Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

dead links

This action caused an international outcry including two condemnatory UN resolutions.[1][2] Hope&Act3! (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

All of the domino links have been fixed, and in the future use the {{deadlink}} tag rather than delete the link and replacing it with citation needed. nableezy - 20:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, for the repair and for the tip, Hope&Act3! (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is pro-Syrian

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I dont believe the words "filthy" or "thieve" are used in the article. You are correct on one point, a small strip of land east of the sea is in Israel. The 99% of the are called the Golan Heights that has been occupied by Israel has however never been in Israel. And is it is Syrian territory, the only official language of the Golan is Arabic. Because there are Israeli settlers in the Golan who use Hebrew we include the Hebrew. But, as always, thanks for sharing. nableezy - 13:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The article says Israel has controlled the Golan since 1967, and that Syria has controlled it from its founding till 67. And the Druze of the Golan overwhelmingly rejected Israeli citizenship and maintain they are Syrian citizens living under occupation (and they speak Arabic and French, not Hebrew). The entire world recognizes the Golan as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. I have no idea what "dis-recognize" means, but nearly every state in the world says that the settlements in the Golan violate international law and have repeatedly voiced that view (an example being numerous UNGA resolutions that pass with such numbers as 171-1, guess who is the 1, calling on Israel to cease all settlement activity in the "occupied Golan"). I am sorry if you dont like that (well, not really, amused would be more accurate than sorry), but we dont go off of what a tiny minority says. The overwhelming majority, near unanimity, of sources say this is Syrian territory held by Israel in a state of occupation. As far as Wikipedia goes, that is the end. And until you can explain how "filthy" or "thieves" is hinted I will refuse to pay that assertion any attention. nableezy - 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Improvisealot123, what first interested you in becoming a Wikipedia editor and editing this article ? I would like to know if you don't mind telling me. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Why here, why now ? Because here and now is the only place you have made an edit using this userid. I am aware that you may have other accounts but I'm not interested in that aspect. I'm only interested in what it was that made you decide to start editng Wikipedia. I'm not questioning your motives or opinions. For example, did you read this Golan Heights article, decide that it was biased and set up an account or did you hear that the article was biased from someone or did you read something on the web, in a newspaper (Wikipedia is often criticised in the press e.g. a recent Huffington Post article about coverage of Malaysia) etc etc ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is pro-Israeli by not following Wikipedia rules npov, due weight and the entire world view and not presenting it as a region in Syria, as it is in reality. Where in the article are the Israeli settlers presented as "filthy thieves" ? This area could not have been "more time in Israel, than Syria" because it has never been in Israel and it has always been in Syria. The official language of the country this region is a part of is Arabic, so therefor Arabic first. Why would a language (Hebrew) with no affiliation with the country this region is part of be before the official language of this region? The language of the native 160 000 people who were expelled from this region is Arabic. What the immigrants from the Soviet Union that have settled in Syria speak: [1], can not change reality. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dayan quote

There is no agreement to remove the Dayan quote. There is nothing in the article that says that "historians are very skeptical" about the reliability of his words. If you read everything in that article you can see: "They were authenticated by historians and by General Dayan's daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament" "Historians have already begun to debate whether General Dayan was giving an accurate account of the situation in 1967 or whether his version of what happened was colored by his disgrace after the 1973 Middle East war, when he was forced to resign as Defense Minister over the failure to anticipate the Arab attack." "Mr. Tal, who was then a reporter on a short-lived paper of which General Dayan was editor, said in a telephone interview that they held several conversations at the time, and it was his impression that General Dayan had been testing ideas for his memoirs, which were never completed." "He didn't intend to give a full, rounded interview said Shabati Teveth a biographer of Dayan" and at that part he spoke about the kibbutzes. Its from a reliable source and is presented not as a "truth" of what happened, but as a quote from Dayan. So there is no problem with the quote, its a very notable quote being from a defense minister which means it belongs here. And what Dayan talks about is also mentioned in other sources: Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon , and a former UN observer. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Any way this quote is too long -copyrighted- since you seem to be bent on keeping it you should summarise its content Hope&Act3! (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not a copyright issue, if it had been the quote would not have been included in its entirety in The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World by Avi Shlaim, or in the NYTimes piece or in any number of other sources. And even if this were a copyright issue, the use of the quote clearly falls in the category of fair use. nableezy - 17:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
what ever the agreement received by A. Shlaim wp is not a partner in it, so I maintain that you have to summariseHope&Act3! (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
And I maintain you are incorrect. This is a brief quotation which is acceptable on Wikipedia. nableezy - 20:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. In an interview in 1976, first published in Yedioth Aharanoth in 1997, Moshe Dayan engaged in Syrian propaganda? Or is it that Avi Shlaim who included this quote in his book The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab world that engaged in Syrian propaganda. Or is it that Serge Schmemann engaged in Syrian propaganda when he included this quote in a New York Times piece? If you have sources that provide quotes relevant to the topic of the article they may be used. Otherwise they will not be. nableezy - 21:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This quote appears in a number of reliable sources and not one source denies the Dayan said this. The quote is without doubt relevant to the topic of the article. If you have other quotes published in reliable sources that are relevant to the topic they may be included. If they are either not published in reliable sources or if they are not relevant to the topic of this article they will not be included. nableezy - 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The quote was definitely too long and thus have summarized it very shortly. It is doubtful anyway, as the NYT article makes it clear that what Moshe Dayan said is at best only a small part of what actually happened. We do not want our articles to look like Syrian history books, but we want them to reflect what reliable sources say. And that is that Syria used the Golan heights to attack Israeli villages and supported border excursions by guerilla groups. Pantherskin (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Your so called "summary", where you removed the entire quote and replaced it with a twisted sentence, something that the source does not say, is not acceptable. The quote was not to long, it contains a lot of important, notable and interesting information that belongs here. There is no problem with quotes if you look at the entire article, so there is no problem with having it as a quote. You bring no sources for your claims, what Dayan talks about is also mentioned in: Robert G. Rabil (2003). Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 15-16, and is also mentioned by a former UN observer in the documentary "The Six-Day War Deceptions". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Pantherskin, where does the source say "according to independent historians were of doubtful historical accuracy"? You aren't allowed to add your opinions and you especially are not allowed to "cite" your opinions to sources that don't have them. Zerotalk 09:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Pantherskin is misrepresenting the sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I went looking in a newspaper archive for responses from respected historians to Dayan's remarks. I found this:

Israel, for its part, also initiated many lethal attacks against Syrian troops on the Golan, although not against Syrian villages over the border, says Haifa University professor Yoav Gelber, a leading historian of Israel's early years. The "official" Israeli explanation at that time was that Syria was always the aggressor and Israel was merely defending itself with "reprisal" actions. A few years ago, however, Israeli journalist Rami Tal caused a stir by revealing that Moshe Dayan had admitted to him in an interview that Israel had frequently started the shooting to provoke the Syrians into shooting back, which Israel could then use as an excuse to conquer strategic points on their disputed border. "This is, of course, absolutely true," says Gelber. (Jerusalem Post, "Growing up with Syria on the Golan", 17 December 1999). Zerotalk 09:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Excessive quotes are not encyclopaedic, in particular if they are not famous at all. As most history books simply ignore these claims by Moshe Dayan, and as the historians in the NYT article make it clear that the factual accuracy of Dayans statements is dubious we need to make this clear to the reader. Everything else would be a blatant violation of NPOV. If you want to ignore that Moshe Dayans quote is not accepted at all by historians, then start an RFC and get consensus for your version. Pantherskin (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This material has been in the article for some time, and as there is no consensus to remove it you should start an RFC or go to the NPOV/N if you feel it is not presented in a NPOV. Your opinion on whether or not this material is not NPOV does not allow you to continually remove well-source material. If you feel a POV is inadequately represented then add whatever information that you feel is missing. nableezy - 07:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Let us be peaceful

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Go away. Or at the very least provide a source to back your fantastical claims. Here, I'll give you one directly refuting what you say: [2]: the vast majority of the 18,000 Syrians, mostly Druze, that are left from the Golan's original population of 150,000, have refused to take Israeli citizenship. nableezy - 21:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to call this "occupation"

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If you do that, you are going to get reverted. Occupation is a legal status. Drawing the conclusion from the map that the area is not occupied because it was Jewish a couple of millenia back is WP:Original Research. As for whether it is occupied or not, Wikipedia follows the conclusdions drawn in the overwhelming majority of relaible sources on international law. The other things you mention refer to took place before the founnding of the United Nations, the drawing up of the Geneva and Hague conventions and the creation of the International Court of Justice. Therefore international law deals with them differently. The UNSC etc. have not referred to the Falklands as occupied territory. They have with the Golan. Reliable Sources accord the pronouncements of the UNSC great importance as far as international law is concerned. They don't the pronouncements of historians.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

comment added 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

Read the original research policy linked in my post above. You're drawing an inference from the historic situation to the present one and that is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. Whether or not you consider it unfair, Wikipedia policy is that conclusions depend on those drawn by reliable sources on the relevant matter. A map showing the situation two thousand years ago may be a reliable source for what the situation was then. It is not for the legal situation now which requires the opinions of international lawyers,not historians.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What editors think and "refuse to" is beyond irrelevant on Wikipedia, if anyone forgot. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's end this WP:FORUM discussion perhaps? Jmlk17 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

