by_Israel&action=historysubmit&diff=324906149&oldid=324905329 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No opinion about the cats and templates, but replacing the claims made by a partisan NGO group with a BBC reference is an improvement in my opinion. As I said above the sourcing is a problem at the moment, and at least this is a step in the right direction. But I agree that changes should better be discussed or explained on the talk page. Pantherskin (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He removed that the villages were destroyed, which is not contradicting the BBC source. Changed the name of the article repeatedly without asking, and the RfCs are not completed yet. If you read here there is interviews from refugees who describe events of the depopulation. He said they "left the Golan Heights".--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I have put this article up for deletion,since - contrary to what was suggested by Gilabrand and Stellarkid - it does not seem to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Ani medjool appears to be a sock of Supreme Deliciousness. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Deliciousness. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't know there were two categories for delete, "speedy" and otherwise. Stellarkid (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See also

I've removed most of the links added by Chesdovi:

• Hama, a town largely levelled by the Syrian army in 1982 and later rebuilt.
• 160 Syrian villages deserted 'due to climate change', Talal El-Atrache (AFP) – Jun 2, 2009
• Dead Cities, abandoned ruins of some 700 Byzantine towns, villages and monastic settlements in Syria.
• Ghost town, there are many ghost villages Syria abandoned as a result of migration to major cities.

In my opinion they're irrelevant to this list; the cause of destruction/abandonment is too dissimilar. That's as if whaling would carry a see-also link to exploding whale because both articles concern dead whales. In conjunction with Chesdovi's latest edits on this talk page ([3], [4], [5]), I also have difficulties assuming good faith: On the one hand these links give the impression that villages in Syria are abandoned anyway, so the Israeli involvement is nothing notable. The talk page entries give the impression that everybody is engaged in destroying villages, so again the Israelis also doing it is nothing notable. On the contrary, the deliberate destruction of villages by Israel would probably be a violation of the laws of war, of human rights and maybe even of Israeli laws. One example was noted, investigated and condemned by the UN, which alone makes it more notable than either the abandonment of villages for economic reasons or the other destructions in (civil) wars (which might still merit articles or lists of their own, but probably are even harder to source than this list). Huon (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for these wise words. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There definitely seems to be an element of WP:POINTiness reminiscent of the proliferation of Allegations of apartheid in X articles. If the editors concerned really want to constructively develop coverage on those subjects then WP:CSB and projects related to the relevant geo-political areas would be where to raise things, not here.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Depopulated before the 1967 war?

• I read statements that many of these villages on the Golan Heights were evacuated by the Syrian army well before the 1967 war, when they set up their large Golan heights military zone. Not by Israel.Anthony Appleyard (talk)

Please provide a source. This article lists those which were destroyed by Israel. Maybe we can also have a page List of Syrian towns and villages evacuated by Syria? Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

From List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict :

In addition to the villages evacuated or where the residents were expelled in the West Bank during the Six-Day War, over 100,000 Golan Heights residents were evacuated from about 25 villages whether on orders of the Syrian government or through fear of an attack by the Israeli Defense Forces and forced expulsion after the cease fire. UN Doc A/8089 5 October 1970]

If the residents were indeed removed, not to return, long before "destruction" occured, this page name gives the wrong impression. Words like "Abandoned" and "deserted", not "destroyed", spring to mind. Chesdovi (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If a village is "abandoned" or "deserted", then the buildings presumably still exist, awaiting the return of the original inhabitants. If, as even Chesdovi seems to agree above, they have been destroyed, then this is an appropriate name.RolandR 11:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not an appropriate name for the simple reason that there is no proof Israel destroyed them - if they ever existed to begin with. Quneitra, for example, was used as an Israeli army base and frequently shelled by the Syrians before it was returned to Syria in 1974. So at least part of the damage cannot be attributed to Israel.--Gilabrand (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Prescisley, over the years, without maintenance, all properties are exposed to the weather and are destroyed by nature, as with the Dead Cities of Syria. Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear reactor

The nuclear reactor added by user Gilbrand is not appropriate for this "List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel" article. If no evidence is presented that this nuclear reactor is in fact a village or a town, it should be removed from the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree this does not belong on this page as it is neither a town nor a village. As such, I've deleted that section. Tiamut^talk 13:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Israeli destruction of the villages and depopulation

Here is a source showing that Israel destroyed all villages except five: "With thousands of people forced to leave the Occupied Golan and unable to return, (an estimated 130,000 people), the Israeli military were, for the most part, unopposed in their administration of the newly occupied territory and began a widespread campaign that destroyed numerous villages and farms. The only villages to escape the campaign of destruction were Majdal Shams, Masa’da, Bqa’atha, ‘Ein Qinyeh, and Al-Ghajar, five small villages in the valley of Mount Hermon."

Depopulation: "The depopulation of the Syrian Golan of its native inhabitants was the first major abuse conducted in the Golan during and following the end of the 1967 war between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Prior to the occupation, the Syrian Golan contained approximately 153,000 inhabitants; following the capture of 70% of the Golan territory by Israel, approximately 130,000 were forcibly transferred or displaced to Syria proper43and forbidden from returning. The remaining population of Syrian inhabitants remained in six villages located at the extreme north of the Golan. These villages were Majdal Shams, Masa’da, Bqa’atha, ‘Ein Qinyeh, Al Ghajar, and Su’heita. In 1967 Su’heita was partially destroyed and a military post built in its place. It was completely destroyed in 1971-2 and its population forcibly transferred to the neighbouring town Masa’da; the original inhabitants of Su’heita are still fighting today for the return to their village."

