Talk:Quneitra

Montag

IGuy Montag please stop this revisionism. According to the Six Day war article on Wikipedia, Israel is the one that launched a pre-emptive strike. This stub of an article is not going to discuss if Israel was justified or not in its strike/invasion, but the fact is that ISRAEL INVADED SYRIA. I'm sure that in your mind the invasion was totally justified and saved alot of innocent lives, but the fact remains that it was an invasion. Why are you trying to rewrite history and claim that Syria invaded Israel?Yuber^(talk) 23:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC) srael was invaded by Syria?==

Because you are wrong.

Guy Montag 00:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Six Days War

Although this can be found in the Six Days War article, (if not it should be added) but Syria initiated the war with Israel after months of escalation, which culminated in the shelling of Galilee communities and the death of dozens of civilians. Secondly, it had a military alliance with Egypt, which prior to that had violated international law by blocking the Straits of Tiran, also a cassus belli. After Egypt initiated the provacation which led to open hostilities, the military alliance with Syria came into affect, with Syria mobilizing its forces to invade Israel. There is no relevence or accuracy in stating that Israel invaded the Golan Heights without stating the context in which this happened. Syria initiated hostilities, and Israel captured it in self defense.

There are also the POV issues with the language you are using. Just as we do not use "occupied" for the territories, we do not use it for the Golan Heights. All of these issues are contentious and will not be accepted by wikipedia standards.

Guy Montag 00:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The war of Israeli Aggression was started by Israel. Fact. No amount of desperate propaganda spread all around the Earth is going to change that fact. Israel desired the Golan Heights and the West Bank, it invented the pretexts for the invasion so that it could seize them and continue its settler colonial enterprise. That is why it committed a genocide on the residents of the Golan Heights and demolished their towns. If Israel had no designs on the territory previously, why would they immediately begin settling it? Do you have any common sense? What nation that accidentally stumbles into the territory due to a defensive war does that kind of stuff? Where are the US settlements in Iraq after the Iraq war? Oh yeah, they don't exist, because a nation not intent on colonizing an area doesn't build settlements. As to Israeli's stated causa belli for the war, FYI, no Israeli ships had sailed through the straits for two years previously. Clearly keeping the straits open was not some desperate Israeli strategic need that required invading three nations and seizing massive amounts of territory and then immediately beginning to build permanent settlements, then playing innocent and pretending like that wasn't the goddamn goal the whole time.2601:140:8980:106F:CC5C:5DCF:997E:6F2B (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so Israel invaded in self-defense, it's still an invasion.Yuber^(talk) 00:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I came here to comment on Yuber's reversions, but Guy, I noticed your comment about "occupied." Is it correct that Wikipedia doesn't refer to the territories as occupied? If so, can you point me in the direction of that guideline? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's a point of contention. "Occupied territory" status normally disappears when a territory is annexed, and Israel has annexed the Golan Heights. However, no other countries have recognized that annexation. In any event, it's just politicking not relevant to this article; Yuber has been making a rash of edits designed solely to impart POV, not improve Wikipedia, and these are some of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of the status, but my point was only about WP. Guy seems to be implying that there's been an agreement (or some kind of accepted practice) about which term should be used on WP, but I'm not aware of any, and if there isn't one, we should use the normal term. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

It is a consensus you can find in any article that deals with the Arab-Israeli conflict. The reason being is that using the political language of one side becomes a POV for the other side. If we used such terms, no work could be done as this would result in a revert war. Because it is still a political issue, most editors erase most "claim terms" like "occupied" or "liberated," and simply call them "territories" and the action of ownership as "controlled". If an article is not a political issue, we sometimes use the term "occupied". For example, "Nazi Germany occupied Poland in 1939." It is an implied standard for this perticular conflict to keep it NPOV.

Guy Montag 00:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Report on Destruction

Yuber, do you have a report to the UN that isn't incredibly biased, that doesn't use terms like "martyred city of Quneitra" or "Israeli aggression of 1967." It would help the relevancy of this article if you did.

