Jump to content

Talk:Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Move?

Is this a joke? There has been no consensus whatsoever to change the article name from "List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel" to the current one. The current name was forced on the article by Gilabrand. Please remove this request for move immediately. Administrator should change it back, and if someone wants to change it to something else it will have to go through a rfm. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights → List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel —

  • Comment -- Regardless of this article's name, after the discussion on the AfD and the RfC, I'm concerned that the article, as its written, is not being used for encyclopedic purposes but as an intentional WP:POVFORK and to make a WP:POINT. What could have been a neutral article on villages depopulated when Israel gained control of the Golan Heights, has become an article full of weasle words attempting to vilify and trash both the Israelis and Syrians. --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The overall consensus at the Afd debate was to either rename or delete entirely. User:Supreme Deliciousness, is your purpose in creating this article to make note of villages that once existed, or the fact that Israel destroyed them (notwithstanding the fact that they were abandoned)? I see a very pointy pattern here. Shlomke (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See above discussion for more information --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 18:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is not a good idea. But I don't think Supreme Deliciousness' proposed title, the list's old title before the move done by The Anome without much regard to consensus on a new name, is the best choice. We should:
  1. Decide whether we care about the pre-1967 Golan Heights or only about those villages that were in the Israeli-occupied part. Currently we firmly take the latter position.
  2. Decide whether we want to include the five pre-1967 villages on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights that weren't destroyed. I don't care much either way, but currently we don't list them, making "Villages destroyed by Israel" a more accurate description of what this is about than "Pre-1976 towns".
  3. Decide whether we want a list or an article. I believe that we have enough relevant text relating to these villages to properly call this an article, not a list.
These considerations seem to point towards a title of Towns and villages on the Golan Heights destroyed by Israel, or something like that. If we consider calling villages that (for whatever reasons) were abandoned by their inhabitants and then destroyed by Israel "villages destroyed by Israel" to be non-neutral, we might opt for something along the lines of Towns and villages on the Golan Heights depopulated during the Israeli-Syrian conflict. That's more clumsy than I really like, maybe somebody has a better name that conveys the same idea? Huon (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You haven't even explained what is wrong with the current title, which a number of users seemed to think was best at the Afd. Shlomke (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
My initial opinion was to reluctantly accept the move to an NPOV title - reluctant because of Gilabrand's outragious behavious in moving this when two neutral closing parties had only just said that consensus on the name was still to be determined. However, you have made a good point that the title of the article should be contingent on its scope and thta si what needs to be agree first.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
My points 1 and 2 are my objection to the current title. The current title suggests we care about all the villages on the pre-1967 Golan Heights, while we're currently not really interested in either those in the part not occupied by Israel or those in the occupied part not depopulated and destroyed.
Concerning the AfD: I counted two editors prefering the "List of" version of the current title (including The Anome who did the move), two others who preferred "List of Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict" (I'd say that's the improved version of my last suggest I was looking for), several others who advocated a rename without indicating a preference for a certain new name, and four whose comments indicated they didn't favor any rename. That's hardly consensus for the current name. Huon (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we prove that all of the villages listed were indeed directly and forceably depopulated or destroyed by Israeli forces? Were some depopulated by Syria prior to the invasion? Did some villages become depopulated based on the decisions of their inhabitants? Were some destroyed by their inhabitants so the Israelis couldn't use them? These are important things to think about if we are going to go the route of saying it is anything other than a list of villages in existence prior to Israel taking control of the Golan Heights. --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
We have sources stating that the Israeli-occupied part of the Golan Heights contained 139 villages, that Israeli officials drew up lists to destroy 127 of them and that they later destroyed Quneitra in an unrelated incident. We also have sources that between five and eight places remained inhabited in 1967, where the eight include Quneitra. I believe the "hardware" is pretty much accounted for, and Israel is responsible for the majority of the destruction (Quneitra, for example, was damaged before it was razed, but there still was a major deliberate demolition effort by Israel). The people are a lot harder to account for. I believe I've read all three versions: Evacuation by Syria before the 1967 war (though that probably was unsourced, and I don't think it's likely), villagers fleeing during the war (currently in the article and sourced to the BBC), Israel forcibly removing a major part of the population (can't remember where, though Uri Davis seems to imply so, see p. 10 of the PDF). So "destroyed by Israel" seems technically correct, while "depopulated by Israel" probably isn't. Huon (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Another source on depopulation: Syria and the Middle East Peace Process, ISBN 0876091052, p.102, "Some 35,000 Syrians fled the Golan during the fighting and were not permitted to return; in the next six months, 95,000 more inhabitants fled or were driven off the plateau." Agrees with Murphy & Gannon text and number of 130,000.John Z (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
