Talk:Golan Heights

Semi-protected edit request

In the intro please add that the Golan Heights is located in the Levant region of Western Asia. 2600:100C:A20A:17AF:D9D8:6C3F:C4CF:9590 (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Andumé (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical errors

Could someone please correct the following grammatical/spelling errors:

Etymology section, 3rd paragraph: "and it an Arabized version" should be "and it is an Arabized version".

Caption on image: "A mnefield warning sign in the Golan" should be "A minefield warning sign in the Golan".

Byzantine period subsection, 2nd paragraph: "were influenced by the synagogues of the Galilee but had its own distinctive characteristics" should be "were influenced by the synagogues of the Galilee but had their own distinctive characteristics".

Early Jewish settlement subsection, 1st paragraph: "but by the mid-1890s most was owned and cultivated" should be "but by the mid-1890s most were owned and cultivated".

Border incidents after 1948 subsection, 2nd paragraph: "established a de facto presence on and control of eastern shore of the lake." should be "established a de facto presence on and control of the eastern shore of the lake."

Cheers Yup (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for reporting these. Zero^talk 06:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

On the other hand, expressing pro-Syrian rhetoric, The Economist

+

On the other hand, expressing pro-Syrian viewpoints, The Economist

• Why it should be changed: As it is written, it is not neutral since the word "rhetoric" has mostly negative connotations.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

2601:245:C100:5E5C:3978:8B2F:26A6:7870 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

References

 Note: Apart from the loaded word "rhetoric", the sentence (On the other hand, expressing pro-Syrian rhetoric, The Economist found, represents the Golan Druzes' view...) doesn't make much sense and needs to be changed. M.Bitton (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've cleaned up this sentence as well. Sagflaps (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Scope?

What is the scope of this article? The territory occupied by Israel in 1967, or a more general geographic area that possibly extends to non-occupied parts of Syria and Lebanon? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Googling "Golan Heights" shows that most sources identify it as a geopolitical entity, i.e. Syrian and occupied by Israel since 1967, and not as primarily a geographic region. Editing accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@האופה: Please provide RS for your reasoning and participate in the talk page discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@האופה: Assuming good faith and pinging one more time. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Both. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I support [5] this edit restoring an earlier and more neutral lead. As I remember from discussions on this talk page years ago: the political status of the region is complex and cannot be summarized in a brief sentence. Therefore the political status is given, but not in the first sentence, where there isn't room to put the complexities. Trying to fit in a bit of the political status into the first sentence tends to create a sentence perceived as biassed by some people and is therefore avoided. This is a longstanding solution for this page to reduce editwarring. There was a much earlier version of the first sentence years ago that somehow managed to describe it in terms of the countries around it without actually stating (or implying) its own political status in that sentence. Whoever came up with that version was a genius. Please discuss on talk page before changing controversial parts of the article such as the first sentence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It isn't all that complex, Syrian territory occupied by Israel, effectively annexed by Israel but that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the international community. See Status of the Golan Heights. nableezy - 14:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Still probably too much to fit all that into the first sentence. Someone would come along, think the sentence is awkward, shorten it, and the editwarring would start up again. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t feel like the potential for future disruption means we shouldn’t strive for an accurate and comprehensive article or lead. nableezy - 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

We can have an accurate and comprehensive article without feeling we have to stuff a lot of information into the first sentence. That said, I notice that the first sentence of Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, "The Golan Heights are a rocky plateau in the Levant region of Western Asia that was captured by Israel from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War.", seems to be reasonably short, mentions both geography and political information, seems neutral to me (by not mentioning whether it's occupied or annexed; that can be discussed in later sentences) and seems at a quick glance at the page history to have been staying unchanged in the article for some time. So it might be a candidate for a first sentence of this article. Feel free to suggest other alternatives. What do you see as being inaccurate or un-comprehensive? What do you think needs to change, why, and what specific wording would you suggest? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m fine with that but it also needs to include occupied by Israel in the following sentence, or say and has been occupied by Israel since in that same sentence. nableezy - 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The next sentences could detail the history of the place HaOfa (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The history would go after the current status, which is Israeli occcupied. nableezy - 19:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this phrasing. Thanks, @Coppertwig, for striving to balance the content. HaOfa (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not, place is occupied, it's a defining feature. Selfstudier (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This phrasing is not based on any RS. There has been no responses to the RS cited above that define Golan Heights as explicitly and factually Syrian occupied by Israel since 1967. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep it as it is, the first sentence just saying that it's a region in the Levant. I think everyone agrees that that's true. Being occupied is not, in my opinion, a defining feature; I suppose it was the Golan Heights before it was occupied, and will still be the Golan Heights if/when it stops being occupied in the future. Makeandtoss, the article already includes a quote "...the occupied Syrian Golan Heights...", so no need to change anything. Also, I looked at the first RS you listed and it has subtitle "region, Middle East" and first sentence "Golan Heights, hilly area overlooking the upper Jordan River valley on the west" so it seems our focus first on simply being a region, then on geology, then finally geopolitics mirrors at least this RS, so no need to change anything in the first place. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Golan Heights profile from the BBC. They clearly think its occupation is a defining feature. Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It absolutely is a defining feature, in fact as a geopolitical entity it is the defining feature, and I hazard to guess you will find an overwhelming majority of sources discussing the Golan since 1967 to focus on that feature. This is like saying that Israel should be introduced as "a region near the Mediterranean Sea". nableezy - 18:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, the source you gave has first sentence "The Golan Heights is a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, about 60km (40 miles) south-west of Damascus and covers about 1,000 sq km." No politics in their first sentence either. The politics is important; that doesn't mean it has to show up in the first sentence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Their first sentence is a big map showing the occupied area. We have one too but its kind of tiny and you can barely make out the word occupied. Not that great for a defining feature.

