Talk:Yonatan (Israeli settlement)

"take away pov"

Unless the editor can explain what is "POV" about the material removed here that material will be reinserted. nableezy - 03:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

you can click on Golan Heights article to read about status and vary opinion about what that territory is. it sure does not need to be here in article about village. LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You have not explained what is "POV" about that material nor have you explained why it was removed. nableezy - 03:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

if you want to say it's occupied then i want to say it's annexed to part of israel. this is what is covered in Golan Heights article. people who come to this article can go there for more information if they want. LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Except Israel has expressly said that the Golan has not been annexed to Israel. Would you like to try again? nableezy - 04:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

except it is de facto annexed to israel according to Golan Heights. would you like to try again? LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, because I use real sources, not Wikipedia articles. You removed something on the basis that it is "POV". That Israel has applied its civil law to the Golan does not in any way contradict that Israel occupies the Golan. Unless you can say what is "POV" about the line you removed it will be reinserted. You not liking the facts is not reason for you to hide those facts. nableezy - 04:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

i explained already very clearly why it is POV, why it only show one side of argument. just because you WP:DONTLIKE the answer does not mean i did not give you the explanation. you just choose ignore it. LibiBamizrach (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no argument. There is you, a random person on the internet arguing a position without understanding it, and countless sources that say that the Golan is held under Israeli occupation. That isnt an argument, at least not a real one. It is you arguing against reliable sources. If that is an argument then you lose the argument. The article you keep referring to repeatedly makes clear that the status of the territory is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. You have not given any source that disputes that the Golan is occupied by Israel. You have only continued in your nationalist POV push to remove any material you feel does not portray a certain state in a good enough light. That is not acceptable. Sources say that this settlement is in occupied territory. Guess what, this article will say the same. nableezy - 05:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nab, consider, Libi refuted your central point, please stop name calling. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not "name called" and stop following me around. nableezy - 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

it will stay the same? cool, it sounds great to me. you are the one trying to put in new POV recently. so if we stay with what it was for long time, it is current version. thanks for compromise! LibiBamizrach (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not how things work, but I expect you already knew that, nableezy - 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Israels control of the area is the occupation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since we already met at Golan Heights, we all know it is SYRIAN Arab republic territory. And anyone who clicks Israeli Settlement knows it is illegal. I'm not sure what is the problem, really. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

problem is POV advancers fighting constant to put in their POV to make biased encyclopedia. deleting both sentences is what i wanted from beginning. people who read wikipedia can get more information from linked articles there like you said. but if we including one side POV then also we have include other side to keep NPOV. LibiBamizrach (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The neutral point of view IS the whole wide world view. The only ones creating problems are those who wish to cloud the situation by littering articles with positions only supported by the zionist regime. SyrianKing (talk)