About 12 (half) of the keep votes also said rename. That is besides all the votes to delete entirely. It would seem the overwhelming majority did not support the name "destroyed by Israel". As user:nsaum75 points out, it would be misleading to have a name "destroyed by Israel" when we don't know how many were abandoned, before and after the Israel took control, and perhaps some where destroyed by Syria. Should we have articles on excavation companies titled List of buildings destroyed by XYZ contracting? Why do we have this article? is it because these villages are notable, or because anything Israel destroyed/demolished is notable? Shlomke (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
15 people voted to keep the article without renaming ( I am not counting those who wanted to keep it with renaming) Half the people at this talkpage was against renaming, Where was the consensus? Is this recently filed rfm legal? Who agreed to this name "Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights"? It doesn't really matter if some were abandoned or not, I'm sure some where and in some cases the people were forced out. But what we all know is that the vast majority of them was destroyed by Israel, and that is what this article is about, the former Syrian villages on the Golan that used to exit, and now they don't. Why do we have this article you ask? There was an afd, people wanted to keep it, get over it! --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It certainly does matter if some were abandoned or not, and directly affects the title of the article. User:Huon has brought up the issue of what the scope of this article is, and if you didn't notice yet, that's what is being discussed here. Shlomke (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What I wanted to do was very simple, creating a Syrian version of: [3] its really sad to see how some editors have from the very beginning tried to destroy this article in everyday they can. Edits that can not be called anything else then pure vandalism. This is a list about former Syrian villages in Golan that do not exit anymore, there should only be a couple of lines at the top describing the most important facts about the subject, no nuclear reactor or Hama massacre. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. So if all you want is an article about Syrian villages in Golan that do not exist anymore then the words destroyed by Israel would not necessary. Shlomke (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that's a good scope for the article and thus prefer the analogous title: Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict, as suggested by Al Ameer son during AfD. I doubt that we should remove the background information to leave just a list of names; thus we also shouldn't call it a list. Huon (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I support something like that, but maybe it should be "Syrian towns and villages destroyed in the Golan Heights" or "Syrian towns and villages depopulated and destroyed in the Golan Heights"  ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You still did not answer the question: if all you want is an article about Syrian villages in Golan that do not exist anymore then the words destroyed by Israel, or even words like just "destroyed" or "depopulated" would not necessary. These facts are covered inside the article. If you find it necessary to put in those words, you should likewise put in all words about the fate of those villages, which would be something like: Syrian towns and villages, fled, evacuated, depopulated and destroyed in the Golan Heights. A very long and weird sounding name, I know, but also containing all the necessary facts of the true fate of those places. Shlomke (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The truth be not always nice. If pro israel editor have problem with THE TRUTH, that israel and their precious Moshe Dayan premeditate to DESTROY the village in Golan Height, then they need go elsewhere. We not allow the israel lobby and pro israel editors disguise and revise truth like they do so many other place here on wikipedia. The word "depopulated" be NOT acceptable, and never be acceptable! Must say DESTROY because that what it be. If not physical destroy of all village then at least israelis destroy of way of life and destroy of culture in all the villages! Every source Surpreme Deliciousness offer be call not reliable. Why this not reliable? Be it because it not Israeli source? Be it not because it source published by country that be friend of Israel? Editor have no problem using pro israel source like haaretz or ynetnews, is this because it be ISRAELI source? I have to ask why, because i no figure out any other reason why prozionist source accepted but not arab source. This all smell bad like someone afraid to admit israel be wrong in what it do to the villages, so they water down truth so it not so painful sounding. Truth is truth, cannot be changed, regardless of word used. Ani medjool (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well would you look at that... Ani medjool decides to come back from his wikipedia break on the same day that Supreme Deliciousness comes back after a short absence. What a comedic coincidence. In terms of this comment, it's not even worth responding to. And in terms of the move, as I stated during the vote, this rename is a much more accurate portrayal of what went on, in accordance with NPOV. Titling something "destroyed by Israel" is irrefutably making one side out to be the victim and one to be the aggressor. Breein1007 (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Maps