End the Occupation

This article and many others are currently under a Nableezian occupation. Nableezy express his point of view by using cheap propaganda. 36 times the words "occupation", "occupied" and "occupy" appears in this article. In most cases not in quotation marks and without mentioning that this is someone's opinion. It is clear that Nableezy tries to indoctrinate his POV to the readers not only by rational arguments, but also by repeating the mantra until it is accepted by the readers. That is called brainwashing.
Nableezy and many western editors here (maybe some are even defeatist Jews) consider the resolutions of the on the UNGA as the word of god. However the UNGA resolutions are not binding. Only the UNSC resolutions are. In that particular UNGA vote in 2008, the U.S. was abstaining. The US is a major economic and political super power. It represents some 300 million people and is responsible for 20% of the world GDP. The Israelis are in a significant minority on this issue and it doesn't mean they are wrong. The majority isn't right just for being a majority.
There is a well known good old thinking American conservative saying:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Many Americans support this, whether Franklin said it first or not.
Listen to your conscious, not to the majority.
Soon, I will make changes. Megaidler (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for redacting this ranting personal attack together with the rants by a well-known sock-puppeteer. The tone is so hard to tell apart.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
And soon after I will revert those changes. A number of scholarly sources make this perfectly clear point. The Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. It is not only the UN, not only the ICRC, not only the US, the EU (and each of its member states), not only the Arab Leaguem, not only almost every state on the planet that says this. And I have given a number of sources on this page and the archives (one of which is in the article now) that makes clear that the US regards the Golan as Syrian territory under Israeli occupation. UNSC resolution 497, adopted 15-0 with 0 abstentions, says "the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect". Note "occupied Syrian Golan". Finally, as the song goes, keep my name out your mouth and we can keep it the same. nableezy - 18:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
If you dispute that the Golan Heights are occupied by Israel, please bring some reliable sources that support your view and try to build consensus. Unilaterally making controversial changes to the article is a good way to get yourself blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
..and on that note, I don't think Megaidler has received a discretionary sanctions notification. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There's never an uninvolved administrator around when you need one. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any sources to bring to the discussion? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Most of what you wrote in unintelligible. If your point is that Israel has controlled the territory for a longer period of time than the modern state of Syria, the article already says that Israel has controlled the territory since 1967. You want to make the leap that because of this that means the territory is Israeli. Sorry, but that is simply not true. Countless sources can be provided making this simple and clear point. That you do not like the fact that the Golan is Syrian territory held by Israel under occupation does not matter. If you want to voice the opinion, no matter how wrong it is, that because Israel has controlled (occupied is the word) the territory for over 40 years that it is Israeli territory you should get a blog. Wikipedia however will base its articles on what the sources say, and the sources say that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory. nableezy - 17:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, I dont believe the article once says that "the Jews" are either "filthy" "guilty" or that they "robbed" anybody of anything. And no, you are not the only non-Muslim here. I wont be responding to any more inane accusations or unintelligible rantings. Bye. nableezy - 21:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

and so it continues

Following Pantherskin being blocked for repeatedly removing the Dayan quote Jiujitsuguy has taken up the reigns, and even further violated a previous consensus on the order of the names. There was consensus on this talk page for the Arabic being placed before the Hebrew and Jiujitsuguy has repeatedly chosen to ignore that. Somebody revert this nonsense. nableezy - 16:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Show me where there's consensus for that and I'll self-revert--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Golan_Heights/Archive_4#break nableezy - 17:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Do whatever the hell you want to do Nab. I'm sick of fighting with you and life's too short.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
So after saying if shown the consensus for this you would self-revert you now will not self-revert after being shown the consensus for this? Interesting. nableezy - 17:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted as J hasn't despite saying he would. In fact I have rolled back to Nab's previous edit. The order Arabic then Hebrew should be preserved in view of the international consensus on which country the Golan belongs to. I'm agnostic on Dayan quote but WP:BRD makes it clear that discussion not a re-revert should follow the first revert therfore I am favouring the status quo ante. Habla's Jewish history is also discussed elsewhere in the article. There's therfore no need to say it is an ancient Jewish city in the national park section.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is internationally recognized as in Syria. Syrias official language is Arabic. So the regions official language is Arabic. You have changed to Hebrew without even discussing it here at the talkpage.

Same thing with the Dayan quote, there is no consensus at the talkpage to remove it, yet you without even participating at the talkpage removed it and added that "historians were of doubtful historical accuracy" when the source does not say this.

Also you added "Jewish" before Gamla, that is cherry picking from history. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you understand that Muslim != Arab and that Muslim != Syrian? What on earth does Saudi have to do with this? And what does "Muslims came from the Muslims occupation, and after the Zionist arrived" even mean? nableezy - 23:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I must say that I worked out a compromise on this wording that everyone agreed to, and that held up for more than a year and a half. I consider that a considerable achievement.
Now that the gang is having at it again, I guess I should buy myself some popcorn. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried looking but I cant find that. As far as I can tell this is your first edit to this talk page and you have never edited the article. But, as I genuinely think you would be able to provide as close to a solution that is acceptable to most of us, I would be interested in seeing what you think would be an acceptable compromise. If it gets everybodys agreement Ill buy you that popcorn myself. nableezy - 23:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
This was all resolved by the IP as explained in his edit summary "we talked with the admins and they told us that our version is acceptable". Quite persuasive... Is it my imagination or are things getting more bizarre around here ? Sean.hoyland - talk 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, you are right. I was confused. The compromise was at Majdal Shams, and it still holds firm. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the Dayan quote. I advise anyone who wants to remove a sourced quote and replace it with false text that isn't in that source: "according to independent historians were of doubtful historical accuracy" to get consensus for the change first at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hasmonean map

This map:[3] is not based on a real source. (Original text : eigen werk) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

History

Its land on earth. The earth is millions of years old, so of course its history stretches back further then biblical times. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No. The Earth only looks millions of years old. In truth, All-h made it 5770 years ago. Chesdovi (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Demarcated

The area is still demarcated as Syria in maps, UN, internationally recognized borders etc. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Annexation"

I propose to remove the annexation box which is full of unnecesary meaningless clutter and replace it with "Although the law in effect annexed the territory to Israel, it was not formally annexed." Chesdovi (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Proceed to remove together with POV and FACTUAL tags. Chesdovi (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1967 population

  • According to the The Arab Centre for Human Rights in the Golan Heights: NGO Report and The Middle East and North Africa 2004 (pg. 604), the original population was 147,613 (1966). 131,000 were expelled to inside Syria and 7,000 remained. (What happened to 9,613 people?)
  • The Damascus Centre for Human Rights Study, says that Israel expelled 130,000 Golan inhabitants. [4]
  • A letter to the GA from the USSR estimated that according to Syrian there were 115,000 people living on the Golan before the war. (This included included 17,000 Palestinian refugees. 6,000 remained.)
  • Israel estimates the original population was around 90,000.
  • I propose to use the termination based on an article published in Haaretz: "According to most estimates, in 1967, the population of the entire area conquered by Israel there ranged from 130,000-145,000. The data are based on the census and a calculation of natural growth."

Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

JVL and CAMERA (& Rothschild's estate)

Chesdovi, please removing everything you added from these two unreliable sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Before I added info from CAMERA, I checked this and noted in the summary section that User:PalestineRemembered stated that CAMERA "is a source that should only be used with great care". Chesdovi (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The RSN case you link to shows that Camera is only considered reliable by a few of the more notorious POV-pushers. Zerotalk 08:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
And where has it been determined that CAMERA is unreliable by NPOV editors? Chesdovi (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Reliability has to be established, not unestablished. Anyway it is quite obviously a political advocacy organization and as such cannot be used as a source of fact any more than any other political advocacy organization. In this case it doesn't matter, because you cited it in relation to a place that lies 10-12 km outside the Golan Heights. The fact that CAMERA doesn't mention that inconvenient fact is a fine example of why it can't be trusted. Zerotalk 13:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Rothschild's stolen land may lie 15km away from the political boundary of the Golan, but as stated in the Geography seciton (uncited) "To the east and at lower elevation, the plateau merges into the Hauran plain of Syria; the limits are not clearly defined, although Wadi Ruqqad and Nahr Allan are sometimes considered geographically". Also note that a third of the Golan Heights is occupied by Israel, 1,200km2. The other third, 600km2, lies within Syria. By viewing this map, one visually estimate that the other third includes the area which straddles Wadi al-Allan, the area in question. Chesdovi (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If we use CAMERA, we might as well use al-Manar. CAMERA is notoriously biased, and were behind the recrution of Wikipedians for Zionist propaganda purposes a while back. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
FunkMonk, not the same at all, CAMERA is a notorious unreliable source that have engaged in deception at Wikipedia. No one has ever proven anything published by Marsad to be false. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The cite from CAMERA can easily be replaced. What needs to be determined is whether mention of Rothschild's estate can be made here. Chesdovi (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have found the following sources:

Should I re-add the material? Chesdovi (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Golan page states: "The boundaries of the province today are Mount Hermon to the north, Jordan and the Sea of Galilee to the west, the Yarmouk River to the south, and the Allan River to the east". This view is taken from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Rothschild's villages straddled both sides of this river, e.g.: Naffa (22,000 dunams), so I will add words to this effect. Chesdovi (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It is quite easy to check for yourself that the Rothschild estate which the paragraph refers to is outside the region which 99.9% of sources call the Golan Heights today. The boundaries you quote from Golan describe the position of an ancient province in terms of modern features and is quite irrelevant. You don't seem to have any source that takes the Golan Heights to the Allan River. Zerotalk 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the boundaries given by the ISBE do in fact serve as a boundary assessment of today’s current Golan plateau. Although the Golan article refers to an ancient city, it states that the city had given its name to a larger area and that this country must have corresponded roughly with the modern Jaulān. When it describes the “current status”, it cannot be referring to the ancient district of Gaulanitis, as he further notes that the ancient town of Golan may have been located in Sahm el-Jaulān which actually lies east of Nahr al-Allan, so the ancient the boundaries must once have extended beyond the Nahr al-Allan, eastward, as far as the upper course of the Yarmuk, but the author unambiguously limits the eastern borders of the Golan's "current status" to the “Nahr al-Allan to the east.” Chesdovi (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Eastern border of the Jawlan (Golan)

Regarding the Golan’s eastern boundaries, I have found two extremes:

  • Nahr al-Rukkad, which is approx. along the ’67 ceasefire line: Its eastern boundary as “defined approximately by the valley of the Rukkad River”. Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel (Patai, 1971)
  • The Haj Road, much further east, past Nahr al-Allan: “The province (The plateau of the Jawlan) is bounded … on the East by the Haj Road”. A handbook for travellers in Syria and Palestine, (Murray, 1868) and “The eastern border (of ancient Gaulonitis) can only be determined by the modern boundary of the Jawlan, namely the Haj Road, which separates it from the Hawran. The Journal of sacred literature (Kitto, 1854). Chesdovi (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This Hebrew map writes "Golan" on a rather small region, but doesn't show boundaries. Zerotalk 13:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This one shows the word "Golan" diagonally across 3 tributaries, the middle one being al-Allan. Chesdovi (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Quneitra needs compacting (and the Dayan quote)

The Quneitra section has a main article link. The subject is given far to much space here. Needs shortening. Chesdovi (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, those edits are terrible. You replaced what the sources say about Israel's destruction of that city with "ubsequently, there was a major controversy regarding the state of destruction which the town had been subjected to before the Israeli handover." Many of the edits you have made have removed or drastically reduced anything that shows Israel in anything other than the best of lights. And you have now multiple times removed the Dayyan quote. nableezy - 14:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Do we need all those or any of those sources here? This page is not about Quneitra. If you want to embellish the destruction wrought in that town, proceed, but make sure its not unecessarily long-winded. We also don't need the full Dayan quote. That would belong at Wikiquote. Chesdovi (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If we discuss Quneitra we should accurately reflect what the sources say. The wording you used adds ambigouity where there is none. Some of these things can certainly be reduced, but you did not simply reduced the content, you changed the content. That is my problem. The Dayyan quote has been the subject of much discussion and edit-warring. Continuing to remove it without consensus (and without even a hint of participation in the above discussion) is not exactly helping things here. nableezy - 16:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
We are allowed, if not obliged, to sum up sources in our own words. In fact, most of the time that is the only way we are able to present a NPOV. There is no discussion to be had about a quote which takes up so much space. It was ludicously placed and had to be shortened in a way a feel I have done well. Chesdovi (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There has been discussions above about the quote, and there is no consensus to remove it. Your "shortening it" where you removed valuable information and twisted it is not acceptable and has no consensus at talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You are basically giving everybody else the middle finger by asserting that your view that the quote takes too much space and was ludicrously placed is the only acceptable one, a view that you say requires no discussion. I think you know it does not work that way. That quote has been in the article for a long time, repeatedly removing it is not wise. And you did not address the POV issues with your supposed "compacting" of the section on Quneitra. nableezy - 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a long quote should not be included in the text in its current format. Using a block quotation is more proper. Am still not convinced that the quotation in its original format belongs. This is not an essay. Points/quotes need to be summed up briefly for an encylopeadic entry. Regarding Quneitra: We are allowed, if not obliged, to sum up sources in our own words. In fact, most of the time that is the only way we are able to present a NPOV. Chesdovi (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, show me the consensus at this talkpage to remove the quote. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There is NO consensus to keep the Dayan quote. I suggested as a compromise to summarize it, and many agree with me, or discard it as the fringe opinion of a lone individual guessing outside of his professional field and as such irrelevant. I also intended to tackle the very long Quneitra section since it belongs to its proper article -well done-, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope&Act3! (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thats not how its works, as it is now there is no consensus to remove the quote as can be seen from the discussions here about it. So if you or anyone else want to remove it, it is you who have to get the consensus to remove it. Could you also please explain to me how an Israeli defense minister is: "fringe opinion of a lone individual guessing outside of his professional field" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The person making the change needs to achieve consensus for it. Removing long standing text requires consensus. nableezy - 15:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see the need for concensus here. An overlooked error has been rectified. Such long quotes are out of place. I have summed it up quite well, discarding the irrelevant bits. The section now makes much easier reading. Chesdovi (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well consensus is indeed needed to remove it. As I'm sure you are aware of, people at this talkpage have objected to the removal of it. And these people actually bring sources to the discussion and talk about the sources and not just join an edit war to remove what they personally don't like. What you call "error", I don't not see it as an error. I see it as an extremely important quote, everything in it is important. Now I maybe could have accepted a summary, but when I saw how information in the quote was removed and the information was twisted into something completely different, this is not acceptable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that it’s important. But why not have a few more 300 word quotes on the subject from other angles? We will end up with a page full of quotations. The quote was inline and was not blockquoted as required.
  • Part of the quote exists on the page where it should be. We do not need a thorough presentation of the lead up to the 67 war in an article not about the war itself, but about territory captured in it. We don't need to repeat overlong quotes again and again.
  • The quote is only indirectly related to the heights. The provocations were made to assert Israeli rights in the DMZ which were not considered part of the Syrian Heights. Syria did not view the DMZ as its territory. The area of the Israeli incursions was not on the elevated land, known as the heights.
  • Do we really need bits like "'the Syrians are bastards, you have to get them, and this is the right time,' and other such talk, but that is not policy, You don't strike at the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you." How does this enhance the understanding of the prelude to war? Every war starts because one side feels threatened. Is Mr Dayan's every word a holy utterance that needs to be recorded?
  • How is the following summary of the 300 word quote "twisted" and "something completely different"?!?
"Around 80% of the clashes started when Israeli tractors proceeded to plow in the demilitarized area. They would advance further into the zone until the Syrians would start to shoot. The Israelis would then retaliate using artillery and the air force. He added that although the agricultural kibbutzim felt vulnerable from the Syrians soldiers who fired at them, the delegation that came to persuade Eshkol to take the heights was mainly interested in the heights' fertile land."
  • I would much prefer if people would occupy themselves with contributing to all areas of the article and not just kick up a fuss when extensive political quotes are removed, or the word “presence” is used instead of occupation. The Ancient history section needs more verification and other sections are needed, e.g. Transportation, Agriculture, etc.
Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the entire article there are almost now quotes at all, and the few ones are extremely short, so there is no problem with quotes in the article. Moshe Dayan is not a nobody, a quote from him is very notable. If a blockquote is needed then it can be put in a blockquote, this is no problem. You have repeated population numbers in this article alone 4-5 times. To exclude a quote here just because it partially exists in another article is ridiculous. Its of course relevant here because the Six day war changed a lot, it led to Israeli occupation of Syria and the situation today is because of the six day war. So its directly relevant. How you have "summarized" the quote is incorrect. For example, the source says that "More then 80%" and also we went from the sources: "where it wasn't possible to do anything" to "clashes started when Israeli tractors proceeded to plow in the demilitarized area." and the sources provoked retaliation from Syria went from: "and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot." to your version that its Israel retaliating: "They would advance further into the zone until the Syrians would start to shoot. The Israelis would then retaliate using artillery and the air force." This is only one example of problems with your "summary". Another is that Dayan said that Syria was no threat, this is also a huge thing, the entire quote shows a Syria that isn't a danger to Israel and Israel provoking Syria, this is not in your "summary".
Also I found some cherry picking from the The Washington report source right before the quote, it also contains: "Instead of negotiating for peace, Israel declared sovereignty over the demilitarized zone. To carry this out, it violated the prohibitions on having military forces and fortifications in the zone by disguising soldiers as police. It also aggressively developed the area, draining water from Arab farms, leveling Arab villages, driving out residents, building roads and transplanting trees in in order to move the frontier eastward to the old Palestine border. Israel refused to let the protests of the UN observers stand in the way. Swedish General Carl von Horn, of the UN peacekeeping forces, observed that "gradually, beneath the glowering eyes of the Syrians, who held the high ground overlooking Zion, the area had become a network of Israeli canals and irrigation channels edging up against and always encroaching on Arab-owned property." This policy continued well into the 1950s. Most of the 2,000 Arabs living in the zone had been forced out by 1956. Many moved to the sloping land below the Golan Heights. In response to the expulsion of Arabs from the zone, the otherwise helpless Syrian forces on the Heights began firing on Israelis, particularly when, each year, their tractors plowed further into the demilitarized zone. General von Horn was convinced the instances of firing would not have occurred without the specific Israeli provocations." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you noted that “This is only one example of problems with your "summary”, for I would like to first point out one of the glaring omissions from your synopsis: the large amount of “suffering” of the Israeli civilians because of the Syrians soldiers who fired at them, but we will leave that for the moment. I am also keen to know why the removal of Hafez Assad’s quote (reproduced here for your convenience) went unchallenged. "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." However, regarding the Dayan quote:

  • You insist on stating “More than 80%”. First he says “at least”, then “more than”, then “about”. Is this really a sticking point? We could eliminate the problem by using the whole quote: “After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent.” But is that really necessary? Does it really make a difference? He says himself: "let's talk about 80 percent.”
  • What difference does it make that they were sent to plow in “area where it wasn't possible to do anything”. Would the Syrains not have minded if it was fertile land? This point is emphasising the extent of the Israeli provocation, so we can impress this, as I have already suggested.
  • The same with “would advance further into the zone until the Syrians would start to shoot”. You want to impress the extent of the intent of the provocation by stating the fact that they “knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot”. We can add that too. We do not however need “If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.” That is contained in my version: “would advance further into the zone until the Syrians would start to shoot”.
  • Whether Syria was a threat or not is of no consequence. It is all very well in hindsight to say they were not a threat, but at the time Syria had declared its intentions of entering into a “battle of annihilation” and had began a massive shelling of Israeli towns. Again, we need not be so particular here as only a short summary of the war is needed in this article. We are not going to reproduce the whole section about the Golan Heights contained in the Six Day War page here.
  • The Washington Report is, while making a fascinating read, a highly partisan source which needs to be used with caution. None of the material you have reproduced was included beforehand. It is an opinionated piece by a liberal professor with an anti-Israel agenda.

