Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:29, 11 February 2010

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 30 days

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. Israel High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria High‑importance This 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 High This 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. Volcanoes Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please 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.

Infobox

Right now I am very happy with how the infobox is looking :). But there are some very small issues that I would like to discuss. First of all I think we should have 1946-1967 instead of prior to 1967 since it wasn't part of the Syrian Arab republic until 1946. 1946-1967 is simply more specific. Furthermore some editors have said "Prior to 1967: Syria" implies that it isn't Syrian anymore which would be a little pov, so I suggest we write "Prior to 1967(or 1946-1967): Controlled by Syria", since no one disputes the fact that Syria stopped controlling the Golan in 1967. Also I think we should have the "Prior to 1967" below the "1967-" since I think the current situation is more important then the situation pre-1967. Which country it is in today is more relevant than the country it was in yesterday. And the "country" today is "controlled by Israel, claimed by Syria, internationally recognized as Syrian territory". Of course we should still have "prior to 1967: Syria" since otherwise you will not completely understand the situation, but it is not as relevant. Therefore I say we should put it below. It is just an idea. Fipplet (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think it makes any sense to use (1946-1967), unless you're suggesting we also tag every city in Israel as under Israeli sovereignty (Since 1948). Yazan (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the Israeli point of view that it ended being part of Syria in 1967 and started being part of Israel after 1967. "controlled" is something you say about an area that does not belong to the country. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you(Yazan) have a point, but this is not the same situation, as the Israeli cities are under Israeli sovereingty now whereas Golan is not under Syrian sovereingty now. There's no need to tag the Israeli cities with anything except Israel whereas the tag for Golan should be when Golan was Syrian. And it was 1946-1967 while Israeli cities are now.Fipplet (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"whereas the tag for Golan should be when Golan was Syrian." - This is the Israeli point of view "when", as if its not Syrian today. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry "whereas the tag for Golan should be when Golan was controlled by Syria". I am not saying it is not Syrian but I am not saying it is either. Fipplet (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fipplet, the fact is, it has been under Syrian sovereignty all the way until 1967, in various forms and under successive different regimes. Unless you mean the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic, which was in 1946 (1936 actually with the franco-syrian treaty, and before that in 1920 under the Kingdom of Syria, etc.), but I don't see why we should explicitly state this, and turn it into a point of contention. Yazan (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic of course. And according to the article itself Golan only became a part of Syria(n arab republic) in 1944. The reason is because prior to 1967 implies Syrian sovereignty before 1944(or 1936 if what you say is true) which is untrue. (I didn't know about the kingdom of Syria but it is obviously not the same as modern-day Syria. Should we bring up Kingdom of Israel as well?)Fipplet (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Syria was a shortlived one after WWI, it's quite recent, so it is relevant, because it was in relatively the same borders as modern-day syria. Nonetheless, using the phrasing (1944-1967) is quite contentious because it suggests it wasn't part of what we consider Syria now, which is not true, it's always been a part of it. And modern borders are drawn in relation to that. I would argue that palestinians dispute the sovereignty of EVERY city in Israel (which not supported by the overwhelming majority of the world, much like Israel's claim to the Golan), does that mean that we should explicitly state that it has been under Israeli sovereingty since 1948? Yazan (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason not to state in the articles about Israeli cities how long have they been under Israeli sovereignty (of course I'm only talking about the ones which existed before 1948). In IMDB for example, you can see in actors' biography stuff like "Date of Birth: 28 December 1939, Jerusalem, Palestine ". It's not POV, it's stating facts. The Golan was part of the French mandate and before that part of the Ottoman Empire. You could also go farther and list other empires which controlled it, but there's no need in my opinion since it was at least 100 years ago and need to stay in the History section of the article. TFighterPilot (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

UNGA motion

Now that Fipplet has been blocked indefinitely, does anyoen object to this edit of his being reverted? This will reinsert the matereial about the motion on the "occupied Syrian Golan" where Israel was the only opponent and 161 or 171 countries (depending on which UN page you read) voted for it. Oren0 has previously commented on the lack of material substantiating our statement that the international community regard the heights as Syrian and this resolution substantiates it.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the material should be reinstated. nableezy - 14:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} the edit listed at the top of the section has apparent consensus to be reverted. Nobody has spoken up in favor of keeping the UNGA resolution out of the article. nableezy - 04:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Mountain names

Should the title & names of articles about mountains in the Golan Heights be in Arabic or Hebrew? nsaum75 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Notifications have been left at WP:Israel, WP:Syria and WP:WikiProject Volcanoes. --nsaum75 20:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

These are the mountains: http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Hills_on_the_Golan_Heights

Many of these have the hebrew names, I propose they be changed to the arabic name.