I have found a new map: Golan Heights and vicinity CREATED/PUBLISHED [Washington, D.C. : Central Intelligence Agency, 1994] http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_item.pl?data=/home/www/data/gmd/gmd7/g7462/g7462g/ct001957.jp2&style=gmd&itemLink=D?gmd:2:./temp/~ammem_fDHR::&title=Golan%20Heights%20and%20vicinity%20%3a%20October%201994 It shows several of the former Syrian villages in Golan and labels them as abandoned/dismantled. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New move discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move page. Consensus at this time supports a page move to Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict over the original proposal. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights → List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel —

  • Admin Anthony Appleyard has repeatedly changed the name of the article against consensus at the afd and this talkpage. Also here asking that it be changed to "List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel" when it stopped being a list a long time, is inappropriate. This current name was never chosen, it was forced upon the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry but there was no consensus at the Afd or this talk page for your highly POV article name. Shlomke (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It is already 100% proven that Israel destroyed these villages, there are several sources (including several Israeli sources) all saying the same thing. Not one single source has been presented saying something else. The name of the article should therefor be "Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel in the Golan Heights" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The AfD has concensus for "keep" but no apparent concensus about the article name.
    I am not fussy about the "List of ..." at the start of the suggested name.
    The mass of discussion hereinabove seems to contain several claims that something else than Israel depopulated or destroyed this or that village.
    Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    There was no consensus for change of the article name. As Frederico1234 said it needs to be discussed before changing the title, it was very disrespectful what you did and against wikipedia procedures. Show me one single source provided by any editor at this talkapage showing anything else then that Israel destroyed the villages, I have only found wishful thinking comments by pro-israeli editors but no evidence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    There was no consensus for the highly POV name you chose for the article. This was expressed here and in the article for deletion. It was very disrespectful of you to move the article back to a POV name and ignore the discussion and questions presented to you above. Admin Anthony Appleyard has simply moved the article back to a neutral name. Shlomke (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Admin Anthony Appleyard has unilaterally without consensus nor thorough discussion changed the title from the original form ("List of...") to something else. There is one and only one title "to move back to" and that's the original one. This is pure censorship. Frederico1234 (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The title should be reverted to its original form "List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel" since no agreement was reached for a change of name. Any change thereafter needs to be discussed before changing the title. The title "Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights" is a poor one; The content implied by that title is hardly notable enough to warrant an article. Frederico1234 (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    Note: in the past six weeks, Frederico1234 has made precisely three edits, all on the subject of this article. Seems someone called him in for the AFD and then again when this name change discussion started. So I don't even think it's worth responding to his comment. See Wikipedia:MEAT#Meatpuppets. Shlomke (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
    Shlomke, noone "called me in" for the AfD. I just followed a link (as I recalled it was the list of Zero0000's recent edits). Then I added the article to my personal watch list. Frederico1234 (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What is clear is that there are no reliable sources for the claim that all these villages have been destroyed by Israel. We have sources that say that there were plans to demolish 90 abandoned villages or that a list of 127 villages to be demolished was submitted. Most likely that happened, but the names of these villages are not documented by reliable sources, and there is a discrepancy between this list which contains 175 allegedly "destroyed" villages and the lower numbers mentioned by our reliable sources. Furthermore, the source also says that the villages were abandoned, and only subsequently demolished. That makes the choice of the label destroyed look rather arbitrary, and in fact rather misleading. Pantherskin (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I support as neutral a title as possible, as long as the facts dont support more. how about "Syrian towns on the Golan Heights depopulated after the Six-Day War?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I would support something like "Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict". This name, as well as the current name of the article "Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights" are neutral and NPOV without making a victim and aggressor in the name of the article. As stated in the discussions above and in the article itself, these towns were evacuated by the Syrian army or the residents fled. To put the word 'destroyed' in the article name would be misleading and not representing all facts. The creator of this article - user:Supreme deliciousness as well as others, has stated that the scope of the article is to make note of towns and villages that don't exist anymore. He has stopped responding to the discussion above (Move?) and instead moved the article to his highly POV chosen name. Shlomke (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I support Shlomke's suggested name. It's neutral, we can easily source that that's what happened. The current title would in my opinion include the few still populated villages in the occupied Golan and, technically, even the villages in the remaining Syrian part of the Golan, neither of which are of interest here. Huon (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - The suggestion of Shlomke, that the current name be retained or "Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict" be used as an alternative. --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 20:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE DESTROY BE DESTROY. There be NO COMPROMISE on word destroy. All other word be false. Ani medjool (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
How is "depopulated" false? They aren't really populated nowadays, are they? And the topic wouldn't be that much less notable if the empty buildings were still standing. Huon (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Because more than building destroy, but way of life destroy, culture destroy, community destroy. Way of life cannot be "depopulate". Culture can not be "depopulate". Ani medjool (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see how "depopulated" is false. Villages can be depopulated, and that obviously implies the end of the communities (though not necessarily the end of the former residents' culture or way of life, and Syrian culture is alive and well). Huon (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Across world each ancient or old town village etc have it own way life and culture. maybe one village grow only certain type apple, or make certain type wine. some other nearby village may make similar but not same, so each village and city still be unique. culture and way life in the destroy village also be destroy by the israelis. that why depopulate be mislead and false. Ani medjool (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems a rather unusual and over-localized definition of culture; anyway it doesn't explain why "depopulated" is false or misleading. By your definition, the "destruction of culture" should be a necessary consequence of depopulation, while on the other hand the culture could be destroyed without depopulating the villages. Thus, "depopulated" gives more information than "destroyed" if you argue "culture" and not buildings. Huon (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Care to provide a source for that claim? How, precisely, did the Syrians force the Israelis to destroy abandoned farming villages after the ceasefire was signed? Huon (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't understand how it would be non neutral to say: "Syrian towns and villages destroyed in the Arab-Israeli conflict" when they infact were destroyed, its not a pov statement, its what happened, just like french villages that were destroyed din WW1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_villages_destroyed_in_the_First_World_War --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to comment: As already discussed several times on this talk page and sourced in the article, these villages were abandoned or evacuated and were only subsequently demolished. In the article you give as an example, those villages were destroyed by the fighting. Shlomke (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Must say destroy because all other be false information that give isreal POV. Ani medjool (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inappropriate tone tag