If we are going to have quotes, let’s have some which deal directly with the subject matter at hand. The Golan. 80% of the Dayan quote is to do with the pre-67 skirmishes. (Thanks for adding the Venus of Berekhat Ram and Kursi.) Chesdovi (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said we should leave out the "Israeli suffering" from the quote. It was there when I added it, I never removed it. Also interesting that you removed the quote saying it was to long [5] while for some reason not touching the other part of the quote after from the kibbutz leader. The plowing part "where it wasn't possible to do anything" makes a difference because its shows what their intent was, to provoke. No, the "If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot." is not in your version, the original quote shows the provoking, and if Syrians wasn't provoked, Israel would provoke even more until in the the end... This is nonexistent in your version: "would advance further into the zone until the Syrians would start to shoot" And the "retaliation" that you flipped around that I mentioned above. This quote deals directly with the subject matter at hand - Golan. This quote shows what led to the occupation of it, expulsion of its people, demolition of 150 villages. I asked you before to show me the consensus to remove the quote, and you still have not shown me it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed to remove an illegal quote occupying too much space:

  • "Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information."
  • "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."
  • "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information." (400 quoted words from a 500-page book were ruled to be infringement and you have quoted 300 words from one article.)
  • "Editors are advised to exercise good judgment and to remain mindful of the fact that while brief excerpts are permitted by policy, extensive quotations are forbidden."
  • A quote should not be used "where it presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. It can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."
  • ”Many direct quotations can be minimised in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text.“
  • ”A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. “
  • ”Consider minimising the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both.”

Take a look at: WP:QUOTE. Chesdovi (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE is an essay that clearly says that it is "not a Wikipedia policy or guideline", so you cannot cite the contents as rules. In fact I agree with most of what is on that page, but I don't agree it eliminates this quotation you don't like. There is no chance whatever that it violates copyright laws. Zerotalk 10:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I like the quote, but the way it was presented was incorrect. The WP:QUOTE lead explicitly states: "This page sets out guidelines for such use in Wikipedia articles," (an apparant contradiction?) And the material is copyrighted. Chesdovi (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Chesdovi, that quote was not originally published by the NYTimes. That quote was from an interview conducted in 1976 and first published by Yedioth Aharanoth in 1997. The quote appears in a large number of sources as you can see here, or here, or here and in many journal articles (which I unfortunately cannot link to as they need a subscription to access). The NYTimes piece is indeed copyrighted, but NYTimes does not own the copyright on that quote. The quote, even if copyrighted by the original publisher, would qualify under fair-use. Indeed that is how it shows up in so many places. nableezy - 16:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dayan's recollection is confusing. He says: "Of course they wanted the Syrians to get out of their face. They suffered a lot because of the Syrians. Look, as I said before, they were sitting in the kibbutzim and they worked the land and had kids and lived there and wanted to live there. The Syrians across from them were soldiers who fired at them, and of course they didn't like it." Well, if they didn’t like it, why did they continue to provoke them or attempt to stop those intent on doing so?! Also, it unclear from his words what exactly they gained from these actions. Why did they provoke them? Becasue they were borded? That remains a mystery. Anyway I have reworded the paragraph to include emphasis as discussed above:

"Around 80% of the clashes in the years leading up to the 1967 war started when Israeli tractors proceeded to intentionally plow uncultivable fields in the demilitarized area. In order to provoke the Syrians, they would advance further into the zone until Syrian soldiers positioned along the overlooking hills would start shooting. The Israelis would then retaliate using artillery and the air force. He added that although the inhabitants of the agricultural kibbutzim felt vulnerable and suffered greatly from the Syrian soldiers who fired at them, the delegation that came to persuade Eshkol to take the heights was mainly interested in their fertile land."

From Chesdovi (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who entered the DMZ was not individual people: "We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther". Your "summary" is not following the source and is therefor not acceptable. You still have not shown me the consensus to remove it. Please re ad the entire quote. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Who is "we"? To re-add the entire quote is out of the question. Chesdovi (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There has been an incredible amount of pov pushing here

These last two days there has been an incredible amount of pov pushing, twisting the facts, cherry picking and removal of texts from the article by Chesdovi. I don't even know where to begin because the changes are so massive. I ask you to please revert everything you did and then bring up the changes you want to make here for discussion first. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, the main changes I made are:
  1. Clearing up Attractions and historical sites.
  2. Removing 99% of the material about Quneitra.
  3. Adding a Demographics section.
  4. Moving The Druze section to Demographics.
  5. I have put the area involved into proportion by adding: "...0.65% of Syria's total landmass and amounts to nearly 6% of the area under Israel..."
  6. Changing the following para.
"Between 80,000 and 109,000 Druze, Arabs and Circassians fled or were driven out during the Six-Day War. For security reasons, Israel has not allowed them to return. Israeli settlement in the Golan began soon after the war. Kibbutz Merom Golan was founded in July 1967. By 1970 there were 12 Jewish settlements and in 2004, there were 34, populated by around 18,000 people."
to
"During the war between 80,000 and 131,000 Syrian Arabs, Druze and Circassians fled or were driven from the heights and around 7,000 remained in the Israeli-controlled territory. Israel has not allowed former residents to return citing security reasons. Israeli settlement in the Golan began soon after the war. Merom Golan was founded in July 1967 and by 1970 there were 12 settlements." Chesdovi (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Since when are Druze not considered Arabs? That's an Israeli peculiarity, not universal. FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Since when were the Druze and Circassians in Syria not Syrians? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the source, such a distinction isn't even made, and Druze aren't mentioned by name at all. So Chesdovi, please try to actually cite the sources you're using instead of just making stuff up. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I am working mostly with original material at present (see the top version) and am not checking sources; but thanks for clarifying that point. It may be worth noting the ethno-religious makeup of the exiles elsewhere. Chesdovi (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


I re added two sources supporting that the name "Syrian Heights" have been used, there is no reason to remove them. I removed "An attack by Syria" in the lead, we can re ad the "attack by Syria" when we ad that the 1967 war was an "attack by Israel." I removed the "Shifting rule" in middle ages, The entire History section consists of "Shifting rules", so there is no reason to point this out at the middle ages. I changed "Mandate for Palestine" to "Mandates" as this region was part of the French mandate of Syria so there is no reason to put the most irrelevant mandate in the name, while excluding the mandate it was a part of.

I re added the quotes from the UN observer as its a very notable person. I have also added three other sources that have published information about the comments of the UN observer. In these sources he has now been identified as Jan Mühren and the clip is from a Dutch current affairs program "Nova" that was shown on 4 June 2007.

You rearanged the names and put the the Hebrew before Arabic, in the first sentence of the article and in the infobox, first vertically,[6] then horizontally [7] This region is internationally recognized as in Syria. Syria official language is arabic. You can not put another language before or in the same position as the official language of the region. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, why did you remove the quotes from the UN observer? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

They were sensational and from an unreliable source which is probably copyrighted. I know Zero will tell me essays don't count, but they do. Chesdovi (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Its a quote, so its no CopyVio, you have added several quotes these last days while removing those I ad. How were those four sources unreliable? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I just can't take any of the criticism seriously when part of it is based on what name comes first. In regards to the video, if it is copyrighted material it is contributory infringement and cannot be linked to through that page. You can cite episode without a link but then you still need to address if the comments were given undue weight and overly sensational. Cptnono (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. It is a copyright concern. We cannot link to a video on a website that is violating someones copyright.Cptnono (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the sources I had added contained a transcript. And since all of us here have seen the video and know what he say we can ad the quote without the video link. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, however reliable the transcript/video looks, (where on earth is the "Mannopam Gate"?), we have to remember that a self-published website is not deemed a RS per WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:NEWSBLOG and anyone can create or manipulate a video clip/transcript and upload without external editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. Both the Atlantic Free Press & DeepJournal websites fall under these categories. Chesdovi (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Areas of dispute

Chesdovi, you write that part of the Golan was part of the British Palestine Mandate which was to become the Jewish national home. I think we all know this isnt exactly true. The entire Mandate was never planned to be "the Jewish national home", "the Jewish national home" was to be established in the British Mandate, not replace the British Mandate. The sentence reads as though the intention was to create a Jewish national home on all the territory of the mandate and the UN Partition Plan shows this to be a fallacious statement. You also write that the territory was "unjustly" ceded to the French Mandate. How was it "unjust" (the cited source says no such thing)? nableezy - 17:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would the supporters claim the previous boundary line if they agreed it was later superceded? They claim the 1923 agreement was unjust, not the Brits. Some go as far as saying Britain had no right to cede the Golan to the French. Chesdovi (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
"unjustly ceded" is in the narrative voice. The complete sentence is The region was unjustly ceded in 1923 to the French Mandate in Syria, primarily in exchange for French concessions in the oil rich areas of Iraq. The source provided supports all of the sentence except for "unjustly". If there is a source saying that those claiming the Golan as rightfully Israeli territory claim this action was "unjust" add that source and reword the sentence so that "unjust" is given as the view of those people. Something like The region was ceded, unjustly according to XYZ, in 1923 to the French Mandate in Syria, primarily in exchange for French concessions in the oil rich areas of Iraq. Also, since I have your attention here, there are unresolved issues in #Lead. Please take a look. nableezy - 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Chesdovi (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No, Nableezy is conceding too much. Howard Grief's book is a complete load of bollocks, he is the worst kind of extremist. Britain did not concede the Golan because it never had it. At the end of WWI it was all under French control and only a small sliver was tentatively given to Britain in the 1920 agreement (see below). Zerotalk 10:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