For example Givat Orcha - Tel Jukhdar or Mount Jukhdar

Mount Hermonit - Tell al-Sheikh or Mount Sheikh

Mount Bnei Rasan - Tell Bani Ghasan or Mount Bani Ghasan etc. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Those mountains have been under Israeli control for longer than they were under Arab rule. They are currently known to tourists and residents by their Hebrew name, are home to Hebrew speaking Israelis, etc. Even if, at some point, that region is transferred to Syrian rule, it is not our place to predict the future, or to disregard the reality in the Golan. okedem (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

These mountains have been Syrian for thousands of years and they havent been israeli for even half a minute. Misplaced Pages is not a tourist guide, so what the illegal settlers and their supporters think about a region in southwestern Syria is not the views of reality. The vast majority of the world sees it as part of Syria, it is therefore inappropriate to have hebrew names for Syrian mountains.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The country known as Syria came into existence in the 1940's, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. If you wanna talk about ancient history, I can point to Gamla, a Jewish city in the Golan, which was destroyed back in 67 AD, long before Syria existed. This was just one of the Jewish towns of the Golan, which long had a Jewish presence, and was part of kingdoms like the Hasmonean kingdom, and the earlier Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), and Kingdom of Israel (Samaria). So if you want to base your argument on history, you might have a problem. okedem (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this really a discussion you want to go into? Have you heard of the Aramaeans or Amorites? These are ancient Syrians! do you know where they lived? Take a guess. And if you want to talk about the bible, according to the bible: "Next we turned and went up along the road toward Bashan, and Og king of Bashan with his whole army marched out to meet us in battle at Edrei." Dt 3:2: "The LORD said to me, "Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon." Dt 3:3: "So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors." Dt 3:4: "At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan." Dt 3:5:"All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages." Dt 3:6: "We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children." Dt 3:7: "But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves." Many of these ancient Israelite kingdoms invaded and expanded into Syria (Golan). And also, what connection do the ancient semitic hebrws have to do with the Russians, polish or Ethiopians = Israelis of today? Is this really a discussion you want to go into? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You're the one claiming "thousands of years", and nothing in your quotes negates what I said. There's nothing special about those actions - this is the way all kingdoms operated, even the Amorites and Aramaeans. Though those people lived in what is now called Syria, to claim they are "Syrians" is a stretch - it is far from clear they have any connection at all to current day Syrians. And by your penultimate sentence, I see I have nothing to discuss with you, as you know nothing about the subject of Jews and Judaism. okedem (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a pressing interest for both languages. Both languages should be used. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, both names should be mentioned in the article (even in Israel, Arabic is an official language, and so Arabic names are used), and there should be redirects from names in either language to the articles. Unfortunately, for the very name of the article we are left with a simple binary choice - either Hebrew, or Arabic. okedem (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

We should accept the names used by the United Nations which recognizes the Golan Heights as part of Syria and accepts the Arabic names that Syria uses in their English language publications. See this map from the UN on page 15 where Arabic names are used. I notice however that the map in the WP article from the CIA factbook uses the Hebrew names. So probably the Hebrew names should be in brackets. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely false. The map on p. 15 does not have any mountain names. The document itself, though, consistently uses the hebrew name 'Mt. Hermon' - over a dozen times, and never once does it use jabl A-Sheikh. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any mountains in the CIA map. Those names are the israeli settlements. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not the UN, and are not subject to their decisions, which are primarily legally/politically motivated. We need to consider how common each name is, and which one is actively used. The name used by the people who actually live there is of the highest importance, even if one thinks they should live there. okedem (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not the UN but according to wikipedia rules we should represent the majority viewpoint, and that is that the entire international community sees Golan as part of Syria, which means arabic should be used for these Syrian mountains, not hebrew. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. okedem (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Coming from the RFC and not having done much if any editing in this area. (I shall probably be shot by both sides for this opinion). I checked on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. The Ministry accepts that the Golan Heights are part of Syria which is subject to Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration. Successive Israeli governments have accepted the principal of withdrawl on the Golan Heights. This is not the same status which Israel accords to East Jerusalem (annexed to Israel) or to Judaea and Samaria (parts are under full Israeli control). My view is therefore that where the Golan Heights are being discussed in the context of law, jurisdiction and administration, the Israeli/Hebrew terminology should be used, but where the context is away from these areas, the Syrian/Arabic terminology should be primary. The naming of physical features is not primarily a matter of law, jurisdiction or administration, but of geography, and therefore I would use the Arabic names for the mountains of Golan. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If names are not about "law, jurisdiction or administration", why use Arabic names? Perhaps legally (murky term), the Golan belongs to Syria, but the people who live there are Israeli citizens, the places are maintained by Israeli agencies (like the Parks authority), visitors can come to these places only through Israel, using Hebrew names. okedem (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost half the people that live there today are Syrian citizens and the others are illegal settlers, the real native population that lived there before 1967 were exclusively Syrian.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion regarding legality, or what should be, is not the point. Misplaced Pages isn't a legal document, and isn't bound by UN ideas. It should simply use the common names, and the name the area's residents use is very relevant. okedem (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

