Talk:Syria

Invalid Source on Dayan Admitting to Israel Provoking Clashes

I looked up the source currently designed number 28, that being for many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel. It uses a source allegedly from the New York Times. I looked up the article title in the New York Times search, which allows for full text searches back to the 1800's. I was unable to locate the article using the title. I am inclined to remove the quote, but before I provoke an edit war I wanted to get feedback. Westeast (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"I know about it. I saw them, and I spoke to them. They didn't even try to hide their greed for that land." "Never mind that. 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." http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The text in the article is presented as being from one person - Moshe Dayan. It is therefor presented in perfect proportion to the prominence of that viewpoint. Pantherskins removal of it here claiming "UNDUE", is therefor incorrect as that WP policy has no connection to this text. Also since its from a defense minister its hardly a "fringe claim" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As the same article makes it clear this is what Moshe Dayan in an interview claimed, years after the war. It is not what historian have accepted, and in fact the article says that "Historians took a cautios approach". As such it is a fringe claim with no place in an overview article on Syria. Even worse the presentation - picking one of Moshe Dayans claims and not mentionig that historians are very sceptical of the factual accuracy - is partisan and disingenioung, suggesting that WP:NPOV was not on the mind of the original author. Pantherskin (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is nonsense. This quote is in plenty of sources. The source says "Historians have already begun to debate whether General Dayan was giving an accurate", not that they do not accept it or reject it or that it is a fringe claim. And a number of other sources have this same quote. nableezy - 15:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

So even you admit that there is zero consensus by historians and that these claims are highly dubious. Pantherskin (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont believe I said that, and I dont believe that matters. This is a significant POV that must be included per NPOV. Try reading that policy. nableezy - 13:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hardly significant POV given the dubious and fringe nature of this statement. Has no place in this overview article which should cover only the most basic facts, and not some random quotes of dubious nature. Pantherskin (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, but your opinion on what is or is not fringe does not really matter. Provide sources that dispute this and then we can talk, until that time you are simply repeatedly removing well sourced content. That is unacceptable. nableezy - 15:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Pantherskin, whether you like it or not, its a significant pov that has been "authenticated by historians and by General Dayan's daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament" as the source says. And it is presented as from Dayan. And its not "dubious and fringe nature of this statement", that's your own personal pov about this. And your personal view that it "has no place in this overview article" has no consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion obviously goes nowhere, so if you feel that it sould be included start an RFC and get input of uninvolved editors. For the meantime I have removed the content in question as it violates NPOV, which is a non-negotiable policy. Pantherskin (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And the only thing that has been authenticated is that Dayan has made this statement. And as the article makes it clear historians doubt that this statement by Dayan is a representations of the facts. Pantherskin (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Except the material does not violate NPOV. In fact the removal of a significant POV is what violated NPOV. If there is a POV that you feel is not adequetly represented you should add that, with reliable sources of course. nableezy - 07:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it does because it ignores the super-majority view (using your language) that the border flare-ups where started by Syria OR by both Syria and Israel. Instead only the fringe view that Israel is the culprit is presented. Pantherskin (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your claim of what the "super-majority view" is or that it "violates NPOV" is inaccurate and not based on reality and what the sources say. What a defense minister talks about is not a "fringe view". He is a defense minster, that alone is significant, but what Dayan talks about is also mentioned in: Robert G. Rabil (2003). Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 15-16, and is also mentioned by a former UN observer in the documentary "The Six-Day War Deceptions". You are continuing to remove sourced information from reliable sources while not bringing any source yourself. You have no support for you claim, you have nothing to back up your claims and you are continuing to edit war against the sources --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I brought an academic source that discusses Dayan's statement at length. If you have sources of good quality that express other opinions you are welcome to bring them too. Meanwhile, you have not provided adequate rationale for censoring this very famous interview. Btw, calling Moshe Dayan "fringe" is really silly. Zero^talk 08:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@SD: this quote is deemed 'signifiant' by you since it makes a point in your stand that the poor Syrians were treacherously forced to go to war by these perfid settlers or what ever you want to stress -again victimization in the Arab narrative?- but anyway Dayan was a general not a self declared or a well recognized mind reader (maybe you have RS?), he only projected his own thinking onto the kibbutzim which know what they did and why and they rejected his claim, and it is as good as what anybody else can say (=not good) that's irrelevant to what really happened, your personnal likings cannot be given in wp as historical facts, bring in some historians which will confirm that Dayan was indeed a competent mind reader -and if they say he was a good one that would be even more valuable-, pending that his opinion although attested is just a lone individual's opinion then it is nothing more than a FRINGE opinion and I support it shouldn't be included in any wp article and be given UNDUE WEIGHT, Hope&Act3! (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In the context of an overview article on Syria (not on Moshe Dayan, the Golan Height or Syrian-Israeli relations) the claims by Moshe Dayan (which are not famous by any account as most history books simply ignore this "famous" interview) are fringe and have no place in the article. Furthermore, most history books make it clear that at best both sides initiated border clashes, and not just Israel as this article tries to imply. As NPOV is non-negotiable policy I removed the section, again. If you want to advance the claim that Israel was the main culprit here, initiate an RFC and reach consensus for rewriting history on Wikipedia. Pantherskin (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on what NPOV is does not give you the right to continually remove sourced information. If you feel this is a NPOV violation I suggest you try the NPOV noticeboard. You have now reverted three different users on multiple pages attempting to remove this information. nableezy - 06:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Three users with an extensive block history, past topic-bans in the subject area due to their partisan editing. What better proof that there is indeed an NPOV violation. Stop wasting my time. Pantherskin (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

