Talk:Eliad, Israeli settlement

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

JVL is not a reliable source, please do not ad anything from that website to this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, El Al stream exist long before "Israeli" settlement, so it false when say settlement come first. Also Golan be Syria land that be under force occupy by "Israel", but not be recognize by no one as legitimate territory belong to "Israel", so it impossible for article to be in "geography of isreal" category. Ani medjool (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ani, so we should remove the links to 'Israeli settlement' because that misleads people to think that the settlements are in Israel too. --Shuki (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

On contrary, "Israeli settlement" make clear that it be town create by occuping entity and not natural settle ment by legitimate owner, Syria. "Israel" can create settlement where ever it want, but it do not mean just because it create settlement be legitimate part of "Israel" or be in "Israel". "Israel" have lot of settlement in land that not be "Israel". For instance it have settlement in East Jerusalem, but East Jerusalem not be "Israel", but Soverign Palestine (as recognize by entire world) that be forceably occupy by "Israel". So see, Geography of "Israel" and "Israeli" Settlement be two different thing. Ani medjool (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. There is no "'Soverign' Palestine" on this planet. I'm not sure where you're living. Breein1007 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ani, no it isn't. There is no difference between Israeli city and Israeli settlement - both infer localities in Israel by Israelis. You can keep trying to convince yourself there is a difference, but as a native English speak, I don;t see one. A group of WP editors would like us to think so, but it just ain't true. --Shuki (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, your own wishful thinking isn't reality. So please do not impose it here. The 1967 borders are the international borders, every Israeli entity outside of these borders are not in Israel. "El Al" is an Israeli settlement in southwestern Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hello. See talk here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fwww.jewishvirtuallibrary.org.2F Thank you Ani medjool (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

vision.technion.ac.il/alior/Trips/NahalElAl

http://vision.technion.ac.il/alior/Trips/NahalElAl/index.html is not a reliable source. Please refrain from using it. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

six day war

• The wording here about the six day war is not neutral: [1] there are many sources showing Israel started that war. I have changed it to more neutral:[2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Thats fine. I know they "properly" started the war by decimating Egypts airforce, but did they also open the Syrian front too? Chesdovi (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Please keep it neutral and quiet (WP:NPOV) :: this is not the place to re-fight the Arab-Israeli wars. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

geography of "israel"

Do Golan height belong to "Israel" or do it belong to Syria?

If it be part of "Israel" then it belong in geography of "Israel" category and stub. But if it not be part of "Israel", then "Israel Geography" stub and category not belong and need be remove. So do golan be part of "Israel" or Syria? Ani medjool (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the Sykes–Picot Agreement, it's belongs to France, the Bible however firmly places it in Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The bible says Israelis invaded it and took it from its original ancient Syrian inhabitants, Dt 3:4: "At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them Dt 3:6: "We completely destroyed [a] them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying [b] every city—men, women and children." Dt 3:7: "But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.",,, I guess history repeats itself. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Even before the Israelites had legally aquired the ancient syrian territory by Right of conquest, this area was included in their mandate. See Numbers 34:11. Although history does usually have a way of repeating itself, in regard to the invaision of modern Syria, the Israelis broke that habit. As far as I know they did not take the livestock or decimate the human population. If its massacres you're after, why not read about the Muslim fanatics who butchered 25,000 Christians in Damascus in 1860. Chesdovi (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not current "Israel" entity. Current entity no exist until 1948. So bible source not relevant to geography stub. Ani medjool (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon does not have Geography of Syria stub, rather French Mandate for Syria. It seems whoever has current control gets the stub. Chesdovi (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats not the same thing Chesdovi. A mandate is a kind of governance, while this area is an area inside Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not quite the case, and you know this very well. Why do you constantly bring up the same discussions that have already been argued ad nauseum on other pages? Breein1007 (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This need be settle. None reply be adequate to explain why Israel geography stub belong, so it need be remove soon. Ani medjool (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovis latest edit

[3]

1.You have written that "before 1967 it was a part of Syria", which means that it is not part of Syria today, which is false, this has already been discussed a million times over. The area is still part of Syria today, and it is not and has never been part of Israel. If you want to ad that "before 1967 it was a part of Syria" you will have to get that accepted at the Golan article that Golan was "before 1967 a part of Syria" I have not removed it yet, but I will.

2. "Established upon the ruins of an ancient settlement on the southern tributary of Wadi es-Samekh" that source speaks of the Syrian village established upon Wadi es-Samekh, which of course has nothing to do with the Israeli settlement of today. So you trying to make some kind of "legitimate" connection of the Israeli settlement with the historical Syrian village is a joke and is not something the source says.

3. This sentence "Archaeological remains suggest at least one public Jewish building existed there in ancient times." is BS and can not be in an encyclopedia, the source mentions several roman and greek artifacts but nothing related to Jews can be confirmed, the way you have put it is false and unacceptable. I have not removed it yet, but I will. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All your points confound me. Chesdovi (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, everything in your "history section" [4] has nothing to do with the Israeli settlement, the sources specifically speaks of the history of the Syran village, you are making stuff up. And also, show me the source for this: "Some remains suggest at least one public Jewish building existed there in ancient times." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the general rule is that if a location remains in exactly the same place, all eras are described on the same page, with the title being of the current location. There is nothing about the "Syrian" village either. That material would be dated after 1944. Chesdovi (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the sources speaks of the history of the Syrian village, not the Israeli settlement. So that is how it must be presented. I'm gonna create a separate article if this is not implanted in this article. The history of the Israeli settlement began sometime after 1967. And also, how do you know that the Israeli settlement is built exactly on the same same place as Al`Al? give me the coordinates and the source for them. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw now also that you removed that it was a former Syrian village. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw that you did not remove "part of the Ottoman Empire"! Chesdovi (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Did not notice that, will remove it since it is irrelevant and unsourced. Im still waiting on your reply for the "Established upon the ruins of an ancient settlement on the southern tributary of Wadi es-Samekh", the source speaks of the Syrian village, do you have any source showing that the Israeli settlements is built on the exact same place? and also please show me the sentence that "suggests" that there was a Jewish building. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if it located on the same site. That is what was inferred from the article. Indeed, it is the postition you have yourself adopted that it was previoulsy know as Al Al. If the syrian village was located some distance away, I believe it would deserve its own page. Regarding the public Jewish building, this can be found on pg. 571 of the cited reference: “The finds south of the mosque-especially the abundance of Ionic capitals of the type prevalent in Jewish public buildings in the Golan-led the author to suggest that the ancient settlement of El Al had contained at least one Jewish public building”. The author goes on to state that his conclusion was not accepted by a fellow professor working with him. Chesdovi (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And more "A question remains whether there was a Jewish population in El-Al. Onamastic evidence does not suggest this," "Because Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions failed to turn up in the town, as did menorah symbols the presence of Jews can not be positively confirmed", so its a false sentence that you have made up that "remains suggest at least one public Jewish building existed" ,,, and the entire source speaks of the confirmed Roman and greek artifacts. But you choose to ad the non existent "Jewish building" instead shows that you have an agenda. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood. As I said in my previous post: "The author goes on to state that his conclusion was not accepted by a fellow professor working with him". The quote you have provided is from the other scholar, Prof. Gregg. Urman, however, disputes his conclusion and clearly write that evidence "suggests" one Jewish public building in El Al. You also overloooked the last section of Greggs report: '"And yet the 3 coins of Alexander Jannaues at least raise the possibilty of the early "Jewishness" of the site", so please don't go accusing me of selectiveness. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"raise the possibility" is not a fact, so therofr it can not be in the article. Specially when other professors with him debunk this, and the way you put it was completely undue weight if you look at the pages that was packed with Greek and roman artifacts.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Greek and Roman does not mean "void of Jews", if you would just read the source, please. I can see that your are confused. I will add that: Roman pagan items can also be construed for Jewsih use and a Greek inscribed gravestone at the site has the clearly Jewish name of Huna. Al Al is a totally insignificanmt village with no notability, it does not even exist! I am looking forward to you creating pages for the thousands of other tiny villages scattered throughtout Syria proper. At least these may have some notability. Chesdovi (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Eliad, Golan Heights

I have done some detective work. Looking at this map one can see that El Al and Al Al are situated right next to each other. Whether El Al covers part of Al Al, I cannot tell. I also took a look at google maps but could not really discern anything specific. What I have discovered though, is that this page is a duplicate! See Eliad, Golan Heights and you will know what I mean!!! I therefore propose that this page be merged. Chesdovi (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The map clearly shows that they are not on the same location but next to each other, this further confirms that all the "located on the southern tributary" and ancient history of Al`Al that the sources speaks of has nothing to do with Eilad/El Al which is not even on the same place. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

These two links also shows the two sites at different coordinates and that Al´Al was higher then Eli Al http://www.fallingrain.com/world/SY/03/Al_Al.html http://www.fallingrain.com/world/SY/00/Eli_Al.html --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This fake article can be deleted now

All the info about the Syrian village is at a new article Al ‘Al. All info in this article is either about that Syrian village or made up ("jewish building"). --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge El Al to Eliad

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was merged Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - it's called Eliad today... should have a section discussing this in the Eliad article (which we already do). Don't need a separate article for El Al, which no longer exists. Breein1007 (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - per Breein1007. El Al, Eli Al & Al Al all no longer exist. Passing mention can be made at Eliad. Chesdovi (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support—the same locality should not have multiple articles. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• There is nothing to merge, all info in the El Al article is about the Syrian village Al ‘Al, there is no info about the Israeli settlement, the El Al article can be deleted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Merge Al Al to Eliad

Same as above. A new article has just been created called Al Al. This is accomplishing the opposite of what we are trying to do here. There is no reason to have more than one article for the same location. The information about Al Al can be (and is) mentioned in the Eliad article. Breein1007 (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not the same location, As the map show [5] and coordinates show [6] [7] Eilda was not built on top of Al Al, but next to it and has a different name. Al AL is built on a higher soil and has a completely different history. All the history of the sources in the Al AL article speak of the Syrian Al AL article, not the Israeli settlement Eilad. They are two completely separate things. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It was first an ancient settlement, then a Roman settlement, then a Greek settlement, then a XYZ settlement, then a Arab settlement, then an Israeli settlement. The page should include all stages of its history. Why shoulkd the old Arab settlement deserve its own page? Because of 0.02 degrees?! Chesdovi (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats not what the sources say, the sources say that roman and greek artifacts has been found in the Syrian village of Al`Al. The sources do not say that it was a roman village or a greek village. And most importantly, the sources do not say that Al`Àl has any connection to the Israeli settlement of Eliad, actually the sources say they are not even on the same location. We have several separate article about Israel, Palestine, Kingdom of Jerusalem, British Mandate of Palestine etc yet they are on the same location and share the same history and Iraq, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Assyria was also on the same location and share history but they have different articles. Al`Al and Eilad are not even on the same location or elevation as each other. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The several separate articles you mention are about different regimes ruling the same land. No reason however, why actual locations should not include all history of that site, unless there is an abundance of material for each different era. Nevertheless, the fact that our source explicitly states: "This large, now abandoned Syrian village" would indicate, that being written in 1994, Israeli Eliad was not directly over the same site. A similar comparison would be Old Cairo which is engulfed by modern Cairo. As Al Al is an archaeological site with possible Jewish relics, a separate article is in order. Thanks for highlighting this SD. Chesdovi (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with your comparison with old Cairo. But since you now support two separate articles and this conversation is almost only between me and you, do you support a closure of the rfc? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the "rfc"? (I think we should let the merge discussion run a while to get further imput.) Chesdovi (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Vote to merge Al ‘Al to Eliad, Golan Heights

• Support - per my comments above. Al ‘Al should be redirected to Al `Al. Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per given sources which state Al Al is now (1994) "abandoned", (Eliad is not even mentioned). Chesdovi (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per my comments above, two separate things, on two separate locations and elevation. All "history" Chesdovi added is either about the Syrian village Al ‘Al or made up. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have closed the rfc as both main editors are against and no interest from others. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Banned

I reverted drorks edits since he is banned and has no right to do any edits at any article and his edits also removes that this Israeli settlements is an Israeli settlement. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

I reverted Poliocretes edit where he removed the Israeli settlement in the lead and cat, and the link to Israeli-occupied territories in see also section as they are all relevant and no explanation was given for removing them.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Status sentence

There has been long discussion at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues about adding the illegality issue in all settlement article:[8] There is now consensus to have the sentence: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." in all relevant articles, but its not clear yet exactly where in the article, so therefor I'm suggesting that the agreed upon sentence be placed as the third sentence in this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you keep it to the centralized discussion instead of copy-pasting over a potential 200+ talk pages. --Shuki (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)