These mountains are in the Golan, which is internationally recognized as part of Syria, an arabic speaking country, arabic names should be used for arab mountains belonging to an arab country. To have hebrew names about what is recognized internationally as Syrian mountains is not neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• I favour using both Arabic and Hebrew names where possible with the primary names being Arabic where a choice has to be made. I agree with Supreme. To use Israeli names as the primary names for geographical features that are in Syrian territory is highly inappropriate in my view. I'd even say that this is the kind of thing that can bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute. These features already had and still have internationally recognised Arabic names. Linguistically re-mapping an occupied landscape is about as far from neutral as you can get. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment The question remains, although Israel has said any return of the occupied Golan lands is subject to the peace process, very little action has been taken to achieve that. Various Israeli regimes have stated differing opinions, with Netanyahu most recently alluding to the fact that the Golan may never be returned. This isn't a simple dispute spanning a few years, but rather 40 years. Regardless of what the United Nations' opinion is (which is one opinion among many), consideration must be taken into how the land area is promoted internationally and what terms are commonly used to refer to the land and its geographic features. --nsaum75 14:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And how is the land seen internationally? Do the entire world see it as Syrian or Israeli? This is not a tourist guide for supporters of the State of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE --nsaum75 19:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a common name used internationally for these mountains? Steering clear if the political or legal ownership of the Golan Heights, which I feel doesn't have much relevence to the debate, do geological organisations and publications usually use the Hebrew or Arabic? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment (here due to RFC) - Is not the simplest answer to give the names on BOTH languages? Unless the mountains have been successfully identified with their ancient Hebrew names, I would guess that the names will often be quite close to each other. Since the Jewish presence in the region was minimal from the 1st until the 20th century, I would suggest that the Arabic name should be the primary one, but names in other languages including English and those used by the Christians of the region should also be given. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Second thoughts -- Since this is the English WP, names should be English ones as far as possible. Thus tel (Hill - ?) and jebel (mountain) could conveniently be trasnlated, provided an English foirm can be found to he been used by some one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd say English names or names most used in English WP:RS, but having the most reliable sources be International ones like UN, encyclopedias, truly neutral sources and not publications from Israel or Arab sources. If there is a fair equality in which is used, use both. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • • English is the way to go and, as suggested, material produced either by international or standard Enclish-language physical geography texts should be preferred.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Title must be arabic name. Land belong to arab country, it always belong to arab country. the legitimate citizen in golan speak arabic. And hebrew language that be use by israel be made up language devise by Theodore Hertzl who borrow most of "new hebrew" word from Arabic and then change them to sound like "hebrew" word. Ani medjool (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, this must be the stupidest thing you have written yet, and boy is that saying something... Herzl invented Modern Hebrew? And he did so by borrowing most words from Arabic? Ya'allah! :P Breein1007 (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew is a made up language?? Ouch... --nsaum75 05:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully the English language would never steal words from other languages and change them. Shocking behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• This has to be done on a case by case basis as the determining factor in the name of the article is not whether or not it is Arab or Israeli territory but rather what the most commonly used name in English is. If English sources primarily use a transliteration of the Hebrew or the Arabic as the English name for any of these places then Misplaced Pages would also use that same name, and if they use something else entirely then Misplaced Pages should likewise be using that. The answer here is not saying the articles must be named based on either the Hebrew or Arabic name, the answer is to find out what English sources primarily use for the name. nableezy - 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

problem be, isreali lobby in US be strong and impose view on english speaking world, so natural that hebrew name be name wide known because of pov push by supporters of israel. Article need reflect name of rightful owner of land and dominant language of land and people, which be arabic. Ani medjool (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not how it works here, the most common English name used, and the name itself need not be English words but rather be the most commonly used name in English publications, is what the article should be titled. That is Misplaced Pages policy. nableezy - 00:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ipatrol's simple system

I have a simple system designed to maximize readability, comprehensibility, and neutrality; as follows:

• Use English names only wherever possible
• When an English name is not known or does not exist, use both Hebrew and Arabic names
• When using Arabic and Hebrew names, alternate the order at random

--Ipatrol (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) A note to all, please be civil on this issue. Let's not get into long, protracted arguements over who's "right" and which language is "correct" and let's try to come to a solution we can all agree on.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Maps using arabic names

I have found these maps: Southern Lebanon and vicinity. CREATED/PUBLISHED can be found here: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/gmdhome.html Golan Heights and vicinity CREATED/PUBLISHED 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.