One of those users is an admin, and I have never been blocked or topic-banned for "partisan editing". Edit-warring does not require breaking the 3RR as you may find out shortly. nableezy - 07:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion here shows clearly no consensus to remove the Dayan text. Israels shelling and the text about the UN office is also sourced from a reliable source and was removed without bringing any new sources. Pantherskin is continuing to remove information he doesn't like. I gave him a reply above, and instead of answering me he started a section below with the same pov pushing he posted above, once again without bringing any sources. It is now clear Pantherskin wants to forcibly remove sourced information from the article he personally doesn't like. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't beleive that the whole quote above was ever included here. I am not against including cherry picked quotes per se, but am of the opinion that such quotes be mentioned on pages solely referring to the quote itelf, in this case, the '67 war (as that is what he said the quote in reference to) and possibly Dayan's own page. There is something worrying about reproducing this quote in, how many pages is it, 5? It's quite frankl ridiculous and speaks volumes about those pushing for its inclusion. It is not within the style of the section, as you will see in the whole history section there are no quotes, for doing so breaks the flow. The one from 2008 will in time also be merged into the text. The issue is not so much about whether this view represents a wider held view on part of the Israelis. Including infomation and context about the war here needs to be sourced from third party sources and as it includes controversial points, the text needs to provide both views of what promted the war. There is no way we an leave a one sided quote in the articel without a balancing view. So I am removing it pending an acceptable version to be posted here for approval. There are plenty of sources saying that Syria accused Israel of provocation, so lets use them. Chesdovi (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The entire quote is not in this article, only a small summary, the text has been discussed, and there is no consensus to remove it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No consensus is needed. As it is, that quote violates policy by giving a one-sided view of a controversial subject. Chesdovi (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not a quote, but a summary. Of course consensus is needed, people object to the summary's removal on good arguments. You want to ad the view of the Syrian defense minister to present the other side? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sd, did you actually read my penultimate comment? Chesdovi (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read all your comments here. Have you read mine and the people who object to the summary's removal? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not thorougly, can u summerise them here? Chesdovi (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Several people object to its removal because there is no consensus to remove it. Its notable text from a notable person, no good reason has been given for its removal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So you did not read my comment then. Oh, its no use....Lets add every single thing ever said by a notable person about Syria. SD, you're first. Chesdovi (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I did read it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, why did you ad the "needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications." and "may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." tags? NYT is a reliable third-party publication, and what exactly in the section do not represent a worldwide view of the subject? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The quote that is redundant to what is already in the text, see also the previous discussion at the NPOV noticeboard and the comment by the only uninvolved editor who said that this level of detail is not called for in a general overview article. In any case, the substance of the quote - according to how it is seeen by mainstream historians is that the status of the DMZ was seen differently by Syria and Israel, and that is already discussed in the article. With at least three editors opposing the inclusion of the quote it does not appear that there is a consensus for its inclusion anyway. Pantherskin (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the text from an Israeli military main that says that Israel provoked Syria, so its not redundant. There has not been any discussion at the NPOV noticeboard showing that a summary of what Dayan said doesn't belong here. There is no mainstream sources that say that anything Dayan said is false, we have already discussed this before. There are at least three editors opposing the removal of the summary, yet you still removed it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You, yourself participated in this discussion at the NPOV noticeboard.

The source that establishes the quote also says "Historians took a cautious approach, noting that the conversations had not been a formal interview."; "Bruce Maddy-Weitzman, a senior researcher at the Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies in Tel Aviv, said he was troubled that the published conversations could overshadow other factors in the decision to strike Syria.", "He didn't intend to give a full, rounded interview, said Shabtai Teveth, a biographer of Dayan. Here he singles out the kibbutzim, which is not a very balanced picture". See also this interview with the historian Michael Oren, [1]. What means that this quote at best only gives a partial picture, and at worst is misleading. There is nothing inn

Quote from the text, "Israel was accussed by Syria of cultivating lands in the Demilitarized Zone, using armored tractors backed by Israel forces. Syria claimed that the situation was the result of an Israeli aim to increase tension so as to justify large-scale aggression, and to expand its occupation of the Demilitarized Zone by liquidating the rights of Arab cultivators" - this is exactly the substance of the quote - there were different interpretations of the terms for the DMZ, and Israeli cultivation of the land of the DMZ was seen as a provocation by the Syrians. That is what we know as a fact. Whether the Israelis provoked the Syrians on purpose we do not know, as is clear from academic sources.