In November the article was tagged for inappropriate tone or style. The relevant entry on the talk page seems to be here: The issues seem to be creation of a WP:POVFORK and WP:POINT violation (which aren't tone issues), weasel words and "trashing the Israelis and the Syrians". I don't see any of that in the current article. We don't use any weasel words, but rather report what our sources say. We also don't trash either the Syrians or the Israelis. Part of the latter problem may have been the article name which at the time of the tagging still included "by Israel". Unless someone can point to specific problems, I see no reason for the article to be tagged. Thus, I removed the tag. Huon (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the tone is not really the problem. But what is still a problem is the reliance of the main part of this article, the list of villages on an unreliable source (see this discussion at the reliable sources board. Thus the tag I just introduced is the appropriate one here. Pantherskin (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added several reliable maps to the external link section that back up many of the villages in the list.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
And your point is? The section is still based on an unreliable source, and not on the maps which shows only a small number of the villages in the list (and does not say anything about whether these villages were depopulated in the conflict or for other reasons...) Pantherskin (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Pantherskin the list at the bottom of the "Murphy, R.; Gannon" document is a translated list from a military order no,39 from the IDF, how is that not reliable?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The order could be faked (unlikely), and the list definitely was edited by the NGO. I tried asking for an official copy (or better yet, an official translation) of that order, but the local Israeli embassy just replied that they'd forward my request to their military department, and nothing was ever heard from them again. I also tried to ask the IDF directly, but they didn't reply at all. Maybe one of our Israeli editors could try to dig up an official copy of that order? Huon (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is translated, the order and list, but that doesn't mean it is unreliable, the original source is the Israeli Defence Forces, and unless someone can prove it is incorrect it shouldn't be tagged. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That is not how it works. I can tell you how it works: Anything that is not sourced from a reliable source should be removed. I assume that you are working on finding reliable sources, but if this is the only source the list cannot stay in the article forever. Furthermore, even if we assume that original source is correctly cited it does not support the claims of the article as the IDF list is a list of villages that have been declared as closed areas. With the intent to demolish, but nothing from this order indicates whether all, some or no villages were actually demolished. Of course we can make assumption such as that all villages declared as closed areas were depopulated, or were demolished or destroyed later, but these are just that, our assumptions. Pantherskin (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The list is sourced from IDF, the only thing marsad has done is to translate the military order. And its not the only source, there are also four maps in the external link section with many names of pre-1967 villages. The CIA map labels them as abandoned/dismantled and the jawlan.org map labels them as destroyed villages. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
How is the list sourced from IDF? Where, when and how did the IDF publish it? Where can I read an official IDF copy of the list? It's not as if I didn't try to obtain one. But the only of those questions for which we have an approximate answer is the "when", and our only source for that is the order itself. In theory, al-Marsad could have invented the order wholesale, and right now we can't confirm they didn't (I don't think they did, but that's not the point). Even worse, our list currently contains over 160 names although reliable sources state that significantly less villages existed in that area before the Six-Day War. So some of that information must be wrong - probably some farms made the list and now are wrongly called "villages", some entries are duplicates, some might be completely bogus. The two villages Chesdovi added probably never were in the Israeli-occupied part, further confusing the issue. By the way, I don't think the Jawlan map counts as a reliable source by any standard. Huon (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
IDF commander military order from August 27 1967. This English translation is the only one I have found, we can not assume bad faith that his list is made up, nothing in this source has been proven false, I have found several reliable maps that back up many of the villages in the list. The "Politicide: Ariel Sharon's war against the Palestinians" sources says 130 villages demolished, the Aron Sha source mentions 127 villages for demolition.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
How is it just our assumption that these villages were depopulated? If we could find a reliable source for this order, we'd know that these villages existed before the war, and that no inhabitants remained after the war. We have explicit sources for the still-populated areas in the Israeli-occupied Golan, we have sources saying that anything but those areas was depopulated. All we need is a reliable source for the pre-war villages. This isn't even WP:SYN. On the other hand, I don't quite see the use of a list of village names with no additional information, even if we had the best of sources for that list. Huon (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
At the time there was an edit war over content, and therefore the tone tag was appropriate. In my opinion this article still is being used for POV and POINT, but this has been debated and argued with to no avail. Neither side seems interested in finding a compromise, however the article is currently stable, and IMHO stablity is better than an ongoing edit war. If a couple of the editors involved here want to go around to several articles (this one included) unilaterally removing tags they disagree with or insisting the article promotes an "Israeli-POV" because it says the word "Israel" in it -- while they themselves make claims like "Hebrew is a made up language"[6] or they attack other editors by telling them to stop "playing poor me. poor jew. wolf call"[7] -- who I am to argue with them? Obviously other people editing the articles don't care, because nobody ever says anything and in turn they reward/encourage the disruptive behavior by supporting the changes that the disruptive users want to make. Sigh. I guess I'm just tired. --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 22:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I shouldn't think that those kinds of insults would be permitted in WP.? Stellarkid (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
yes nsaum it not good faith to make kind of edit accusing other editor of attackin them when them only say truth about the modern hebrew use in isreal being made up of arab words tooked by Theodore Hertzl and other people. it also not belong here on talk page because it detract from debate we have here about the villages israel destroy in golan Ani medjool (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Wallah? :) Breein1007 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Truth not always be nice but truth must reign. It not the falt of neutral editor like me, nableezy or supreme deliciousness if pro-isreal editor be offend by truth. Ani medjool (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting sick of this; I don't know about everyone else... it seems like you guys are all content to live with this and just deal with his often unbelievable edits. I for one am beyond annoyed having to monitor his edits and read all this crap. I'm going to be bringing him to the attention of admins soon (I believe this won't be the first time). Meanwhile, I'm restoring the tag that he deleted, because as Pantherskin pointed out earlier, the sources in this article are very questionable and lacking. Breein1007 (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