Guy Montag 01:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

These are the reports of witnesses, they will contain some bias.Yuber^(talk) 01:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Not witnesses, I know that they will contain biases, I am talking about the entire report. It is a very biased source. Do you have a similiar source without partisanship and hatred for one side? If not, I will have to qualify the report in the article.

Guy Montag 02:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

We should not be including long verbatim quotes from any source. It is available elsewhere. We should summarize, in an NPOV manner, what it and other sources say. -Willmcw 00:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

POV edits

Yuber, The case here is very simple. The word "occupied" is not a neutral word, and your edit is not a POV edit. It doesn't matter what you believe on the subject or what subject we are talking about. In the area of the Arab Israeli conflict, it is not used as a matter of fact because it pressupposes the position of one side in a dispute. If you cannot accept that and the rules of wikipedia, then all the people you have pissed off with your disregard for cooperation will come back right at you. Today it has.

I told you many times in many articles that your pov pushing will get you banned. This is your last warning. Your tendencies to start edit wars over your pov editing has become so tediously time consuming to NPOV that I have come to believe you are not capable of working on this project. I am going to give you one chance to stop. If you do not, you will be brought up before an arbitration committee by the end of the week. You have my word on that.

Guy Montag 06:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to take what you have to say seriously. This is because you continuously add scare-quotes to Palestine-related articles and you blatantly remove information.Yuber^(talk) 06:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I no longer care what you think. I tried to work with you, but have proven to be nothing but a militant pov pusher who cannot cooperate with others. I've given you enough time to cooperate and enough slack. I didn't care about you POV's before because I thought I could work with you. Apperantly not. I can tolerate POV editors who work with others, but you cannot work with others. So this is it. Arbitration committee here you go.

Guy Montag 06:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pot meet Kettle

--Irishpunktom\^talk 13:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Long quotes workshop

The witness said that he and many other inhabitants tried to return to their homes, but were prevented from doing so by Israeli troops. Israeli authorities stole many archaeological remains and stones. They destroyed the trees, the vineyards. They burned all the crops which had already been harvested.

-

-

The Israeli troops entered also the village of Mesehara where the witness had taken refuge. They used loudspeakers to urge the inhabitants to leave immediately if they did not want to be killed. The villagers were then gathered and expelled, with tanks following them. Some old people, however, remained behind. They have never been heard of since then.

-

-

After a few days of occupation, most of the inhabitants were gathered in a small part of the city. The Israelis prevented the inhabitants from going back to their homes on the pretext of security reasons and they started looting. Then the inhabitants were called to sign personal statements that they would leave Quneitra of their own free will. Finally, the Israelis took the inhabitants in trucks and dropped them outside the city boundaries. Police were warned not to return under threat of being shot.

-

-

The witness said that in 1967 he was living with his father, mother and children in the city of Quneitra. When Israel declared its war on the Arabs on 5 June 1967 1967, it wanted only to fulfil its dreams of swallowing up Arab territories without their inhabitants. The Israeli troops struck at the city of Quneitra on the first day of the war. They shot at trade shops and houses with people living in them. In the few following days after Israeli troops entered the city of Quneitra, most of the inhabitants were still living in it, but pressure mounted to compel inhabitants to leave. For instance, Israeli authorities used to gather the youth in one place and would accuse them of being in the military service; they also gathered the inhabitants in one spot and compelled them to kneel on the ground with their hands above their heads, with no consideration whatever for old people, women or small children. They also took away the wives, whose reputation is of great importance in Arab families.

Here are the quotes. Propose a version in talk and we will work on it to reach consensus.

Guy Montag 03:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calton, if you have something to add to this page other than your aggressive reverts, here is your chance. Here are the long quotes. Construct a version in talk and I will insert my opinions. After it is done, we can reinstert it into the article. If there is something you dont understand, send me a message. I also suggest you start learning about the history of this dispute and I suggest you start to cooperate. Your jumping in with guns blazing didn't make a very good first impression.

