Jump to content

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

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


Untitled

[edit]
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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Requested move

[edit]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

*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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)#[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? Zerotalk 01:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand tampering with the article

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

See also

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

Depopulated before the 1967 war?

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Nuclear reactor

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Israeli destruction of the villages and depopulation

[edit]

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)[reply]

Alphabetical sorting

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

Destroyed by Syria?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

380 villages destroyed by Ottoman Syrian Druze?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Village locater

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Cause of destruction, size of list

[edit]

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. Zerotalk 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
As far as I can see, it is only available by paid subscription. Send me email. Zerotalk 12:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Zerotalk 21:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Tlaas statement

[edit]

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)[reply]

Removal that Israel destroyed the villages

[edit]

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)[reply]

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. Zerotalk 13:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Move?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clashes

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please let us remove

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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?

[edit]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Murray-Gannon source

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maps

[edit]
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)[reply]

New move discussion

[edit]
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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I have added several reliable maps to the external link section that back up many of the villages in the list.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? The section is still based on an unreliable source, and not on the maps which shows only a small number of the villages in the list (and does not say anything about whether these villages were depopulated in the conflict or for other reasons...) Pantherskin (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pantherskin the list at the bottom of the "Murphy, R.; Gannon" document is a translated list from a military order no,39 from the IDF, how is that not reliable?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The order could be faked (unlikely), and the list definitely was edited by the NGO. I tried asking for an official copy (or better yet, an official translation) of that order, but the local Israeli embassy just replied that they'd forward my request to their military department, and nothing was ever heard from them again. I also tried to ask the IDF directly, but they didn't reply at all. Maybe one of our Israeli editors could try to dig up an official copy of that order? Huon (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is translated, the order and list, but that doesn't mean it is unreliable, the original source is the Israeli Defence Forces, and unless someone can prove it is incorrect it shouldn't be tagged. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how it works. I can tell you how it works: Anything that is not sourced from a reliable source should be removed. I assume that you are working on finding reliable sources, but if this is the only source the list cannot stay in the article forever. Furthermore, even if we assume that original source is correctly cited it does not support the claims of the article as the IDF list is a list of villages that have been declared as closed areas. With the intent to demolish, but nothing from this order indicates whether all, some or no villages were actually demolished. Of course we can make assumption such as that all villages declared as closed areas were depopulated, or were demolished or destroyed later, but these are just that, our assumptions. Pantherskin (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list is sourced from IDF, the only thing marsad has done is to translate the military order. And its not the only source, there are also four maps in the external link section with many names of pre-1967 villages. The CIA map labels them as abandoned/dismantled and the jawlan.org map labels them as destroyed villages. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is the list sourced from IDF? Where, when and how did the IDF publish it? Where can I read an official IDF copy of the list? It's not as if I didn't try to obtain one. But the only of those questions for which we have an approximate answer is the "when", and our only source for that is the order itself. In theory, al-Marsad could have invented the order wholesale, and right now we can't confirm they didn't (I don't think they did, but that's not the point). Even worse, our list currently contains over 160 names although reliable sources state that significantly less villages existed in that area before the Six-Day War. So some of that information must be wrong - probably some farms made the list and now are wrongly called "villages", some entries are duplicates, some might be completely bogus. The two villages Chesdovi added probably never were in the Israeli-occupied part, further confusing the issue. By the way, I don't think the Jawlan map counts as a reliable source by any standard. Huon (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IDF commander military order from August 27 1967. This English translation is the only one I have found, we can not assume bad faith that his list is made up, nothing in this source has been proven false, I have found several reliable maps that back up many of the villages in the list. The "Politicide: Ariel Sharon's war against the Palestinians" sources says 130 villages demolished, the Aron Sha source mentions 127 villages for demolition.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it just our assumption that these villages were depopulated? If we could find a reliable source for this order, we'd know that these villages existed before the war, and that no inhabitants remained after the war. We have explicit sources for the still-populated areas in the Israeli-occupied Golan, we have sources saying that anything but those areas was depopulated. All we need is a reliable source for the pre-war villages. This isn't even WP:SYN. On the other hand, I don't quite see the use of a list of village names with no additional information, even if we had the best of sources for that list. Huon (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I shouldn't think that those kinds of insults would be permitted in WP.? Stellarkid (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes nsaum it not good faith to make kind of edit accusing other editor of attackin them when them only say truth about the modern hebrew use in isreal being made up of arab words tooked by Theodore Hertzl and other people. it also not belong here on talk page because it detract from debate we have here about the villages israel destroy in golan Ani medjool (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wallah? :) Breein1007 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth not always be nice but truth must reign. It not the falt of neutral editor like me, nableezy or supreme deliciousness if pro-isreal editor be offend by truth. Ani medjool (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting sick of this; I don't know about everyone else... it seems like you guys are all content to live with this and just deal with his often unbelievable edits. I for one am beyond annoyed having to monitor his edits and read all this crap. I'm going to be bringing him to the attention of admins soon (I believe this won't be the first time). Meanwhile, I'm restoring the tag that he deleted, because as Pantherskin pointed out earlier, the sources in this article are very questionable and lacking. Breein1007 (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another source