See also (II)

Huon, why are List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict and List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus related to this subject, more than Kurdish villages destroyed during the Iraqi Arabization campaign? Chesdovi (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict and List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus to the "see also" section. The first is a superset of the villages covered in this article; the relation should be obvious. The second is another subset of the first, and the process of depopulation and subsequent destruction is clearly parallel to this one. The depopulation in the Syrian villages following the occupation of the Golan Heights can be seen as a continuation of a process begun in 1948.
To be more specific, the Iraqi destruction has different actors, a different geographical area, an unrelated conflict, and even different motives for destruction. Huon (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Can "the occupation of the Golan Heights can be seen as a continuation of a process begun in 1948"? Which process are you refering to? I do not beleive that the two are connected. Indeed, this page deals with Syria, and as you put it, deal with a "different actor, a different geographical area, an unrelated conflict, and even different motives for destruction." Chesdovi (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Neither Israel nor Syria were uninvolved in the 1948 conflict - who's your "different actor"? Are you saying that the Six-Day War was unrelated to the war of 1948? Moshe Dayan said that between 1949 and 1966 Israel was constantly trying to expand its borders in the Golan region. To put it more bluntly, Israel secures some territory, and soon after there suddenly are precious few non-Jewish inhabitants to be found, the former inhabitants' villages are demolished and Israeli settlements take over. Israel conquers more territory 20 years later, and again many of the former inhabitants have suddenly left, and again Israeli settlers take over. That sounds like an obvious parallel to me. As an aside, do you really want to liken Israel's actions to Saddam Hussein's reign of terror? Huon (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My different actor is Syria, as both were invovled in '48. You are viewing this solely from the Israeli side. Israel took territory in '48, '67, etc. But what about the Arab side of the conflict? Iraq was invovled in both '48 and '67. So if we are to list Israel's depopulation of Arab areas, we should also list the depopulation by the Arab states, even if these depopulation's have not taken place on Israeli soil. Chesdovi (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. Syria is a "different actor" because it was involved in both the 1948 conflict and the Six-Day war? Syria differs from Syria? That doesn't make sense. Indeed we list Israel's depopulation of Arab areas, and the "see also" section links to more of Israel's depopulation of Arab areas - therefore we also have to link to an Arab depopulation of Kurdish territories which isn't related to either Israel or this conflict? I don't see sufficient correlation (actually I don't see any correlation at all). Let me ask the converse: Do you also think that the article on Kurdish villages should carry a "see also" link to this one? Huon (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Syria '67 in Syria is not related to Syria '48 in Palestine. If you think it is, then Iraq '48 in Palestine is related to Iraq '78 in Iraq. If Israel depopulated Cyprus, it would be linked, so too, if the Arab side depopulated another area in a different conflict, it should be linked. Chesdovi (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're not talking at cross-purposes: Do you argue for including the Iraqi-Kurdish depopulation, against including the 1948 depopulation, or both?
Anyway, the "Arab side" didn't depopulate anything (except some villages in 1948, which we duly record in one of the articles you just removed as unrelated). No Arab country but Iraq was involved in the Kurdish depopulation, and having been allied to Iraq in the wars with Israel can hardly make Egypt, Syria or Jordan responsible for everything Iraq subsequently does.
Furthermore, if Israel depopulated Cyprus, that would be another example of an Israeli depopulation policy. But Syria didn't have a policy of getting its villages depopulated, and unless you want to claim that Saddam Hussein was inspired by Israel's conduct on the Golan Heights, I can't see any connection between that and the depopulations of Kurdish villages twenty years later.
Actually we've discussed this before; the Kurdish depopulations were considered so unrelated that even the talk page discussion was removed. Huon (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict" and "List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus" are related to this subject since its a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. While the "Kurdish villages destroyed during the Iraqi Arabization campaign" is a completely different subject and a completely different conflict with no relation to this one or the Arab-Israeli conflict. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The list

I have added all villages from this CIA Map. Many of the names were already in the list from the Al-Marsad and jawlan.org sources. Whatever happens in the future, the villages sourced from the CIA map should always stay. I have also removed the unreliable sources tag from the top of the list, the tag is still in the Murhphy and Gannon source below. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And the CIA maps only says abandoned/dismantled Syrian villages. It might be likely that the abandonement is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but given the lack of sources this is something we can only speculate on. I have tagged the list section for the moment, ultimately we either need a reliable source or the list section needs to be removed. The list is not essential anyway - without any context. Pantherskin (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Pantherskin, its not just the CIA map, there are many sources inside the main text that say that Israel destroyed the Syrian villages in the Golan Heights after they occupied the area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and none of them actually has a list of the villages. All we have is one unreliable soure and a probably reliable map, that only says abandonded and dismantled villages, and nothing more. Of course we can speculate what the reason for the abandomenet is, but that is original research. Pantherskin (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
You call the list from the al-Marsad document unreliable, but you have not proven anything in that document to be incorrect. There is also the jawlan.org source with many of the villages the same as the marsad document. I also noticed in your edit that you said "per original image description at flickr" while adding that Quneitra is preserved as a propaganda exhibition by the Syrian authorities. Yet for some reason you did not ad that the homes had been bulldozed by the Israelis which is also in the flickr image description. So its obvious what you are trying to do at this article now, and I advise you to stop it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It is rather obvious what you are trying to do given that uploaded the image, included the part of the Israelis having bulldozed the abandonded village but neglected to include the part that this bulldozed site is now a propaganda exhibit of the Syrian authorities. Looks like your editing is a bit one-sided. Regarding the claims of the al-Marsad lobby group, it was taken to the reliable sources noticeboard, and the opinion of uninvolved editors was that it is not reliable. And you are aware of that as you yourself participated in that discussion. Pantherskin (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Its you who cherry picked from the description into this article, not me. The purpose of the image is that the buildings are destroyed, so when I uploaded it from flickr that was what I wrote. It doesn't really matter for the image why these buildings aren't rebuilt. And someone writing "propaganda exhibit" in a flickr description is as trustworthy as someone writing something in his personal blogg or facebook page. The marsad source was discussed both at the RS noticeboard and here, there was no consensus that its an unreliable source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There was quite a consensus by uninvolved editors that the marsad source is not reliable. Funny that you doubt the trustworthiness of the description on flickr, but then you trusted the description enough to include the claim that the picture shows buildings destroyed by Israel. Pantherskin (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
No there was no consensus from all editors that its an unreliable source. I have found several other sources that say the same thing as that document, these being: Sakr Abu Fakhr, "Voices from the Golan", Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Autumn, 2000), University of California Press, Dar, Shimon (1993). Settlements and cult sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean culture in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Illustrated ed.). Tempus Reparatum, and Humphries, Isabelle. In the Ghost Towns of the Occupied Golan, Five Villages Defiantly Wave the Syrian Flag Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 2006. User nableezy has also found that a nearly identical report by the same authors that contains nearly the identical information has since been published in the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, a peer reviewed journal published by Cambridge University Press (abstract here. Pantherskin, you have not proven anything in that document to be incorrect.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually I fail to see the list's point. We already have the information on the number of villages the Israelis destroyed; does the list of names without further information really contribute significantly to the article? Furthermore, there were "about 139 villages and 61 farms" before the war, yet we list 196 names. Does the list include the farms? It says it only includes "towns and villages", but otherwise the numbers won't fit. Do we know which of the entries are farms and which are villages? Do we even know whether the farms were demolished? I can't remember having seen a source to that effect, though I believe one of our sources implies that they weren't populated after the war. Thus, besides the more general question of significance, there's information missing.
On the other hand, I see no reason whatsoever to doubt that we do list the names of something that got depopulated and/or destroyed in or after the war. We have the numbers, they're not disputed, what would anybody gain by faking the name of a demolished village?
