Talk:Golan Heights

typo - history/early Jewish settlement

"Between 1891 and 1894, Baron Edmond James de Rothschild purchased around 150,000 dunams of land in the Golan and the Hawran for Jewish settlement.[55] Legal and political permits were secured and ownership of the land was registered in late 1984.[55]" ... should that be 1894? 203.213.90.41 (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make much sense any other way. I think we can safely assume two digits were transposed. Good catch. I've fixed it. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

to Supreme Deliciousness: why "doesn't correctly summarize it"?

You undid my added sentence: "The provocations were sending a tractor to plow in the demilitarized areas. The Syrian reaction was shooting the Israeli villages." In my opinion it is accurate and based on the same source mentioned there. your reason is: "This doesn't correctly summarize it." why? Ykantor (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say that The Syrian reaction was shooting the Israeli villages? And why wouldnt we say The provocations were to break the terms of the armistice to antagonize Syria to the point of firing in response. The Israelis would then attack with artillery and with aerial fire? nableezy - 19:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

to nableezy: you said: Where exactly does it say that The Syrian reaction was shooting the Israeli villages?. reply: It is already written here . e.g. "the Syrians constantly harassed Israeli border communities by firing artillery shells ", "Israeli incursions into the zone were responded to with Syrians shooting"

• you said: "And why wouldnt we say The provocations were to break the terms of the armistice to antagonize Syria to the point of firing in response. The Israelis would then attack with artillery and with aerial fire?". Your sentence is incorrect.

1. you said:"The provocations were to break the terms of the armistice" . Not true. According to the Israeli interpretation it was non militarized but available to civilians.
2. you said:"The Israelis would then attack with artillery and with aerial fire" . If the Syrians are shooting first, why the Israeli should not respond? Ykantor (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

in order to return the deleted sentence' ' there are 2 more sources, which in my opinion fully justify this sentence:

• Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon, By Robert G Rabil, p.15-16. http://books.google.co.il/books?id=heR4OG-LdIYC&lpg=PA15&dq=syria%20israel%20%20tractor%20dmz%20OR%20%20dz%20shelling%20settlements&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q=syria%20israel%20%20tractor%20dmz%20OR%20%20dz%20shelling%20settlements&f=false
• The defense policies of nations: a comparative study, by Douglas Murray, Paul R. Viotti, p. 500 http://books.google.co.il/books?id=MCnY_VN9AjIC&lpg=PA500&dq=syria%20israel%20%20tractor%20%20shelling%20settlements&pg=PA500#v=onepage&q=syria%20israel%20%20tractor%20%20shelling%20settlements&f=false]

if you have no further remarks, I'll re-write this sentence. Ykantor (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Read your sources, one says the tractors were often guarded by police. It also says Syria would fire on those advancing. nableezy - 14:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources are clear. The "guarded by police" is not relevant in my opinion, but it can be added .

• Rabil says: "They followed to a great extent a pattern of action and reaction. Israel would move tractors and equipment, often guarded by police, into disputed areas of the DMZ. From its high ground positions. Syria would fire at those advancing, and would frequently shell Israeli settlements in the Huleh Valley. Israel would retaliate with excessive raids on Syrian positions, including the use of air power. " my sentence was "The provocations were sending a tractor to plow in the demilitarized areas. The Syrian reaction was shooting the Israeli villages" . If that important for you I can slightly modify the second part to say: The Syrian reaction was firing at those advancing, and would frequently shell Israeli settlements". Is that OK with you? Ykantor (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is the rest of this sentence?

Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and Ehud Olmert each stated that they were willing to exchange the Golan for peace with Syria and what about the current regime? --Inayity (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

to Supreme Deliciousness: why have you reverted, and canceled the "unreliable source" tag?

This tag is intended to be used when a statement is sourced, but it is questionable whether the source used is reliable for supporting the statement. The claim of "part of its strategy to annex more land" is not reliable, and should be based on an historian, and not a man with unknown ideology.

As for identifying a quality source, I suggest you read Questionable_sources

Israel said openly that the DMZ lands are used by Israeli farmers. Is that the meaning of "part of its strategy to annex more land"? Ykantor (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You added the Verify credibility tag, the video I linked to shows the man himself saying it, so it doesn't get more reliable then that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the question is if this person is a credible source, and not if he really said it. Hypothetically, suppose an Antisemitic man would say that the Jews plan to poison the water wells. the question if he is a reliable source to support that claim, and not if he really said it. Ykantor (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

He was a UN observer so he is notable person, and its attributed to him.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure ? Have read the Questionable_sources ?

would you prefer to solve it via the Dispute_resolution_noticeboard? Ykantor (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The YouTube video was shown to remove doubt. The source is good on its own. Your tag is totally unneeded, because all evidence shows the statement is 100% accurate. Every tag needs a good rationale. --Inayity (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I will wait a couple of days for Supreme Deliciousness reaction, before the next step, as said. Ykantor (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

to Supreme Deliciousness:

• I suggest you read is youtube a reliable source?
• Actually, the citation is not that bad. The problematic portion is the: "as part of its strategy to annex more land". This is a mistake. However, Israel said openly that it had the rights to cultivate the DMZ (Syria have not agreed). Thus , if you remove the "as part of its strategy to annex more land" , the remained content seems correct.

Note that I try to avoid the next step ( formal dispute) although you are clearly wrong: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources Ykantor (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Youtube is not the source, its Nova which is a dutch current affairs program on Netherlands Public Broadcasting. http://www.novatv.nl/page/detail/uitzendingen/5206# --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a pity that you do not study the given Wikipedia rules links. Nova is not a good source too. The rules are clear, why do we have to waste our time on that marginal point? Ykantor (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please always respect Wiki rules and avoid discussing your opinion on Editors studying habits. If the source is bad then spend time on the rationale for why you believe it is a bad source.--Inayity (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

you have a mistake. "Supreme Deliciousness" does not respect Wikipedia rules and not me. It is amazing that you try to advance this source instead of trying to support the presented opinion. Don't you see how ridiculous is the situation? I should have deleted this opinion since it is not supported by a proper source, but I had put a tag only, which unfortunately was removed. Why should we spend our time on that marginal point? I do not understand. Ykantor (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you put a tag on Wiki you need to justify that tag. What is wrong with the source, it is a simple question. If you can only say you do not like it, then how can we allow the tag. Just saying it is not R.S is not enough. I am not even picking sides I am picking actions.--Inayity (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If I would have "enjoy" it there are lot of potential locations for that tag, but here it is simply not true, and I have written it clearly, but anyway, here it is again : The problematic portion is the: "as part of its strategy to annex more land". This is a mistake. However, Israel said openly that it had the rights to cultivate the DMZ (Syria have not agreed). Thus , if you remove the "as part of its strategy to annex more land" , the remained content seems correct.

I try not to be one sided. Note that according to Wikipedia rules, those words should be deleted, and restored only after it is well supported. I have not deleted it although it is an error, and put a tag only. Ykantor (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You are making things up, you seem to be arguing that something is not true and as such should not be included. The requirement is that it verifiable, and it is verifiable that Jan Mühren said exactly that. nableezy - 18:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The claim is not true, and it can not be verified because this is a Questionable_sources. I have already written it few times. Why you people do not bother to use the link and read the Wikipedia rule? Ykantor (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You fail to understand the difference between verifiability and truth, or what "questionable source" is. There is no question that the source is accurately reporting what the person said, and we know that because there is a video showing that person saying what it is reported he said. You really need to understand that other people have a stronger grasp on the content policies of this site, and that you are not infallible. You are wrong, the source is reliable for an attributed statement to Jan Mühren, and we are attributing the statement to Jan Mühren. It may not be reliable for a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice, but that is irrelevant because nobody is using it for a factual statement in Wikipedia's voice. If you can view the source itself then it is a verifiable source. Please stop misrepresenting the policies and guidelines of this site, you do not know what you are talking about. nableezy - 19:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am fed up with you. You do not bother to read Wikipedia rules. Ykantor (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You've been editing heavily for about a month and have 200 some odd edits in that time. Ive been editing heavily for something like five years and have nearly 28,000 edits since then. You dont think somebody with that much more experience with Wikipedia and its rules maybe, just maybe, knows those rules a little better than you? Really? Seems odd. nableezy - 21:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The source is fine, its an attributed statement to Jan Mühren, and the view of a UN observer is certainly relevant and when attributed to the horses mouth so to speak there is no question of verifiability. nableezy - 16:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

add landmarks pls

Of similar importance to the "landmarks" already in section #10 are:

Tel Bet Saida http://old.parks.org.il/BuildaGate5/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~25~~644062777~Card12~&ru=&SiteName=parks&Clt=&Bur=61428261

Um el Kanatir http://www.yeshuat.com/

Caesarea Philippi (Paneas)

Bnot Ya'akov Bridge (Gesher Binot Yaakov)