User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2013/August

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Greetings,

Official notification language:

=Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion==
This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rujm el-Hiri: in 'Israeli-administered' or 'Israeli-occupied' Golan?.
Thank you.

Explanation: We've had a good faith discussion on the 'Rujm el-Hiri' talk page about the use of 'occupied' vs. 'administered' when applied to Golan and it's clear that editors are not going to reach consensus. Accordingly, I've created a new section on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard about this issue. The section may be accessed via
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Rujm_el-Hiri:_in_.27Israeli-administered.27_or_.27Israeli-occupied.27_Golan.3F

Four editors have been named in the posting: you, Nableezy, Tiamut, and Zero0000, since you've all argued for 'occupied' and checked it into the article. For instance, you may recall your edit on 12:40, 9 April 2013‎ , with your comment: "(well this is important to point out that its in the israeli occupied part.) " The issue in the Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion is whether 'occupied' is the appropriate word, or whether the insistence on using this particular word an expression of partisan bias which introduces needless political controversy(e.g. the link to an article on the legal history of 'occupation' legal documents). Of course I invite you and all others to make your own case and look forward to seeing your edits. The resolution process should be interesting.

Let's hope for a final settlement on this particular intellectual-territorial dispute soon and return to fruitful collective labor. :-)

--Ron
Ronreisman (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)