"Israel succeeded in depopulating the Golan through a number of means, including its regime of Military Orders that were introduced to administer the newly occupied territory. For example, a number of Military Orders declared that certain areas were closed military zones, effectively meaning that no one was permitted to enter the zone and anyone doing so was severely punished. Military Order 39, 27 August 1967 ordered that 101 villages in the Occupied Golan be declared closed military zones. Nobody was allowed to enter the villages listed without special permission. Anyone who violated this order was subject to a punishment of five years imprisonment or a fine of five thousand Israeli Liras,or both.45 Through such orders, Israeli enforced the depopulation of the occupied territory of its native Syrian inhabitants by prohibiting Syrian citizens, who had been forcibly transferred, displaced or who had fled the conflict,from returning to their place of residence in the Occupied Golan."

"The Israelis forced the people to leave the village and also the other villages surrounding Majdal Shams. A lot of people came to hide in Majdal Shams because it was far in the mountains. Some people were hiding in the school others were hiding in the houses. Everyday, the Israelis came and started shouting at them. After two weeks the Israelis told the people who were hiding that they could return safely to their own villages. As the people came out of hiding the Israeli soldiers began to shoot at them to frighten them and make them run away to other parts of Syria. The people had been tricked by the Israelis into thinking it was safe to come out of hiding and return to their villages."

"During the war in 1967 roughly about half the people from Jubata Ez-Zeit left their village and came to Majdal Shams to hide because it was perceived to be a safe place, because it was high in the mountain. They had left Jubata because they were afraid of the war. After the war the Israeli military occupied the village of Jubata and began to forcibly transfer the people who had remained in Jubata, the people who had left Jubata and tried to return once they thought it was safe were also transferred. The Israeli army began shooting in the air and towards the people, all the time, to frighten the people of Jubata, to transfer the people from the village. After the transfer Jubata became a closed military area; nobody could return. Before the war the village of Jubata had about 1,500 2,000 people something like that, after the transfer nobody remained."

"We know of a number of cases from Jubata Ez-Zeit where disabled people were in the village; the Israeli army brought donkeys for them and put the disabled people on the donkeys and transferred them out of the Golan. The transfer of the people of Jubata and other villages in the occupied Golan was an act planned by Israel. It’s impossible, as I said before, that there would be no people left because some people, disabled people, some crazy people and some very old people, they would all want to stay in their homes. When you find that 100% of the people are gone from the villages, it means, without going to the details, these people were forced to leave their villages. For example, look at Palestine in 1948; some of the Palestinians remained it’s the same in any conflict areas. Even the Israelis have said in a lot of documentation and also in a lot of T.V. programs how they practiced pressure in order to force the people of the Occupied Golan to leave…Ok I mean its very normal under conflict situation that people leave their villages, however, that does not mean they don’t want to come back, if the Israelis were sincere about peace than I think the people that were forcibly transferred from the Golan should be allowed return."

http://www.badil.org/en/documents/category/33-ongoing-displacement?download=586%3Amarsad-israel-s-gross-violations-of-international-law-in-the-occupied-syrian-golan --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical sorting

I tried to get some order into this list, but I don't speak Arabic, and there may be issues with the order I put them in. Specifically:

• I ignored apostrophes, see for example the three "Z" entries. Is that the correct order, or should an apostrophe be treated as a letter of its own?
• Names consisting of several words, separated either by a dash or by a space, I sorted by the first word, then by the second word etc. So anything of the type "Al X" is sorted before "Ala Y". Is that correct? Al Derdarah and Alderdara might even be different transliterations of the same name.

We should also aim for uniform standards of transliteration and capitalization. I find it hard to believe that Al Haseiniya and Al husseiniya are both correctly capitalized according to the same transliteration (they may even be different transliterations of the same name, too). Huon (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am right now going through the list little by little everyday and are trying to correct the spelling and ad links, but it takes a lot of time, so please people, have patience. I will take care of it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you change the name of any of the villages? spelling?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't change any spelling; all I did was cut & paste. I did remove a few duplicate entries, though. I don't think there really were two villagas of the same name on the Golan Heights. Huon (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Searching for reliable sources: Atlases or NIMA Joint Operations Graphics maps?

Does anyone have access to a pre-1967 atlas published by a mainstream publisher containing a detailed map of, or gazetteer for, Syria that might be usable as an independent, verifiable, reliable source for the names of the populated places given here?

Or, alternatively something like this map, cited as "Portion of Dimashq (Damascus), Syria; Lebanon, Joint Operations Graphic (AIR), Series 1501 AIR, Sheet NI 37-9, Edition 4. Original scale 1:250,000. U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency, compiled November 1972, revised July 1998, air information current through 5 April 1999. Not for navigational use", which seems to show older settlements? Many of these NIMA Joint Operations Graphics maps are available for sale to the public online; I haven't yet found a free source for more than a few of them. -- The Anome (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Destroyed by Syria?

Is it possible that some villages were destroyed by Syrian fire during the war? Also have any which now lie in Syrian territory been rebuilt? (See "Adaniyeh and Asheh, two nearby villages destroyed in the 1967 war.") Chesdovi (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make this claim you have to show a reliable source for it. I have provided evidence that all but five villages were destroyed by Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the source I provided clearly says the villages of Adaniyeh and Asheh were destroyed during the war. We don't know by whom. If these villages are not on the current "destroyed by Israel" list, we may as well make a list containing the Syrian villages destroyed by Syria. (They do seem to be capable of this.) Chesdovi (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

380 villages destroyed by Ottoman Syrian Druze?

There is a dispute above regarding the POV of the page name. Instead of listing here only the Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel, we could expand the page content and also list the 380 Ottoman Syrian Christian villages destroyed by Ottoman Syrian Druze and Muslims during the 1860 Lebanon conflict, renaming the page Destroyed Syrian towns and villages. Chesdovi (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should we conflate these events that were more than a century apart and which differ in both geographic scope and historical background? I don't see why we should confuse these issues - unless such confusion is precisely what Chesdovi seeks. Huon (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the confusion? The common denominator here is destroyed villages. That is the notable subject matter. When destruction took place & where exactly they are located can be clarified within the page itself; unless some editors want a prolifiration of articles soley appertaining to the Modern Middle East conflict? Or find the fact that Israel was the culprit bears more notability... Chesdovi (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why not create List of destroyed towns and villages? Because that would obviously become unmaintainably large. Sorting by geography and by cause of destruction seems the obvious way - if your proposed list of destroyed towns and villages in Syria is to be of any value whatsoever (never mind that some of the villages destroyed in the Lebanon conflict probably are in Lebanon, not Syria), it would have to be sorted in just such a way anyway, and the subset of villages destroyed by Israel seems large enough to justify being split off. Do we by now know any of the villages destroyed in 1860? If you really are that interested in the 1860 destructions, I suggest creating List of villages destroyed in the 1860 Lebanon conflict and sourcing that - but merging them here is a useless conflation of unrelated incidents. Huon (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Village locater

User Duae Quartunciae just posted this link at another article: http://www.fallingrain.com/world/SY/3/

I have only taken a quick look but it finds several of the villages that are in the golan-marsad.org link, for example:

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/SY/3/Dayr_Siras.html

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/SY/3/Kafr_Naffakh.html

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/SY/3/Jubbata_az_Zayt.html

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/SY/3/Al_Farj.html

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/SY/3/Dabburah.html --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if we would assume that fallingrain is a realiable source all this establishes is that there are geographic locations with these names - whether they are villages, farms, geographical landmarks or just some coordinates we don't know. Pantherskin (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We may still use fallingrain to get coordinates for the villages we know about from other sources - unless there's reason to suspect that their coordinates are actually wrong. Huon (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think this could be a really useful resource. I have no idea how reliable it is or where the information comes from; but it works world wide and gives easy ways to crosscheck by identifying other places nearby, spelling variants, and related wikipedia articles. A resource like this can help us all in the background work we do as editors to help track down good reliable sources.

As a general related comment... note how this page refers back to wikipedia, apparently automatically! There are many pages around the web that do this. I believe it is incumbent on us, therefore, to be a bit careful as we update articles to take a bit of time to check that information really is accurate. Look for a couple of references. And beware also the spurious mutually confirming loops that can occur when bad information gets into wikipedia, then gets picked up by some other external source of some kind, which then in turn is used as a justification for the original insertion in wikipedia! This can happen surprisingly quickly, and there are a number of cases in widely disparate topics. I may write a wikipedia essay about it some time, unless someone has done it already. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cause of destruction, size of list

I'm reposting some things I put on the AfD page. The academic paper "The Fate of Abandoned Arab Villages, 1965-1969" by Aron Shai (History & Memory - Volume 18, Number 2, Fall/Winter 2006, pp. 86-106) quotes internal documents from the Israeli project to demolish the majority of the Golan villages. The paper discusses the general situation, not individual villages, but since some people expressed doubt that Israel was responsible for the destruction, I'll quote a little.

• "As the pace of the surveys increased in the West Bank, widespread operations also began on the Golan Heights, which had been captured from Syria during the war (figure 7). Dan Urman, whose official title was Head of Surveying and Demolition Supervision for the Golan Heights, was in charge of this task. Urman submitted a list of 127 villages for demolition to his bosses. ... The demolitions were executed by contractors hired for the job. Financial arrangements and coordination with the ILA and the army were recorded in detail. Davidson commissioned surveys and demolition supervision from the IASS. Thus, for example, in a letter dated 15 May 1968, he wrote to Ze'ev Yavin: 'Further to our meeting, this is to inform you that within a few days we will start demolishing about 90 abandoned villages on the Golan Heights (see attached list).'"

And so forth, all of it carefully cited to the Israeli archives. Unfortunately Shai does not provide either list. Comparing the numbers in those quotations to the size of our list suggests it is a fair starting approximation to the truth. Getting it precisely right is a difficult exercise. Zero^talk 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to this? The only thing I can see is this: "In spring 1965 the Israel Land Administration (ILA) initiated the demolition of houses in Arab villages that had been abandoned during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, a project that was subsequently extended to the territories occupied by Israel in the June 1967 war. The Israel Archaeological Survey Society (IASS) was for all practical purposes employed by the ILA in its efforts to clear the country of deserted villages. Its officials surveyed the villages intended for destruction, since the law required their authorization before the buildings could be demolished. The article reveals that (1) most of the abandoned Arab villages disappeared as a result of a clear plan originating with the ILA; (2) the demolition of houses in the Latrun enclave and the Golan Heights immediately after the June 1967 war was to a great extent a continuation of the pre-1967 operation" [6] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it is only available by paid subscription. Send me email. Zero^talk 12:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

But sources do not have be viewable for all for them to be in articles? right? So we can ad it to the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Academic journals are certainly allowed even if they are not online at all. But this article is a "list of" article so I'm not sure if much text is appropriate. This is something that can be discussed. Zero^talk 21:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Demolished is one thing, abandoned is another thing. I read that before the 1967 war the Syrian army evacuated civilians from the Golan Heights area. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that 99% of this article is based on a POV source written from a vicious, anti-Israel perspective with a very clear bias. As such it does not belong here, and the "information" on this page remains unsourced, and hence eminently deletable.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Tlaas statement

A letter to the New York Times is not a reliable source, and it's not clear why the statement is relevant to this article (admittedly, it hasn't really been established what this article is about). Adding more unreliable material to an article consisting solely of unreliable material doesn't help matters. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal that Israel destroyed the villages

User Jalapenos do exist has twice now removed that Israel destroyed the villages: [7][8]

He changes the text to "The Arab Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Golan claims that" and removes other sources.