Guy Montag 06:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Filling an article with long quotes from a one-sided description of a war is decidedly un-encyclopedic. Brief quotes and summaries are always better, as is a balance of sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quote by a witness about alleged Israeli destruction

Previous version of the article simply stated that witness testified about Israel's alleged destruction of the city before withdrawal. I added information that the witness was called in by Mr. Najib Al Ahmad, Special Representative of Palestine Liberation Organization. Information added comes from the source provided.

What bothers me is that the person who contributed this witness account, probably red the entire UN report, and then deliberatly made it sound like it was the official position of the UN. Judge for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quneitra&diff=30115040&oldid=29466055 --Heptor 4 December 2005 (UTC)

How to find this info: follow the link to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ded9d4b9fbef11c1802564360057f1f2?OpenDocument. Scroll down to Annex two. Find II. Damascus, Syria - 26-29 May 1979. There you will see Statement by Mr. Najib Al Ahmad, Special Representative, Political Department, Palestine Liberation Organization. Witness 24 is Mr. Yassin Rikab. The included passage comes from point 132. --Heptor 22:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Passed GA

I have just reviewed the article and found it very well written and believe it passes all 6 of the criteria. One minor point is that reference 19 doesn't have a source so if this could be added it would be even better! Good Luck if this goes to FAC! - Suicidalhamster 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

I tinkered with some punctuation and wording. The way the lead read before was a bit clunky; to start a sentence "Founded in the Ottoman era..." (which the reader takes as an intro to a history), and then jump to 1967 seemed jarring.

If I may comment, I'm in awe of the NPOV here. It would be hard to imagine a more explosive kind of topic, but it's been handled masterfully. --Milkbreath 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Negative statement

I took out from the introduction:

"Syria has not rebuilt Quneitra, but has instead kept it in a destroyed state."

This does not seem like the kind of sentence that belongs in a WP article. It is clear from the information already given that the city has not been rebuilt. Blaming Syria amounts to original research. You might as well say that Bill Gates has not donated some of his billions to rebuild it. Steve Dufour 00:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's both factually wrong and absurd. "Unlike Egypt, which rebuilt its heavily damaged canal cities, Syria left Kuneitra in ruins - a monument to ongoing hostilities". - Abraham Rabinovich, The Yom Kippur War. The Syrian government was required by treating to rebuild Kuniteria. They did not. It is not an accident that nobody has resettled there. Raul654 01:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Rabinovich should be quoted in the article, if he is not already. But that is his opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about what other people should or should not do. WP itself however, is not allowed to express this kind of opinion. Steve Dufour 01:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to:

"Syria has been criticized for not rebuilding Quneitra, but instead keeping it in a destroyed state."

The issue, as I see it, is not the information given but the negative form of the original sentence. Steve Dufour 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup prior to maindate

Some WP:MOS cleanup is needed prior to maindate; I left sample edits. There is inconsistent date linking throughout (see WP:MOSDATE) Full dates (month day, year) and month-day combos (month day) should either be consistently linked everywhere (including citations) or consistently formatted in raw form. There are missing WP:NBSPs or {{nowrap}}s. And there are problems with logical punctuation on quotes. Also missing retrieval dates on websources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV lede