During these last weeks, how much text has Chesdovi added to the article that isn't following the sources? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope it wasn't over 80%. Chesdovi (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see the map on the page that shows the 1920 and 1923 boundaries. It is simply not true that the Golan was ever part of the British domain. Only a small fraction was. The adjustments made in 1922-4 actually enlarged Palestine (due to major changes on the Lebanese border) and the changes in the Golan area were largely in response to Zionist pressure (getting control of the whole of Kinneret and the main water sources was far more important than a bit of farming land). I'm far away from home at the moment but this is something I can bring excellent sources on. The "claim" made by some activists to the Golan on the grounds of what happened in 1920-4 is similar to the claim for all of Jordan. It is mostly based on historical mythology. To say that Quneitra was ever in the British Mandate is just rubbish. We shouldn't be giving space to the flat earth society. Zerotalk 10:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis mentions the "western Golan Heights and Quneitra triangle": here, and another book "the northern Golan, technically British territory": [8]. But Adam Garfinkle writes:
"The loss of a fraction of the Golan was more than compensated by securing all of Lake Tiberias and important tracts of land in the Yarmuk Triangle and north and northeast of it. As Moshe Brawer, an expert on Israel's borders put it: 'From the perspective of the possibilities of exploiting the Jordan and the Yarmuk for the needs of Eretz Israel, without having to depend on the goodwill agreement of the French, the Newcombe-Paulet line' was from any respect very important for the good of Eretz Israel'. Most important in this regard, according to the 1923 boundary, Syria is not a riparian to the Sea of Galilee; under the 1920 boundaries, it certainly is. And clearly, too, this is one reason why independent Syria has never accepted the change. Now, let us revisit the 'Golan-is-Israeli' arguments in this light. First, the tentative map agreed to in December 1920 included in Palestine part of, but by no means most of, the present day Golan Heights. How did it go? From Banias, the included area swung south and then east towards but not including, Quneitra and then southwest to Wadi Hawa, and following the wadi into Lake Tiberias. In other words, it excluded all of Mt. Hermon, present day Neve Ativ, Keshet, Ein Zivan, Ramat Magshimim, Gamla, even Katzrin. It also excluded almost all of the line of extinct volcanos - that are said by some to compose the essential strategic value of the Golan to Israel. Thus, the current argument that the Golan was part of Palestine misses most of its own strategic point..."
But After seeing a variant map showing the 1920 line swinging further eastwards than our one, including the fact that Garfinkle avoids mentioning Merom HaGolan from his list, I would update our map with a version that puts the 1920 boundary as being around 20% of the current Israeli-held section. Chesdovi (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The 1920 boundary on "our map" was carefully traced from the original British map that was published by Toye (see the image page for the citation). On the original map (send me email if you want a scan of it) the boundary can be seen to precisely follow the verbal description that appears in the 1920 treaty. That is not true of the version you found. The treaty says "On the west, the frontier will pass from Semakh across the Lake of Tiberias to the mouth of the Wadi Massadyie. It will then follow the course of this river upstream, and then the Wadi Jeraba to its source. From that point it will reach the track from El Kuneitra to Banias at the point marked Skek, thence it will follow the said track, which will remain in the territory under theFrench mandate as far as Banias." The original map has a straight line from the source of Wadi Jeraba to Skek (which is the east-most point on our map), whereas the one you found misses the water courses by quite a bit, has a strange bulge out towards Quneitra, and leaves Skek far outside the British domain. The north-east part is well south of where the track from Skek to Banias was. It is clearly a rough approximation made without benefit of the original map. I'm not too surprised since it is quite hard to follow the verbal description on a modern map. On the map used by the British, it is easy to follow. Incidentally the area of the Golan portion is barely any different, since the extra amount enclosed by that bulge is offset by the inaccuracy of the watercourses and a large area omitted around Skek. Zerotalk 13:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I cant see all the pages in this book but I have managed to find this: "In exchange for this part of the Golan Heights, which would remain in Syria, Palestine would receive all of the Sea of Galilee (as mentioned before, the lake was supposed to be split according to the 1920 agreement) together with the...." [9] There is a lot of more details in this book how the Zionist movement pressured the French and British for land and water in Syria and Lebanon. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dayan quotes

How is it exactly that a quote that had been in this article for a year has been removed for POV reasons (and replaced by an inaccurate summary by a user that has consistently misrepresented sources in a wide range of articles) but we now have, as the very first quote in the section, a different Dayan quote? Please explain to me like I am a five year old, why is a quote from Dayan about the nature of the border skirmishes not acceptable but one about the kibbutzes "suffering greatly" is acceptable? Besides the obvious reason of which POV is bolsters which shouldnt be a factor in this. I say shouldnt instead of not because I am quite certain that the only reason that one quote was removed and another highlighted is POV. nableezy - 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazing what has happened here, Chesdovi without consensus repeatedly removes the quote, which is about that Israel provoked Syria. And then he cherry picks that 1% of the quote he personally likes and puts it in huge quotations so everyone can see, really changes and misrepresents the meaning of that interview. Why hasn't this guy been notified about ARBPIA yet? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It is really quite outrageous. Chesdovi, you are heading at full speed to a topic ban and it will be entirely your fault. Zerotalk 13:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that these recent edits, went a bit too far in emphasizing the minority view on the article contents. I kindly suggest that individual changes are presented for discussion on the talk page first, in line with the instructions for articles of this nature. Best, Unomi (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions Notice

I put the sanctions header in this article as it did not previously have it. Editors here are cautioned to use good judgment in editing this article given the controversy that can surround the topic. If you are going to make any substantive edits or revert material it should be discussed on the talk page. Failure to do so can result in removal of the material, warnings and blocks if it continues. Please work with other editors in ironing out any differences. Thanks. --WGFinley (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Article Now on 1RR Parole

Apparently my last warning did not take and the edit warring has continued: per the discretionary sanctions highlighted by Palestine-Israel Articles, I am hereby placing Golan Heights under 1RR sanctions for ALL users editing this article. This means that you are only allowed one revert per twenty-four hours to this article, except in cases of obvious vandalism. In addition, you will be required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page (i.e. not just in the reversion notes). If you violate the terms of this sanction, you will be blocked. The duration of these blocks will be determined based on the user's prior history, block log, and the severity of the violation. Note that if I find this is not effective in containing the edit war we may have to go to one revert per week. It also does not prohibit blocks for other disruptive behavior on the article or on this talk page. For now this will be for 2 weeks, to be extended if need be. --WGFinley (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I Commented directly to the editor explaining why I reverted, here. Apologies in advance for not including a proper edit summary. un☯mi 05:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Yours was before the change, not a big issue, the revert cycle is. --WGFinley (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a shame that everyone is put on a 1rr, when right now there is only one IP that is pushing his pov. Why not just put that IP on a restriction? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone POV pushing on a P-I article? Never! You're getting close to WP:KETTLE territory SD. --WGFinley (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Chesdovi, regarding this edit to the lead and specifically "The continued Israeli presence in the Golan Heights remains highly contested but is recognised by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the UN charter on a self-defence basis." I have a couple of questions. I can't see page 265 in google or amazon. What does it say ? Which states are being referred to for example ? Secondly, you are adding this to the lead but it isn't in the article body as far as I can tell. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article so this needs to be in the article before it can be considered for the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mention any state in particular:

"Whether or not Israel’s action in extending it law to the Golan Heights is interpreted as amounting to an act of annexation, it is clear that its conquest of the Golan Heights has not given rise to recognised rights of sovereignty. UN resolutions on the question have all reaffirmed that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible; and Israel’s legitimate security concerns have not been regarded by any state (except Israel) as furnishing an exception to the applicability of this principle. The continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights is recognised by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the UN Charter, on a self-defence basis. Israel, on this view, would be entitled to exact as a condition of withdrawal from the territory the imposition of security measures of an indefinite character…..But the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory which it occupies, or to act beyond the strict bounds laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention, has been universally rejected by the international community-no less by the United States than by any other state." Korman, Sharon. The right of conquest: the acquisition of territory by force in international law and practice, pg. 265.

Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I just had finished typing out the text. But the text in the article is a slight misrepresentation of the source. It says that the occupation itself is recognized as consistent with the UN Charter, but not anything beyond that. By the subtle change of "occupation" to "presence" we distort the meaning of the source. The source makes clear that Israeli actions such as the Golan Law that violate the 4th GC and the laws of belligerent occupation are not recognized as valid and indeed have been "universally rejected by the international community". nableezy - 16:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I beat you to it! The sentence I added:
"The continued Israeli presence in the Golan Heights remains highly contested but is recognised by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the UN charter on a self-defence basis. However, the international community rejects the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory."
That the territory is viewed as "occupied" is already mentioned twice in the lead. (The last bit specifically mentions "belligerent occupant".) I cannot reproduce the original quote in its entirety, and using the word "presence" is quite appropriate, bearing in mind Israel's view on the matter and that we are to present a NPOV. Chesdovi (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
But the issue is that the view is that Israel may occupy the territory under the UN Charter. When you write the "Israeli presence" you go much further than that. It implies that the current situation is acceptable according to "many states" and each of those states has emphatically rejected the current situation as being inconsistent with international law, including the UN Charter. Israel's "presence" goes beyond what the laws of belligerent occupation allow. The sentence implies that the Israeli settlements in the Golan are consistent with the Charter, they are not. The sentence also implies the imposition of Israeli civil law over the Golan is consistent with international law, it is not. If we are going to include such a sentence we need to accurately reflect the source. You write tghat we need to "bear in mind Israel's view on the matter", fine, but you are writing a sentence on the international community's view on the matter, not Israel's (and I have yet to see a source where Israel actually disputes that the Golan is occupied territory). I would write it as follows: "While the international community has accepted that Israel's occupation of the territory as being consistent with the UN Charter as falling within the right to self-defense, it has also repeatedly affirmed that Israel's rights to the territory are governed by the law of belligerent occupation and that any actions that Israel has made outside of those bounds are invalid." or something along those lines. nableezy - 17:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I will think about/work on this tomorrow. Regards. Chesdovi (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel's "presence" may not be valid, but your point is. I suggest replacing it with "control", (Military occupation: "...control and authority..."). Chesdovi (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I may be all right with that, but I have to think about it. nableezy - 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
By all means. Chesdovi (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
All right, I am fine with it so long as we include the line you added yesterday, "However, the international community rejects the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory." But, the link in belligerent occupant should be to military occupation, not Israeli-occupied territories. See WP:EASTEREGG. nableezy - 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, in the current status section you added, you highlight only one line from 242. Another relevant line is "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". nableezy - 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I also want to add cite from 497, or any of the other ones. Chesdovi (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, the lead does not once mention that the international community nearly unanimously agrees that the Golan is Syrian territory held under occupation by Israel. It did specifically say that in the past. Could you find a way to reintroduce such a sentence? nableezy - 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, do you plan on making these changes? nableezy - 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for jumping the gun on a change, Ches, but the order of the article (That section after the 1981 Golan Heights law) makes it look like "many states" consider that law valid under the UN charter, which simply isn't supported. Could we add something like "while hostilities with Syria continue many states consider, etc etc" or something along those lines? Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The text sourced from Sharon Kormans book, is it really reliable? Isn't it just that persons interpretation? Where is the original sources that confirms that: "The continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights is recognised by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the UN Charter"? Which countries has specifically said this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Korman is talking about Israel's right to invade and hold strategic enemy territory under Article 51, something not controversial (I think). Israel and Syria haven't signed a peace treaty ending the conflict so it's ok. The problem is the article's use of the word "control" to mean "military occupation"; if you equate "control" with "sovereignty" then it sounds like 'many states' are supporting Israel's right to do what ever it wants in Golan, both factually untrue and contradicted by the next sentence. What was wrong with "occupation" instead of control? It's the source's term and substituting terms of art leads to weird results. Sol Goldstone (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
You are right that replacing "occupied" with "control" is unacceptable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Does that look ok to everyone? Corrected to reflect that there's only one article on self-defense in the charter. Sol Goldstone (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If Sharon Korman's book is not reliable SD, what is? This is a perfect secondary source and unless any other source says otherwise, it can be relied upon and used. Chesdovi (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I re added the "Politicide: Ariel Sharon's war against the Palestinians" book as a source as it shows the usage of "Syrian heights", there is no reason to remove it. If what Sharon Korman says is correct, then can you please show me which these "many states" are that see Israels occupation as "valid"? Just because something is written in a book does not make it true. I have re added the tag, please do not remove it until you can show me exactly which counters see israels occupation of Golan as "valid". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not how it works. Korman is a RS. Some have questioned to reliability ofWalid Khalidi's research used in his book All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948, but his view is still considered RS and used in nearly every single article about Arab villages. If you are so interested about the validity of Israels occupation of the Golan, find out Kormans' email and contact her. I am sure she will be delighted to enlighten you further on this matter. Chesdovi (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Syrian Golan

In bilateral conflict, both side's POV generally matter. I'm adding Syrian POV on The Syrian Golan occupation by Israeli forces, which was missing from Current Situation. per this source. IMHO we should clarify this point. Chime if you have any problem with addition. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's just pretend that was in a different section. It's a moot point now. My mistake. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Sol, do you want to suggest a change? This is not a forum. There is little sense in just ranting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the article

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. "Occupation" is the standard term to describe the Israeli occupation of the Golan in high quality sources. That you think it is "emotionally charged" is irrelevant.
  2. "Israeli settlement" is the standard term to describe the localities that Israel has built in the occupied territories in high quality sources, that you think it is "improper" to use that term is irrelevant.
  3. Yes, those article should be linked. But it is much more than those UNSC resolutions that explain the view of the international community. The view of the ICRC, which holds a certain status in interpreting the Geneva Conventions, and the UNGA and various other institutions also form a part of that community.
  4. I've provided sources that say the overwhelming majority of Druze in the Golan identify as Syrian and refused to accept Israeli citizenship. Unless you have a source disputing that your beliefs as to how they view themselves are irrelevant.
  5. ok
  6. ok
  7. Nonsense, due weight is determined by sources. Yes, we need to include Israel's view, but we dont have it override what the entire world says. This same thing is tried in a number of articles, where it is pretended that Israel is one "side" and the other "side" is the world. No, if we are talking sides one is Israel the other is Syria. Everybody else in the world is not the same as Syria. We dont give Syria's view nearly any weight at all, instead we have users that attempt to treat the views of the world as a whole as one "side" that must be equally balanced with Israel's view. That is nonsense. The world as a whole recognizes the Golan as Syrian territory held by Israel in a state of belligerent occupation. That is a standard view found in countless high quality sources.
Finally, for some reason I find it hard to believe that you do not have an account here. Please log in with that account. nableezy - 09:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing the issues to the talk page. From a purely practical perspective in contentious articles like this it's better to make a series of small individual edits rather than combine all of the edits together.
1. I don't see why is it unacceptable to use it as a descriptive term. The Golan Heights are, according to reliable sources, occupied by Israel. It's a perfectly policy compliant way to describe the situation. Managing the emotional response of readers isn't really our business.
2. The term settlement doesn't mean "illegitimate community". It's not a judgment about the legitimacy of the people or the community's way of life. The HCJ aren't saying that Israel's presence in West Bank for instance is illegitimate when they acknowledge that it is under belligerent occupation and use that terminology in their rulings. We can't control how readers transform reliably sourced information and terminology based on their personal models of the real world. We just say what the sources say based on rules.
As a general point, it could be argued by someone with a sense of irony that these kind of language changes seek to delegitimize the views of the international community, the terminology of international law etc etc and Wikipedia's neutrality. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


IP 79.181.9.231, I object to many of your edits. 1, occupied is the term used by the entire world, per Wikipedia rules npov, due weight, we must represent the vast majority viewpoint, in this case "occupied" is the entire world viewpoint. 2, "settlements" is the same thing - see what I said in nr 1. 3, The international view is important and must be explained in detail in this article. 4, about 90% of the druze in the Israeli occupied part are Syrian druze, the other 10% have accepted Israeli citizenship in the 80s. Please bring up the specific sentence you want to change here and how you want to change it. 5, If you put "Syria-initiated", then we can ad that the six day war was "Israeli-initiated" and "while a strip of land within the Syrian territory, along the line delineating Israeli control, became of a demilitarized buffer zone under UN supervision" is not acceptable because it implys that the Israeli occupied land is not Syrian territory. 7, Nableezy had a good response for this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on presentation of Israels occupation / administration of the territories

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in further discussion, please understand that articles with subject matter this controversial are often very very time consuming. Edits such as you propose have been offered on numerous occasions and have often been discussed at length, I can understand your frustration :) Please imagine the frustration of editors who may have had to go over the same arguments again and again :) Patience and mutual understanding will go a long way towards making your editing experience more pleasant. While it is no mandatory to make a wikipedia account, it is generally held to be a good idea referring to you as a number is generally not conducive to a congenial atmosphere. I will respond to your points shortly. un☯mi 06:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
"Neutrality" does not mean what you pretend it means, a "neutral point of view" means that we fairly represent all significant views with proportional weight determined by the sources. It does not mean that if you think something is not "neutral" we do not use it. You also dont explain why you are modifying things that have a consensus on the talk page, such as the Arabic being before the Hebrew. It is not only the "international community" that says the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Countless high quality sources, such as journal articles and books published by university presses, say this as a fact. No sources of comparable quality have been presented disputing this fact. All we have is a random person on the internet saying that it is not so. Well, tough luck. Sources trump the opinions of random people on the internet. You again misrepresent the super-majority view in the sources as being simply the "Syrian view". That is a gross distortion of the truth. The "Syrian view" is given almost no representation in this article. Finally, the words "occupied territory" and "Israeli settlement" have clearly defined meanings and are the standard terminology to discuss this content in high quality sources. You not liking that fact is irrelevant. nableezy - 06:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for posting more of your reasons, 79.181 etc. (I feel like I'm talking to a robot =( you should register!)Speaking to the question of the word 'occupation', it has a pretty standard meaning in international law and the ICRC does a good job of covering it. To use a more neutral term would only be at the cost of accuracy; Golan Heights was taken in a military action for its strategic value. That's an occupation. To use more neutral terms would be at the cost of accuracy. As to the 'Syrian view', from what I've seen of it the official Syrian propaganda on the situation is so distorted it might as well be coming from the Moon. Sol Goldstone (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