As far as I can see "Har Hermonit" is the only Hebrew (I think) name used for these mountains, all other Golan mountains are written by its arabic name. I therefor propose that we follow these maps and change all Golan mountains to its arabic name, except Har Hermonit, since that appears to be the "official" names.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Find more. nableezy - 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found two more maps: http://lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/lebanon_south_and_vicinity_1976.jpg and http://lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/lebanon_southern_border_1986.jpg both these maps show two mountains by what I think is the hebrew name Har Hermonit and Har Baron, all other mountains are written by they're arabic names. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned in the past, a simple google search of each of these mountain names in their transliterated Hebrew with quotation marks comes up with staggeringly more results than the same search for Arabic. This is a very clear indicator that English speakers more commonly refer to the mountains by their Hebrew-English names. If you do these searches and go through some of the results, you will have a nice list of sources that use the Hebrew-English names and not the Arabic ones. Frankly, I don't see the purpose of going through them all and linking to them here... it's easy enough to do a google search.

I will link to one though, because curiously, it claims that the Golan Heights are in Syria, but still uses the Hebrew-English names for the volcanoes that it mentions! Breein1007 (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

SD posted CIA maps, you posted a blog. That is one of the reasons a google search is not sufficient for anything, we need to see what high quality sources use. nableezy - 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because we are not dealing with an issue of sourcing info here. We are talking about determining what is the most appropriate English name for something with a real name in a native language. To do this, it is definitely notable to consider which version of the name is more widespread, something that a google search is certainly sufficient for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breein1007 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, we look for the most predominant name used in reliable sources on the topic. That requires a bit more effort than typing a phrase in google. nableezy - 04:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese newspaper:

Israeli newspapers:

Book: "The Yom Kippur War"

Virtual Library:
Breein1007 (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The lebanese source only mentions Mount Hermon which is the english name, Jpost and Ynet are israeli sources so for them to use hebrew names are natural but both the links you provided only mention Mount Hermon which is the english name - no other mountains, The Yom Kippur War book only mentions one mountain besides the english Mount Hermon, and of course Jewishvirtuallibrary will us Hebrew names, its a pro-israel website and if you look at the bottom it says "Source: Allan Rabinowitz, Misplaced Pages." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I will kindly request that you strike out the lie in your last comment. After quickly glancing over just the 1 page that I linked from that book, I saw mention of 5 of the mountains/volcanoes in question. I have a feeling searching through the entire book would lead to even more. Furthermore, you discounting Israeli sources simply because they're Israeli shows your incapability to deal with Misplaced Pages policies objectively. It's all about POV pushing for you, as always. Israeli sources and reliable sources are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't matter if they will "naturally" use the Hebrew-English names. They are reliable sources, so we consider them. If you want to find me anti-Israel sources (like the Lebanese newspaper I linked up there that actually used the Hebrew-English name) that use the Arabic name, feel free. I don't think you'll be very successful, because guess what... the international consensus is that the English names of these places happen to be Hebrew equivalents. Tough luck. Breein1007 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at the page in the book and I only see mention of one mountain by its hebrew name, Mount Odem. The Lebanese source uses the English name which is Mount Hermon. Could you please provide evidence for your last comment that "international consensus is that the English names of these places happen to be Hebrew equivalents." ?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

SD did not discount Israeli sources, would you like to strike out that lie? He said that JVL is not a reliable source, and looking at the sources for the article in question he is right. nableezy - 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Look again. He commented that the Israeli newspapers are Israeli sources and thus they would naturally use the Hebrew-English names. His entire message was a deconstruction of my sources, trying to disprove their validity one by one. Therefore, he was implying that Israeli newspapers should not be considered in this matter. Please don't try to play games with me... frankly I'm just really not interested in dealing with bullshit here. This is such a pointless matter. It's clear that we have the articles named correctly, based on the more common English names. The only reason this whole battle started is that there are a few people here who constantly find new, annoying methods of pushing their anti-Israel POV into Misplaced Pages through loopholes and technicalities. Can we be serious for one second? Step back and think about how utterly pathetic it is for us to be wasting time arguing something so unimportant. I think our time would be better spent making constructive suggestions and edits. I have presented my case, provided several reliable sources, and with that I'm going to move on. I'm confident that this issue will be settled very soon. Breein1007 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What about you insert anti-arab pov to constant article? Article mislead right now, we attempt to correct but israel lobby insist on hide truth. Some editor say that be anti-arab. Ani medjool (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes he did say that, but I dont see anything where he says that they are not valid sources though. He has also presented reliable sources that use the Arabic names. And I too hope this can be resolved quickly, but it wont be with users saying such inane comments as "anti-Israel POV" for presenting sources using a different name than is used currently on Misplaced Pages. Or with users saying inane things like Hebrew is not a real language. What is needed here is dispassionate analysis of the sources, not gut feelings and personal prejudices. nableezy - 21:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - most of these mountain articles lack any sources whatsoever, and many fail to mention much beyond the fact that the land form exists. This may open a new can of worms, but since we are going by "most commonly used English name", perhaps the name of the mountain should be based upon how it is referred to in the majority of the reliable sources. Those mountains for whom WP:RS cannot be found (and that don't even appear on maps -- as it appears only Mount Hermon appears on most maps) should probably be deleted based upon not being notable. Going by some of the photos here on Misplaced Pages, I'm not even sure many of these are indeed mountains, rather just large hills. --nsaum75 19:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all relative. Since the area is not too mountainous, prominent hills are upgraded in status. In another are/country, these rocks would be mere hills. Most of these Golan mountains are distinct land masses. --Shuki (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion of the facts provided