Why is it appropriate to say that "The government of Syria has been criticized for not rebuilding Quneitra" in the lede, but not "The government of Israel has been criticized for destroying Quneitra?" I mean, the criticism of the Syrian government comes from Israeli sources, while the criticism of Israel comes from the United Nations General Assembly in a 93-8 vote - the 8 were Israel, the USA, Australia, Canada, and 4 US protectorates in the Pacific.[1] If anything, NPOV would suggest that we note the condemnation of Israel in the lede and not note the condemnation of Syria. <eleland/talkedits> 17:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to second this - it was the first thing that struck me about this article. Aside from a reference to a book about the Yom Kippur War there's no real discussion of what "criticism" has been made - and since the Israelis made it clear they can flatten the city whenever they want and have effectively blocked off half the supporting territory around it, the Syrians would have been pretty stupid to waste the resources rebuilding a city from scratch there. Wnt (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the line in question - in the interests of balance, we should certainly mention that both Israel and Syria have been criticised for their respective roles. Incidentally, it's worth noting that (as mentioned in the last section of Quneitra#1967–74) the Syrians did actually commit, in the withdrawal agreement with Israel, to repopulating the city despite it being in the UNDOF disengagement zone - the late President Assad repeated the commitment on several occasions after the city's return to Syrian control. The Israeli objection is at least partially based on the Syrians not following through with this commitment. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Rebuilding the city was a condition of the peace treaty that Syria signed. Therefore Syria is currently in violation of the treaty. Both should be mentioned, but criticism of Syria is the only ongoing event. --Lemmey (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If Israel did not want a permanent monument to their barbarity and war crimes, maybe they shouldn't have destroyed the city in the first place. Maybe they should have let the residents stay rather than cleansing them in preparation for Israeli settlement. Which is something that basically never happens after a truly defensive war. This is sort of like if Germany got pissy about Poland not demolishing Auschwitz. 2601:140:8980:106F:CC5C:5DCF:997E:6F2B (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Dead Weblink

Reference number 2's link ("Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories", UNGA Resolution 3240, 29 November 1974) seems to be dead. --138.232.251.210 (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is fixed now. Jon513 (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Something not quite right

'The city was almost completely destroyed before the Israeli withdrawal in June 1974'

I think it show bias to try and weasel around a fact, that Israel destroyed Quneitra, as explained further down in the article, but making it sound ambigous as to who destroyed it, and then going on to say that Syria has been criticised by Israel for not rebuilding the city, but not making it clear that it was the Israelis who destroyed the city.86.150.145.177 (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but although the evidence strongly suggests it, Israel asserts it was destroyed during the course of war, so we can't present it as an unequivocal fact. Brutannica (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

1010 or 942?

The article says 1010 meters elevation, and later it says 942 meters. Which is right? Art LaPella (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The name of the city is derived from the Arabic word qantara, meaning bridge. It would be nice to add this information to the article given how unusual the name sounds to most people. I wasn't able to find a reference for citation though.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some: Shunya, Syrian Embassy --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Final form

Let's see: "User:Compwhizii" is "not too good at writing things", so he just hits the revert button. Raul654 reverts back to his version, without further comment. Then everyone else just gives up. Smells like WP:OWN to me.--Veritysense (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I put back in one of the changes I made. If someone has a problem with it let us talk about it. (Halgin (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Reminder

Folks, please remember to discuss controversial issues at talk, and include reliable sources for any text that is challenged. Thanks, Elonka 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Disangagement agreement

The article says: "The agreement provided that the city was to be repopulated to serve as evidence of peaceful Syrian intentions, by creating a hostage to Syrian good behaviour which would encourage the Israelis to pull back further.[27] " However, the closest the agreement gets to anything like this is "All territory east of Line A will be under Syrian administration, and Syrian civilians will return to this territory."[2][3] So the claim cited to [27] is at most an opinion of the source and should not be presented as a fact. I suggest the article instead quote the actual text. McKay (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Population figures

According to The Middle East and North Africa 2004, Quneitra's population before it was captured by Israel was 27,378 people. Lonely Planet's Syria & Lebanon guide cites 37,000 people, but I can't find this attested elsewhere. Does anyone know what the current population is? I vaguely recall reading newspaper articles which suggested that a handful of people still live there. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we will have to use both. The Syrian Central Bureau of Statistics webpage is inaccessible for the moment (has been for months). Therefore, we have to rely on the above-mentioned figures. When we were editing Hims (in Syria), we found all the old populations of the city, but all the recent ones (which were also from the two books mentioned above although the ME and NA was published in 2007) seemed to contradict each other, so I suggest we use both figures in this case until we could find a Syrian government source. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I recall trying to access that webpage ages ago - not very satisfactory that it's still down! I'll do some further trawling to see what I can find. Do you have any figures for the current population? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I'll look into it though, but I thought it was abandoned. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