Although there are now 3 sources saying the same thing:

1. "The Fate of Abandoned Arab Villages, 1965-1969" by Aron Shai (History & Memory - Volume 18, Number 2, Fall/Winter 2006, pp. 86-106) "As the pace of the surveys increased in the West Bank, widespread operations also began on the Golan Heights, which had been captured from Syria during the war (figure 7). Dan Urman, whose official title was Head of Surveying and Demolition Supervision for the Golan Heights, was in charge of this task. Urman submitted a list of 127 villages for demolition to his bosses. ... The demolitions were executed by contractors hired for the job. Financial arrangements and coordination with the ILA and the army were recorded in detail. Davidson commissioned surveys and demolition supervision from the IASS. Thus, for example, in a letter dated 15 May 1968, he wrote to Ze'ev Yavin: 'Further to our meeting, this is to inform you that within a few days we will start demolishing about 90 abandoned villages on the Golan Heights (see attached list).

2. Politicide: Ariel Sharon's war against the Palestinians "before completely leveling almost 130 villages"

3. Murphy, R.; Gannon, D. (2008), "Changing the Landscape: Israel’s Gross Violations of International Law in the Occupied Syrian Golan", Al Marsad, the Arab Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Golan "the Israeli military were, for the most part, unopposed in their administration of the newly occupied territory and began a widespread campaign that destroyed numerous villages and farms. The only villages to escape the campaign of destruction were Majdal Shams, Masa’da, Bqa’atha, ‘Ein Qinyeh, and Al-Ghajar, five small villages in the valley of Mount Hermon."

Not one single source has been provided debunking that Israel destroyed these villages.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact it is easy to find several other quality sources saying the same thing. The removal of Shai's paper is especially mysterious; Jalapenos, please explain yourself. Zero^talk 13:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

SD, Please read WP:V and WP:RS. The onus is on you to provide reliable sources for claims you add to the article. Sources #2 and #3 are not reliable, and source #1 does not support the claim (and was not used to source it). Zero, if you find a reliable source supporting the claim, I will not contest it. I'm afraid your argument that such sources are "easy to find" doesn't suffice; one has to actually be produced. And I didn't remove Shai's paper. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not up to you to decide what is reliable sources or not, the three sources provided are reliable. And the first source clearly says that Israel destroyed the villages. And it was indeed used to source it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's up to WP:RS to decide, and it says that sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which neither the Arab Center for Human Rights nor Verso Books do. The first source does not support the claim, at least not in the quote you provided. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit ridiculous. The scholarly source was explicitly removed as "not reliable". And while it may not support that all but five villages were destroyed, it does support that 127 villages were proposed to be destroyed and that they actually began destruction on about 90 of them. Unless someone wants to claim that while they were about to start, they suddenly felt remorse and canceled the planned demolitions? I'll rewrite the sentence so that it actually says what the source (whose number closely coincides with that given by Politicide) supports.

Now that I checked Verso Books, I also fail to see why they're considered unreliable. Our article mentions three facts: Founded by the staff of New Left Review, published the thinkers of the Frankfurt school, books distributed in the U.S. by W. W. Norton. Unless those on the left are automatically unreliable, I see no indication whatsoever of unreliability. Huon (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with using the Shai paper for claims that the Shai paper makes. As for Verso Books, there has to be an indication that the publishing company is reliable. Since it's a non-academic and self-proclaimed radical and partisan organization, one is unlikely to be found, but you can go ahead and try if you want. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any real reliability problem with any of the sources, or any extraordinary or surprising claim made. Kimmerling was a very well known and esteemed scholar. Verso is a well-known commercial publisher with a perfectly good reputation, but that is not necessary; Kimmerling's reputation is more than enough to consider the book a reliable source. The Murphy & Gannon report can rest on the credentials of the authors, and the Shai paper was published in an academic journal. I suggest taking it to RS/N.John Z (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Move?

Is this a joke? There has been no consensus whatsoever to change the article name from "List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel" to the current one. The current name was forced on the article by Gilabrand. Please remove this request for move immediately. Administrator should change it back, and if someone wants to change it to something else it will have to go through a rfm. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights → List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel —

• There was a rfM which had no consensus for it to be moved [9] and there was a afd which the majority of the votes voted to keep the article without rename [10]{{{3}}}   Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• This is much disputed above in this talk page. The two above links are:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APre-1967_Syrian_towns_on_the_Golan_Heights&action=historysubmit&diff=326483118&oldid=326466563 , one of many edits that has been to this talk page.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel, decided to keep the page but not what to name it.
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Regardless of this article's name, after the discussion on the AfD and the RfC, I'm concerned that the article, as its written, is not being used for encyclopedic purposes but as an intentional WP:POVFORK and to make a WP:POINT. What could have been a neutral article on villages depopulated when Israel gained control of the Golan Heights, has become an article full of weasle words attempting to vilify and trash both the Israelis and Syrians. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The overall consensus at the Afd debate was to either rename or delete entirely. User:Supreme Deliciousness, is your purpose in creating this article to make note of villages that once existed, or the fact that Israel destroyed them (notwithstanding the fact that they were abandoned)? I see a very pointy pattern here. Shlomke (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: There is currently a discussion going about the name of this article at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Gilbrand_renaming_article_without_consensus Shlomke (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That discussion has now been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#User Gilbrand renaming article without consensus.. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See above discussion for more information --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 18:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is not a good idea. But I don't think Supreme Deliciousness' proposed title, the list's old title before the move done by The Anome without much regard to consensus on a new name, is the best choice. We should:

1. Decide whether we care about the pre-1967 Golan Heights or only about those villages that were in the Israeli-occupied part. Currently we firmly take the latter position.
2. Decide whether we want to include the five pre-1967 villages on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights that weren't destroyed. I don't care much either way, but currently we don't list them, making "Villages destroyed by Israel" a more accurate description of what this is about than "Pre-1976 towns".
3. Decide whether we want a list or an article. I believe that we have enough relevant text relating to these villages to properly call this an article, not a list.