1. Wikipedias policies regarding neutrality are captured at WP:NPOV, in this case please note the section at WP:UNDUE. As editors we should strive to represent significant viewpoints in concordance to the prominence of each viewpoint, in this case that has been sought to have been done at Golan_Heights#Aspects_of_dispute. Please note that the section that you edited is the lead and is governed by WP:LEAD which compels us to briefly summarize but to avoid going into too much detail.
2. As mentioned above, neutrality on wikipedia is governed by WP:NPOV and in relation to WP:RS, in this case the weight of quality sources compel us to present the position that the territories are occupied as a mainstream consensus.
3. Those terms are linked to articles which give them more in-depth treatment than we could here, however from my reading of the sources I do not expect that they use the term much differently than the average reader would assume.
4. If we have a survey that says that 90% of a population self-identifies as something, then in summary form we can in fact lump them together, there is a valid argument that we could deal with that in more detail in the article body however.
5. Again, the lead is meant to be a relatively short summary, we cannot reproduce each argument from the body in the lead, in this case the perspective offered by the weight of the sources is presented. We cannot, for the reasons laid out in WP:LEAD write that the US, UN, Red Cross, ICJ, ECJ, many academics, legal scholars and NGOs state the that territories are occupied but the Israeli government disputes this.
I think we would be better off by first focusing on the aspects of your edit that we did seem to be able to find common ground on:
A. "The Quneitra and A-Rafid territories do not form a strip. Their combined territory is about 60 sq km (60/1260 = ~5% of the 1967-1973 Israeli-controlled territory)."
B. "The surprise attack of Syria on Israel in October 1973 did not lead to Israeli withdrawal. Quite the contrary, when the war ended, Israeli controlled territories beyond the 1967 ceasefire line. It was the give-and-take that followed the war and preceded the enactment of the Military disengagement agreement in which Israel agreed to withdraw from 60 sq km (we know the number, why not use it?). Syria on its part agreed to distance its army way beyond its 1967-73 positions and accepted international forces on its territory."
un☯mi 07:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is as if you wish to apply rules when it suits you and disregard them when it does not. Due weight does not only apply to how we describe the Druze of the Golan, but to how we actually describe the Golan. You again assert that "neutrality" means something that the policy does not support. Words that you dislike are not non-"neutral". In fact, to not use the word used in the majority of sources to describe Israeli settlements or occupied territory would be non-"neutral" as far as Wikipedia defines "neutrality". nableezy - 09:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


Ok, I think we are making some progress. In order to be able to get anything done though we need to limit the points that we are discussing at any one time. I am sure that you can appreciate the walls of text each editor would have to post to do justice to the matters you raise. Again, I must reaffirm that I believe we should start with discussing the least controversial (amongst present editors) suggestions that you have made, by my reading that would be A. and B. above. I will respond briefly to the arguments you have made above, I may be responding somewhat hyperbolically to get my point across:
There are many facts that can be stated about any given topic that are not conducive to representing the consensus perspective, fx water is a poison. The amount of quality sources that use the term occupied territory is quite overwhelming, a woefully incomplete list can be found here and a treatment of some of those sources can be seen here. Yes, Israel is a party to the dispute and their perspective is presented in the body. We cannot use "disputed" as a reasonable distillation of the consensus, that would be like saying that the "The shape of the Earth is disputed".
I am not quite sure what you are getting at with the optical illusion, are you sure such an illusion is taking place?
This is what is colloquially known as a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument (although the link covers a particular process the general idea holds true in other scenarios), wikipedia articles are not to be considered complete or even representative of anything by themselves, judge the current matters in the current context as offered by current sources. I can't tell you why those articles chose the terminology that they do, perhaps that adequately reflects the sources pertaining to them, I simply don't know, but nor is it particularly pertinent.
You are quoting the wrong section of WP:UNDUE, that is the section dealing with which aspects we treat in the article, not how we treat the aspects that we do, that would this passage: "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."
As for the 90% I am honestly not married to that, we may be able to represent that better.
I hope you do not get discouraged, I hope you don't think that I am discounting your concerns out of hand, I think we can return to these matters - but I think that for all involved we will get along a lot better later if we focus on the identifiable middle ground first. un☯mi 10:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting arguments on all sides. I still maintain that the proper wording is "occupied" and "occupation". Most of the examples 79 gives above are disputed territories because they have arisen outside of or remained beyond any armed conflict. The Golan Heights were captured as part of a military conflict that has yet to formally end, meeting the definition of a military occupation. Derrida would be proud of our attentiveness to the slippery nature of language but to insert "control" in lieu of "occupied" commits a breach of NPOV (the minority, under-sourced view is now given equal weight). As pointed out above, we have a wealth of sources that label the Golan Heights "occupied", include a UN resolution specifically addressing the question.
1. Is Israel's official perspective that the GHs are not occupied? Past editors advanced similar arguments about the Palestinian territories despite the Israeli Supreme Court's ruling that (At least the West Bank) is not a part of Israel and is occupied. The government seems mute on an official position other than saying "it's not annexation".
2. We might want to address the legal ramifications of populating disputed territories under the Gevena Convention.
3. What does 'control' mean if not occupation? If the Golan Heights aren't occupied, what's their legal status? Sources would be great.Sol Goldstone (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my first brush with edit warring. Since this entire topic has already been done to death, let's make it short(-ish).

1.The Golan Heights were taken in the still ongoing Israel-Syrian conflict.
2. Israel passed the Golan Heights law of '81 moving it under administration of the civil authorities.
3. No one accepts the legitimacy of this de facto annexation except Israel and Micronesia as annexations by force are illegal under the 4th Geneva Convention.

Censoring the word "occupied" pushes the perspective that the Golan Heights law somehow changed the essential nature of Israel's relationship with the disputed territory. Most countries and legal scholars reject this, as has been very thoroughly established in the reference section. In fact, we have an organization that actually asked most every country in the world and they agreed that it's an occupation. And this is Syria, a country who's government ranks behind Mordor in international goodwill. Replacing a fundamental legal term ("occupation") with vague euphemisms to placate such a tiny POV is an absurd violation of WP:UNDUE; it should be mentioned, yes, but it shouldn't be reflected in the very wording of the article. It's like having to put "alleged" in front of every reference to the round Earth to satisfy Flat-Earthers. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

1. Wikipedia generally tries to use the same words as the sources do. These are not all legal documents, but also news outlets, NGOs, State Department reports meant for a general audience, press releases from courts and scholarly works on the subject. You keep stating that their use is somehow different from "normal use", I am not sure that this is the case, you would have to supply a WP:RS which supports that interpretation.

2. Yes there are differences in how Israel perceives their occupation of Golan Heights and the West Bank, the international community however does not seem to make such a distinction and have quite openly denounced Israels annexationist policies, see fx UN GA resolution 40/168 A.

3. Again, please don't take how other articles present their material as indicative of anything. It could be due to their source distribution being different, problems with how they represent their sources or any number of things. Please use the sources available for the current topic when discussing it. un☯mi 16:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken, Mr. 79. I only referenced the WB because it and Gaza are the only occupied territories that the Israeli Supreme Court rules on. As far as I can find, the Court has never taken an official position on the legality of the quasi-annexation of EJ/Golan. I'd be curious to see what it is if anyone has a source/case name.
  • As to the WP:Undue issues , I think this is shifting the burden of proof. Ample evidence has been provided that Golan heights meets the definition of an occupied territory under international law, that the major international organizations (the UN, the UN SC, the EU) and even Israel's closest ally, the US, all consider it occupied and reject the Golan Heights law as illegal and invalid. As do a host of legal scholars, diplomats, etc. etc. ad nauseum. On the opposing side we have parts of the occupying government and a handful of NGOs/legal scholars. If this doesn't establish a viewpoint as generally accepted I have no idea what would. To claim that I'm employing numeric superiority as my only support for WP:Undue is specious.
  • I don't think I am making this article emotional. "Occupation" is the correct terminology in legal and diplomatic parlance and replacing it with euphemisms distorts the sources and destroys clarity. If a territory was "occupied" but is now "controlled", what changed? It promotes the idea that the Golan Heights law was legitimate and is widely accepted. Calling "occupied" territory "controlled", to flirt with Godwin's Law, is like calling the invasions of Czechoslovakia an "administrative restructuring". We aren't breaking WP policy by employing legal language to pinpoint an issue that deserves accuracy.
I feel silly rehashing the same arguments that were made last month over this topic so let's call in an arbitrator since it looks like this issue isn't going any where. Sol Goldstone (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel that since the phrase "controlled by Israel" is used, we should preserve this choice of word in the lead (which already uses "belligirate occupant", but when discussing in depth in Current Status, the word occupied can be used. Chesdovi (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see where that very same book starts talking about the Golan Heights: Israel occupied the Syrian Golan, displacing many of the occupants to Syria ... There are numerous minefields in the Israeli occupied Golan. A simple test might be comparing "golan heights" "controlled by israel" 138 results vs "golan heights" "occupied by israel" 3,010 results. un☯mi 18:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
"Occupied" is the neutral and correct term all reliable sources, organs and countries use. It can not be replaced with "control" because that would change everything. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
How does the sentence "This includes minefields in Israel proper, the West Bank, Gaza strip, and areas controlled by Israel in the Golan Heights" carry equal weight to UN resolutions? The context is a discussion on minefield locations, not the legal status of GH. I don't think it justifies misleading wording. Sol Goldstone (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not just the "international community" that says the Golan is occupied. The US does in fact consider the Golan occupied Syrian territory (the map used in the article labeling it as Israeli-occupied territory in Syria is a CIA map, other sources from the US State Dept also have been provided making clear the US view). On WP, what sources say trump what a random person on the internet says. For example, when Adam Roberts (scholar) writes in a peer reviewed journal article that Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza. it trumps what you would rather the article say. When the ICRC says the Golan is "occupied Syrian territory" that trumps what you would rather the article say. It is not an opinion that under international law the Golan is Syrian territory held by Israel under belligerent occupation. That is well established fact with countless high quality sources documenting it. Your personal belief that it is not true may be important to you, but it is not important to Wikipedia. You have failed to internalize the point made that "neutral" in "neutral point of view" does not mean what you think it means. "Occupied" is "neutral" according to the NPOV policy. It is not neutral simply because you say so. nableezy - 22:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, you'll need more than that to counter 79's last argument that this article is 'special'. --Shuki (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
How special? You mean this special? Or this special? Or maybe this special? The only thing "special" here is the way that certain users are able to block what reliable sources say about Israel's occupation of Arab territory. Or rather, the only thing special here is that in this article certain users are unable to block what reliable sources say about Israel's occupation where they have been able to in so many other articles. nableezy - 22:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

