Talk:Quneitra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
==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)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
-
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
--Irishpunktom\talk 13:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
