Misplaced Pages

Talk:Golan Heights: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:43, 1 February 2012 editMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 14.← Previous edit Revision as of 22:55, 2 February 2012 edit undoAsad112 (talk | contribs)Rollbackers1,232 edits →RevertNext edit →
Line 66: Line 66:


Unexplained removal, I reverted back to correct text. -] (]) 20:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Unexplained removal, I reverted back to correct text. -] (]) 20:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
:What a silly . The BBC source says "Population estimate: 20,000 Israeli settlers, 20,000 Syrians". How is it inaccurate? I am reverting back. -] (]) 22:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:55, 2 February 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golan Heights article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. All editors of this article are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page and are subject to remedies as outlined above if they fail to do so.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSyria High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconVolcanoes Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWestern Asia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golan Heights article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

Country section wording in infobox

Time for a fresh discussion. The "Country" section in the infobox currently reads: "Internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Currently under Israeli civil administration. Claimed by Syria." From Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, the purpose of an Infobox is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears."

I don't dispute the facts in the current wording, but I am sure that we can come up with more concise wording. Please propose improved wording below. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock

The wording is OK nothing should be changed.--Shrike (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
"Syrian territory under Israeli civil administration." seems enough for the infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
*That seems sufficient to me. It conveys the same information as the current wording but is much more readable. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • First source: "Israel occupied the Syrian Goaln in 1967 and formally annexed it in 1981"
Second: "...occupied Syrian Golan Heights..."
Third: "...the occupied Syrian Golan..."
Fourth: "the Syrian Golan Heights territory, which Israel has occupied since 1967"
Fifth: "Israeli-occupied. Captured from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war, and annexed in 1981, a move condemned internationally. Lebanon claims Shab'a Farms area." YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock
Nod, I find that "under Israeli civil administration" obfuscates the language used by sources, there is no reason for us to try to sanitize their wording. un☯mi 09:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Syrian Golan"

In a now archived discussion with Blocked sockpuppet:YehudaTalAviv64, I demanded a source demonstrating that the Golan Heights are referred to as the "Syrian Golan" by the United Nations as justification for this edit on 29 November (his first in the article). He failed to produce any sources to that effect, instead merely confirming the trivial fact that the United Nations considers the Golan Heights Syrian and refers to it as Syrian. His claim is therefore original research, and I've reverted it pending information to the contrary based on reliable secondary sources.—Biosketch (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This Google search will show you a large number of UN documents refering to the "Syrian Golan". Zero 08:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The United Nations considers the Golan Heights Syrian territory, and it therefore calls the Golan "Syrian." That doesn't make "Syrian Golan" an alternative name. Do you have a source that says "Syrian Golan" is a name used by the United Nations – or anyone – in addition to Golan Heights? If the answer's no, you're editorializing.—Biosketch (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The question you posed was captious. The Syrian Golan as any google search will immediately show, is used in UN resolutions from decades back, right through to the present day in official documents. The usage is official, verifiably so, and you do not need a metasource to specify that the usage is standard in UN documents. Your revert was inappropriate.Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing captious about insisting on a reliable source to verify a debatable claim that was inserted into the article by a sockpuppet against consensus. You're invited to produce a reliable source to confirm the claim you're endeavoring to establish – indeed, the burden of proof is on you to do so. Until then, though, it remains original research.—Biosketch (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The editor may have made it a claim. The fact that 'Syrian Golan' is established usage cannot be disputed. All that worries you is the idea that this usage be associated with the UN. Well drop the UN, and leave the term. Commonsense required simply, 'Syrian Golan' (in UN documents). They are official, and to pretend that somehow a statement of UN usage required third party sources in patent nonsense. There is no need to use Yehuda's language, it can be twigged to state the obvious verifiable fact. Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
"Syrian Golan" is such a stock phrase in UN documents that calling it anything except a name seems rather odd. I don't think explicit identification as a name is requested for other similar cases. But anyway, this page says "The UN- which always refers to the area as 'the Syrian Golan Heights'". Zero 08:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Of course it can be disputed, and that's exactly what's happening. User:Zero0000's Google search shows that the word "occupied" precedes "Syrian Golan" in every instance where "Syrian Golan" is invoked in eight out of the first nine search results. Does that mean "occupied Syrian Golan" is an alt name for "Golan Heights"? It could mean that, but neither you nor I are qualified to make a determination one way or the other. That's what WP:V is for. When you want to make a claim that's obvious to the point where no sources are necessary because no one could reasonable challenge it, policy makes allowances for that. When a claim is being challenged, on the other hand, it's necessary to support it with reliable sources – and support here means "support directly," not "bring sources from which it can be inferred that x is true."—Biosketch (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Zero0000's source above my last comment satisfies BOP as far as I'm concerned.—Biosketch (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey lads, if only all editing on the I/P was as fleet and fair as the above exchanges! In any case, I'm not article editing on these articles till 10th Jan as per my violation of IR. Would you restore it, with Zero's source, in whatever wording you think appropriate, Bio? Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Thanks
I was sure one of you two would have performed the edit by now. The earlier formulation can be restored, just with Zero's source as the ref instead of the refs YTA64 had there.—Biosketch (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Michael, and it's one thing I like about his style since he's done this several times, has jumped in and fixed it for us.Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Explaining my revert

I don't really know what to say, other than the area is not disputed territory held by Israel, but rather Syrian territory occupied by Israel. I am also here so I don't get blocked. -asad (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done. -- ElComandanteChe 21:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Revert

Unexplained removal, I reverted back to correct text. -asad (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What a silly revert. The BBC source says "Population estimate: 20,000 Israeli settlers, 20,000 Syrians". How is it inaccurate? I am reverting back. -asad (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Categories: