Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Banias article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Talk:Caesarea Philippi for discussions from merged article. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
let's not turn this article into yet another chapter in the Israeli-Arab conflict. True, the Banias water resources are important to that conflict, but we don't need to replay every detail of the DMZs' history or the different water diversion projects here - only those that are directly relevant to, and mention, Banias. I thus removed, for example, the details of the Israeli water diversion project, which took place in a different area. the only reason to mention the Israeli project at all is to provide context for the Syrian project (which originally did take place near Banias) so it does not appear as a one-sided action, but that is not a license to write a lengthy paragraph about the unrelated Israeli project, its impact on American-Israeli relations, etc... - that belongs in the article about the water conflict in the middle east. NoCal100 ( talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
2 against 1 that makes consensus and the one is a suspected sockpuppet. As NoCal100 is a suspected sockpuppet he gets no points...There is already an ANI in against NoCal100...which he has already been informed of..ACADEMICS SAY THE EVENTS ARE IMPORTANT TO BANIAS.. NoCal100 the sock and uninformed POV merchant says differently..me I go with the academics over a sock every time...NoCal100 doing deletions with no accurate argument is vandalism...especially as you have no actual knowledge of Banias other than that I have placed in the Banias article...NoCal100 You have demonstrated that you have no knowledge on the subject as you were unable to correct the obvious errors in five weeks this shows you are not to be considered as an editor but merely a disruptive deletionist.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 16:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I have not edited this article but saw it on ANI & so I took a look. I agree with NoCal that there is nothing wrong with mentioning the water situation in the context of the contemporary history; but that it is not necessary to turn this article into yet another I/P argument. This is particularly true since there is already an article entitled Water politics in the Middle East. In fact, one could briefly touch upon the issue and note somewhere within the article the existence of the water politics article. The "deep" history of the water situation would be better described there than here. Also, in consideration of the long history of Banias in the region, the emphasis on Mandate to contemporary times seems WP:UNDUE weight given to the recent conflict. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 18:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You've misread Casual Observer he/she is for keeping that with Charlie o'Sulivan makes you a minority..
Ashley kennedy3 (
talk) 15:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
and the reference is pretty clear:-
may I humbly suggest that you re-read casual observer's remarks:-
I neither know how to, nor care to; someone else should. I object to the deletion of sourced material relevant to the facts of Banais. It is the water; it has been the availability of that water throughout history, as I noted before. Future availability makes it important today; it is a continuum. Deletion by stilted, POV'd view shouldn't fly, particularly where hiding this association seems Wiki-endemic and is politically advantageous to keep it that way. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Since when does I object to the deletion of sourced material relevant to the facts of Banais. translate to move it to Water politics in the Middle East?.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 15:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks like 79.180.17.185 completely reverted the article back to his or her original revision at 299714042. However, some of the intervening edits (most notably 299744493) contain some interesting edits to the section heading. I understand that this revision also changes 'claimed by/administered by' to 'occupied by Isreal' which, as someone with very few political views on the situation, seems like an obvious as NPOV violation. However, I think that the article headings are useful. Most of the article is a history of who controlled the area and what they did with it, and for me 'Islamic Era' is more immediately descriptive and useful than simply 'Caliphate'.
Could someone with more knowledge on the subject please review revision 299744493 and try to incorporate the section heading edits? Thanks! audiodude ( talk) 13:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
As I have explained numerous times, the digitally manipulated and altered map that you designed and uploaded bears no relation to reality and is contradicted by the numerous map depictions that I’ve provided. The area is under Israeli control and has been under Israeli control for nearly 45 years. That is more than double the time it was under Syrian control. To present a map that shows it under Syrian control is not only misleading but dishonest. Moreover, the subject area is a tourist attraction and a reader who takes a cursory look at the map may be led (falsely) to believe that the area is under Syrian control. As I’ve demonstrated, most maps show the area as shaded, belonging to neither thus underlying its disputed status. Please also have a look at these additional interactive maps.
[4]
[5] Other editors who have commented here have voiced support for my
WP:NPOV edits. However, if you wish I will note the {{
POV}}
template to placate your concerns until the issues can be vetted and hopefully some form of compromise can be reached in a collegial manner. I also caution you from engaging in personal attacks against me. Calling me "expansionist" and part of the “Hasbara” team as you did here
[6] is offensive, gratuitous and I ask that you strike it. We are all volunteers here who spend time editing articles so that others may benefit. Engaging in personal attacks against me or others who don’t share your opinions is not helpful to the project.--
Jiujitsuguy (
talk) 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Maps_of_the_Golan_Heights nableezy - 17:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the justification for that page existing independently? Arminden ( talk) 22:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Arminden Arminden ( talk) 22:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Have opened a formal discussion below, discuss. Also identify if anything actually needs to be merged over, or if a redirect will suffice. nableezy - 21:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Has been discussed multiple times, and it does not make any sense to have two articles on the same place with one on a specific period of time, which is still covered here. If anybody is opposed, please explain why here. nableezy - 21:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This has been sitting around for a while now, there is a rough consensus to merge but I would be reluctant to do it only to have it undone, do we need to request a proper close? Selfstudier ( talk) 09:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Barias and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Barias until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Banias article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Talk:Caesarea Philippi for discussions from merged article. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
let's not turn this article into yet another chapter in the Israeli-Arab conflict. True, the Banias water resources are important to that conflict, but we don't need to replay every detail of the DMZs' history or the different water diversion projects here - only those that are directly relevant to, and mention, Banias. I thus removed, for example, the details of the Israeli water diversion project, which took place in a different area. the only reason to mention the Israeli project at all is to provide context for the Syrian project (which originally did take place near Banias) so it does not appear as a one-sided action, but that is not a license to write a lengthy paragraph about the unrelated Israeli project, its impact on American-Israeli relations, etc... - that belongs in the article about the water conflict in the middle east. NoCal100 ( talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
2 against 1 that makes consensus and the one is a suspected sockpuppet. As NoCal100 is a suspected sockpuppet he gets no points...There is already an ANI in against NoCal100...which he has already been informed of..ACADEMICS SAY THE EVENTS ARE IMPORTANT TO BANIAS.. NoCal100 the sock and uninformed POV merchant says differently..me I go with the academics over a sock every time...NoCal100 doing deletions with no accurate argument is vandalism...especially as you have no actual knowledge of Banias other than that I have placed in the Banias article...NoCal100 You have demonstrated that you have no knowledge on the subject as you were unable to correct the obvious errors in five weeks this shows you are not to be considered as an editor but merely a disruptive deletionist.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 16:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I have not edited this article but saw it on ANI & so I took a look. I agree with NoCal that there is nothing wrong with mentioning the water situation in the context of the contemporary history; but that it is not necessary to turn this article into yet another I/P argument. This is particularly true since there is already an article entitled Water politics in the Middle East. In fact, one could briefly touch upon the issue and note somewhere within the article the existence of the water politics article. The "deep" history of the water situation would be better described there than here. Also, in consideration of the long history of Banias in the region, the emphasis on Mandate to contemporary times seems WP:UNDUE weight given to the recent conflict. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 18:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You've misread Casual Observer he/she is for keeping that with Charlie o'Sulivan makes you a minority..
Ashley kennedy3 (
talk) 15:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
and the reference is pretty clear:-
may I humbly suggest that you re-read casual observer's remarks:-
I neither know how to, nor care to; someone else should. I object to the deletion of sourced material relevant to the facts of Banais. It is the water; it has been the availability of that water throughout history, as I noted before. Future availability makes it important today; it is a continuum. Deletion by stilted, POV'd view shouldn't fly, particularly where hiding this association seems Wiki-endemic and is politically advantageous to keep it that way. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Since when does I object to the deletion of sourced material relevant to the facts of Banais. translate to move it to Water politics in the Middle East?.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 15:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks like 79.180.17.185 completely reverted the article back to his or her original revision at 299714042. However, some of the intervening edits (most notably 299744493) contain some interesting edits to the section heading. I understand that this revision also changes 'claimed by/administered by' to 'occupied by Isreal' which, as someone with very few political views on the situation, seems like an obvious as NPOV violation. However, I think that the article headings are useful. Most of the article is a history of who controlled the area and what they did with it, and for me 'Islamic Era' is more immediately descriptive and useful than simply 'Caliphate'.
Could someone with more knowledge on the subject please review revision 299744493 and try to incorporate the section heading edits? Thanks! audiodude ( talk) 13:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
As I have explained numerous times, the digitally manipulated and altered map that you designed and uploaded bears no relation to reality and is contradicted by the numerous map depictions that I’ve provided. The area is under Israeli control and has been under Israeli control for nearly 45 years. That is more than double the time it was under Syrian control. To present a map that shows it under Syrian control is not only misleading but dishonest. Moreover, the subject area is a tourist attraction and a reader who takes a cursory look at the map may be led (falsely) to believe that the area is under Syrian control. As I’ve demonstrated, most maps show the area as shaded, belonging to neither thus underlying its disputed status. Please also have a look at these additional interactive maps.
[4]
[5] Other editors who have commented here have voiced support for my
WP:NPOV edits. However, if you wish I will note the {{
POV}}
template to placate your concerns until the issues can be vetted and hopefully some form of compromise can be reached in a collegial manner. I also caution you from engaging in personal attacks against me. Calling me "expansionist" and part of the “Hasbara” team as you did here
[6] is offensive, gratuitous and I ask that you strike it. We are all volunteers here who spend time editing articles so that others may benefit. Engaging in personal attacks against me or others who don’t share your opinions is not helpful to the project.--
Jiujitsuguy (
talk) 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Maps_of_the_Golan_Heights nableezy - 17:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the justification for that page existing independently? Arminden ( talk) 22:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Arminden Arminden ( talk) 22:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Have opened a formal discussion below, discuss. Also identify if anything actually needs to be merged over, or if a redirect will suffice. nableezy - 21:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Has been discussed multiple times, and it does not make any sense to have two articles on the same place with one on a specific period of time, which is still covered here. If anybody is opposed, please explain why here. nableezy - 21:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This has been sitting around for a while now, there is a rough consensus to merge but I would be reluctant to do it only to have it undone, do we need to request a proper close? Selfstudier ( talk) 09:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Barias and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Barias until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)