Unfortunately my attempts to obtain an official copy of the Israeli order that's the basis of the Al-Marsad list failed; my Israeli embassy said they'd forward my question to the proper authorities, but those never answered. Maybe one of our Israeli editors would be more successful in digging up an official copy of the order?
Finally, I agree with Supreme Deliciousness concerning the image description. I couldn't find where Supreme Deliciousness is supposed to have included that the Israelis "bulldozed the abandoned village" - Pantherskin, care to provide a diff? On the other hand, you didn't add the full flickr image description, but chose to add only those parts that suited you, in a clearly non-neutral way. The previous and current version, "Destroyed buildings in Quneitra", is about as neutral as you can get - it's factually correct, it doesn't even mention the source of destruction and can hardly be blamed to be anti-Israeli. Huon (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Several sources say different things about the amount of the villages, this UN report says 244 villages. "Following the occupation of the territory in 1967, the occupation authorities destroyed 244 villages and built-up areas in the Golan and expelled their population, sparing only five villages (Majdal Shams, Buq’ata, Ain Qunya, Mas’ada and al-Ghajar)."--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As was already noted several times, the source is based on an order of the Israeli Defense Forces and there is no indication whether this order was carried out or not, whether the sites to be cleaned-up are villages, towns, hamlets or whatever. There is little doubt that most of the villages cited were actuall cleaned-up after being abandonded, but there is also no doubt that we do not really know as long as there is no source actually discussing the sites individually. Pantherskin (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You did not reply to my post above:[8] so please stop adding the unreliable tag to the marsad document. And I have already told you that there are several sources in the article directly saying that the order was carried out/Israel destroyed the villages:"The Fate of Abandoned Arab Villages, 1965-1969", Davis, Uri (1983), "The Golan Heights under Israeli Occupation 1967 - 1981", Marsad document, Edgar S. Marshall (2002). Israel: Current Issues and Historical Background. Nova Science Publishers, Kimmerling, Baruch (2003), Politicide: Ariel Sharon's war against the Palestinians, Dorothy Weitz Drummond (2004). Holy land, whose land?: modern dilemma, ancient roots. Fairhurst Press, Philip Louis Gabriel (1978). In the ashes: the story of Lebanon. Whitmore Pub Co, CatchWord (1979). The Round table, Volume 69, Issues 273-276, and now also this UN report:[9] "Following the occupation of the territory in 1967, the occupation authorities destroyed 244 villages and built-up areas in the Golan and expelled their population, sparing only five villages (Majdal Shams, Buq’ata, Ain Qunya, Mas’ada and al-Ghajar)." so please stop adding the OR tag. And why are you using the words "cleaned-up" ? what do you mean by this? all the sources say "demolished", "bulldozed" or "destroyed", where are you getting "cleaned-up" from? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and none of the sources you present lists all these villages or describes them individually. That is the Original Research here - you have an order of the Israeli military, you have the total number of villages cleaned-up and you deduce that it must be that all villages on the list were destroyed. Likely to be the case, but we need a source that really says this. Pantherskin (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
What is "cleaned-up" ? Both the UN document showed above and the marsad document say all villages except Majdal Shams, Buq’ata, Ain Qunya, Mas’ada and al-Ghajar, so that is it, no OR. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and they do not show that the villages listed here have been cleaned-up. The rest is your own deduction. Pantherskin (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You are right, they do not show that they have been "cleaned-up", they show that they have been destroyed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, whatever word fits your own. Certainly they were not preserved as propaganda exhibitions as they were on the Syrian side. Pantherskin (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes because that would have made perfect sense, Israel preserving them as propaganda exhibitions to show the world the villages they demolished.. I advise you to stop embarking on this article in a harmful manner. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the unreliable tag since you didn't respond to my post where I show how several sources say the same thing and that a nearly identical report is published in the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law by Cambridge University Press [10] I have proven how its reliable now, you have not proven that its not. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Childish. You can claim it a million times, but a paper published by a political advocacy group is not a reliable source. The discussion on WP:RSN settled that, but you still arguing over it. The only reliable source might be the paper published in the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, which is not identical with the Marsad paper. So if you want it included replace it with the correct citation to the Yearbook, instead of keeping the Marsad paper. Pantherskin (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added the source from the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law [11] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant news article