[edit]

Here is an academic article that is in Hebrew. If anyone can manage to get it, please let us know.

Kipnis, Yigal. The profile of settlement in the Syrian Golan Heights prior to the Six-Day War.

Cathedra: For the History of Eretz Israel & Its Yishuv 2005 (116): 117-146 30p. (Hebrew title of journal: קתדרה בתולדות ארץ־ישראל ויישובה) Abstract: "Permanent settlement in the Golan in modern times began in 1878. In an area comprising ca. 1,710 square kilometers, by the 1960's there was a population of about 150,000, one city, and 272 villages (19 being seasonal agricultural farms). From 1965 the entire region was administered as one province - Quneitra - divided into two districts and four subdistricts. Settlement began on the initiative of the authorities, who brought in Circassians to establish Quneitra and eight other villages. Further settlement was spontaneous and continued until the 1960's, with other ethnic groups such as Turkmen, Bedouins, Druze, and even Jews establishing permanent settlements. It was only natural that clearly delineated ethnic blocs emerged. The physical structure of the villages was haphazard, and the absence of regional planning led to increased numbers of settlements lacking a basic infrastructure of roads, water supply, electricity, sewage, and communications. The land was not prepared for modern agricultural methods, and health and social services were lacking. The Golan's population was almost completely Sunni Muslims, about 80% of them being Arabs. The settlers found their livelihood primarily in agriculture, in most cases within an autarkic economic framework. Golan society was characterized by poverty, isolation, and conservatism and shunned the winds of cultural and technological change." Zerotalk 13:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has now appeared in English as a part of Kipnis' book "The Golan Heights", published by Routledge in 2013. I'll be editing... Zerotalk 13:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero0000 (talk · contribs). Do you have access to Kipnis? I made a list of the villages he names in the Heb version of the article, but rather reference the English version. Can you send the article or the map? trespassers william (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you send me email, I'll get the book to you. Zerotalk 15:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list

[edit]