These considerations seem to point towards a title of Towns and villages on the Golan Heights destroyed by Israel, or something like that. If we consider calling villages that (for whatever reasons) were abandoned by their inhabitants and then destroyed by Israel "villages destroyed by Israel" to be non-neutral, we might opt for something along the lines of Towns and villages on the Golan Heights depopulated during the Israeli-Syrian conflict. That's more clumsy than I really like, maybe somebody has a better name that conveys the same idea? Huon (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You haven't even explained what is wrong with the current title, which a number of users seemed to think was best at the Afd. Shlomke (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My initial opinion was to reluctantly accept the move to an NPOV title - reluctant because of Gilabrand's outragious behavious in moving this when two neutral closing parties had only just said that consensus on the name was still to be determined. However, you have made a good point that the title of the article should be contingent on its scope and thta si what needs to be agree first.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My points 1 and 2 are my objection to the current title. The current title suggests we care about all the villages on the pre-1967 Golan Heights, while we're currently not really interested in either those in the part not occupied by Israel or those in the occupied part not depopulated and destroyed.

Concerning the AfD: I counted two editors prefering the "List of" version of the current title (including The Anome who did the move), two others who preferred "List of Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict" (I'd say that's the improved version of my last suggest I was looking for), several others who advocated a rename without indicating a preference for a certain new name, and four whose comments indicated they didn't favor any rename. That's hardly consensus for the current name. Huon (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we prove that all of the villages listed were indeed directly and forceably depopulated or destroyed by Israeli forces? Were some depopulated by Syria prior to the invasion? Did some villages become depopulated based on the decisions of their inhabitants? Were some destroyed by their inhabitants so the Israelis couldn't use them? These are important things to think about if we are going to go the route of saying it is anything other than a list of villages in existence prior to Israel taking control of the Golan Heights. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We have sources stating that the Israeli-occupied part of the Golan Heights contained 139 villages, that Israeli officials drew up lists to destroy 127 of them and that they later destroyed Quneitra in an unrelated incident. We also have sources that between five and eight places remained inhabited in 1967, where the eight include Quneitra. I believe the "hardware" is pretty much accounted for, and Israel is responsible for the majority of the destruction (Quneitra, for example, was damaged before it was razed, but there still was a major deliberate demolition effort by Israel). The people are a lot harder to account for. I believe I've read all three versions: Evacuation by Syria before the 1967 war (though that probably was unsourced, and I don't think it's likely), villagers fleeing during the war (currently in the article and sourced to the BBC), Israel forcibly removing a major part of the population (can't remember where, though Uri Davis seems to imply so, see p. 10 of the PDF). So "destroyed by Israel" seems technically correct, while "depopulated by Israel" probably isn't. Huon (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Another source on depopulation: Syria and the Middle East Peace Process, ISBN 0876091052, p.102, "Some 35,000 Syrians fled the Golan during the fighting and were not permitted to return; in the next six months, 95,000 more inhabitants fled or were driven off the plateau." Agrees with Murphy & Gannon text and number of 130,000.John Z (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

About 12 (half) of the keep votes also said rename. That is besides all the votes to delete entirely. It would seem the overwhelming majority did not support the name "destroyed by Israel". As user:nsaum75 points out, it would be misleading to have a name "destroyed by Israel" when we don't know how many were abandoned, before and after the Israel took control, and perhaps some where destroyed by Syria. Should we have articles on excavation companies titled List of buildings destroyed by XYZ contracting? Why do we have this article? is it because these villages are notable, or because anything Israel destroyed/demolished is notable? Shlomke (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

