Talk:Quneitra Governorate

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Quneitra Governorate, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

False map

Greyshark09, you have repeatedly removed the real map a Quneitra Governorate:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quneitra_in_Syria_%28%2BGolan_hatched%29.svg

and replaced it with a false map showing the Israeli occupied part of Quneitra Governorate as not begin part of Quneitra Governorate:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quneitra_in_Syria_%28sovereign_only%29_%28%2BGolan_hatched%29.svg

Your change is not in accordance with reality and a clear violation of original research. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did the maps. I won't tell you which I like best. That's up to authors with in-depth knowledge of the complicated political situation down there. But plz be aware of Commons:Category:SVG_locator_maps_of_governorates_in_Syria_(location_map_scheme). There's various maps showing that area differently. Maybe there's one map you like better.--TUBS (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per community consensus the agreement is to use the hatched map version, which is most relevant today. If speaking of Quneitra governorate during the pre-1967 Syrian effective control period, one may use other maps of course.GreyShark (dibra) 12:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The boundaries of Quneitra governorate, is the same now as pre 1967. Please stop your disruption and insertion of falsehoods into the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you want it or not, Quneitra Governorate borders are de facto limited to Syrian-controlled territory (possibly including the Neutral Zone). You are simply misleading the readers. I shall revert you.GreyShark (dibra) 13:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can use both maps here (pre-1967 and post-1967), but the "current" map of Quneitra should reflect current situation, as discussed in Template_talk:Location_map_Syria#Resoration of location map.GreyShark (dibra) 13:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Quneitra Governorate is also the Israeli occupied part. You have no consensus for your change and I will revert you if you re ad the false map. The current situation is the same as pre-1967, the boundaries have not changed for Quneitra Governorate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Supreme Deliciousness.

Wikipedia cannot give credit to the annexion of Golan by Israel even if the 'de facto' situation is very clear.

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedians, just roving through the Syrian Civil War pages and I see this discussion. I think I would lean more towards Greysharks position of a map recognising the de facto border with Israel. As it stands this article seems to be drifting towards a pro-Syrian government view point with its lack of recognition of current rebel advances in Quneitra governate. Maybe a link to a Israel-Syria border page could be provided that allows readers to view the different sides of the debate. For me at least it seems to be a bit antiquated to be referring to a border that ceased to exist almost fifty years ago??? Gfcan777 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gfcan777: Indeed we see a very clear POV position of Supreme on this case. Considering however, that the above discussion took place in 2013, one also has to consider that Syrian Arab Republic is now reduced to just 30% of former Syriam territory, and it doesn't look that Baathists can ever control it whole again. If Supreme sticks to the 1949-1967 borders, why don't we also give weight to 1946-1949 border of Quneitra governorate, when Syria occupied parts of Israel? Why don't we go all the way to the French or Hashemite or Ottoman claims on the area prior to that? Ba'athist rule over Quneitra looks coming to an end anyway, so this Governorate may soon be history as a whole.GreyShark (dibra) 13:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Quneitra_in_Syria.svg shows the ceasefire line, separating the Israeli-occupied part from the rest of the Quneitra governorate. I would not have any problems with stripes being added to the Israeli-occupied part, as long as it has the same color as the rest of the governorate. According to the map in the infobox at the Syria article, Syria is still Syria as it was before the war, so if Syria "is only 30%" you have to get consensus to change it there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The hatched map clearly shows which areas are under Syrian control and which area Syria claims and does not control - it is more informative to the reader.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure 100% of Quneitra (not IDF held) is on SAA hands.

I have seen the Syrian Civil War Towns and Cities and some villages are controled by JAN and FSA. Especially the Qun Crossing, so i dont think we should claim its under SAA control.200.48.214.19 (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on map version

The comments tend to support C but I give weight to comments that this is still less than ideal and further improvement could and should be made.

The scale is too large for the detail being represented. I would suggest adjusting to show the bottom corner (approximately 1/16 of present scale) with perhaps an insert showing the larger scale.
It should be clear from the caption the governorate nominally includes the area occupied by Israel and the buffer zone. The proposed cation does not make it clear that all three areas are nominally part of the governorate. It is only by reading the lead that this becomes clear.
I see value in swapping the colouring of the Israeli occupied area to pink and the buffer zone to red-hatched. This is along the lines of a suggestion made in the discussion.
Readers might also be better served if it is possible to annotate the image with the names of the countries and governorates mentioned in the lead.

I conclude that such changes would address most if not all of the concerns being raised. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A: Eastern Quneitra in red, Israeli held Golan heights in red
B: Eastern Quneitra in red, Israeli held Golan heights hatched grey
C: Eastern Quneitra in red, Israeli held Golan heights hatched red-grey, buffer zone in pink

Which map should be used in the infobox?Icewhiz (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

B or C - While Syria claims the portion in the Israeli held Golan heights, it has not been in control of this territory for the past 51 years. Presenting the claimed portion in the same manner as the actually administered portions is misleading to the reader.Icewhiz (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC) Added option C - which is also OK.Icewhiz (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A or C. The A map shows the accurate boundaries of Quneitra Governorate: Official UN Map The "B" map is an imaginary map where only a very small part of Quneitra Governorate is shown as part of it, while the part of the governorate occupied by Israel is shown as not beeing part of it. This version is also accepteable, not perfect, but it shows the entire Quneitra Governorate and specifically shows which part is occupeid by Israel. But the red stripes in the Israeli-occupied part should be stronger. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Supreme Deliciousness: I added the image you pointed out above as "also accepteable, not perfect" as option C.Icewhiz (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
B - Syria has no real control over the Israeli-controlled side of Quneitra, therefore current map is misleading and confuses the reader.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@יניב הורון:The intent of the map is to show the boundaries of the governorate and not only the part controlled by Syria. Official UN Map shows clearly that the "B" map is inaccurate, misleading to the reader, and straight out false. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were tk omit the Israeli held Golan it would be far from false, however B clearly has the Israeli held Golan hatched in grey - marking the claim.Icewhiz (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the "B" map doesn't show the governorates accurate boundary. See this UN Map:[1] So the reader seeing the "B" map would have no idea that the israeli-occupied part is part of the Quneitra Governorate.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is the right map for 2018, if you like to describe governorate borders brief history during mid-1960s - you can show the map from those times. Note that the borders you want to show as "correct" were in fact de-facto applied for a very short period of time 1964 (creation of Quneitra governorate) to 1967 (Israel conquered 2/3 of Quneitra). Since 1967 to 2011, Quneitra governorate borders had been de-facto as shown in B; during the Syrian War, the Ba'athist government had very limited control, though now could retake most of Quneitra and returning it to pre-2011 status.GreyShark (dibra) 09:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the right map for 2018 because the boundary's of the governorate haven't changed since 1967. See this Official UN Map from April 2012: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B - for now this is in line with the main de-facto Syrian map as agreed in Module_talk:Location_map/data/Syria#Restoration_of_location_map. I should note that entire Syrian territory is still partitioned between various forces, so perhaps when the war calms sometime in the future, we would require an entirely new Syrian map and this would affect this page as well.GreyShark (dibra) 09:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to propose another alternative, which could settle the issue for now. This map shows red for Eastern Golan including the neutral zone. To the best of my knowledge, the demilitarized neutral zone is under de-jure civil control of the Arab Republic of Syria, so it should be included in the governorate area. Such map could be File:Quneitra_in_Syria_(de-facto)_(+Golan_hatched).svg (same color for East Golan and neutral zone) or File:Quneitra_in_Syria_(de-facto)_(buffer_hatched)_(+Golan_hatched).svg (neutral zone with different shade of red).GreyShark (dibra) 10:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The C map:[2], shows the entire Quneitra Governorate so the reader can see what the entire boundary of it is, and what is controlled by Syria and what is occupied by Israel, would you accept it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above though C comes closest. That Israel occupies most of the area should obviously be a part of the map, so the current map is poor as the dashed lines don't show up well when it is red. The portion that Israel occupies should be striped red and grey, not this odd grey stripe, red line, beige stripe, red line. Just change the beige to red in there and that's the version I would favor. Option B makes little to no sense to me, it doesnt even pretend to show the boundaries of the Governate. But this nonsense about claims is just that, nonsense. The entirety of the Golan Heights is nearly universally regarded as Syrian territory. There is nearly no dispute about that point among states or scholars. nableezy - 19:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
B or C: The elephant in the room with the figure as it currently stands is that most of the area shown was captured by Israel in 1967 and later annexed by Israel (although other parties dispute this). I don't really have a strong opinion between options B and C because my computer monitor doesn't have sufficient resolution to tell the difference. In principal, I think that the article could be improved by making clear up front that most of this "Syrian region" is, in fact, controlled by a different country who considers it to be their own land. However, I believe that most people who find their way to this article would probably be aware of this history, so it's not as important. OtterAM (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above, C closest. per Nableezy and OtterAM. File:Quneitra_in_Syria_2016.svg is the clearest map for the three current divisions of the governorate's territory. DrKay (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Could a lighter shade of red not denote the area Israel occupies, with a key used below the map? Something like what we do with Cyprus would make it clear that Syria considers it integral to the governorate, but it's not under their control. Hatching could perhaps be used to denote the buffer zone. --Inops (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inops: In both B and C the Israeli held portion is shaded. C has the buffer zone in a different color. Click on them to see this full screen more clearly.Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I was suggesting to use what appears to be something approaching the standard on Wikipedia for mapping disputed areas. Hatching usually suggests "unknown" or actively militarily contested areas, which currently isn't the case in the governorate. --Inops (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken ref

@BasilLeaf: please fill in a source for the "CatchWord" ref. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]