Talk:Quneitra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Montag

IGuy Montag please stop this revisionism. According to the Six Day war article on Wikipedia, Israel is the one that launched a pre-emptive strike. This stub of an article is not going to discuss if Israel was justified or not in its strike/invasion, but the fact is that ISRAEL INVADED SYRIA. I'm sure that in your mind the invasion was totally justified and saved alot of innocent lives, but the fact remains that it was an invasion. Why are you trying to rewrite history and claim that Syria invaded Israel?Yuber^(talk) 23:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC) srael was invaded by Syria?==

Because you are wrong.

Guy Montag 00:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Six Days War

Although this can be found in the Six Days War article, (if not it should be added) but Syria initiated the war with Israel after months of escalation, which culminated in the shelling of Galilee communities and the death of dozens of civilians. Secondly, it had a military alliance with Egypt, which prior to that had violated international law by blocking the Straits of Tiran, also a cassus belli. After Egypt initiated the provacation which led to open hostilities, the military alliance with Syria came into affect, with Syria mobilizing its forces to invade Israel. There is no relevence or accuracy in stating that Israel invaded the Golan Heights without stating the context in which this happened. Syria initiated hostilities, and Israel captured it in self defense.

There are also the POV issues with the language you are using. Just as we do not use "occupied" for the territories, we do not use it for the Golan Heights. All of these issues are contentious and will not be accepted by wikipedia standards.

Guy Montag 00:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The war of Israeli Aggression was started by Israel. Fact. No amount of desperate propaganda spread all around the Earth is going to change that fact. Israel desired the Golan Heights and the West Bank, it invented the pretexts for the invasion so that it could seize them and continue its settler colonial enterprise. That is why it committed a genocide on the residents of the Golan Heights and demolished their towns. If Israel had no designs on the territory previously, why would they immediately begin settling it? Do you have any common sense? What nation that accidentally stumbles into the territory due to a defensive war does that kind of stuff? Where are the US settlements in Iraq after the Iraq war? Oh yeah, they don't exist, because a nation not intent on colonizing an area doesn't build settlements. As to Israeli's stated causa belli for the war, FYI, no Israeli ships had sailed through the straits for two years previously. Clearly keeping the straits open was not some desperate Israeli strategic need that required invading three nations and seizing massive amounts of territory and then immediately beginning to build permanent settlements, then playing innocent and pretending like that wasn't the goddamn goal the whole time.2601:140:8980:106F:CC5C:5DCF:997E:6F2B (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so Israel invaded in self-defense, it's still an invasion.Yuber^(talk) 00:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I came here to comment on Yuber's reversions, but Guy, I noticed your comment about "occupied." Is it correct that Wikipedia doesn't refer to the territories as occupied? If so, can you point me in the direction of that guideline? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's a point of contention. "Occupied territory" status normally disappears when a territory is annexed, and Israel has annexed the Golan Heights. However, no other countries have recognized that annexation. In any event, it's just politicking not relevant to this article; Yuber has been making a rash of edits designed solely to impart POV, not improve Wikipedia, and these are some of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of the status, but my point was only about WP. Guy seems to be implying that there's been an agreement (or some kind of accepted practice) about which term should be used on WP, but I'm not aware of any, and if there isn't one, we should use the normal term. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

It is a consensus you can find in any article that deals with the Arab-Israeli conflict. The reason being is that using the political language of one side becomes a POV for the other side. If we used such terms, no work could be done as this would result in a revert war. Because it is still a political issue, most editors erase most "claim terms" like "occupied" or "liberated," and simply call them "territories" and the action of ownership as "controlled". If an article is not a political issue, we sometimes use the term "occupied". For example, "Nazi Germany occupied Poland in 1939." It is an implied standard for this perticular conflict to keep it NPOV.

Guy Montag 00:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Report on Destruction

Yuber, do you have a report to the UN that isn't incredibly biased, that doesn't use terms like "martyred city of Quneitra" or "Israeli aggression of 1967." It would help the relevancy of this article if you did.

Guy Montag 01:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

These are the reports of witnesses, they will contain some bias.Yuber^(talk) 01:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Not witnesses, I know that they will contain biases, I am talking about the entire report. It is a very biased source. Do you have a similiar source without partisanship and hatred for one side? If not, I will have to qualify the report in the article.

Guy Montag 02:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

We should not be including long verbatim quotes from any source. It is available elsewhere. We should summarize, in an NPOV manner, what it and other sources say. -Willmcw 00:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

POV edits

Yuber, The case here is very simple. The word "occupied" is not a neutral word, and your edit is not a POV edit. It doesn't matter what you believe on the subject or what subject we are talking about. In the area of the Arab Israeli conflict, it is not used as a matter of fact because it pressupposes the position of one side in a dispute. If you cannot accept that and the rules of wikipedia, then all the people you have pissed off with your disregard for cooperation will come back right at you. Today it has.

I told you many times in many articles that your pov pushing will get you banned. This is your last warning. Your tendencies to start edit wars over your pov editing has become so tediously time consuming to NPOV that I have come to believe you are not capable of working on this project. I am going to give you one chance to stop. If you do not, you will be brought up before an arbitration committee by the end of the week. You have my word on that.

Guy Montag 06:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to take what you have to say seriously. This is because you continuously add scare-quotes to Palestine-related articles and you blatantly remove information.Yuber^(talk) 06:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I no longer care what you think. I tried to work with you, but have proven to be nothing but a militant pov pusher who cannot cooperate with others. I've given you enough time to cooperate and enough slack. I didn't care about you POV's before because I thought I could work with you. Apperantly not. I can tolerate POV editors who work with others, but you cannot work with others. So this is it. Arbitration committee here you go.