15 people voted to keep the article without renaming ( I am not counting those who wanted to keep it with renaming) Half the people at this talkpage was against renaming, Where was the consensus? Is this recently filed rfm legal? Who agreed to this name "Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights"? It doesn't really matter if some were abandoned or not, I'm sure some where and in some cases the people were forced out. But what we all know is that the vast majority of them was destroyed by Israel, and that is what this article is about, the former Syrian villages on the Golan that used to exit, and now they don't. Why do we have this article you ask? There was an afd, people wanted to keep it, get over it! --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does matter if some were abandoned or not, and directly affects the title of the article. User:Huon has brought up the issue of what the scope of this article is, and if you didn't notice yet, that's what is being discussed here. Shlomke (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What I wanted to do was very simple, creating a Syrian version of: [11] its really sad to see how some editors have from the very beginning tried to destroy this article in everyday they can. Edits that can not be called anything else then pure vandalism. This is a list about former Syrian villages in Golan that do not exit anymore, there should only be a couple of lines at the top describing the most important facts about the subject, no nuclear reactor or Hama massacre. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. So if all you want is an article about Syrian villages in Golan that do not exist anymore then the words destroyed by Israel would not necessary. Shlomke (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's a good scope for the article and thus prefer the analogous title: Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict, as suggested by Al Ameer son during AfD. I doubt that we should remove the background information to leave just a list of names; thus we also shouldn't call it a list. Huon (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I support something like that, but maybe it should be "Syrian towns and villages destroyed in the Golan Heights" or "Syrian towns and villages depopulated and destroyed in the Golan Heights"  ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You still did not answer the question: if all you want is an article about Syrian villages in Golan that do not exist anymore then the words destroyed by Israel, or even words like just "destroyed" or "depopulated" would not necessary. These facts are covered inside the article. If you find it necessary to put in those words, you should likewise put in all words about the fate of those villages, which would be something like: Syrian towns and villages, fled, evacuated, depopulated and destroyed in the Golan Heights. A very long and weird sounding name, I know, but also containing all the necessary facts of the true fate of those places. Shlomke (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The truth be not always nice. If pro israel editor have problem with THE TRUTH, that israel and their precious Moshe Dayan premeditate to DESTROY the village in Golan Height, then they need go elsewhere. We not allow the israel lobby and pro israel editors disguise and revise truth like they do so many other place here on wikipedia. The word "depopulated" be NOT acceptable, and never be acceptable! Must say DESTROY because that what it be. If not physical destroy of all village then at least israelis destroy of way of life and destroy of culture in all the villages! Every source Surpreme Deliciousness offer be call not reliable. Why this not reliable? Be it because it not Israeli source? Be it not because it source published by country that be friend of Israel? Editor have no problem using pro israel source like haaretz or ynetnews, is this because it be ISRAELI source? I have to ask why, because i no figure out any other reason why prozionist source accepted but not arab source. This all smell bad like someone afraid to admit israel be wrong in what it do to the villages, so they water down truth so it not so painful sounding. Truth is truth, cannot be changed, regardless of word used. Ani medjool (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well would you look at that... Ani medjool decides to come back from his wikipedia break on the same day that Supreme Deliciousness comes back after a short absence. What a comedic coincidence. In terms of this comment, it's not even worth responding to. And in terms of the move, as I stated during the vote, this rename is a much more accurate portrayal of what went on, in accordance with NPOV. Titling something "destroyed by Israel" is irrefutably making one side out to be the victim and one to be the aggressor. Breein1007 (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Clashes

The lede currently states: 80 percent of these clashes were deliberately provoked by the Israelis. Which clashes is this quote referring to? it does not seem to fit in with the previous text. Shlomke (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Moshe Dayan article gives the complete quote. According to him, the Israelis deliberately provoked the Syrians to fire on tractors in the demilitarized zone and then responded with artillery and air strikes. I assume Dayan's 80% figure includes the attacks on civilians the Jewish Virtual Library speaks of; I don't think Dayan and the JVL speak of completely different sets of incidents. Personally I don't think either the attacks on civilians or Dayan's claim belong here, but putting in one but not the other clearly fails NPOV. Huon (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should get rid of this and be wary of coatracking.John Z (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Jewishlibrary is a pro-israeli website. The text from that webiste has no connection to the article topic which is: Former Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Look, it's possible to talk in terms of 'the Syrians are bastards, you have to get them, and this is the right time,' and other such talk, but that is not policy, You don't strike at the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us." "After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was." "The kibbutzim there saw land that was good for agriculture," "And you must remember, this was a time in which agricultural land was considered the most important and valuable thing." "Of course they wanted the Syrians to get out of their face. They suffered a lot because of the Syrians. Look, as I said before, they were sitting in the kibbutzim and they worked the land and had kids and lived there and wanted to live there. The Syrians across from them were soldiers who fired at them, and of course they didn't like it." "But I can tell you with absolute confidence, the delegation that came to persuade Eshkol to take the heights was not thinking of these things. They were thinking about the heights' land. Listen, I'm a farmer, too. After all, I'm from Nahalal, not from Tel Aviv, and I know about it. I saw them, and I spoke to them. They didn't even try to hide their greed for that land." http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html?pagewanted=1 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody objected to removal of mention of those pre-1967 incidents, I'll do it. Probably one of the WP:POINT violations Gilabrand admitted here. Huon (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please let us remove

everything that has no connection to the article topic. We don't have to go through the six day war in the list. People can click on that link and read about it. The list is about former Syrian towns and villages in the Golan destroyed by Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that (most of) the current expansion of the list into an article is a bad idea. There is more information on the villages than just a bare list of names, and we should probably expand it. For example, one of our sources had a paragraph on the pre-1967 economy. The six day war also merits mention and an explanation of its relevance to these villages, and I don't think we currently have too much of that. Of course, information not related to the Golan Heights villages - such as Hama, the Syrian soldier decoration Gilabrand added, or the Dead Cities, should be removed on sight. Huon (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I'm looking at the current version [12] and most looks good and relevant to the subject.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes all article content not involve with destruction of village must be remove. Editor need to find more source to back up destroy in title so pro israel editor cannot come up with excuse to keep name that deny destruction. Ani medjool (talk)

Villages of Adaniyeh and Asheh; destroyed by Syria?