I also don't much like our first sentence "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a region in the Levant. The region defined as the Golan Heights" with "Golan Heights" and "region" twice, looks artificial, probably the result of some past disagreement over wording.

Then it puts "as a geological and biogeographical region" first rather than "As a geopolitical region, it refers to a region (sic)" (all it needs to say is "geopolitically, it is a part of Syria") which follows. Those two could be switched around, methinks, along with dropping a few "region"s.

I'll work on that and see what I come up with. Selfstudier (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be more something like this:

The Golan Heights,[c] or simply the Golan, is a region in the Levant, geopolitically part of Syria and occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967. Illegally annexed by Israel in 1981, the area includes the western two-thirds of the Golan and part of Mount Hermon and which the international community continues to consider as occupied. Geologically and biogeographically, it is a basaltic plateau bordered by the Yarmouk River in the south, the Sea of Galilee and Hula Valley in the west, the Anti-Lebanon with Mount Hermon in the north and Wadi Raqqad in the east. Selfstudier (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Will just cite my prior phrasing here for comparison: "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a hilly region in southwest Syria. Most of the region has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War, and subject to a de facto Israeli annexation in 1981. Geologically,..."

In RS GH is used as a geopolitical definition rather than geographic, thus I would be more inclined to a "region in southwest Syria". Not sure if mention of occupation should be in the opening sentence. Also two-thirds could be replaced with most. Otherwise, I could also support this. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not only geopolitically part of Syria, but also historically. I also don't like the current first sentence "is a region in the Levant". It is non neutral as it gives weight to the minority pov that it isn't part of Syria. We would not say that the Gallile is in the Levant instead of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, latest version:

The Golan Heights,[c] or simply the Golan, is that part of Syria occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967. Illegally annexed by Israel in 1981 but which the international community continues to consider as occupied, the area includes the western two-thirds of the Golan and part of Mount Hermon. It is a basaltic plateau bordered by the Yarmouk River in the south, the Sea of Galilee and Hula Valley in the west, the Anti-Lebanon with Mount Hermon in the north and Wadi Raqqad in the east. Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If I understand things correctly, the Golan Heights is two-thirds occupied by Israel and the remaining third is still in Syria's hands? If so, then the opening sentence has to reflect that as well; the challenge is how to keep that as concise as possible. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It does say the occupied area is two thirds? Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the opening sentence which sets the scope of article defines it as only being the occupied part: "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is that part of Syria occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

How about:

The Syrian Golan Heights,[c] or simply the Golan, was partly occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967. Illegally annexed by Israel in 1981 but which the international community continues to consider as occupied, the area includes the western two-thirds of the Golan and part of Mount Hermon. It is a basaltic plateau bordered by the Yarmouk River in the south, the Sea of Galilee and Hula Valley in the west, the Anti-Lebanon with Mount Hermon in the north and Wadi Raqqad in the east. Selfstudier (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it would work if the scope of the article is about the occupied part rather than the whole region. I would lean in to the whole region that was partly occupied; rather than the partly occupied region. I base my argument on the fact that the region is fully geopolitically Syrian according to int. law. Which do you think the scope should be? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I am intending the scope to be the whole thing. It says it was partly occupied but describes the whole. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean but the focus of the opening sentence is on "partly occupied", implying the article is about the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights rather than the Golan Heights as a whole.

How about mixing our two versions: "The Syrian Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a hilly region in southwest Syria, which was mostly occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967."? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Gamla Nature Reserve

Under Landmarks, below the pictures of Gamla Nature Reserve, I think it’s important to mention that the pictures are featuring the winter views of the region (during the winter). From April to November it has a very different look to it. it’s getting dry and yellow. דולב חולב (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we really have to be very precise about the date of a picture?

I mean, you can see the date it was created by clicking on the picture.PAper GOL (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s important to distinguish the very different views from the winter to the long summers. דולב חולב (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I know it’s important for the locals.

they’re always talking about how different are the views in this area and in Israel between summer and winter. דולב חולב (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The files seem to have been created in April, if I'm interpreting the data correctly. They look more green than yellow to me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to leave off the date, or to put the month and year the photo was taken in parentheses at the end of the caption, or there may be other alternatives. I'm not sure whether there are guidelines about this. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)