| Revision as of 11:49, 29 October 2013 editZero0000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators41,925 edits →"Fatahland"← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:53, 29 October 2013 edit undoGilabrand (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users72,084 edits →"Fatahland" and other nonsenseNext edit → | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| This is rubbish. The cited article doesn't even say that the Sheba Farms was ever called Fatahland, it is referring to the nearby area of southern Lebanon. Read it carefully. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | This is rubbish. The cited article doesn't even say that the Sheba Farms was ever called Fatahland, it is referring to the nearby area of southern Lebanon. Read it carefully. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| It is also wrong to remove from the lead the only reason this region is notable, namely the sovereignty question of Lebanon versus Syria. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | It is also wrong to remove from the lead the only reason this region is notable, namely the sovereignty question of Lebanon versus Syria. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::Perhaps you should read more carefully: The article says precisely that. The only reason is the area is significant is that Israel is involved. Nobody gave a damn before that. Your reduction of the lead to a few unsourced statements is problematic. Nobody reading it would have any idea what the problem is and why it is being fought over. That is what needs fixing. If you can help, that would be great.--] (]) 11:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Also ] does not mention Sheba Farms at all, nor does Res 1559. None of this makes any sense unless "Sheba Farms" extends north of the international border, but that is not the case according to the UN definition, the map in the article, or any source in the article (I think). The name in almost all uses refers to the region south of the 1920 Syria-Lebanon border which Lebanon claims. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | Also ] does not mention Sheba Farms at all, nor does Res 1559. None of this makes any sense unless "Sheba Farms" extends north of the international border, but that is not the case according to the UN definition, the map in the article, or any source in the article (I think). The name in almost all uses refers to the region south of the 1920 Syria-Lebanon border which Lebanon claims. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:53, 29 October 2013
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shebaa Farms 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, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shebaa Farms 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, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Recent reverts
I really do not see what is so hard to understand about this. We need to establish a few baseline facts here.
- The Israeli MFA website is not a suitable source for anything but what the official Israeli position is. Citing statements of fact to them is absurd.
- The broad international consensus is that the Golan Heights are occupied Syrian territory. This is a very straightforward call. Even the US Department of State acknowledges this.
- Calling UN resolutions "non-binding" is tendentious. There is no legal consensus that Chap VI resolutions are indeed non-binding. Furthermore, when a UN resolution is directly based on established principles of international law, calling it "non-binding" is disingenuous, as the underlying legal principles are indeed binding. It is interesting that I've never once seen Misplaced Pages tag a US resolution that Israel likes, such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, "non-binding."
All of this is very basic stuff and I honestly don't understand how anybody can edit in Mideast related articles and not get this. I would also note that this article has a very heavy preponderance of sources on the right-wing of the US/Israeli political spectrum, some of which are pretty sketchy. The likes of DEBKAfile, Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Cybercast News Service, and Daniel Pipes et al are not very helpful as sources. They are useful maybe for finding out what the hardliners on one side think, in the same way that al-Manar would be useful on the other side. They aren't good for facts. <eleland/talkedits> 18:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Israeli MFA website does not say that Israel annexed the Golan Heights. It just said that Israeli law is applied there (this is kinda-sorta like annexation, but gives some wiggle room if Israel and Syria ever wish to exchange land for peace). I'll edit it accordingly. --GHcool (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Binding or not, the UN resolutions state the opinion of the UN. It does not present a neutral view of the actual state of affairs. The classic example is Taiwan - in practice it is an independent country, according to the UN it doesn't exist, according to the Taiwanese government, it is the Republic of China. Should we adopt the UN view here because it is an international organization? The answer is no, because our interest is to present the facts on the ground. DrorK (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Fixes.
I changed the "1923 border" and "pre-1967 de facto" to international. Thats what it is and that is what its called. Moved the Arab sections of etymology to the top since the area belongs to an Arab nation, therefor the Arab stuff should be first.
- There is an international border. The "pre-1967 de facto border" has no force of law. If you use this term, then you cannot sar Israeli settlements are illegal. ] (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)]
I removed "murdered" from the Hezbollah attacks, we can ad back "murdered" when all Israeli killings of Arabs are refereed in other wikipedia articles as "murdering Arabs". "Elsewere" - that would be Syria. I removed the "French Mandate (1923–1967)" there was no french mandate between those years. I removed the Hezbollah cross-border raid (2000) and PLO attack section, has nothing to do with article, saved a smaller part of the PLO part. The Israeli annexation was written twice, removed one of them. Created separate UNSCR245 section. Removed category Israel–Lebanon border since no "Israeli border" is connected to this area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- To Nsaum: Dont you think the Arab etymology should be first since the area is internationally seen as part of an Arab nation? Why should the name of an occupation soldier be put higher then the owners of the land? And can you please explain what the PLO and Hezbollah sections have to do with the Shebaa farms? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Supreme Deliciousness, are you trying to improve the article or to make it more political? By your very words you assert not only your biasness, but the fact that you want to introduce this biasness into the article. I don't have time now to go over your edits and check them, but rest assure that politically motivated edits will not stay long, so don't bother to introduce more of them if you have this in mind. DrorK (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have restored/removed some of the things I have mentioned here above as no explanation for how the PLO and Hezbollah sections have to do with this article has been given or why the name of an occupation soldier should be put higher then the owners of the land. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- before the Arab imperialists conquered the Golan it probably had a Latin name, and before that it was Bashan in Hebrew. Before the British Imperialists gave it to the French Imperialists it was part of Palestine. ]
- I have restored/removed some of the things I have mentioned here above as no explanation for how the PLO and Hezbollah sections have to do with this article has been given or why the name of an occupation soldier should be put higher then the owners of the land. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Supreme Deliciousness, are you trying to improve the article or to make it more political? By your very words you assert not only your biasness, but the fact that you want to introduce this biasness into the article. I don't have time now to go over your edits and check them, but rest assure that politically motivated edits will not stay long, so don't bother to introduce more of them if you have this in mind. DrorK (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
BlueLine map
Under the BlueLine image it says: "UN Demarcation", The UN would have written that the area is Syria and occupied by Israel. So if the text isn't corrected, the claim of "UN Demarcation" should at least be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- The blue line is a UN demarcation, but the map is not a UN map, and doesn't use UN terminology. Actually the "Blue Line" is a UN creation by definition, but it doesn't mean it cannot appear on non-UN maps. DrorK (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
population
what is the population of this piece of land? what is their nationality? 81.102.15.200 (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- AFAIK there is zero population in this area, this is an area of farm land, but I don't have a source for this. Marokwitz (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any sources on this? 81.102.15.200 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Elias Bejjani
The Elias Bejjani source (http://www.lgic.org/en/faq_shebaa01.php) begins "Under the puppet regime and the hegemony of the Syrian Baathist occupier..." and continues in a similar vein. It does not seem a reliable source. In any case, it does not say what it is used as a reference for (that Syrians attacked a post in 1956, killing 2 gendarmes, and then intimidated Lebanon into inaction). I will therefore remove that part. 81.102.15.200 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
"Fatahland" and other nonsense
This is rubbish. The cited article doesn't even say that the Sheba Farms was ever called Fatahland, it is referring to the nearby area of southern Lebanon. Read it carefully. Zero 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) It is also wrong to remove from the lead the only reason this region is notable, namely the sovereignty question of Lebanon versus Syria. Zero 11:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should read more carefully: The article says precisely that. The only reason is the area is significant is that Israel is involved. Nobody gave a damn before that. Your reduction of the lead to a few unsourced statements is problematic. Nobody reading it would have any idea what the problem is and why it is being fought over. That is what needs fixing. If you can help, that would be great.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Also does not mention Sheba Farms at all, nor does Res 1559. None of this makes any sense unless "Sheba Farms" extends north of the international border, but that is not the case according to the UN definition, the map in the article, or any source in the article (I think). The name in almost all uses refers to the region south of the 1920 Syria-Lebanon border which Lebanon claims. Zero 11:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)