Talk:Tel Faher

Syria location stub?
Last time I checked, The Golan Heights were Israeli territory, annexed many years ago. though Syria does dispute this, NO ONE would claim that today someone standing in the Israeli National park in Tel faher would be standing within the governmental authority of Syria. the tag must be removed and replaced with an Israeli one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.42.70 (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Golan Heights has never been Israeli territory. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

To Debresser
What feelings of a certain group does the quote refer to? What does the source say? How is it presented in the article in a neutral way? How is it encyclopedic? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The group is "Galilee settlers". The feelings are "pride". The source says what you saw and removed: it is a quote (and not the only one in the article). It is neutral, because it specifies who it is referring to. It is encyclopedic because it describes the feelings of an involved party.
 * Now I have a few questions for you as well. Why do you ignore WP:BRD? If you remove information, sourced information at that, and are reverted, you should really first establish consensus, instead of repeating your edit. Debresser (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote has many problematic issues. The quote is a story written from the pov of one person - the author of the book, its not a quote from a historical person or someone this article is about, so therefor its not encyclopedic in any way. Its also highlighted in the middle and not attributed to the author. Also its non neutral because other sources confirm that Israel provoked the majority of clashes between Syria and Israel. Having a quote like that presents Israel like victim and Syria as the aggressor when other sources confirm the opposite is the true. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The source is indicated. You can add the name of the author, who is after all a reliable source, if you feel that makes it less POV. It doesn't claim to be neutral, in the sense that it claims to reflect the feelings of an involved party. That is fine, and is not a POV violation, as long as it is clear. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote is a joke and doesn't belong in the article, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I propose we ask for a 3rd opinion. Would you do the honors, or do you want me to write a request on Third opinion? Debresser (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you have not replied to my suggestion here, but have added two tags to the statement, I understand you are not interested in asking for a third opinion, so I will take this to dispute resolution. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)