I have added all villages from this CIA Map. Many of the names were already in the list from the Al-Marsad and jawlan.org sources. Whatever happens in the future, the villages sourced from the CIA map should always stay. I have also removed the unreliable sources tag from the top of the list, the tag is still in the Murhphy and Gannon source below. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the CIA maps only says abandoned/dismantled Syrian villages. It might be likely that the abandonement is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but given the lack of sources this is something we can only speculate on. I have tagged the list section for the moment, ultimately we either need a reliable source or the list section needs to be removed. The list is not essential anyway - without any context. Pantherskin (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pantherskin, its not just the CIA map, there are many sources inside the main text that say that Israel destroyed the Syrian villages in the Golan Heights after they occupied the area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and none of them actually has a list of the villages. All we have is one unreliable soure and a probably reliable map, that only says abandonded and dismantled villages, and nothing more. Of course we can speculate what the reason for the abandomenet is, but that is original research. Pantherskin (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You call the list from the al-Marsad document unreliable, but you have not proven anything in that document to be incorrect. There is also the jawlan.org source with many of the villages the same as the marsad document. I also noticed in your edit that you said "per original image description at flickr" while adding that Quneitra is preserved as a propaganda exhibition by the Syrian authorities. Yet for some reason you did not ad that the homes had been bulldozed by the Israelis which is also in the flickr image description. So its obvious what you are trying to do at this article now, and I advise you to stop it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather obvious what you are trying to do given that uploaded the image, included the part of the Israelis having bulldozed the abandonded village but neglected to include the part that this bulldozed site is now a propaganda exhibit of the Syrian authorities. Looks like your editing is a bit one-sided. Regarding the claims of the al-Marsad lobby group, it was taken to the reliable sources noticeboard, and the opinion of uninvolved editors was that it is not reliable. And you are aware of that as you yourself participated in that discussion. Pantherskin (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its you who cherry picked from the description into this article, not me. The purpose of the image is that the buildings are destroyed, so when I uploaded it from flickr that was what I wrote. It doesn't really matter for the image why these buildings aren't rebuilt. And someone writing "propaganda exhibit" in a flickr description is as trustworthy as someone writing something in his personal blogg or facebook page. The marsad source was discussed both at the RS noticeboard and here, there was no consensus that its an unreliable source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was quite a consensus by uninvolved editors that the marsad source is not reliable. Funny that you doubt the trustworthiness of the description on flickr, but then you trusted the description enough to include the claim that the picture shows buildings destroyed by Israel. Pantherskin (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No there was no consensus from all editors that its an unreliable source. I have found several other sources that say the same thing as that document, these being: Sakr Abu Fakhr, "Voices from the Golan", Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Autumn, 2000), University of California Press, Dar, Shimon (1993). Settlements and cult sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean culture in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Illustrated ed.). Tempus Reparatum, and Humphries, Isabelle. In the Ghost Towns of the Occupied Golan, Five Villages Defiantly Wave the Syrian Flag Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 2006. User nableezy has also found that a nearly identical report by the same authors that contains nearly the identical information has since been published in the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, a peer reviewed journal published by Cambridge University Press (abstract here. Pantherskin, you have not proven anything in that document to be incorrect.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I fail to see the list's point. We already have the information on the number of villages the Israelis destroyed; does the list of names without further information really contribute significantly to the article? Furthermore, there were "about 139 villages and 61 farms" before the war, yet we list 196 names. Does the list include the farms? It says it only includes "towns and villages", but otherwise the numbers won't fit. Do we know which of the entries are farms and which are villages? Do we even know whether the farms were demolished? I can't remember having seen a source to that effect, though I believe one of our sources implies that they weren't populated after the war. Thus, besides the more general question of significance, there's information missing.
On the other hand, I see no reason whatsoever to doubt that we do list the names of something that got depopulated and/or destroyed in or after the war. We have the numbers, they're not disputed, what would anybody gain by faking the name of a demolished village?
Unfortunately my attempts to obtain an official copy of the Israeli order that's the basis of the Al-Marsad list failed; my Israeli embassy said they'd forward my question to the proper authorities, but those never answered. Maybe one of our Israeli editors would be more successful in digging up an official copy of the order?
Finally, I agree with Supreme Deliciousness concerning the image description. I couldn't find where Supreme Deliciousness is supposed to have included that the Israelis "bulldozed the abandoned village" - Pantherskin, care to provide a diff? On the other hand, you didn't add the full flickr image description, but chose to add only those parts that suited you, in a clearly non-neutral way. The previous and current version, "Destroyed buildings in Quneitra", is about as neutral as you can get - it's factually correct, it doesn't even mention the source of destruction and can hardly be blamed to be anti-Israeli. Huon (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources say different things about the amount of the villages, this UN report says 244 villages. "Following the occupation of the territory in 1967, the occupation authorities destroyed 244 villages and built-up areas in the Golan and expelled their population, sparing only five villages (Majdal Shams, Buq’ata, Ain Qunya, Mas’ada and al-Ghajar)."--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As was already noted several times, the source is based on an order of the Israeli Defense Forces and there is no indication whether this order was carried out or not, whether the sites to be cleaned-up are villages, towns, hamlets or whatever. There is little doubt that most of the villages cited were actuall cleaned-up after being abandonded, but there is also no doubt that we do not really know as long as there is no source actually discussing the sites individually. Pantherskin (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did not reply to my post above:[20] so please stop adding the unreliable tag to the marsad document. And I have already told you that there are several sources in the article directly saying that the order was carried out/Israel destroyed the villages:"The Fate of Abandoned Arab Villages, 1965-1969", Davis, Uri (1983), "The Golan Heights under Israeli Occupation 1967 - 1981", Marsad document, Edgar S. Marshall (2002). Israel: Current Issues and Historical Background. Nova Science Publishers, Kimmerling, Baruch (2003), Politicide: Ariel Sharon's war against the Palestinians, Dorothy Weitz Drummond (2004). Holy land, whose land?: modern dilemma, ancient roots. Fairhurst Press, Philip Louis Gabriel (1978). In the ashes: the story of Lebanon. Whitmore Pub Co, CatchWord (1979). The Round table, Volume 69, Issues 273-276, and now also this UN report:[21] "Following the occupation of the territory in 1967, the occupation authorities destroyed 244 villages and built-up areas in the Golan and expelled their population, sparing only five villages (Majdal Shams, Buq’ata, Ain Qunya, Mas’ada and al-Ghajar)." so please stop adding the OR tag. And why are you using the words "cleaned-up" ? what do you mean by this? all the sources say "demolished", "bulldozed" or "destroyed", where are you getting "cleaned-up" from? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and none of the sources you present lists all these villages or describes them individually. That is the Original Research here - you have an order of the Israeli military, you have the total number of villages cleaned-up and you deduce that it must be that all villages on the list were destroyed. Likely to be the case, but we need a source that really says this. Pantherskin (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is "cleaned-up" ? Both the UN document showed above and the marsad document say all villages except Majdal Shams, Buq’ata, Ain Qunya, Mas’ada and al-Ghajar, so that is it, no OR. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and they do not show that the villages listed here have been cleaned-up. The rest is your own deduction. Pantherskin (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, they do not show that they have been "cleaned-up", they show that they have been destroyed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, whatever word fits your own. Certainly they were not preserved as propaganda exhibitions as they were on the Syrian side. Pantherskin (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because that would have made perfect sense, Israel preserving them as propaganda exhibitions to show the world the villages they demolished.. I advise you to stop embarking on this article in a harmful manner. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unreliable tag since you didn't respond to my post where I show how several sources say the same thing and that a nearly identical report is published in the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law by Cambridge University Press [22] I have proven how its reliable now, you have not proven that its not. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Childish. You can claim it a million times, but a paper published by a political advocacy group is not a reliable source. The discussion on WP:RSN settled that, but you still arguing over it. The only reliable source might be the paper published in the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, which is not identical with the Marsad paper. So if you want it included replace it with the correct citation to the Yearbook, instead of keeping the Marsad paper. Pantherskin (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the source from the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law [23] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also (II)

[edit]

Huon, why are List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict and List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus related to this subject, more than Kurdish villages destroyed during the Iraqi Arabization campaign? Chesdovi (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict and List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus to the "see also" section. The first is a superset of the villages covered in this article; the relation should be obvious. The second is another subset of the first, and the process of depopulation and subsequent destruction is clearly parallel to this one. The depopulation in the Syrian villages following the occupation of the Golan Heights can be seen as a continuation of a process begun in 1948.
To be more specific, the Iraqi destruction has different actors, a different geographical area, an unrelated conflict, and even different motives for destruction. Huon (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can "the occupation of the Golan Heights can be seen as a continuation of a process begun in 1948"? Which process are you refering to? I do not beleive that the two are connected. Indeed, this page deals with Syria, and as you put it, deal with a "different actor, a different geographical area, an unrelated conflict, and even different motives for destruction." Chesdovi (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Israel nor Syria were uninvolved in the 1948 conflict - who's your "different actor"? Are you saying that the Six-Day War was unrelated to the war of 1948? Moshe Dayan said that between 1949 and 1966 Israel was constantly trying to expand its borders in the Golan region. To put it more bluntly, Israel secures some territory, and soon after there suddenly are precious few non-Jewish inhabitants to be found, the former inhabitants' villages are demolished and Israeli settlements take over. Israel conquers more territory 20 years later, and again many of the former inhabitants have suddenly left, and again Israeli settlers take over. That sounds like an obvious parallel to me. As an aside, do you really want to liken Israel's actions to Saddam Hussein's reign of terror? Huon (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My different actor is Syria, as both were invovled in '48. You are viewing this solely from the Israeli side. Israel took territory in '48, '67, etc. But what about the Arab side of the conflict? Iraq was invovled in both '48 and '67. So if we are to list Israel's depopulation of Arab areas, we should also list the depopulation by the Arab states, even if these depopulation's have not taken place on Israeli soil. Chesdovi (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. Syria is a "different actor" because it was involved in both the 1948 conflict and the Six-Day war? Syria differs from Syria? That doesn't make sense. Indeed we list Israel's depopulation of Arab areas, and the "see also" section links to more of Israel's depopulation of Arab areas - therefore we also have to link to an Arab depopulation of Kurdish territories which isn't related to either Israel or this conflict? I don't see sufficient correlation (actually I don't see any correlation at all). Let me ask the converse: Do you also think that the article on Kurdish villages should carry a "see also" link to this one? Huon (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syria '67 in Syria is not related to Syria '48 in Palestine. If you think it is, then Iraq '48 in Palestine is related to Iraq '78 in Iraq. If Israel depopulated Cyprus, it would be linked, so too, if the Arab side depopulated another area in a different conflict, it should be linked. Chesdovi (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure we're not talking at cross-purposes: Do you argue for including the Iraqi-Kurdish depopulation, against including the 1948 depopulation, or both?
Anyway, the "Arab side" didn't depopulate anything (except some villages in 1948, which we duly record in one of the articles you just removed as unrelated). No Arab country but Iraq was involved in the Kurdish depopulation, and having been allied to Iraq in the wars with Israel can hardly make Egypt, Syria or Jordan responsible for everything Iraq subsequently does.
Furthermore, if Israel depopulated Cyprus, that would be another example of an Israeli depopulation policy. But Syria didn't have a policy of getting its villages depopulated, and unless you want to claim that Saddam Hussein was inspired by Israel's conduct on the Golan Heights, I can't see any connection between that and the depopulations of Kurdish villages twenty years later.
Actually we've discussed this before; the Kurdish depopulations were considered so unrelated that even the talk page discussion was removed. Huon (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict" and "List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus" are related to this subject since its a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. While the "Kurdish villages destroyed during the Iraqi Arabization campaign" is a completely different subject and a completely different conflict with no relation to this one or the Arab-Israeli conflict. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant news article

[edit]

Shay Fogelman, The disinherited, Haaretz, 30.07.10. [24] — This article is highly relevant. Zerotalk 08:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic cleansing

[edit]

79.176.36.152 removed "ethnic cleansing" from the "see also" list. Quite a lot of the villages described in this article were destroyed not in combat, but after the war was over and the Israelis were about to settle the land. We have reliable sources according to which the Israelis tried to preserve buildings useful to Israeli settlers. Thus, the destruction can be seen as part of a campaign to substitute Israeli settlers for the original Arab inhabitants of this area - that sounds like ethnic cleansing to me. Huon (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its ethnic cleansing, forcible expulsion of people from their land. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So all war that ends in territorial advances is ethnic cleansing? Do you want to add this link to every page that relates any form of annexation, or only this specific conflict because you are prejudiced? According to these criteria the Mexican American War was also a form of ethnic cleansing. Let's also recall who initiated the conflict in the first place: the Arab nations. I find it hard to see how this annexation was part of an "ethnic cleansing" policy while they could not have been premeditated in these circumstances.
I understand that everyone involved somehow will be biased, and therefore none of those have the ability to be impartial judges, nor write the encyclopedia entry for the conflict! Suppose I wrote my own biographical entry, I could fill it with all sorts of lies about myself!
Think about it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.36.152 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All forcible expulsions of ethnic peoples/people who have a certain nationality, from their land, is ethnic cleansing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it's not the territorial advance, but the expulsion and substitution of the population. I don't think the Americans tried to get rid of the Mexican population of the annexed territories; see for example Tejano. And whatever the Arab nations might have done to the Israelis had they won doesn't change the nature of the Israeli policies. Concerning bias, that's why we require reliable sources. In this case, the sources are rather unambiguous in stating that the Israelis destroyed the villages in preparation for having the land settled by Israelis - if that's not ethnic cleansing, what would be? Huon (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reliable sources include some pretty extreme "Golan liberation" websites. Until you have an impartial source stating that a certain act was ethnic cleansing, all you have is your opinion, and an encyclopedia is no place for that.
As to expulsion, you should know that there are Arab villages throughout the north of Israel, if not Syrian villages. I repeat my original statement: let's keep politics out of this. If the land was "prepared for Jews" how come Arabs are living there now? They also have the right to vote, do you think they'd have that right under Syrian rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.41.85 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources relevant to this discussion are "The Fate of Abandoned Arab Villages, 1965-1969" by Aron Shai (History & Memory - Volume 18, Number 2, Fall/Winter 2006, pp. 86-106) and "The Golan Heights under Israeli Occupation 1967-1981" by Uri Davis, published by the University of Durham in 1983. Those are academic sources, the most reliable we can hope for. Of course there are still Arabs living on the Golan; as the article notes, six out of 137 villages remained. I'm no historian; I don't know why those six villages remained, but maybe the Israelis were content to prevent the return of the war fugitives and didn't expel those Arabs who hadn't fled on their own. And concerning the Arab villages in northern Israel: Unless I'm badly mistaken, the right to return of those of the original inhabitants and their descendants who had fled Israel in 1948 is a significant point of contention in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process - because Israel might lose its identity as a Jewish state if millions of Palestinians whose ancestors lived in what is now Israel were to return. I suppose Israel wasn't interested in having the Syrians who originally inhabited the Golan Heights return either, for the same reason. That's still ethnic cleansing. Huon (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have sources that show that Israel forcible expelled Syrians who didnt flee during the war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's still your opinion. Do you think this encyclopedia should be called "Wikipedia: Battle of the Radical Opinions"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.41.85 (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No its not my opinion, its what it says in the sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. Biased documentation prevails. You can have your little encyclopedia of opinion, I hope your children enjoy it, because I will prohibit my students and children from considering its containing the slightest sliver of truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.41.85 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what sources Supreme Deliciousness refers to; I remember Al Marsad presenting eyewitness testimony to that effect, but that was explicitly not accepted as a reliable source at the reliable sources noticeboard. But do you have any problems with the sources I gave above? If so, why? Conversely, do you know of reliable sources stating that it wasn't the Israelis who prevented the war fugitives from returning? Huon (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

109.66.10.6, see discussion above, Israel forcibly expelled Syrians from their lands. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial photography

[edit]

I found some aerial photos from 1967 and 1968, at the Israel Antiquities Authority's survey: [25]. Annoyingly the descriptive pages cannot be hotlinked, but the jpg files can. Maybe they can be used after a name like this:[aerial view] Of course, having a photo from '67 doesn't mean they were still settled. Are there any other sources of photos?

Here there are, for survey map 40/1, one of roughly 19 maps for the golan:

trespassers william (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deir Raheb - Ein Samsam

[edit]

A village by this name appears here. It is not on the Wiki list, and Google has no other hits.

Ein Samsam is also spelled 'En Samsam. A Byzantine-period synagogue lintel from Ein Samsam is often mentioned and seems to be on display in the Katzrin museum. Brill posted two pictures online (the URLs are endless), the relief shows Daniel in the lions' den (2 eagles flanking two lions, flanking a human; the left end of the basalt beam carved as a lion's head). There are red links for Ein Samsam in various Wiki articles.

Does anyone know the location? Who used which name? Deir Raheb is definitely Arabic, but Ein Samsam might also be Hebrew. Arminden (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: 1917 map has Deir el Rahib north of Kisrin, sitting at the same place as Ain Semsem on a 1940s French 1:50K map at 216/270. Close by and much more documented is 'En Nashut (2153/2687) where the synagogue was found. Deir Rahib appears earlier in Schumacher's map of the Golan at the same place. Kipnis is reliable on 1960s population. Zerotalk 02:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, thanks, for my own curiosity this is perfectly sufficient. Now, can you add it to the list? Or is a map not an acceptable source all by itself? Arminden (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added it. The map is not the source. Kipnis is the source because he gives population, which is required to verify that it wasn't just a ruin. A future project would be to add the grid references for all of the table, in which case survey maps will be the most reliable sources. Now I also see Ain Semsem on 1:25K maps made by the British army during WWII. Zerotalk 04:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian pre-67 Golan: no such art., why not expand this one?

[edit]

I am in no way interested in reopening the discussion about the title of the article, but this article is basically about the Syrian pre-67 Golan, since all but four of its 150+ towns and villages (not counting the isolated farms and military bases) were depopulated in one way or another. So the two categories coincide, apart from the 4 northern Druze villages. We don't have any other article dealing with Syrian pre-67 Golan (see also next discussion here-below), so this article would be an excellent start for that, combined into one or not. Otherwise we're left with an empty map and empty shell of words, in no way filled with life by the abstract list of unlinked names we have here, and the strictly conflict-related sections on the Golan Heights page, namely "French and British mandates" and "Border incidents after 1948".

Btw, I think it would be a gain to add to the list two related categories, probably overlapping: the villages evacuated by the Syrian army before 67 for military reasons, a topic already raised on this talk-page, and the military bases, which held a large number of soldiers and probably numerous auxiliary and civilian personnel. They were as much part of the Golan population as the farming communities, with housing units and a whole economy centered on their needs. Arminden (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of villages evacuated before 1967. It's not impossible. Above on this page, Chesdovi cited "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." to UN A/8089 of October 5, 1970. The link is dead, but arXiv has it and I also found it at UN Doc (just put A/8089 in the symbol field). I searched for 10 minutes without finding this sentence, can you? Even if it is in some other document, it expresses ignorance of the reason for the exodus so it doesn't help. A/8089 actually says this (para 75): "The Special Committee has heard considerable evidence of deportations, ranging from the ejection of whole village populations in the Golan Heights to the expulsion of individuals for alleged acts which the occupying Power considered to be contrary to its interests or its convenience. In the Golan Heights, at various periods immediately after the cease-fire, the Israeli authorities ejected a number of persons forcibly from the villages. ... A substantial number of the inhabitants of the Golan Heights, particularly those from Quneitra (which is the largest town in the area), had fled before the Israeli troops entered the area, and of those who remained behind, the majority were forced to leave." Zerotalk 14:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero, and thank you. I am fighting my Wiki-urge like an addiction, usually I end up here because of old question marks rising in my mind after hearing statements I didn't fully accept as proven. I just know this has been claimed in Israel, and it makes sense to a point, as in military provinces at any time in history the dislocation of civilian settlements from exposed areas and their replacement with army camps is something quite common. I have no idea if this did indeed happen in pre-67 Golan, and sorry, but I only intended to raise the issue, not to spend much time researching it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling, identification

[edit]

Spelling of village names differs from period to period, from context to context, making identification and cross-reference (Wiki links) impossible. Who knows a good source listing the various spellings, or whatever other way of solving this problem?

Example: during the Six-Day War, the village of "Sir al-Dib", with a fortification named as "Qala", was a key Syrian position. The article contains no such place, the closest being a phonologically quite remote "Sir Dha'ib".

Note that former French Mandate areas tend to use different transliteration rules from former British Mandate areas, such as al- instead of phonetically adapted ad/adh/ar/as/at/az-. Didn't check on ei/ey vs. ay in the middle of words, and the ending -iyeh vs -ia/ya/iya. Understanding all the (probably French-influenced) spelling tendencies in Syria and Lebanon can help a lot with the identification of sites. So would following up suggestion presented here under "Village locater". @Zero0000: hi, this might be a field you're interested in? As of now, pre-67 Syrian Golan is a terra incognita at enWiki. As only 4 Druze villages remain of the 150+ inhabited Syrian pre-67 sites, this article is almost equivalent to a list of pre-67 inhabited sites in the 2/3 of the Golan Syria lost in that war; adding the 4 somewhere isn't difficult. This would create a tool for all the related articles re. 67 and 73 wars and all else.

Possible/probable equivalents, Syrian vs. Six-Day-War-context (Israeli?) spelling:

  • Darbashiyah = Darbashiya
  • Jlaybina = Jalabina
  • Mansoura = Mansura
  • Sir Dha'ib = Sir al-Dib (?)
  • Tel 'Azzaziat = Tel Azaziat
  • Tel Fakhr = Tel Faher
  • Wasit = Wasit
  • Za‘urah = Za'ura

Pls expand. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too hard for the limited time I have available at the moment. Name lists have to be correlated with maps. There are very detailed maps up to 1948 but I only know some from the 1960s for the west fringe of the Golan. Zerotalk 12:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zero. I know, and I won't be able either, but there are some very active people dealing with the Golan, we both know at least one who's well represented on this page as well. If you could ping them and indicate a couple of maps from different periods, they'd probably be willing to do the work. As of now, we have a big empty Golan, and a useless disconnected abstract list, not linked in any way to each other, and that doesn't serve their purpose at all. Arminden (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tawfiq in the south is not listed

[edit]

It shows up on a few pages, red link: Tawfiq, Syria, not far from Al-Hamma, Tiberias/Hamat Gader and probably Tel Katzir. Does anyone have a clue? Arminden (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: This is undoubtedly Tawafiq/Tawafik. I see references to Khirbet Tawafik about 1km east of Tel Katzir in the DMZ. Grid 2094/2342. During the 1948–1967 period, Israel expelled the inhabitants over the armistice line into Syria, where they reestablished Tawafik, sometimes called Upper Tawafik. This was presumably destroyed in the 1967 war as it no longer exists. Some of the history is in the book of Kipnis. There is also mention of Arab Tawafik which is presumably a bedouin tribe. Zerotalk 02:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zero. Let's see now who feels like adding it to the list :)
The main job to be done here still is an article on the Syrian Golan, with a map containing villages, military bases and whatever else feels relevant. Wonder who will have the energy. A Syrian Huldra, I guess.
Happy New Year! Arminden (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Must be this one: https://www.mindat.org/feature-168371.html
The mention there of a Khan al Ahmar, 'Red Inn', along with Tawafiq made me curious. It might have been a caravanserai on one of the routes up the Heights and on to Damascus and the Hauran, but I wonder if and when, because just some 8km up the road there was an Ayyubid khan at Fiq. Btw, the roads themselves deserve articles - see quite advanced art. on Fiq and the mentions there on the Aphek Ascent/'Aqabat Fiq. Also related: Aphek. Arminden (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's it. Have a nice 2024. Zerotalk 11:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_towns_and_villages_depopulated_in_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict&oldid=1208745525"