Shay Fogelman, The disinherited, Haaretz, 30.07.10. [12] — This article is highly relevant. Zerotalk 08:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

79.176.36.152 removed "ethnic cleansing" from the "see also" list. Quite a lot of the villages described in this article were destroyed not in combat, but after the war was over and the Israelis were about to settle the land. We have reliable sources according to which the Israelis tried to preserve buildings useful to Israeli settlers. Thus, the destruction can be seen as part of a campaign to substitute Israeli settlers for the original Arab inhabitants of this area - that sounds like ethnic cleansing to me. Huon (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course its ethnic cleansing, forcible expulsion of people from their land. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
So all war that ends in territorial advances is ethnic cleansing? Do you want to add this link to every page that relates any form of annexation, or only this specific conflict because you are prejudiced? According to these criteria the Mexican American War was also a form of ethnic cleansing. Let's also recall who initiated the conflict in the first place: the Arab nations. I find it hard to see how this annexation was part of an "ethnic cleansing" policy while they could not have been premeditated in these circumstances.
I understand that everyone involved somehow will be biased, and therefore none of those have the ability to be impartial judges, nor write the encyclopedia entry for the conflict! Suppose I wrote my own biographical entry, I could fill it with all sorts of lies about myself!
Think about it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.36.152 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
All forcible expulsions of ethnic peoples/people who have a certain nationality, from their land, is ethnic cleansing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it's not the territorial advance, but the expulsion and substitution of the population. I don't think the Americans tried to get rid of the Mexican population of the annexed territories; see for example Tejano. And whatever the Arab nations might have done to the Israelis had they won doesn't change the nature of the Israeli policies. Concerning bias, that's why we require reliable sources. In this case, the sources are rather unambiguous in stating that the Israelis destroyed the villages in preparation for having the land settled by Israelis - if that's not ethnic cleansing, what would be? Huon (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Your reliable sources include some pretty extreme "Golan liberation" websites. Until you have an impartial source stating that a certain act was ethnic cleansing, all you have is your opinion, and an encyclopedia is no place for that.
As to expulsion, you should know that there are Arab villages throughout the north of Israel, if not Syrian villages. I repeat my original statement: let's keep politics out of this. If the land was "prepared for Jews" how come Arabs are living there now? They also have the right to vote, do you think they'd have that right under Syrian rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.41.85 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The sources relevant to this discussion are "The Fate of Abandoned Arab Villages, 1965-1969" by Aron Shai (History & Memory - Volume 18, Number 2, Fall/Winter 2006, pp. 86-106) and "The Golan Heights under Israeli Occupation 1967-1981" by Uri Davis, published by the University of Durham in 1983. Those are academic sources, the most reliable we can hope for. Of course there are still Arabs living on the Golan; as the article notes, six out of 137 villages remained. I'm no historian; I don't know why those six villages remained, but maybe the Israelis were content to prevent the return of the war fugitives and didn't expel those Arabs who hadn't fled on their own. And concerning the Arab villages in northern Israel: Unless I'm badly mistaken, the right to return of those of the original inhabitants and their descendants who had fled Israel in 1948 is a significant point of contention in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process - because Israel might lose its identity as a Jewish state if millions of Palestinians whose ancestors lived in what is now Israel were to return. I suppose Israel wasn't interested in having the Syrians who originally inhabited the Golan Heights return either, for the same reason. That's still ethnic cleansing. Huon (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I have sources that show that Israel forcible expelled Syrians who didnt flee during the war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
It's still your opinion. Do you think this encyclopedia should be called "Wikipedia: Battle of the Radical Opinions"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.41.85 (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
No its not my opinion, its what it says in the sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I give up. Biased documentation prevails. You can have your little encyclopedia of opinion, I hope your children enjoy it, because I will prohibit my students and children from considering its containing the slightest sliver of truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.41.85 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what sources Supreme Deliciousness refers to; I remember Al Marsad presenting eyewitness testimony to that effect, but that was explicitly not accepted as a reliable source at the reliable sources noticeboard. But do you have any problems with the sources I gave above? If so, why? Conversely, do you know of reliable sources stating that it wasn't the Israelis who prevented the war fugitives from returning? Huon (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

109.66.10.6, see discussion above, Israel forcibly expelled Syrians from their lands. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Aerial photography

I found some aerial photos from 1967 and 1968, at the Israel Antiquities Authority's survey: [13]. Annoyingly the descriptive pages cannot be hotlinked, but the jpg files can. Maybe they can be used after a name like this:[aerial view] Of course, having a photo from '67 doesn't mean they were still settled. Are there any other sources of photos?

Here there are, for survey map 40/1, one of roughly 19 maps for the golan:

trespassers william (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_towns_and_villages_depopulated_in_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict/Archive_2&oldid=1267347445"