Guy Montag 06:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pot meet Kettle

--Irishpunktom\^talk 13:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Long quotes workshop

The witness said that he and many other inhabitants tried to return to their homes, but were prevented from doing so by Israeli troops. Israeli authorities stole many archaeological remains and stones. They destroyed the trees, the vineyards. They burned all the crops which had already been harvested.

-

-

The Israeli troops entered also the village of Mesehara where the witness had taken refuge. They used loudspeakers to urge the inhabitants to leave immediately if they did not want to be killed. The villagers were then gathered and expelled, with tanks following them. Some old people, however, remained behind. They have never been heard of since then.

-

-

After a few days of occupation, most of the inhabitants were gathered in a small part of the city. The Israelis prevented the inhabitants from going back to their homes on the pretext of security reasons and they started looting. Then the inhabitants were called to sign personal statements that they would leave Quneitra of their own free will. Finally, the Israelis took the inhabitants in trucks and dropped them outside the city boundaries. Police were warned not to return under threat of being shot.

-

-

The witness said that in 1967 he was living with his father, mother and children in the city of Quneitra. When Israel declared its war on the Arabs on 5 June 1967 1967, it wanted only to fulfil its dreams of swallowing up Arab territories without their inhabitants. The Israeli troops struck at the city of Quneitra on the first day of the war. They shot at trade shops and houses with people living in them. In the few following days after Israeli troops entered the city of Quneitra, most of the inhabitants were still living in it, but pressure mounted to compel inhabitants to leave. For instance, Israeli authorities used to gather the youth in one place and would accuse them of being in the military service; they also gathered the inhabitants in one spot and compelled them to kneel on the ground with their hands above their heads, with no consideration whatever for old people, women or small children. They also took away the wives, whose reputation is of great importance in Arab families.

Here are the quotes. Propose a version in talk and we will work on it to reach consensus.

Guy Montag 03:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calton, if you have something to add to this page other than your aggressive reverts, here is your chance. Here are the long quotes. Construct a version in talk and I will insert my opinions. After it is done, we can reinstert it into the article. If there is something you dont understand, send me a message. I also suggest you start learning about the history of this dispute and I suggest you start to cooperate. Your jumping in with guns blazing didn't make a very good first impression.

Guy Montag 06:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Filling an article with long quotes from a one-sided description of a war is decidedly un-encyclopedic. Brief quotes and summaries are always better, as is a balance of sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quote by a witness about alleged Israeli destruction

Previous version of the article simply stated that witness testified about Israel's alleged destruction of the city before withdrawal. I added information that the witness was called in by Mr. Najib Al Ahmad, Special Representative of Palestine Liberation Organization. Information added comes from the source provided.

What bothers me is that the person who contributed this witness account, probably red the entire UN report, and then deliberatly made it sound like it was the official position of the UN. Judge for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quneitra&diff=30115040&oldid=29466055 --Heptor 4 December 2005 (UTC)

How to find this info: follow the link to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ded9d4b9fbef11c1802564360057f1f2?OpenDocument. Scroll down to Annex two. Find II. Damascus, Syria - 26-29 May 1979. There you will see Statement by Mr. Najib Al Ahmad, Special Representative, Political Department, Palestine Liberation Organization. Witness 24 is Mr. Yassin Rikab. The included passage comes from point 132. --Heptor 22:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Passed GA

I have just reviewed the article and found it very well written and believe it passes all 6 of the criteria. One minor point is that reference 19 doesn't have a source so if this could be added it would be even better! Good Luck if this goes to FAC! - Suicidalhamster 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

I tinkered with some punctuation and wording. The way the lead read before was a bit clunky; to start a sentence "Founded in the Ottoman era..." (which the reader takes as an intro to a history), and then jump to 1967 seemed jarring.

If I may comment, I'm in awe of the NPOV here. It would be hard to imagine a more explosive kind of topic, but it's been handled masterfully. --Milkbreath 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Negative statement

I took out from the introduction:

"Syria has not rebuilt Quneitra, but has instead kept it in a destroyed state."

This does not seem like the kind of sentence that belongs in a WP article. It is clear from the information already given that the city has not been rebuilt. Blaming Syria amounts to original research. You might as well say that Bill Gates has not donated some of his billions to rebuild it. Steve Dufour 00:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's both factually wrong and absurd. "Unlike Egypt, which rebuilt its heavily damaged canal cities, Syria left Kuneitra in ruins - a monument to ongoing hostilities". - Abraham Rabinovich, The Yom Kippur War. The Syrian government was required by treating to rebuild Kuniteria. They did not. It is not an accident that nobody has resettled there. Raul654 01:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Rabinovich should be quoted in the article, if he is not already. But that is his opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about what other people should or should not do. WP itself however, is not allowed to express this kind of opinion. Steve Dufour 01:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to:

"Syria has been criticized for not rebuilding Quneitra, but instead keeping it in a destroyed state."

The issue, as I see it, is not the information given but the negative form of the original sentence. Steve Dufour 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup prior to maindate

Some WP:MOS cleanup is needed prior to maindate; I left sample edits. There is inconsistent date linking throughout (see WP:MOSDATE) Full dates (month day, year) and month-day combos (month day) should either be consistently linked everywhere (including citations) or consistently formatted in raw form. There are missing WP:NBSPs or {{nowrap}}s. And there are problems with logical punctuation on quotes. Also missing retrieval dates on websources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)