Talk:Quneitra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guy Montag (talk | contribs) at 06:39, 5 June 2005 (→‎POV edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

==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?==[reply]

Because you are wrong.

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quneitra&oldid=14730078"