removal of map

Can somebody explain why the map of the Golan is being removed. First it was removed as being in an inappropriate section. Fine, the map did not belong in the early history section of the article. But now it is being removed from where it is relevant. Why? And further, why is edit-warring to remove a clearly relevant map acceptable? nableezy - 20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I see the person who removed the map initially claimed that it's a map made by a topic-banned user, which introduces a POV into the original CIA map. If you want to use the original CIA map as is, fine. Yes, I want to use the original CIA map, which is the map you removed. nableezy - 20:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

and restored, before you wrote this. All Rows4 (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly, but thank you for correcting your error. nableezy - 20:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, exactly, but you are welcome. All Rows4 (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War info

I'm really inclined to remove (or relocate) most, if not all, of the info about the clashes in the Quneitra governorate between various rebel groupings and the army, and the "Iranian" and "Israeli interests" sections as well. The section on the clashes and the "Rebel groups operating in Quneitra" should be removed because they don't involve the city of Quneitra itself, but rather the villages of its governorate. No need to flood this article with all of those details. As for the Iranian and Israeli interests, again, it does not directly involve the city itself, but the broader strategic significance of control or influence in the Golan Heights. I don't want to comment further about all of these large detailed sections. The info looks to be pretty educational about events relating to the Golan Heights in the civil war and its place in the larger regional conflict, but this is an article (a Featured article) on the city of Quneitra. Any thoughts on relocating this info to Quneitra Governorate clashes and/or elsewhere? If not, I will likely make the move later this week. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Will someone change the sentence:

On 26 July 2018, the Syrian army took back the town of Quneitra after rebels surrender and handing over the heavy and medium weapons to army.

to

On 26 July 2018, the Syrian army took back the town of Quneitra after the rebels surrendered and handed over their heavy and medium weapons to army,

grammer edit. Underneaththesun (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quneitra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103082535/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5B1BC7E46C040DF7852560DE0054E654 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5B1BC7E46C040DF7852560DE0054E654

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Quneitra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122165907/http://www.cbssyr.org/new%20web%20site/General_census/census_2004/NH/TAB14-1-2004.htm to http://www.cbssyr.org/new%20web%20site/General_census/census_2004/NH/TAB14-1-2004.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221221152/http://www.syriagate.com/Syria/about/cities/Quneitra/ to http://www.syriagate.com/Syria/about/cities/Quneitra/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx?__VIEWSTATE=dDwtOTMxNDcwOTk7O2w8Q291bnRyeUREOkdvQnV0dG9uOz4%2BUwqzZxIYLI0SfZCZue2XtA0UFEQ%3D&cid=660&subm=&ssm=&map=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122165907/http://www.cbssyr.org/new%20web%20site/General_census/census_2004/NH/TAB14-1-2004.htm to http://www.cbssyr.org/new%20web%20site/General_census/census_2004/NH/TAB14-1-2004.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121116232744/http://sana.sy/eng/21/2012/11/13/452229.htm to http://sana.sy/eng/21/2012/11/13/452229.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070113202043/http://www.equnaytra.sy/ to http://www.equnaytra.sy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

I would like to add an Arabic IPA pronunciation guide. Shahanshah26 (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide the guide, and then make another request. It will then be considered. Thank you. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 17:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quneitra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170126133049/http://haberiniz.com.tr/haber/gundem/161836/suriye-turkmenleri-4.html to http://haberiniz.com.tr/haber/gundem/161836/suriye-turkmenleri-4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

TYPO Remove repeated 〈the〉 at end of first paragraph "...the city is inside the UN-patrolled THE buffer zone." Jdheywood (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This article has extremely dated content and sourcing and does not appear to have been maintained since its promotion eons ago. A glaring example is the 2004 census data in the lead, with more of the same in the body. There are also short stubby sections. I am listing this at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)