Sources for Arab names:

• Southern Lebanon and vicinity. CIA map 1990 can be found here: Showing all hills by they're Arabic names except one, Har Hermonit.

• Golan Heights and vicinity. CIA map 1994 Showing all hills by they're Arabic names except one, Har Hermonit.

• Detailed map from the University of Texas libraries, South Lebanon and vicinity Showing all hills by they're arabic names except two, Har Hermonit and Har Baron.

• Map from the University of Texas at Austin, Southern Lebanon border area: Showing all hills by they're arabic names except two, Har Hermonit and Har Baron.

• National Geographic Map, showing only one hill in Golan, and that hill is by its arabic name:

Sources for Hebrew names:

• Book: "The Yom Kippur War: the Arab-Israeli War of 1973" using the Hebrew name for 5 of the hills: Booster, Avital, Bental, Hermonit and Odem

• jewishvirtuallibrary.org article that is sourced from wikipedia, using the Hebrew name for one of the hills "Mount Bental"

Sources for English names:

Note: Mount Hermon is not a hill on the Golan heights, but a mountain in Syria/Lebanon/Golan and we are not discussing a name change of it but only: http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Hills_on_the_Golan_Heights

• Book: "The Yom Kippur War: the Arab-Israeli War of 1973" using the english name for Mount Hermon - a mountain which we are not discussing a name change of.

• jewishvirtuallibrary.org article that is sourced from wikipedia, using the english name for Mount Hermon - a mountain which we are not discussing a name change of.

• Lebanese news site Naharnet using the english name for one Golan mountain, Mount Hermon - a mountain which we are not discussing a name change of:

• Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post using the english name for one Golan mountain, Mount Hermon - a mountain which we are not discussing a name change of:

• Israeli newspaper Ynet using the english name for one Golan mountain, Mount Hermon - a mountain which we are not discussing a name change of:

Misplaced Pages should be based on reliable and notable documented sources and looking at all the evidence provided above, I believe that the only correct thing to do is to carry out the name change of all the hills or the majority of them to they're arabic names since not one single source (let alone a notable reliable one) have been provided showing the majority of hills by hebrew names. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation in the so-called conclusion of facts

Your summary is full of lies. Surprise? The book lists much more than one mountain, as I already told you above. Your Texas U source specifically states that it used pre-1967 sources for the names in the Golan Heights. I find it funny that you yourself recognize 3 sections, Hebrew, Arabic, and English names. If you recognize that there are already appropriate English names, why the hell would you want to change them to Arabic on English Misplaced Pages? Our goal here is to use appropriate English names. You yourself admit that they exist. So what's the problem? Hmm, I wonder... could it have something to do with your political agenda? Breein1007 (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Texas map says that it uses pre-1967 sources for names and locations for Syrian villages. No connection to hills. You are right that this source also mentions other hills (5) by they're hebrew names, I did not see that. There are no english names presented at this talkpage for the hills. The only english name used is for Mount Hermon which is not a hill, and we are not discussing a name change of it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another book that mentions many of the hills by their proper Hebrew-English equivalents, and none by their Arabic.

And another book that mentions Hermonit and Booster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breein1007 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Both these links doesn't work for me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The book "Arabs at war: military effectiveness, 1948-1991" specifically says "The Israelis were deployed primarily on two volcanic hills -tels-" (which the arab names uses, and then it says:)"called by the israelis "hermonit" and "booster"". The book "The heights of courage: a tank leader's war on the Golan" is written by Avigdor Kahalani who is an Israeli and chairman of the "Golan Lobby in the Knesset". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not seem to have learned that on Misplaced Pages, labeling someone as "Israeli" is not enough to discredit them as a reliable source. Please get used to that. Breein1007 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

lies? please no attack other editor. it valid information that be correct to correct current incorrectness. Ani medjool (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out that he's lying about the source isn't an attack. It's a statement of reality. He said that the source listed 1 mountain, when he has been made clearly aware that it in fact contains 6. In terms of your reference to "valid information that be correct to correct current incorrectness"... I don't see the need to add anything. Breein1007 (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

I was asked to try to help wrap up this discussion, but I don't think any of the maps and books cited above are totally convincing one way or another. Instead I'll offer a few new suggestions that might help break this dead-lock.

