Jump to content

Talk:Golan Heights

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

Revert

[edit]

@PeleYoetz: Kindly explain this revert (second time in two days) "not convinced at all" is not a valid argument. (btw, I am still waiting for an explanation of your revert at Second Intifada). Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring this, it is well sourced and not a single person has offered anything besides a personal opinion as to why it should not be included. You cant just say no to high quality reliable sources directly discussing material in an article, and nobody needs to convince an editor of anything here. This material has weight given the sources, and it is directly related to what is already in the article. nableezy - 16:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49, @ScottishFinnishRadish, @Theleekycauldron, @Red-tailed hawk, @BilledMammal Here is another fresh clean and clear case of POV-pushing through edit warring. A neutral line about Katzrin, a local landmark, was changed by @Supreme Deliciousness to include extremely unneccesary and undue politicization. Even though the disputed change was reverted, @Zero0000 (here), and now @Nableezy (here, also casting aspersions), have continued to forcefully push this controversial content through edit warring and bullying behavior. I'm going to:
1. Ask @Nableezy to engage in discussion here instead of continuing the edit war over disputed changes.
2. Ask @Barkeep49, who imposed a 0RR restriction on me for edit warring, why Nableezy isn’t receiving the same treatment despite having many similar, and continuing incidents. ABHammad (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how the material repeatedly removed by PeleYoetz without any sensible reasoning is "extremely unneccesary and undue politicization." ? Why shouldn't the reader be informed that historical remains have been distorted and a large section of the sites history deliberately hidden from the public? Wouldn't you want the reader to be informed of this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Afaics, the only "edit warring" (loosely) is by PeleYoetz who reverted twice in two days with invalid reasoning and declines to explain when asked. Unless we are now suggesting that every single revert, no matter by who and with whatever reason is now edit warring? What does extremely unneccesary and undue politicization even mean? edit warring and bullying behavior? If you believe that you have a valid complaint, do the necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, these five tags seems to me to be to be a clear case of WP:CANVASSING: mass posting, biased and partisan; canvassing in PIA articles is very problematic. As for Katzrin, if RS have "politicized" it, then WP should reflect that. PeleYoetz has neither participated in the talk page, nor have they provided an edit summary explaining their concerns; so how are editors expected to deal with this kind of behavior? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except I did engage in discussion here, and the drive by edit warring without any discussion and pov pushing is coming from those who have not. A dispute isn’t something that happens cus some person on the internet doesn’t like what a source says. You need reasons besides I don’t like the source to remove material here, and none has been offered. This is not some game you get to take turns at, if somebody disputes something they need to show a basis for it on this talk page. Finally, never ping me again. nableezy - 11:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just for edit warring, "There is a rough consensus that ABHammad has been engaging in battleground behavior and as an attempt to stop that without going to a full topic ban, is subjected to a 0 revert restriction. " [1] Doug Weller talk 15:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to discuss yours or others editing restrictions @ABHammad. Nableezy's conduct is certainly under consideration by the arbitration committee. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information repeatedly removed here:[2] is extremely important showing the real history of Kisrin and how its history has been distorted. This well sourced information must be included to show the reader an accurate picture of the site and what happened.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion. There is edit warring. In my view, edit warring in PIA should trigger use of the checkuser tool. This is consistent with policy, which says "The CheckUser tool may be used only to prevent disruptive editing on the English Wikipedia or to investigate legitimate, credible concerns of bad-faith editing or sockpuppetry." Edit warring is disruptive editing. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And let me just leave this here because things like this being ignored are funny every time for me. Can anyone persuade PeleYoetz to stay out of the conflict zone and stick to productive editing where they shine? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine is definitely less controversial :) A bit less, anyway.Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you talk to me like that, in such a humiliating way. There is a phrase in Hebrew that says 'כל דאלים גבר', a society where whoever is the most violent and who shouts the loudest, is the one who prevails over the other. Wikipedia should not be such a place. I hope you didn't mean the way you spoke either. PeleYoetz (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There still has been no explanation as to why this material, well sourced and on topic, should be removed. Until one is offered I don’t see anything to discuss here. nableezy - 12:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This article is on the Golan Heights. We have a short chapter on the main landmarks, each with a short description of the landmark. Why the opinion of scholar X on the museum at one site is due here? I haven't seen opinions on sites in comparable regional articles. If we add this view, why don't we add more views? PeleYoetz (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information you removed is not an opinion. Its a description of the site. It informs the reader about the sites history. Why would it not be here? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We include all significant views, that’s what NPOV means. Is there some significant view about that topic missing? nableezy - 10:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this a significant point of view? Galamore (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources that relay it. nableezy - 13:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what makes it worthy of inclusion in the article about the whole Golan Heights. I can see how it can be relevant in the article about Katzrin but for this article this is too much detail. Alaexis¿question? 21:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant because it shows that archaeological sites have been distorted and used for propaganda. If the two sentences is removed then it would only say: "Katzrin Ancient Village is an archaeological site on the outskirts of Katzrin where the remains of a Talmud-era village and synagogue have been reconstructed."....now same as your question: what makes this sentence worthy of inclusion in the article about the whole Golan Heights? And why would a sentence like this be in the article when it is inaccurately describing the ancient site? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the material on the Katzrin Ancient Village was removed sure, but you cant just have one part of the story on that topic here. nableezy - 00:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So mention all periods of history in the site, why insist of opinions? We can simply say: the site was inhabited by X, Y, civilisations, during this and that periods. Otherwise this is a violation of NPOV. PeleYoetz (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't explained how the text is an opinion and how it is a violation of npov. Where is the reliable source that contradicts the text? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The violation of NPOV is removing the well sourced views of noted experts. NPOV means the inclusion of all significant views, not the censoring of those some user claims is opinion. nableezy - 15:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, according to the sources provided, if there is politicization of Katzrin, it seems to be happening in the real world, and we are simply reporting that. If Katzrin is the administrative and commercial center of the Golan Heights, this certainly seems noteworthy. starship.paint (RUN) 11:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non neutral introduction in Six Day War article

[edit]

In this edit here:[3] user @PeleYoetz: re ads: "After the Six-Day War broke out in June 1967, Syria's shelling greatly intensified and the Israeli army captured the Golan Heights on 9–10 June."

This is not accurate history and the situation is not presented in a neutral way. Leading up to the six day war, Israel repeatedly violated the DMZ which provoked Syria into firing at Israel. This has been confirmed by Moshe Dayan: [4] And also other sources that I added into the article now.

It is a clear npov violation to start the Six day war section with this selectively picked sentence. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes it clear that the significance of his claims is disputed (Historians have already begun to debate whether General Dayan was giving an accurate account of the situation in 1967 or whether his version of what happened was colored by his disgrace after the 1973 Middle East war, when he was forced to resign as Defense Minister over the failure to anticipate the Arab attack.) Alaexis¿question? 21:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed by two Israeli historians, but as I said in my initial post, there are other sources as well. "Former Dutch UN observer, Colonel (ret.) Jan Mühren, said last Monday on the Dutch current affairs program Nova that in the run up to the the Six-Day War Israel provoked most border incidents as part of its strategy to annex more land. Jan Mühren, who was stationed interchangeably at the Golan Heights and the West Bank in 1966 and 1967, says Israel was not under siege by Arab countries. Mühren said neither Jordan nor Syria had any intention to start a war with Israel." [5] The interview can be seen here, at the beginning: [6] after he hears the Israeli claim, he responds: "Frankly I believe this is a case of falsification of history. Last century's largest chapter of falsification of history. - An absolute lie!" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we're mixing a few things here. First of all, I don't think anyone disputes the facts in the sentence in question (the war broke out, the Syrians shelled Israeli positions, the Israelis conquered the Golan heights). The events preceding the war that have to do something with the Golan Heights should also be mentioned in the article. Both Israeli "provocations" (judging by Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War#Israel_and_Syria it was mainly sending tractors to plow the DMZ) and the Syrian shelling of Israeli settlements should be mentioned. As to the interpretations, they should be in the main article about the war and its origins and definitely not here. Alaexis¿question? 21:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources show that the Israeli claims are inaccurate, so if the Israeli alleged pov are included, the other side must be included aswell.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of language translations

[edit]

There is a hebrew and arabic language translation. After a review of most Israeli pages, and in line with common sense as the first legal language of Israel, I propose simply re-ordering the languages to place hebrew on the left and arabic on the right for this article. I made this change originally believing it to be non-controversial, but another editor reverted the edit and asked that I get consensus first before making that change again. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need consensus to change the ERA style, per MOS:ERA. Please discuss on talk page before changing it. JJNito197 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please move your comment to the new "MOS:ERA" thread I started below. You commented on something unrelated and separate from the date style. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a consensus on this article to have the Arabic name first. This isnt an "Israeli page" except that it covers territory occupied by Israel. nableezy - 19:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When was that consensus formed? Would you mind showing me the diff of the discussion that occurred? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:FORLANG the language most associated with the subject will come first, then after the second language. Thus this being occupied territory according to international recognition Arabic will come first. JJNito197 (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Golan_Heights/Archive_4#Arabic_text_before_Hebrew, Talk:Golan_Heights/Archive_15#order_of_languages. It has also been stable this way for over a decade. nableezy - 20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ERA

[edit]

There was a tag at the top of the page that page that called for there to be a single ERA date style chosen. Currently the article has two styles. AD as well as CE/BCE. I went and clarified and changed it to a single style, since MOS requires that we use only one across a single article, but I was reverted. Please lets pick one and go with it, I would "vote" for CE/BCE since the page is an Israeli page and that is a standard used in Israel and among the Jewish people. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not an Israeli page whatever that means. That said I dont really care what date convention is used. nableezy - 19:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the page is not an Israeli page nor is it in Hebrew. Secondly, this is not a standard used by Jewish people. I know many Jews who dont use BCE or CE in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, you made a spurious change regarding the image of Melkite church in Ein Qiniyye which removed it from the article. Lastly, this compounded with your desire for controversial change to the lead language (the Golan is internationally recognised as being occupied), and your comments above, is telling me that I need to remind you to approach the subject in a NPOV manner. Thanks JJNito197 (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a typo in the church image caption. I need to go back and see if that is still there, but it spelled "christian" incorrectly. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, you corrected the spelling mistake. Thank you. JJNito197 (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golan_Heights&oldid=1253335892"