There are at last two, possibly three different editors opposing the inclusion of the quote. What means that there is clearly no consensus. Pantherskin (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything that the conversations had not been a formal interview, it doesn't mean that historians see what he said as false. His biographers view is not what the quote is about, but Moshe Dayans view. The text you added removes Moshe dayan saying that Israel provoked Syria, Syria accusing Israel means absolutely nothing. There are at least three editors opposing the removal of the summary, so there is no consensus to remove it, and consensus is not based on votes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Can you make at least an attempt to answer my conerns? All you are saying is this quote can be verified, thus we should include it whether Moshe Dayan said the truth or not. Pantherskin (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is sourced information about things Syria did then that can also be added to the article, this is not a reason to remove the summary where an Israeli general admits that Israel provoked clashes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

He did not admit, he claimed that Israeli provoked clashes. And you are still basically saying the same - because we can source it it should be included, regardless of its merits. Pantherskin (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources that have the Dayan quote: [2][3][4]

Sources talking about that Israel provoked clashes: [5][6][7] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This does not mater how many sources are talking about this. They all used the same original. Many more sources have it exactly the opposite :Syrians harassed and murdered Israeli farmers. NY Times source claims that Dayan's daughter confirmed the interview. How she could have known? Was she present there? IMO it is an absolute absurd. This fact alone casts a shadow of a doubt on the claim. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What source shows that what Dayan said is incorrect? Several of the sources above have nothing to do with the Dayan quote.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, this is a brilliant example for how one should not write an article. Ignoring the fact that most the sources you present a partisan, you seem to look only for sources that discuss Dayan's quote (as the google search words show). But by predeterming that your sources will discuss Dayan you will not be able show whether Dayan's quote has importance or not. Pantherskin (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As I brought up before, the "cautious approach" the NYT article speaks of is his biographer Shabati Tveteh claiming he is singling out kibbutzim. And "Bruce Maddy-Weitzman, a senior researcher at the Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies in Tel Aviv, said he was troubled that the published conversations could overshadow other factors in the decision to strike Syria." You said "zero consensus by historians and that these claims are highly dubious." looking at what these two people above said, there is absolutely nothing that says what you said about the source, and nothing of what they say even comes close to disputing anything of what he said. So if you feel the same as Bruce Maddy-Weitzman and Shabati Tveteh, you can ad the other factors. The fact of the matter that some of Dayans comments was brought up in this source: The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations by Sean F. McMahon (Oct 7, 2009), and there is no "highly dubious" believes there either about what he said. So if it can be published by Routledge, it can be at Wikipedia. This source: How Israel was won: a concise history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, also brings up the Dayan quote, it even says that the security was the "alleged" reason for Israels military action in Syria, and Dayans comments are presented as from him without any dubious claims that it wasn't accurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk about Deja Vue. Why I agreed to have part of the Dayan quote at Golan Heights is because it has at least a remote, well not that remote, connection to that subject matter. Why is such a specific quote deserved here? The whole matter can be summed up nicly, (and is already) without the need of Dayan's purported view on the matter. Per QUOTE, I really don't think it is necessary here either (it seems to be being pushed into each possible page, thats why I suggested adding it to the Syrian Air Force - do you get it?!):

• A quote should not be used "where it presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. It can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."
• "A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved."
  • The subject of Israeli provocation is already covered.
  • This is not an essay about the subject, the quotes in this section make it look like one. It makes the text not flow well. Take a look at the history section of Aleppo. Any quotes? It just seems out of sink. Quotes can be used, but that does not mean anywhere and everywhere.
  • Adding such a controversial quote, at the least leaving it uncountered, is giving this section non-neutral treatment.
  • If need be, this could always be added to the footnotes.

I don't care so much as to whether using such a quote is valid. What really matters is that it doesn't fit here. It's too specific in a more general synopsis, leaving the whole section wonkey. Leave it in full at Moshe Dayan and be done with it. Chesdovi (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

QUOTE, is an essay, not a policy. The subject of Israeli provocation is not covered, its presented as a claim from Syria. Its not a controversial quote, there isn't one single source that disputes it. We only have other sources confirming it and sources bringing it up without calling it "dubious" and other things. Leaving it out and presenting the section as you and Pantherskin did is giving the section non neutral treatment. You also did not reply to my above post. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• ”QUOTE, is an essay, not a policy.”

Why do you rely on Zero’s reasoning here saying it’s not policy, while taking me to account at AE for violation WP:TALK, WP:GAME and WP:DISRUPTPOINT which are also a guidelines? You can’t have it both ways.

• ”The subject of Israeli provocation is not covered, its presented as a claim from Syria.”

If its not covered sufficiently, we can expand it, without unnecessary quotes, against guidelines.

• ”Its not a controversial quote.”

I think all discussion about this quote at numerous talk page dispels that.

• ”There isn't one single source that disputes it.”

There doesn’t need to be. I am not claiming its “dubious.”

• ”Leaving it out and presenting the section as you and Pantherskin did is giving the section non neutral treatment.”

I do not understand this. Leaving out a contentious quote is making the section POV? Chesdovi (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Game is not an essay, its a policy, Quote is an essay. As I said, the summary of the quote is not against any guideline and just because some Wikipedia editors makes it controversial at Wikipedia doesn't mean its controversial. The fact of the matter is that the quote of what Dayan said wasn't even present in the article, "many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for their farmland." This is not a quote from Dayan, but from the journalist who wrote the NYT article. I have no problem with copy editing this, but leaving out that Israel provoked Syria and adding information from the Israeli ambassador to the US is pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Oren is a historian and scholar, a highly reliable source as are the other historians who doubt the historical accuracy of what Dayan said. The sources you have presented so far only show that these authors decide to attribute the claim that Israel delibaterly provoked the Syrians to Dayan, as evidently this is not a historical fact. Pantherskin (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Oren is the Israeli ambassador to the US, whatever he says must be attributed to him. This is getting old, you have not shown one single source showing that one single historian doubt the historical accuracy of what Dayan said. Of course sources bring up that it was Dayan that said these words, it makes it even more reliable and an accurate description of what happened. The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations also says on p 43, "In fact, in 1967 Israel provoked a war of choice with Syria, Jordan and Egypt." - this is not attributed to Dayan or anyone. Also the other sources I brought forward unrelated to the Dayan quote, the UN observer and the article by Sheldon L. Richman shows what happened in the conflict. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out SD, I forgot that QUOTE was an essay, not guidline. Anyhow, by eliminating this quote, we do not, I repeat, do not, leave out the claim that Israeli tractors provoked Syria. Chesdovi (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Both the historians quoted in the NYT article and Michael Oren in the interview cast doubts about the historical accuracy of what Dayan said. That you come here and say that "[I] have not shown one single source" is really puzzling given that I have mentioned them more than once. They specifically discuss that Dayan might have many motivations for re-inventing history, given that he was toying with ideas for his memoirs, given that there was an election campaign going on, given his opposition to the kibbuzim. That makes him quite unreliable, and it thus no surprise that most overviews of this time period in Syrian-Israeli relations ignore Dayan's quote or put it into context. Of course the fact that you found the sentence "In fact, in 1967 Israel provoked a war of choice with Syria, Jordan and Egypt" by googling the sentence "israel provoked syria" does not change this.

Maybe you have a suggestion for how to rewrite this section - could I ask you to do this and post it on the talk page for further discussions? Or alternatively, can you propose a set of books that give an overview of this time period and that we can use as sources, and that allows us to establish the relative importance of different events? As you might have noticed the version that I used to replace this quote was a compromise as I included the Syrian claims that these were provocations, despite these claims being ignored by most of the literature. Pantherskin (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already replied above about Shabati Tveteh and Bruce Maddy-Weitzman and what they said. And they do not "cast doubts about the historical accuracy of what Dayan said". I have read what the Israeli ambassador to the United States said and he even said "There is an element of truth to Dayan's claim, but"... and then brings up other things, but non of it contradicts what Dayan said or casts doubts about that what he said isn't accurate. Look, neither of us are gonna change our minds about this. So were at a standstill. I suggested a Dayan sentence below in the section Chesdovi opened, and I also provided texts from different sources about what happened in this conflict. If you don't accept it you can request mediation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"The first three months of 1967 were marked by repeated Syrian artillery bombardments and cross-border raids on the Israeli settlements in the north. Israeli air raids against Syrian positions on the Golan Heights would result in a few weeks' quiet, but then the attacks would begin again. On 7 April 1967 Syrian mortars on the Golan Heights began a barrage of fire on kibbutz Gadot, on the Israeli side of the B'not Yaakov bridge. More than 200 shells were fired before Israeli tanks moved into positions from which they could reach the Syrian mortars." - you can now remove the tag. Pantherskin (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This entire thread is in TLDR territory already so forgive me for repeating something that was said already. Using the Dayan quote from the NYT would be misleading because the Times article itself makes clear that Dayan's version is not the accepted narrative of historians. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree it should be removed.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The only reason why you two (Mbz1, Brewcrewer) are here is because of the enforcement. And now you are here just repeating what Pantherskin is saying, basically cheering him on. Consensus is not based on votes.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

so then what exactly is consensus based on? i always thought it was based on the opinions of editors.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is based on the arguments. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The argument is why are there no quotes attributed to Sami al-Hinnawi, Gamal Abdal Nasser, Shukri al-Quwatli, Adib Shishakli, Abd al-Karim al-Nahlawi, Amin Hafiz, Hafez al-Assad, Rafik Hariri, Kamal Jumblat and Bachir Gemayel? All major Syrian players in the history of Syria. Why are there 5-6 lines of a unoffical quote by an Israeli minister here? This section does not need to delve so deeply or give such prominance to this. Surely this is understandable? There are no quotes in the whole history section, save the last line. As this is to do with the topic of Syria in general, its history should be summerised breifly, and quotes do not generally belong. Save them for more relevant pages. Chesdovi (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not a quote, but a summary of a quote, and I suggested a one sentence summary below. There are also quotes in the article by Philip Hitti, Andrea Parrout, Hanadi Al-Samman, Mohja Kahf and one Ummayad chieftain. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What sparked the six-day war?

I am shocked to see the fantastic debate in this section and I must say that this article's claim that "Israel launched a preemptive strike on Egypt to begin the June 1967 war" gives a false impression that Israel started the six-day war. We know what happened, there has been release of information since then and there have been competent accounts by NON-Israelis and NON-Arabs. As the wikipedia article on the six-day war shows: the Soviet Union sparked war in 1967 between Israel and the Arab states by falsely informing Syria and Egypt that Israel was massing troops on the Syrian border. This happened during the cold war when the Arab countries were "proxies" of the Soviet Union and Israel could be viewed as a "proxy" of the United States (though some like myself will deny that to be the case at that time - the six-day was actually a "hinge" in the relationship between the USA and Israel). In this game of proxy war, the Soviets wanted to inflict a defeat of the United States but they underestimated the Israelis and the whole plan backfired. Sorry but claiming the Israelis started the six-day war goes against the facts and known history.

Geography section

There was too many pictures in the geography section, so I removed this one [8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are the Syrians (ethnic)?

First of all, Aram is equivalent to Syria; Syria is what the Greeks called Aram The Syrians are the Arameans themselves. It was the Arameans who were called Syrians.

Poseidonios from Apamea (ca. 135 BC - 51 BC), was a Greek Stoic philosopher, politician, astronomer, geographer, historian, and teacher. "The people we Greek call Syriacs, they call themselves Arameans".

(See J.G. Kidd, Posidonius (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 1988), vol. 2, pt. 2, pp . 955-956)

Strabo (born 63 BC or 64 BC, died ca. 24 AD), a Greek historian, geographer and philosopher is mostly famous for his

"Poseidonius conjectures that the names of these nations also are akin; for, says he, the people whom we call Syriacs are by the Syriacs themselves called Arameans."

(The Geography of Strabo, translated by Horace Leonard Jones and published in Vol. I of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1917, Book I, Chapt. 2, 34)

Flavius Josephus (c. 37 – c. 100 AD (or CE)) was a 1st century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and later settled in Rome.

"Aram had the Arameans, which the Greeks called Syriacs."

(Antiquities of the Jews, translated by William Whiston in 1737, Book I, Chapt. 6)

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275 – May 30, 339), was a bishop of Caesarea in Palestine and is often referred to as the father of

church history because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church.

"and from Aram the Arameans, which are also called Syriacs"

(Sebastian Brock, "Eusebius and Syriac Christianity," in Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata, eds., Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (Leiden 1992), p. 226)

Patriarch Aphrem Barsaum born on June 15, 1887, in Mossul [Iraq] and passed away on June 23, 1957 in Homs [Syria] devoted much of his time to writing and published many works. "The Syriac community was known from its beginning as the Aramean community"

http://www.aramaic-dem.org/English/History/Evidences_of_our_Aramean_origin/Evidences_of_our_Aramean_origin.htm http://www.goodnewsmedia.com/syria.htm http://kukis.org/Doctrines/Aram.htm http://www.historyofthedaughters.com/6.pdf http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-4-2005-76063.asp http://leb.net/~farras/aram.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.203.15 (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually all mentions of Syriac people in this article are consistent with what you've written. And I think the best place for your discussion would the article of Syriac people. -- Orionist ★ talk 15:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hama bloodbath was legal?

I was looking for quotes about the Hama massacre, but found out that no international outcry was heard after the Syrian massacres. The United Nations did not condemn Syria's actions, no investigations were called for, and no Arab leaders came forward to condemn Assad's actions. Doh! Chesdovi (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Hama page notes western leaders reacted, but there are no citations? Chesdovi (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed integration of Dayan quote

Original

Conflicts also arose over different interpretations of the legal status of the Demilitarized Zone. Israel maintained that it had sovereign rights over the zone, allowing the civilian use of farmland. Syria and the UN maintained that no party had sovereign rights over the zone.[31] Israel was accussed by Syria of cultivating lands in the Demilitarized Zone, using armored tractors backed by Israel forces. Syria claimed that the situation was the result of an Israeli aim to increase tension so as to justify large-scale aggression, and to expand its occupation of the Demilitarized Zone by liquidating the rights of Arab cultivators.[32]

The New York Times reported in 1997 that "Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, a Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan…[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for their farmland." When asked if Israeli farmers were only after the land, Dayan said: "I'm not saying that. 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

Proposed

Conflicts also arose over different interpretations of the legal status of the Demilitarized Zone. Israel maintained that it had sovereign rights over the zone, allowing the civilian use of farmland. Syria and the UN maintained that no party had sovereign rights over the zone. Israel was accussed by Syria of cultivating lands in the Demilitarized Zone, using armored tractors backed by Israel forces, a claim allegedly supported by Moshe Dayan. Syria claimed that the situation was the result of an Israeli aim to increase tension so as to justify large-scale aggression, and to expand its occupation of the Demilitarized Zone by liquidating the rights of Arab cultivators.

It is wholly inappropriate to have this quote in this section or page. Chesdovi (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Worldview must come before the extreme minority view, "The UN and Syria maintained that no party..." must be before that "Israel maintained..."

• I want to see the quote from the book that says: "Syrian artillery repeatedly bombed Israeli civilian communities from positions on the Golan Heights"

• Chesdovi, "a claim allegedly supported by Moshe Dayan.", is not presenting it correctly, firstly its not a "claim" that Moshe Dayan said so, so I don't know where you got that from, and what he said is that Israel provoked Syria, this is not what Dayan "supported" in your suggestion.

• The Dayan text should be, "The Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan said in a 1976 interview that Israel provoked more then 80% of the clashes with Syria.", The quote that Mbz1 added: "When asked if Israeli farmers were..." gives undue weight considering what the main part of the text is about unless the entire Dayan quote is added. The quote Mbz1 added is also only part of it, she did not ad the text right after which is a part of the same context: "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."

• This should also be added: A former UN observer responding to the claim that Syria shelled Israel from the Golan Heights before the Six Day War said: "Frankly I believe this is a case of falsification of history. Last century's largest chapter of falsification of history." "An absolute lie." The former UN observer later recalled how Israel provoked Syria with tractors in the demilitarized zone.

• Information from these two sources should be added: The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations says on p 43, "In fact, in 1967 Israel provoked a war of choice with Syria, Jordan and Egypt."

Sheldon L. Richman said in 1991[9]:

"Just as one is apt to get a distorted view of a movie plot if one walks in after the show has started, so one is bound to misconstrue events involving the Golan Heights if one looks no further than the standard version of this story. Yes, there was shelling from the Heights. But an important question is, what preceded the shelling? The answer is: much. We have to go back to the aftermath of the 1948 war between the new state of Israel and the Arab countries. In that war, fighting occurred between Israel and Syria along their border. Although the Israeli side of the border was part of the land allocated to the Zionists by the 1947 UN partition resolution, it contained fertile farmland and villages long occupied by Palestinians. Syria occupied a small part of this land during the war, but withdrew under an armistice agreement, which also required the demilitarization of the territory by both sides. Under the agreement, the Jewish and Arab villages were to coexist, protected by police forces drawn from their respective communities. The armistice agreement was to be temporary, pending a peace treaty. Syrian President Hosni Zaim offered a full peace agreement in return for concessions on Palestinian land, but Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion turned him down. Instead of negotiating for peace, Israel declared sovereignty over the demilitarized zone. To carry this out, it violated the prohibitions on having military forces and fortifications in the zone by disguising soldiers as police. It also aggressively developed the area, draining water from Arab farms, leveling Arab villages, driving out residents, building roads and transplanting trees in order to move the frontier eastward to the old Palestine border. Israel refused to let the protests of the UN observers stand in the way. Swedish General Carl von Horn, of the UN peacekeeping forces, observed that "gradually, beneath the glowering eyes of the Syrians, who held the high ground overlooking Zion, the area had become a network of Israeli canals and irrigation channels edging up against and always encroaching on Arab-owned property." This policy continued well into the 1950s. Most of the 2,000 Arabs living in the zone had been forced out by 1956. Many moved to the sloping land below the Golan Heights. In response to the expulsion of Arabs from the zone, the otherwise helpless Syrian forces on the Heights began firing on Israelis, particularly when, each year, their tractors plowed further into the demilitarized zone. General von Horn was convinced the instances of firing would not have occurred without the specific Israeli provocations." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should first try to find some reliable, scholarly sources that support the claim that Israel provoked Syria. All you present is one partisan source (the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs), a youtube video, and a source that simply says "In fact, in 1967 Israel provoked a war of choice with Syria, Jordan and Egypt." (by googling Israel provoked Syria - did you also google Syria provoked Israel?). It should also be noted that I presented already a number of books that give an overview of this period, and none of them emphasize or even mention the Dayan quote. It is actually instructive to look at the Britannica article on Syria and the Golan Heights - they only mention Syrian shellings of Israeli settlements, and nothing more. Given that there is no consensus for an inclusion of the quote or the controversial claims that Israeli farming of the zone was intended to be a provocation you could start an RFC. Pantherskin (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have found reliable sources: Moshed Dayan, UN observer that was there, Research Fellow Sheldon L. Richman, Post-Doctoral Fellow Sean F. McMahon. Given that there is no consensus for excluding the summary, you cold request mediation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Dayan quote again due to both the consensus here and at that the Golan Heights article. I was also forced to remove it because SD removed the context from the quote.[10]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

But there is no consensus to remove the dayan summary either here or at the Golan Heights article, this means that in contradiction to what you just said, your removal of it was incorrect and not based on any consensus here at the talkpage. I explained this edit [11] above: "The quote that Mbz1 added: "When asked if Israeli farmers were..." gives undue weight considering what the main part of the text is about unless the entire Dayan quote is added. The quote Mbz1 added is also only part of it, she did not ad the text right after which is a part of the same context: "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.", she cherry picked a part of the quote that had little significance to the article, and gave it undue weight compared to the rest of the summary in the article. This means that after reverting me at the Golan heights article without looking at my explanation, you have once again done the same here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There clearly is not a consensus for adding it to the article and the WP:BURDEN has not been met. As a matter of fact it appears that you are the sole editor advocating for its inclusion. More troublesome is that you want that exact quote added, but anything else in the same article that presents Syria in a somewhat bad light gets deleted because of "undue."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not based on votes and there were several people who objected to the removal of the summary above. And the burden has been met, New York Times is a reliable source. No I do not want the exact quote added, I want a summary of it in the article, and I have also provided a once single sentence summary above as a suggestion, and no one has commented on it. What you are saying is incorrect as I have already explained above. The main part of what the text is about is that Israel provoked Syria, the summary in the NYT article is: "many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland."... so how is it due weight to cherry pick a part of the quote as Mbz1 did: "When asked if Israeli farmers were only after the land, Dayan said: "I'm not saying that. 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. ", without adding the sentence before and after: "General Dayan said in his conversations with Mr. Tal that the kibbutz leaders who had urgently demanded that Israel take the Golan Heights had done so largely for the land. The kibbutzim there saw land that was good for agriculture, he said. And you must remember, this was a time in which agricultural land was considered the most important and valuable thing." and: "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.", and considering the NYT summary: "did so less for security than for the farmland." how is it due weight to present it in the say Mbz1 did? As I said above the part of the quote Mbz1 added can be included if the entire quote is added to the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