As several editors have suggested, WP:ENGLISH and WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name should be the guiding principles here. From WP:ENGLISH:

Use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language as the title of the article, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form (Aragon, Venice, Normandy; Franz Josef Strauss, Victor Emmanuel III, Christopher Columbus). Rarely, as with Germany or Mount Everest, it will be completely different.

Has anybody consulted reference works other than maps? Do other encyclopedias have articles about the specific hills of the Golan Heights?

WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name says:

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity".

If no such statement can be found, the guideline lists several suggestions for determining widely accepted names. Has anybody looked for statements of the type described above? I'm not sure that all the suggestions in the guideline have been exhausted in this case, and some of them may be fruitful. Or not.

I wish I could be more helpful. Good luck. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, NCGN doesn't really work here because there are several reliable sources with different viewpoints on the matter. In othernwords, there is no widely accepted name for these mountains. Most don't really have english names either. This discussiin is degenerating into Godwin-like insults and mudslinging, please Hold yourself together! What are we, mature editors, or selfish whiny babies?! The conduct of many of you here is absolutly abhorent. Now, lets try to work out a compromise, ok?--Ipatrol (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As Ipatrol says, there are no widely used names for these hills, but if you look at the only presented evidence at this talkpage, there are several very reliable english maps using arabic names for the majority of the hills and one book calling the hills "tels" (arabic) and says that the hebrew names is what the Israelis call them. And there is one book presented showing some hebrew names for some of the mountains, and one book written by an ex Israeli soldier and chairman of the "Golan Lobby in the Knesset" using the hebrew name for one hill. I do not really see how the evidence presented for hebrew names "beats" the evidence presented for arabic names. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So is this issue dead now? Despite as I see it, a lot better sources supporting arabic, there will be no change?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You see it that way, but others see it differently. Such is life. There isn't consensus to support the suggested change. Breein1007 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont see consensus for hebrew. I see more support for arabic then for hebrew. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And I see more support for the English names than the Arabic names. But you know very well that conflicts are not settled with that mentality. Breein1007 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The English sources use the arabic names as I have shown above in several maps. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While you did link several English sources that used the Arabic names, I linked several English sources that used the English names. What exactly are we accomplishing here? We aren't bringing anything new to this discussion. Breein1007 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You didnt show any english names.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I barely know where to weigh in. So I'll do so hear. IMHO, based on a review of the above comments by all editors, there is no compelling reason to change the existing names to the Arabic names. That said, I support redirects of the Arabic names to the existing pages, if they do not already exist.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

/

Can we just use both namez with a slash?--Ipatrol (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

my edit

My edit. I checked through the edits Gilbrand made on januari 1. I re added the entire dayan quote, there is no reason why it cant be in the article. It looked like Gilbrand had removed the parts she didn't like, and somehow interpreted "80%" to "some". "Israeli-occupied territories" re added to see also section since Golan is a part of that. Corrected Lake ram name. Re added the "due to UN and US pressure but resuscitated" reason for Israel stop of taking the water. I removed this sentence because it is unsourced: "Before the Six-Day War, Israeli farm communities in the Hulah Valley were subjected to constant shelling from the Golan. Syrian attacks killed 140 Israelis and injured many more from 1949 to 1967." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

your version slanted the article considerably toward the pro-Syrian POV. If there are unsourced sentences, you should tag them, rather than removing them. Please get consensus for your changes here before re-introducing them. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So if there is something anti-syrian that is unsourced, I can not remove it but have to tag them, and if there is a statement from an Israeli general, that is sourced, then that quote can be perverted and twisted and everything the "israeli side" don't like in that quote can be removed without any need of getting consensus at talkpage. Also notice that I added a "Citation needed" tag at one place but your disrespectful revert removed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's something unsourced, be it pro-Syrian or anti-Syrian, you need to tag it. The issue with the quote you provided is differeent - it appears to be (a) too long, and (b) an attempt to "explain" certain actions, in a way that would be synthesis. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not up to you to decide if its to long or not, Its a informative quote and its presented as a quote in the article, nothing else. So if you wanted to remove everything from that quote not in accordance with your personal pro-israeli views and change "80%" to "some", then you should follow your own advise and get consensus at talk page for that. You are telling me that I have to tag it, but you didn't tag anything, you removed it instead. As I said I added a tag at one place that you removed so your post doesn't make sense, you are telling me that I have to do something (ad tag) that I did, and then you revert it and remove the tag that I added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dayan quote belongs and has been on this page for years. The idea that a Misplaced Pages editor thinks that what Dayan meant when he said that "80%" of the interactions with the Syrians were instigated by Israel means that "sometimes the attacks were provoked by Israel" is slightly funny but not in any way meaningful. nableezy - 18:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote be important because show how zionists precious" Dayan support genocide of Arab and other non jew living in Palestine. Israeli attempt to censor article by remove of IMPORTANT FACT will no be tolerate. Ani medjool (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not helping. nableezy - 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To Drork: Can you please explain what in this edit is pov, since you reverted it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Because you cite an irrelevant source and then jump to conclusions that are not derived from this source, and phrase them as an accusation against Israel. The fact that the British Mandate had a contract allowing French-Mandate subjects, or later Syrian citizens, to use the Sea of Galilee for fishing and drinking water does not entail that Israel was obligated to this contract (and we must bear in mind that Syria did not recognize Israel and declared the Israeli government an enemy). You say that Israel tried to prevent Syrians from exercising their rights without any proof that these rights actually existed, and without considering that the Israeli patrols in the Sea of Galilee could have been for other legitimate purposes. In my opinion, even without this edit the article is currently pro-Syrian biased, but this last edit is really a bit too much. DrorK (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this book: and this UN document irrelevant sources? The sources says specifically what the mandates had agreed, and that is what I wrote, that the mandates had given these rights, and the sources says specifically what Israel did not accept, and that is what I wrote. There is a UN document that I sourced from that clearly show that the rights existed, and the same rights are also mentioned in the book. You also removed the section that Israelis used to go into the DMZ. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The British Mandate and the State of Israel are two different things. Is that so hard to understand? DrorK (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? The sources do not say they were the same thing and nor had I written that they were the same thing. You have failed to defend your revert.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll explain once again: your sources indicate that there was an agreement between British Mandate Palestine and French Mandate Syria regarding the use of the Sea of Galilee and the northern part of the Jordan River. As far as I know, such agreement existed indeed and was implemented, and was probably honored after Syria gained independence. However, the British Mandate of Palestine ceased to exist at midnight of the 15th of May 1948. The Mandate would have ended on that time even if the State of Israel had not been declared, since it was a British decision, considering the fact that the UN did not extended the UK Mandate rights over this region. Eventually the State of Israel inherited the British rule in the region known as the Galilee, and yet Israel had no obligation to honor all of the British Mandate's international agreements, especially as Syria never recognized it and declared itself an enemy of the Israeli government. To sum it all up - you cannot represent an agreement between the British Mandate and Syria as if it were an Israeli-Syrian agreement, and you cannot suggest Israel broke an agreement it never signed. DrorK (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The source do not say that the deal was for the mandate of Palestine but for "Palestine". I have not presented the agreement as if it was a Syrian-Israeli agreement. I have followed exactly what it says in the sources, deal between the mandates, that is what I wrought, Israel did not accept the deal, that is what I wrought. What you say about what Israel had no obligation to is OR. Bring sources that is directly connected to this issue. According to the source "UNTSO held that these agreements were still binding." You have not answered why you removed that Israelis used to go into the DMZ.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, I've seen this abuse of the verifiability rule too many times in articles related to the ME, and you are trying to play this trick again here. You present a pro-Syrian source that makes a far-fetched claim. When I point to the weakness of this source, you send me to look for a source that refutes the claim, rather than making the effort and look for a better non-biased source to support this far-fetched claim. This is not how we do things here. In the context given here, Palestine is British Mandate Palestine. There was no other geopolitical entity by this name at the time. Now, this is an article about the Golan Heights. How does a British consent that Syrians use the Sea of Galilee control by their mandate government relevant here? You suggest that the relevancy is the (alleged) attempt of Syrian fishermen to make use of this consent during the 1950s and 1960s resulting in exchange of fire between Israel and Syrian. There is a slight problem with this theory - the British Mandate ceased to exist at midnight, 15 May 1948. Hence, it is impossible to talk about Syrian rights per an agreement with that entity when this entity is non-existing. You can find many sources that claim UFOs exist, but you won't trust these sources, would you? It is also inconceivable to trust a source that talks about obligations of the British Mandate after it ceased to exist. Just to make things even clearer, here is a link to the the Palestine Act 1948 adopted by the British Parliament, which officially announces the end of the British Mandate and, more importantly, does not designate any successor entity to the Mandate. DrorK (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You still have not answered why you removed the DMZ part. How are the sources pro-Syrian? As I have already told you, I did not ad that Israel was obligated to do anything. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The DMZ are not part of the Golan Heights whatsoever. If you are referring to the British Mandate rule, then it ended at midnight, May 15, 1948, so I don't see its relevance here. If you are talking about the DMZ, then they are not part of the GH, neither politically nor geographically, so once again I fail to see the relevance. What point are you trying to make here? DrorK (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Large parts of the DMZ is part of the Golan: look at this map: and even if it wasn't, it was where Israel provoked clashes, and this is connected to the conflict that led to the Israeli invasion and occupation of Golan. Mandate negotiations, it doesn't really matter if Israel was obligated or not, I have not written that it was, but the fact that UNTSO and Syria were still following these deals and Israel not, led to Israel killing 50 Syrian solders in the Golan, which is a an integral part of this conflict, and therefore belongs in the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Negev and Sinai lies next to each other on the map, but they are two distinct regions. Similarly, when you look at the map, you see that the DMZ are adjacent to the GH, but that doesn't make them part of it. The geographical border of the GH is very well defined by the slope from the Heights to the Hula/Jordan/Sea of Galilee valleys. Politically the DMZ were never part of Syria, unlike the GH that has been part of Syria for about two decades. The clashes in the DMZ have little relevance to this article. It was a struggle between Syria which wanted to take control of territories inside the former British Mandate, and Israel which sought to gain sovereignty over the whole former Mandate territory. The GH were captured by Israel following attacks from Syria beyond the DMZ on Israeli undisputed territory. This is a description of these attacks . DrorK (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Pathetic

There is not a single country other than Israel that doubts that the Golan belongs to Syria. There is not a single organization outside Israel that doubts that the Golan belongs to Syria. There is not a single non-Israeli reference that doubts that the Golan belongs to Syria. But for some reason the fucking pro-Israel Misplaced Pages chooses not to explicitly state that the Golan is located in Syria. The intro paragraph to this article is PATHETIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.220.100 (talk • contribs)

Misplaced Pages is not a forum. Please review WP:NOTSOAPBOX and contribute appropriately if you have things you wish to discuss. Also, sign your posts. Breein1007 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically the IP was making the point that evidence in the article suggests that Misplaced Pages is being used as a soapbox so I assume they are familiar with the NOTSOAPBOX policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

IP address is correct, there are a group of people at Misplaced Pages that have done everything they can to remove corrected information from this article.

Even an Israeli newspaper labels the Golan in a more correct manner then wikipedia: "the Golan Heights, the Syrian plateau that Israel occupied in the Six-Day War." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the text properly according to its context. This is not the opinion of the newspaper, this is how Syria defines the region. Not all citations are given within quotes. It would be better if the editor added "the so-called Syrian plateau", but this is probably an oversight. In this article, Ynet refer to the Golan Heights as part of Israel , and this is how this newspaper usually refers to the Golan Heights. DrorK (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient history

The quote is from the bible. Until-during, there are no new source supporting the change. That the Israelites invaded it is already written below, it doesn't have to be repeated and turned it into an Israeli-centric pov. What is written in the bible is not factual history and should not be presented as such.

And also why is the word "foreign" put after Arab Ghassanids in this edit? Isn't the Israelites also foreign? Shouldn't the word "foreign" also be put after the Israelites in this case? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We are all foreign in a way, because none of us stays in the same place for too long. Recent researches suggest that only some people in central Africa can refer to themselves as locals, and even that is not 100% certain. Back to the point, the Bible is basically not a historical source (neither are other religious books, including the Quran), but it is sometimes used as historical reference, especially when there are archaeological or historical sources that support it, or if philological analysis show that the information included in it is likely to be factual. So, citing the Bible can be relevant in certain contexts. DrorK (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Biblical story should be in the article, but separated from the history. It isn't history. I suggest a separate section. Zero 13:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I support having all relevant information from religious texts, but this can not be presented as "facts" or "history", and should be in a separate section, second of all, it already says that the Arab Ghassanids were immigrants, why did he put the word "foreign" after it? isn't the israelites also "foreign" in the same way? and the Assyrians? Persians? Romans? Druze? Circassians? and so on. Why was the "foreign" only put after the Arab Ghassanids? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The second problem seems to have gone away. ;) Zero 07:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Quneitra

Drork, please explain why you re-reverted several errors, lies if they are intentional, into the text? The word "destroyed" is commonly used to describe what Israeli did to Quneitra, not "ruined". Also, it is not a "Syrian claim" that Israeli destroyed the city, and you again phrased it that way without regard to the numerous third-party sources that explicitly say that Quneitra was systematically destroyed by Israel. Also, why did you remove the quotes from western news agencies documenting its destruction? Also, "he United Nations General Assembly decided by vote to adopt Syria's position and condemned Israel for allegedly destroying Quneitra." is blatantly false. The UN established a committee to investigate the events surrounding the destruction of the city, they did not "decide by vote to adopt Syria's position". The text I copied from the featured article Quneitra retains Israel's denial and gives it proper weight, yours places it ahead of what nearly the whole world knows as fact and treats that fact as simply a Syrian claim. Explain yourself. nableezy - 15:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• Start-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• All WikiProject Volcanoes pages
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics