Revision as of 04:58, 20 December 2008 editNoCal100 (talk | contribs)2,643 editsm →DMZs, diversion projects: mv comment to proper place← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:39, 20 December 2008 edit undoAshley kennedy3 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers14,243 edits →DMZs, diversion projectsNext edit → | ||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
The first Arab summit conference ratified the Arab strategy to thwart Israel’s NWC Plan . The strategy was designed to divert Jordan’s tributaries and prepare the Arab armies for the defence of the engineering operations. //Shemesh, Moshe (2008) Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967 Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 1845191889 p 67...] (]) 23:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | The first Arab summit conference ratified the Arab strategy to thwart Israel’s NWC Plan . The strategy was designed to divert Jordan’s tributaries and prepare the Arab armies for the defence of the engineering operations. //Shemesh, Moshe (2008) Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967 Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 1845191889 p 67...] (]) 23:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
:You are edit warring against a pretty clear consensus. I object to this material as not directly relevant to Banias. ], above, agrees with me. And even your former 'ally' in this edit war, CasualObserver'48, has written "NoCal100 has presented a very valid suggestion and I tended to agree that Banias was not the right place for all of it...Take his suggestion, move material to Water_politics_in_the_Middle_East". (see ). Based on this consensus, I am again removing the material which is not directly relevant to Banias. If you have any sources that make a direct and explicit connection between the events you want mention here and Banias, you may add them, properly sourced. ] (]) 04:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | :You are edit warring against a pretty clear consensus. I object to this material as not directly relevant to Banias. ], above, agrees with me. And even your former 'ally' in this edit war, CasualObserver'48, has written "NoCal100 has presented a very valid suggestion and I tended to agree that Banias was not the right place for all of it...Take his suggestion, move material to Water_politics_in_the_Middle_East". (see ). Based on this consensus, I am again removing the material which is not directly relevant to Banias. If you have any sources that make a direct and explicit connection between the events you want mention here and Banias, you may add them, properly sourced. ] (]) 04:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
Exactly the right place. WP:UNDUE. You are edit warring NoCal100. The initial impetus was Israels aggression as per the RS source the reaction was by Syria etc. You are trying for misleading and inaccurate. Article. Please desist the clear consensus is with 2 active editors not with you....] (]) 08:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Arabic name == | == Arabic name == |
Revision as of 08:39, 20 December 2008
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Banias article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1 |
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 banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. |
How surprising
How surprising that the article has been left with obvious errors from when i was constructing the article in the first place?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
DMZs, diversion projects
let's not turn this article into yet another chapter in the Israeli-Arab conflict. True, the Banias water resources are important to that conflict, but we don't need to replay every detail of the DMZs' history or the different water diversion projects here - only those that are directly relevant to, and mention, Banias. I thus removed, for example, the details of the Israeli water diversion project, which took place in a different area. the only reason to mention the Israeli project at all is to provide context for the Syrian project (which originally did take place near Banias) so it does not appear as a one-sided action, but that is not a license to write a lengthy paragraph about the unrelated Israeli project, its impact on American-Israeli relations, etc... - that belongs in the article about the water conflict in the middle east. NoCal100 (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Banias is the basic conflict point...Sorry but you NoCal100 have double standards...You add irrelevances in quite a few articles not just irrelevant but factually incorrect...And as you have shown that you know nothing on the subject of Banias it is quite obvious that you are editing in bad faith...As previously stated the incidents mentioned were in a book by an academic where the central theme of the book was Banias. This means I have a choice go by an academic or NoCal100 version of history....I thus replace what is pertinent to Banias.... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I wonder where the main Syrian garrison was that would have felt the effects of raised tensions from 10km....I bet it was at Banias (not much of a bet as it's in the history books)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- If there is a source that says "The main the main Syrian garrison was that would have felt the effects of raised tensions was at Banias", feel free to add it to the article. Otherwise, what you "bet" is the truth is interesting original research which is not allowed. The material you are adding here might belong in Water politics in the Middle East, but it is not directly related to Banias - it discusses event that tool place miles away from it. NoCal100 (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Where the choice is between a sockpuppets revision and an academic I chose academic every time.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- False accusations of sock puppetry will get you blocked, yet again. Don't do it.
NoCal100 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I concur and believe most active editors have found consensus in the currently included topics. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are 3 active editors here, 2 of you think this belongs - that does not make consensus. Please make an actual argument as to why lengthy paragraphs which do not mention Banias at all, and discuss events taking place miles away, belong here. NoCal100 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I believe these two editors' comments, and , tend toward our view of what consensus should be. They are comments made a few days ago. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- the first comment was made by a sockpuppet (confirmed by 2 separate checkusers) of Ashley kennedy3 , and he was subsequently blocked for a month for that sockpupptery. The second comment (made more than a month ago) does not relate to any of the material we are discussing. NoCal100 (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I believe these two editors' comments, and , tend toward our view of what consensus should be. They are comments made a few days ago. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are 3 active editors here, 2 of you think this belongs - that does not make consensus. Please make an actual argument as to why lengthy paragraphs which do not mention Banias at all, and discuss events taking place miles away, belong here. NoCal100 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
2 against 1 that makes consensus and the one is a suspected sockpuppet. As NoCal100 is a suspected sockpuppet he gets no points...There is already an ANI in against NoCal100...which he has already been informed of..ACADEMICS SAY THE EVENTS ARE IMPORTANT TO BANIAS.. NoCal100 the sock and uninformed POV merchant says differently..me I go with the academics over a sock every time...NoCal100 doing deletions with no accurate argument is vandalism...especially as you have no actual knowledge of Banias other than that I have placed in the Banias article...NoCal100 You have demonstrated that you have no knowledge on the subject as you were unable to correct the obvious errors in five weeks this shows you are not to be considered as an editor but merely a disruptive deletionist....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could folks please provide links to these sockpuppet investigations? Thanks, --Elonka 18:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- In case you haven't found them already, they are here, and here. NoCal100 (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I neither know how to, nor care to; someone else should. I object to the deletion of sourced material relevant to the facts of Banais. It is the water; it has been the availability of that water throughout history, as I noted before. Future availability makes it important today; it is a continuum. Deletion by stilted, POV'd view shouldn't fly, particularly where hiding this association seems Wiki-endemic and is politically advantageous to keep it that way. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- No one his hiding anything - water, its availability and its importance in the middle east can and should be discussed- and we have an article for that , called Water politics in the Middle East. Specific incidents of these water politics which are directly related to Banias can be mentioned here - but a discussion of the history of the DMZs, or various American plans to regulate the water resources are outside the scope of this article. NoCal100 (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I have not edited this article but saw it on ANI & so I took a look. I agree with NoCal that there is nothing wrong with mentioning the water situation in the context of the contemporary history; but that it is not necessary to turn this article into yet another I/P argument. This is particularly true since there is already an article entitled Water politics in the Middle East. In fact, one could briefly touch upon the issue and note somewhere within the article the existence of the water politics article. The "deep" history of the water situation would be better described there than here. Also, in consideration of the long history of Banias in the region, the emphasis on Mandate to contemporary times seems WP:UNDUE weight given to the recent conflict. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The obvious connection between Banias and Hula as noted by academics says otherwise. WP:UNDUE would be to leave out the Hula incidents only leaving Syrian retaliation to Israeli government policy. Something that is directly related to Banias should be kept at Banias rather than hunting around half a dozen articles for snippets of information. As most people visit wiki for information lets give some instead of misleading inaccurate articles.
The incidents surrounding water at Banias were central to the start of a War. It would be churlish and irresponsible of wiki editors to withhold information on those events.
The first Arab summit conference ratified the Arab strategy to thwart Israel’s NWC Plan . The strategy was designed to divert Jordan’s tributaries and prepare the Arab armies for the defence of the engineering operations. //Shemesh, Moshe (2008) Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967 Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 1845191889 p 67...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are edit warring against a pretty clear consensus. I object to this material as not directly relevant to Banias. Tundrabuggy, above, agrees with me. And even your former 'ally' in this edit war, CasualObserver'48, has written "NoCal100 has presented a very valid suggestion and I tended to agree that Banias was not the right place for all of it...Take his suggestion, move material to Water_politics_in_the_Middle_East". (see this). Based on this consensus, I am again removing the material which is not directly relevant to Banias. If you have any sources that make a direct and explicit connection between the events you want mention here and Banias, you may add them, properly sourced. NoCal100 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly the right place. WP:UNDUE. You are edit warring NoCal100. The initial impetus was Israels aggression as per the RS source the reaction was by Syria etc. You are trying for misleading and inaccurate. Article. Please desist the clear consensus is with 2 active editors not with you....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Arabic name
In the lead paragraph it says the Arabic name is "Jabal ash-Shaiykh" but the Arabic itself actually says Mount Hermon (Jabal Harmun). I assume the two should say the same thing, but which one is it? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
have you got the Arabic script for "Jabal ash-Shaiykh"..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I've changed it. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Edit-warring
Folks, as a reminder, this article falls within the scope of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, which means that the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to place discretionary sanctions: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."
I am specifically concerned by the recent edit-warring on this article, especially as the reverts do not seem to be being accompanied by adequate discussion on the talkpage. I am not placing a revert restriction on this article at this time, but I'm thinking about it. So please, could everyone try to step away from the "undo" button, and instead focus on building consensus at the talkpage? This will be a much better way to ensure lasting changes to the article. Thanks, --Elonka 19:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- Start-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- Start-Class Arab world articles
- Mid-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- Start-Class Syria articles
- Mid-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- Start-Class Judaism articles
- Low-importance Judaism articles
- Start-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- Start-Class Israel-related articles
- Low-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles