Talk:Merom Golan

How about NOT battling politics out over WikiPedia?

As one would expect, anything related to Israel ends up in a battle; this battle should NOT be carried out in the definition of a subject. Just state the facts, and leave politics out of it. As a reader, looking for simple, unbiased information on a subject, this is extremely ugly. I personally have absolutely zero preference, nor interest in this battle between Arabs and Israelis; to constantly be dragged into it by those who choose to inject their bias is beyond annoying. After looking through the edits and reverts of this page it has become clear that editor 'Supreme Deliciousness' has chosen to take this page completely under his wing, and force these politics onto the subject by immediately reverting any removal of obvious political bias.

Just state what the subject IS. Leave out the politics.

For the record, I am of mostly German and Italian descent; no Jewish blood in me, no Arab blood in me. I have no preference in this war either way; I am *strictly* commenting as a reader.

"When I can read a news story and I have no idea what side of the story the reporter is on, that’s a good news story" -Sarah Huckabee Sanders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archie Bunker (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Settlement

Its not "considered" to be an Israeli settlement, it is an Israeli settlement and it must clearly say so in the lead and its not in any "region of Israel (claimed by Syria)". Golan is internationally recognized as in Syria, not "claimed" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I got no reply on the above post, so don't revert me unless you reply, also re added Israeli settlement to the first sentence since that is its primary description. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:19, 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:[1] 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 at the end of the lead in this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you keep it to the centralized discussion instead of copy-pasting over multiple talk pages. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness's disgraceful partisan posting about Israel

In the strongest sense, I wish to complain about the bevahiour of wikieditor Supreme Deliciousness. His/her description of the "consensus" behind the condemnation of Israel's "occupation" of the Golan Heights is rife with bias & personal opinion - something of which he/she accuses me. He/she uses the BBC as objective legal reporting on the Conventions. A proper, responsible editor would go straight to the source - i.e. the Geneva Conventions themselves. Moreover, the use of Tom Segev as a source further discredits this editor, as Segev has never hidden his partisanship and antipathy of Israel.

I have been unable to contact Supreme Deliciousness directly, and my edits have been undone. I have thus been unable to add citations to my original post (I am new to wikiediting; my quick edit of Merom Golan was done in shock at Supreme Deliciousness' disgraceful post, to be completed ASAP).

I have been criticised for "editorialising" - but would you not say Supreme Deliciousness was doing the same? I presume it is not the case in wikipedia that ANY citations will do? (See my point above about the poor quality of Supreme Deliciousness' citations.)

Finally, and to support my point: I see that another biased page on Israel (Neve Ativ) that I previously edited has been re-edited by none other than Supreme Deliciousness! Making the same biased points ("consensus"), using the same weak, 2nd-hand references (BBC, rather than Geneva Conventions directly)

Supreme Deliciousness: This is lazy, cut-&-paste, biased editorialising by someone who CLEARLY has an axe to grind about the Jewish State... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnflalor (talk • contribs) 09:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been very long discussion about the legality issue, and there is consensus to have this legality sentence in the settlement articles: "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." Please respect that consensus. The text you added is not following that consensus.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Merom Golan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618145923/http://www.ims.gov.il/IMS/CLIMATE/ClimaticAtlas/TempNormals.htm to http://www.ims.gov.il/IMS/CLIMATE/ClimaticAtlas/TempNormals.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925080227/http://www.ims.gov.il/IMS/CLIMATE/ClimaticAtlas/RainNormals.htm to http://www.ims.gov.il/IMS/CLIMATE/ClimaticAtlas/RainNormals.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)