User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2020/May

Golan height villages
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mas%27ade

How is US, either a superpower that is part of the Quartet “uninvolved”? If you want to say that only countries which that area borders, then just Syria against Israel.... Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The US change in view has not changed that sources continue to say the "international community" considers the Golan occupied or the settlements illegal. We do not need to specify that the US disagrees, unless you want to list every other country that says it is illegal (which is all of the rest).  nableezy  - 16:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

By saying “international community” with no limiting qualification, we imply the international consensus is unanimous. This is not the case, we are in fact peddling “fake news”, if you will, by not qualifying this statement with even a note Zarcademan123456 (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No such implication is made. International community does not mean every country without exception.  nableezy  - 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

First off, I am not changing the language “international community”. I am merely adding a qualifying note, noting the one country (outside of Israel) that recognizes the territory as Israeli territory

Secondly, how does “international community” nor mean all of the international community? There is no qualifying “most” or “majority of” preceding “international community”. Your logic is that because “all” does not precede “international community” that only “most” of the international community is implied? That’s a bit of weak logic...

“We do not need to specify that the US disagrees, unless you want to list every other country that says it is illegal (which is all of the rest).”

By not noting any other countries in the note, does that not imply that every other country views the Golan as “occupied”? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it does not, because the term international community does not mean every other county. And it is not limited to just countries (eg, the UN, the ICRC, other supra-national bodies).  nableezy  - 23:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I hear that argument, but even if I agreed with your rationale, why the issue with the note? It certainly is not superfluous, as it adds pertinent information otherwise not noted Zarcademan123456 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I dont think we need to single out any one state here besides the two involved and the "international community" as a whole. Israel's dispute matters, the US less so. Its definitely important and should be noted in the pages that deal with the issue (Israeli settlements and international law) but I dont think it should be added to each settlement article.  nableezy  - 03:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

But this deals tangentially with the issue. Again, why would the view of one of the world’s superpowers (if not arguably, at least militarily, the world hyperpower) not strong enough to note in info box? I hear your logic, I just don’t think it’s a strong enough argument. Seeing as how I am presenting factual information, I think the burden of proof for removal of factual information should be on y’all to remove it Zarcademan123456 (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not include what China says? Or Russia? Or France? Or ... ?  nableezy  - 04:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Several countries and organizations do not recognize Israel as a state, yet at Wikipedia Israel is described as one. All over Wikipedia Israel is not called a "partly recognized state" despite it being so, so we do not take the small minority opinion into consideration, because the vast majority supersedes this smaller opinion. Same thing here, US is a small minority opinion, and we can say "International community" and it would still be accurate. The topic of these Syrian villages have nothing to do with the US and the US insignificant opinion does not belong in them. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Any country not mentioned is implied to be with the international consensus. According to the sources then, it should say partly recognized state...the difference though is that regarding Israel, the permanent UNSC security seat holders unanimously recognize Israel, and regarding the Golan, the international community is not unanimous.

If you were to say “international consensus” then I think that argument would be stronger, but it would make as much sense...I just don’t understand this push back to a simple note that notes the US view. For better or worse, the view of the US is extremely weighty, and that view must be noted. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * not make as much sense Zarcademan123456 (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, describing Israel as a state throughout Wikipedia implies that this is international consensus, when its not. UNSC security seat holders is not the international community, only a few states. As said before, the world is not unanimous about the recognition of Israel, so its exactly the same thing. The US minority view should be in articles about the topic, the main GH article, Middle East wars articles, Middle East political articles. The US minority view about the region does not belong in these Syrian villages articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to put a note next to Israel go ahead. We are misleading when saying “international community”...this is not the case Zarcademan123456 (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

International community Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

While that may be true, as stated before, the opinion of the US must be noted. It’s that powerful a country Zarcademan123456 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not need to be noted on each individual village and or settlement article. The US is a powerful country, so is China, so is Russia, so is France, so is the UK. We dont single any of those out either.  nableezy  - 20:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Uk and France don’t belong on list, different league. Only In terms of nukes is us comparable to Russia (us military dwarfs russia), leaving only China comparable economically Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll be sure and let the UK, France and Russia know that some insignificant WP editor considers them insignificant. The US has exactly the same 1 vote and 1 veto that the other 4 have in the UNSC. The other 4 say the position of this particular US administration doesn't count for squat and they are absolutely right.Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

“The other 4 say the position of this particular US administration doesn't count for squat and they are absolutely right.” bias?

I wasn’t saying their views don’t count; I was saying USis more powerful than those countries. I was also saying that us view must be noted. I don’t appreciate you condescending tone Zarcademan123456 (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Zarcademan123456, you have not gathered consensus for your change, so why do you continue to edit war? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * What bias? Virtually all countries have made it known that they do not agree with the arbitrary action of this particular US administration which is acting in contradiction to it's own prior decisions as a country. The US remains bound by prior UN decisions until there is another resolution or it leaves the UN (it and all 14 other members voted for United Nations Security Council Resolution 497). You just want to write half of a story all the time, I don't mind you having a POV, that's OK but you should look at the whole picture not just the bit that suits you. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

When you said “they are absolutely right.” I took that for your own bias, not holding us up to previous law ok I see now Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)