you lost me at "Consensus is not based on votes." What is it based on, in your opinion?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Has been replied to above:[12], I have explained in details the undue weight of presenting it as Mbz1 did, you have not shown any consensus for its removal. I have above proposed a once single sentence as suggestion without any comment about it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

we really have to clear up one thing before we move on. please explain clearly how you think a consensus is determined if not by the...uh.... consensus of editors?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is based on the weight of the arguments. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be condescending or offensive, but you apparently do not know the dictionary definition of "consensus." I don't understand how you were able to edit Wikipedia until now. Please see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus and then Wikipedia:Consensus. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:Consensus: "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised.", the arguments.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a second here, let's call a spade a spade over here. I once tried to move the title of an article and I was told by other editors that 16 (in favor of moving) vs 9 is not a consensus; therefore I don't see how 3 vs. 2 is a consensus.George Al-Shami (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As consensus is based on the weight of the arguments, and as Supreme Delicousness has not addressed the concerns expressed here about the factuality of the quote, and more important about the importance of the quote in this general overview article (given the fact that most sources simply ignore this quote, and emphasize the Syrian shellings) consensus is to exclude it. Would be good if these concerns can be addressed by those who think that the quote is important and that they will discuss them here on the talk page. Pantherskin (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have addressed your concerns here about the factuality of the quote, read my comments above. You say there is consensus to remove it, four other people say there isn't, as I told you, request mediation if you want. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"I have addressed your concerns here about the factuality of the quote", thanks, what means that you have not addressed any concerns, because no one was claiming that Moshe Dayan did not say this. And why do you suddely decide consensus on a headcount, just a bit more above you claimed that consensus is based on the strength of arguments. Pantherskin (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No I mean the factualty of what he said has been addressed. I never said consensus is on headcount, but since you edit war to remove sourced information when you have no consensus on the arguments, then you maybe thought consensus was based on votes, so I just wanted to make you aware that if one would count votes, you couldn't remove it either. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Above I suggested a sentence summary of the Dayan quote, as no one commented on it, I have added it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidently you have not addressed any concerns, as the opposition to the inclusion of the quote here shows. That you continue to ignore this consensus and edit-war over the inclusion of your quote, only shows that a block of your account is the only viable solution. Pantherskin (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because there are peoples that want to exclude a quote doesn't mean that that is what the consensus is, Shuki and Jijutsuguy for example both had opposition to the legality sentence on the Israeli settlement articles, this doesn't mean that there wasn't consensus for its inclusion. All there concerns were addressed and they still kept saying "no consensus" .. as I said, if that's what you believe why haven't you asked for mediation? And I haven't added the quote, I suggested a summary of it above, no one replied, so I added it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add another source for Dayan quote, from Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict book by Norman G. Finkelstein, which describes it as "staged provocation" that sparked April 1967 aerial battle:

I know how at least 80 percents of the incident there started. In my opinion more than 80 percent, but let's speak about 80 percent. It would go like this: we would send a tractor to plow ... in the demilitarized area. And we would know ahead of time that Syrians would start shooting.

— Moshe Dayan, In an interview

Mark A. Tessler adds in his A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict book:

The final act of the prewar drama opened on April 7. Another conflict over the cultivation of disputed lands in the Israeli-Syrian demilitarized zone led to a major engagement between Jerusalem and Damascus. Following an exchange of fire between forces on the ground, Israel and Syria both sent planes into the air...

— Mark A. Tessler, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, page 382

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, concerning your latest edits, there are several problems with them, 1. The quote you added is only part of it and does not correctly show the provocation. I suggested a one sentence above that summarized it without adding long quotes, and you just removed it without any discussion. 2. You added information about Syria supporting Palestinian attacks, but there is already a sentence about that, so its just a repeat. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel that direct quote is more appropriate, SD. Provocation though is also easily sourced, and could be attributed to Norman G. Finkelstein, see above. I was glad that Mark A. Tessler agrees with NGF on April 7 incident interpretation, cross-referenced data is valuable, that's why I have added it, as a matter of fact. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't directly quote what Dayan said correctly, there are things missing. And you didn't address the Palestinian attacks sentence you added.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh? I feel the quote demonstrates the core intention to spark shootings, the words are talking for themselves. What do you think is missing? Feel free to use NGF ref to expand, though we have to keep in mind that this section is not only about Dayan. Could you publish the diff you're referring to (Palestinian attacks), for clarity? I'd be glad to discuss it mañana, I am afraid I'm going to fall asleep really soon. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And still the concern that the vast majority of sources completely ignore this alleged Israeli provocations has not been adressed. This is a general overview article, what means that we have to follow the sources and give prominence to opinions and facts according to their prominence in the sources. The problem that the motivations of Dayan and the factual accuracy of what he said are disputed by reputable historians also needs to be addressed, we cannot include quotes if we know that there are problems with them. Pantherskin (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything you said has already been responded to above. I have not added a quote but a one single sentence summary of it as suggested above where I received no reply. If you have further problems with this, request mediation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Attribution

I re added the attribution to Michael Oren. As its removal is both unagreed and undiscussed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be good if you would actually stop your disruptive and pointy editing. Pantherskin (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What disruptive and pointy editing? I added an appropriate attribution and you removed it without any discussion or agreement calling it "disruptive" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because you "appropriate attribution" is disruptive and dishonest? Or do you really want to tell us that we attribute historical facts that can be found in countless sources, are not even denied by Syria or anyone, are sourced to an acclaimed study written by an accomplished scholar. And you come here and attribute this claim to Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador, leaving out that Michael Oren is a historian, and that the book was written in his capacity as a historian, long before he became Israeli ambassador. Given these facts your edit is only one thing, disruptive and dishonest. Pantherskin (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any other source that say that Syria sponsored Palestinian attacks in those years. I have no problem with also describing him as a historian, but that he also became the Israeli ambassador to the United States is notable information so peoples can see where its coming from. The same way I attributed that Israel provoked Syria was from the Israeli defense minister Moshe Dyan, so peoples can see where its coming from. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with PS. Attributing an accepted fact to the "Israeli Ambassador" is misleading if not disruptive.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have other sources saying that Syria sponsored Palestinian attacks in those years? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit brought this source that goes through what happened and what Oren says: [13] see for example p 186, 187, 133, 134.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Finkelstein publishing with the largest "radical publisher in the English-language world". Why are all sources you present borderline? Maybe this hints already at that these controversial claims are not accepted by mainstream scholars? And yes, they are other sources for that Syria sponsored Palestinian attacks in those years (Hint: Even Syria did not deny that these attacks originated from their country). But I am not going to play your game and look them up for you, because they are already sourced and because it would be a good practice for you to actually find source for claims that you do not like. That is called NPOV editing, and it is time that you learn how to do it. Pantherskin (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

They are not borderline, I have shown you several scholars, researchers, UN personal, Israeli defense minister, UN observer, and with this new book, a political scientist, professor, and head of the Israeli military intelligence Aharon Yariv, and a chief of UN staff. It seems as you are saying "no" to everything not in accordance with a specific pov. If you have problems with all these sources request mediation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Syrian support for the Palestinian attacks were also reported elsewhere, but it was cherry picked, it didn't say why Syria supported the Palestinian attacks, which is important to note. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not important as this article is not the place to give an overview of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It's an article about Syria, and it only needs to give an overview of the Syrian history. Giving weight to different events in the same way reliable, high-quality sources give weight to different events. What - with the instructive example of Britannica I referenced above - means that the only worth mentioning are the Syrian shellings of Israeli communities. We probably don't need to be as brief as Britannica, but that is a useful benchmark when it comes to implementing NPOV. Digging out obscure events, that are mentioned only in one or a handful of sources is not really helpful - it rather indicates that we should not indicate these kinds of events that most sources do not mention. Pantherskin (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Why were the dayan quotes removed? You mention pov sources stating that Syria began the aggression towards Israel, however a propely sourced quote that debunks that myth is not considered relevant to the Syria article. My goodness!!, wow. Pantherskin I don't believe you are capable of contributing neutrally to this article or other Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles; I suggest you stick to editing articles on synagogues and other non-political articles. Finkelstein, is radical?; my friend that is your opinion. Finkelstein has been publishing since the mid 1980's, where as Micheal oren is the current US ambassador to Israel; the majority of sensible people would say the former is way more scholarly than the latter ambassador to Israel. If you plan to keep the oren sources, than you have no legitimacy in removing properly sources quotes from both Israelis and non-Israelis, which debunk your excessive pov.George Al-Shami (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

I have added info per Ghada Hashem Talhami book, available online, pages 64-65. See diff for clarity. Current version of article does not include this info for some reason. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This has already been explained, Syrian support for Palestinians are already noted in the section. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Where, could you bring a section quote? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Before I removed the cherry picking and added background info: "Syria sponsored Palestinian raids into Israel" after: "Palestinian refugees were denied the right of return or compensation, and because of this they started raids on Israel. The Syrian government supported the Palestinian attacks, because of Israel taking over more land in the DMZ" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I see now that you mean. Oren and Talhami might cover the similar content, though Talhami does not say "sponsored", on the contrary. The ref expand about events of 1963, focusing on leaders roles, please read pages 64-66 of the ref, this info is missing now. If you feel that those two refs might need colliding/summarizing please do so, in this case probably attribution is not needed. Alternatively we could attribute info provided by Talhami. However please do not remove what you define as relevant ref, that might be used by other editors later. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agada, the majority of it has nothing to do with the six day war and the sentence that has something to do with the six day war is obsolete. The info about: "Hafez al-Assad without knowledge if his military superiors, apparently, was involved in smuggling weapons for El-Fatah" has nothing to do with the Six day war, it doesn't belong here, maybe the Hafez al Assad article. This: "Yaser Arafat said that Syria was very supportive of El-Fatah, his relationship with ruling party was strong." has nothing to do with the Six day war, and the last sentence about: "Syria was the only Arab country to tolerate attacks from its territory." does not explain that it was Palestinian attacks and that is already covered in the texts after. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ghada Hashem Talhami put the content in context of the war. Please read the book. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead section: spelling

Why is the Hebrew spelling of Syria the first item within the parentheses in the first sentence?  Cs32en Talk to me  20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess this 'y'/'ū' duality is interesting and reliable, and might involve ancient Greeks, that would not make this information significant for an item within the parentheses in the first sentence in this article though. On the side note, without missing an opportunity to be pedantic, unlike many other articles, this one is relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)