It seems from the link I provided above that Adaniyeh and Asheh were destroyed too, probablyby Syria. Can this be confirmed please. Chesdovi (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Probably by Syria" is a rather bold assertion when the source says "destroyed in the 1967 war". I don't think the Syrians had any reason whatsoever to deliberately destroy their own willages during the war (unlike Hama, there was no revolt going on). Apparently these two villages also weren't part of Israel's organized effort at destruction. Thus, "collateral damage", that is, accidental destruction during combat operations, seems a more likely cause of destruction, and since that "destroyed in the 1967 war" quote is the only reference Google found for these two villages (with all mentions originating from the IDMC), I don't think we can assign blame exclusively to one side or the other. Huon (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the case, these were "Pre-1967" villages that should be listed. As the page name now does not stipulate Israel, I will ahead add them. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Murray-Gannon source

Pantherskin tagged the Murray-Gannon PDF as "maybe unreliable" here. He didn't explain his reasons, but Jalapenos do exist raised the same issue at WP:ANI. According to WP:SPS, self-published sources (what this amounts to) are permissible when "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Ray Murray clearly qualifies; he's a senior lecturer in law at the National University of Ireland, Galway, with publications in scholarly journals on the subject of conflict resolution and "Contemporary Challenges to the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law". So unless there are objections, I'll remove the tag shortly. Huon (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I explained above and during the AFD why this source should not be considered a reliable source. It is published by a lobby-group and not by Ray Murphy, and that raises several red flags due to obvious conflict of interest the lobby group when it comes to reporting facts versus reporting what supports the mission of the group. Furthermore WP:SPS also clearly says that "caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so". Please find independent and reliable sources for this article, I see that some progress has been made, but we still have not what should have been there right from the start. Pantherskin (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is disagreement on this point. I essentially agree with Huon. But it is not self-published by the usual definitions, but rather published by an obscure NGO. IMHO, this neither adds to nor detracts from reliability. The credentials of the authors give it reliability. The study makes no surprising claims and its language, arguments and conclusions are entirely standard and mainstream; what reason is there to think it is inventing the names of the villages, which is what it is being used for? The names are cited to an Israeli Military Order, n.b.; quite arguably that is the source, and we need only cite that, obviously reliable, and say where we got it. On another source, the late Baruch Kimmerling was a first rate scholar, a world authority in his field, and a mensch, doubting his factual reliability borders on the absurd. As I noted above, WP:RS/N is the place for such questions.John Z (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have taken it to the noticeboard for more community input. Huon (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the list of villages in the golan-marsad link [[13]]is also confirmed in a separate source which lists almost all the same villages [14] and a third site finds the villages in the golan-marsad document [15] which gives us no reason to doubt the truthiness of the golan-marsad document.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The list in the golan-marsad link is not written by the Arab Center for human rights but its a translated document: Appendix 1: Military Order 39, August 27 1967 from the Israeli Defence Forces.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Maps

• This Arabic map is likely to be the source of this English map cited in the article. The writing is not easy to read but perhaps it can resolve some of the strange transliterations that appear in the article. Another Arabic map showing partition into village domains is here. Zero^talk 12:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Some spellings are likely based on French spelling when France ruled Syria between the wars, using local Syrian dialect pronunciation and not standard literary Arabic pronunciation, whence (e.g.) omitted vowels. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have found a new map: Golan Heights and vicinity CREATED/PUBLISHED [Washington, D.C. : Central Intelligence Agency, 1994] http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_item.pl?data=/home/www/data/gmd/gmd7/g7462/g7462g/ct001957.jp2&style=gmd&itemLink=D?gmd:2:./temp/~ammem_fDHR::&title=Golan%20Heights%20and%20vicinity%20%3a%20October%201994 It shows several of the former Syrian villages in Golan and labels them as abandoned/dismantled. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New move discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move page. Consensus at this time supports a page move to Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict over the original proposal. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights → List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel —

• • Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves#Contested requests to restart discussion. Please keep tempers down and avoid flamage. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• There was a rfM which had no consensus for it to be moved [16] and there was a afd which the majority of the votes voted to keep the article without rename [17]{{{3}}}   Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• The name of the article is clearly controversial as can be seen from the AFD debate and the current disscussion taking place at the talk page of the article. Shlomke (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• And see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Gilbrand renaming article without consensus.. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• That discussion is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#User Gilbrand renaming article without consensus.; please do not edit there any more, as it is in a talk archive page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• This does need to be moved back to the previous status quo, if further name changes are needed, which I do believe, then it needs to happen through discussion and consensus. Unomi (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• The move can wait, until it has been 100% decided whether Israel destroyed those towns / villages. The name Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights is neutral. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

• Admin Anthony Appleyard has repeatedly changed the name of the article against consensus at the afd and this talkpage. Also here asking that it be changed to "List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel" when it stopped being a list a long time, is inappropriate. This current name was never chosen, it was forced upon the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry but there was no consensus at the Afd or this talk page for your highly POV article name. Shlomke (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is already 100% proven that Israel destroyed these villages, there are several sources (including several Israeli sources) all saying the same thing. Not one single source has been presented saying something else. The name of the article should therefor be "Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel in the Golan Heights" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• The AfD has concensus for "keep" but no apparent concensus about the article name.

  I am not fussy about the "List of ..." at the start of the suggested name.

  The mass of discussion hereinabove seems to contain several claims that something else than Israel depopulated or destroyed this or that village.

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  There was no consensus for change of the article name. As Frederico1234 said it needs to be discussed before changing the title, it was very disrespectful what you did and against wikipedia procedures. Show me one single source provided by any editor at this talkapage showing anything else then that Israel destroyed the villages, I have only found wishful thinking comments by pro-israeli editors but no evidence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  There was no consensus for the highly POV name you chose for the article. This was expressed here and in the article for deletion. It was very disrespectful of you to move the article back to a POV name and ignore the discussion and questions presented to you above. Admin Anthony Appleyard has simply moved the article back to a neutral name. Shlomke (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin Anthony Appleyard has unilaterally without consensus nor thorough discussion changed the title from the original form ("List of...") to something else. There is one and only one title "to move back to" and that's the original one. This is pure censorship. Frederico1234 (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• The title should be reverted to its original form "List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel" since no agreement was reached for a change of name. Any change thereafter needs to be discussed before changing the title. The title "Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights" is a poor one; The content implied by that title is hardly notable enough to warrant an article. Frederico1234 (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  Note: in the past six weeks, Frederico1234 has made precisely three edits, all on the subject of this article. Seems someone called him in for the AFD and then again when this name change discussion started. So I don't even think it's worth responding to his comment. See Wikipedia:MEAT#Meatpuppets. Shlomke (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

  Shlomke, noone "called me in" for the AfD. I just followed a link (as I recalled it was the list of Zero0000's recent edits). Then I added the article to my personal watch list. Frederico1234 (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• What is clear is that there are no reliable sources for the claim that all these villages have been destroyed by Israel. We have sources that say that there were plans to demolish 90 abandoned villages or that a list of 127 villages to be demolished was submitted. Most likely that happened, but the names of these villages are not documented by reliable sources, and there is a discrepancy between this list which contains 175 allegedly "destroyed" villages and the lower numbers mentioned by our reliable sources. Furthermore, the source also says that the villages were abandoned, and only subsequently demolished. That makes the choice of the label destroyed look rather arbitrary, and in fact rather misleading. Pantherskin (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• I support as neutral a title as possible, as long as the facts dont support more. how about "Syrian towns on the Golan Heights depopulated after the Six-Day War?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• I would support something like "Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict". This name, as well as the current name of the article "Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights" are neutral and NPOV without making a victim and aggressor in the name of the article. As stated in the discussions above and in the article itself, these towns were evacuated by the Syrian army or the residents fled. To put the word 'destroyed' in the article name would be misleading and not representing all facts. The creator of this article - user:Supreme deliciousness as well as others, has stated that the scope of the article is to make note of towns and villages that don't exist anymore. He has stopped responding to the discussion above (Move?) and instead moved the article to his highly POV chosen name. Shlomke (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• I support Shlomke's suggested name. It's neutral, we can easily source that that's what happened. The current title would in my opinion include the few still populated villages in the occupied Golan and, technically, even the villages in the remaining Syrian part of the Golan, neither of which are of interest here. Huon (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The suggestion of Shlomke, that the current name be retained or "Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict" be used as an alternative. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 20:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• OPPOSE DESTROY BE DESTROY. There be NO COMPROMISE on word destroy. All other word be false. Ani medjool (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How is "depopulated" false? They aren't really populated nowadays, are they? And the topic wouldn't be that much less notable if the empty buildings were still standing. Huon (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Because more than building destroy, but way of life destroy, culture destroy, community destroy. Way of life cannot be "depopulate". Culture can not be "depopulate". Ani medjool (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see how "depopulated" is false. Villages can be depopulated, and that obviously implies the end of the communities (though not necessarily the end of the former residents' culture or way of life, and Syrian culture is alive and well). Huon (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Across world each ancient or old town village etc have it own way life and culture. maybe one village grow only certain type apple, or make certain type wine. some other nearby village may make similar but not same, so each village and city still be unique. culture and way life in the destroy village also be destroy by the israelis. that why depopulate be mislead and false. Ani medjool (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems a rather unusual and over-localized definition of culture; anyway it doesn't explain why "depopulated" is false or misleading. By your definition, the "destruction of culture" should be a necessary consequence of depopulation, while on the other hand the culture could be destroyed without depopulating the villages. Thus, "depopulated" gives more information than "destroyed" if you argue "culture" and not buildings. Huon (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Shlomke's suggested name. They were not destroyed by Israel per se, but by Syria who must accept all responsibility after provocatively opening the northern front against Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Care to provide a source for that claim? How, precisely, did the Syrians force the Israelis to destroy abandoned farming villages after the ceasefire was signed? Huon (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't understand how it would be non neutral to say: "Syrian towns and villages destroyed in the Arab-Israeli conflict" when they infact were destroyed, its not a pov statement, its what happened, just like french villages that were destroyed din WW1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_villages_destroyed_in_the_First_World_War --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to comment: As already discussed several times on this talk page and sourced in the article, these villages were abandoned or evacuated and were only subsequently demolished. In the article you give as an example, those villages were destroyed by the fighting. Shlomke (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Must say destroy because all other be false information that give isreal POV. Ani medjool (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Accept: I can accept "Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict"--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate tone tag

In November the article was tagged for inappropriate tone or style. The relevant entry on the talk page seems to be here: The issues seem to be creation of a WP:POVFORK and WP:POINT violation (which aren't tone issues), weasel words and "trashing the Israelis and the Syrians". I don't see any of that in the current article. We don't use any weasel words, but rather report what our sources say. We also don't trash either the Syrians or the Israelis. Part of the latter problem may have been the article name which at the time of the tagging still included "by Israel". Unless someone can point to specific problems, I see no reason for the article to be tagged. Thus, I removed the tag. Huon (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the tone is not really the problem. But what is still a problem is the reliance of the main part of this article, the list of villages on an unreliable source (see this discussion at the reliable sources board. Thus the tag I just introduced is the appropriate one here. Pantherskin (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

At the time there was an edit war over content, and therefore the tone tag was appropriate. In my opinion this article still is being used for POV and POINT, but this has been debated and argued with to no avail. Neither side seems interested in finding a compromise, however the article is currently stable, and IMHO stablity is better than an ongoing edit war. If a couple of the editors involved here want to go around to several articles (this one included) unilaterally removing tags they disagree with or insisting the article promotes an "Israeli-POV" because it says the word "Israel" in it -- while they themselves make claims like "Hebrew is a made up language"[18] or they attack other editors by telling them to stop "playing poor me. poor jew. wolf call"[19] -- who I am to argue with them? Obviously other people editing the articles don't care, because nobody ever says anything and in turn they reward/encourage the disruptive behavior by supporting the changes that the disruptive users want to make. Sigh. I guess I'm just tired. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 22:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)