79, Please see WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:TRUTH. Our job is to use sources, so far you seem to have supplied exactly none. Occupied territory is exactly the terminology used, even in a book about landmines, of all things. You continue to claim that it is somehow specialist language or doesn't comport with reality, this is simply not borne out by the weight of sources available to us. That Israel has unilaterally annexed the Golan Heights, in a move recognized only by itself, does not change the fact that it is occupied. As I read it, until and unless Israel comes to some agreement with Syria or withdraws from territories occupied, they will continue to be occupied. If you really want the wording here to change you must supply sources, or take it up with the Israeli government. Please take the matters I have raised to heart, and consider WP:IDHT before your next response. un☯mi 23:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  • reading this thread, i find myself agreeing with 79. Especially his/her points re how we should treat administrative governments equally. wikipedians seem to have a stronger interest in attaching beligerant labels to Israel related administrative jurisdictions then other jurisdictions of the same ilk.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Nuh uh? nableezy - 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Does Shuki, brewcrewer or this IP have any sources to provide showing that its not occupied by Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Its unclear exactly what you're asking for, SD. Do you want a source to say the exact words "the Golan Heights is not occupied by Israel"? It appears that you are missing the jist of the discussion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It appears that all countries on earth, organs etc say its occupied. And it also appears that "occupied" is no problem for Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan, Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip and the Syrian occupation of Lebanon but this article is "special" in the way that we should not follow all the sources and npov, due weight. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Mr. 79, my example was chosen as a famous case of attempted political whitewashing familiar to Americans and non-Americans alike. Let's ignore your insinuations. "Occupied" is the most accurate term with the minimum amount of political spin attached. The article, in its current state, makes the status seem unclear. It's not unclear to most of the world (and it's unclear what the exact Israeli position is). It's crystal clear that territorial annexation is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. You are saying that it's under the civilian authorities and has no borders so it's not a military occupation. What is that called? Annexation. Since everyone rejects annexation as a gross violation of international law (and let's not get started on settling annexed territory under the Geneva Conventions) and the validity of annexation laws . . . it's occupied territory. Softening the facts with euphemisms attempts to legitimize annexation without actually saying "annexation". Let's put in a separate section detailing the "not occupied" POV. If other WP articles apply a different standard to them they may be different circumstances or they may be flat out wrong. Either way it doesn't affect this article. Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is an interesting argument, I think you would probably have more success at arguing for its consideration as an example at our reductio ad absurdem article than here. The fact, as it were, is that all we do at wikipedia is represent opinions, in fact more than that, all we do is present views about opinions, because that is all there is. When there is, in literature, the appearance of an overwhelming consensus among quality sources, we present that in the wikipedia voice. This is why we state the ostensibly disputed view that HIV causes AIDS as fact. Please also note, for the umpteenth time, that we do in fact present the Israeli government perspective in the body. You have been defending edits to the lead, and image caption?! which are summary style and should follow the principle of least surprise and do not lend themselves to deeper explication. The fact is that the term "occupied" is not seriously disputed in quality sources, take this as an invitation to start introducing some sources for discussion. Yes, you have Yehuda Blum and his missing reversioner theory, but it is not understood to be taken seriously. You present 'administered' as if it is a better "fact", yet it conceals more than it reveals and it is not the term commonly used in RS as a meaningful introductory descriptor for Israels relationship to the Golan Heights. un☯mi 08:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The part where Roberts writes about "the applicability" of international law remaining the same as the WB and Gaza he is saying they are occupied territory. The title of the article is Prolonged Military Occupation: the Israeli-Occupied Territories since 1967. nableezy - 08:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

79, everything that you have said here is your personal analysis, you have not brought evidence showing that its not occupied by Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. A large collection of high quality sources say as a fact that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory held by Israel under military occupation. Do you have sources of comparable quality that dispute that? If not, kindly take your personal opinions to a blog. We go with the sources here, not what a set of users would rather have the articles say. nableezy - 09:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

79, you are in fact asking us to discount what reliable sources say, in deference to a linguistic argument forwarded by a user who has so far declined to present any sources to support that their favored presentation of reality is shared by anyone else. Whatever your intentions are, they are somewhat undermined by seeming to serve what I can reasonably say is the minority view in this conflict. Here are just a few examples of how the consensus reality seems to reflect a 'hardcore post-modernist' movement:

"U.S. Policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process, Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in judgment of each of the legal advisors of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that [settlements] are illegal and that [the Convention] applies to the territories.”

Secretary of State Cyrus Vance before House Committee. on Foreign Affairs[10]

78. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

- International Court of Justice[11]

The assertion made by the Israeli authorities that products manufactured in the occupied territories qualify for the preferential treatment granted for Israeli goods is not binding upon the customs authorities of the European Union

- European Court of Justice[12]
The basic underlying "fact" here is that it is occupied territory, your focus on 'ah but it is also administered" constitutes little more than rhetorical sleight of hand.
I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed at your general approach here, I tried my best to let us all focus on the contributions that you had forwarded where there was a good chance we could all easily agree, we could most likely have improved the article days ago if you chose to indulge in collaboration, instead you continually ignore pleas for sources, you ignore bids to turn to areas of the dispute which might have granted us all a spirit of cooperation and instead, in your bid to supplant the descriptors used by the world consensus and vast majority of sources you seem to have contributed a shell game. It has been interesting discussing these matters, and I can't help but think that you would be an asset to wikipedia if you would but abide by the basic principles of arguing from sources, and, perhaps shift your focus to matters where you are able to take a more impersonal approach. un☯mi 13:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Occupation is a fact, your unsourced claim that it isn't is an opinion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall stating that I was biased, though personally I believe that everyone is, that is the lot of the imperfection that we all share. It is precisely because we are biased that our policies mandate arguing from sources and using the terms imposed by them. You are again arguing that occupied means something else than what sources seem to imply. Your claim that because there isn't a military administration that it then magically become 'not-occupied', as it were is, to be clear, a ludicrous contention which is explicitly denounced by the world consensus. I don't know why you insist on not supplying sources which support your claim, I can't help but feel that I may have acted as your enabler in this regard, for this I apologize and must respectfully insist that further discussion springs from you presenting such sources. un☯mi 15:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I may have screwed up my explanation a bit. Occupation is ok, annexation isn't. Rather, military annexation is not ok as the UN members agree to abstain from the "use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state" (Article 2:4 of Chapter 1). Instead of screwing it up more, I give you this definition of annexationand this Geneva Convention commentary! Article 47 violations are the ones that are throwing the UN and the legal types into conniptions over the Golan Heights. Sol Goldstone (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a big problem with using "de facto annexation" and "occupation" in referring to the Golan Heights, both are correct, but they aren't interchangeable. As to the idea that we can't use "occupation" because it has specific meanings under international law, that problem isn't alleviated by using annexation. Annexation is also far more emotionally charged then occupation, as the use of annexation to circumvent the Geneva Conventions is a clear violation of article 47 as are settlements under article 49, i.e., we would be leading the reader to believe that Israel's policies in Golan are crimes against humanity (they may be, they may not, but why risk the POV taint when we have a good alternative word?) Also, international law is always contested (just like most law) but has some peculiarities such that decisions are legitimate only if they have international acceptance (See the annexation definition). I really think we've demonstrated that the perspective of the Golan Heights as occupied has extremely solid grounding in international law as supported by many, many legitimate sources and met WP:BURDEN. If you would like to demonstrate the opposite by using sources I would be happy to look at them but unverified ideas without reasonable backing verge on WP:FRINGE. If we could get some sources detailing the Israeli government position, or any sources really, that would help. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it is as if you possess an ability to read only one part of a sentence and completely ignore the rest of that sentence. The source provided says that the Golan is subject to the 4th GC and repeatedly says, as fact, it is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Here is another source saying, as a fact, that Israel occupies the Golan. I can cite literraly hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles and books published by academic presses that say, as a fact, that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. That you disagree with what the reliable sources say does not matter. The source for the Druze is this which says the vast majority of the 18,000 Syrians, mostly Druze, that are left from the Golan's original population of 150,000, have refused to take Israeli citizenship. Notice how it says they are "Syrians"? nableezy - 16:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 2

79, while I admire your passion please do discuss and gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits prior to making them. In less contentious areas WP:BRD works quite well, but in articles such as these, making wide ranging edits could easily contribute to needless friction which should better be avoided. Is there any evidence that "De facto annexed" is a common descriptor for these territories? How can you justify on the one hand arguing against using what you consider "technical terms" and then resorting to "De facto annexed" ? Please also consider the GCIV implications of using the term annexed. Best, un☯mi 13:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I don't like the way you act on this issue - My edits were seen by at least two editors who introduced only minor edits. These edits simply made the lead and summary table more neutral, all opinions are still represented perfectly and according to the "Due Weight" rule. You are trying to push your view despite disagreement. This is not the idea of reaching consensus and maintaining neutrality. You act as if you have the final word on this article. 79.181.9.231 (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You are trying to push your view against the sources. Regardless of what you say, we go by the sources here. Reliable sources say, as a fact not an opinion or "view", that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Until you can provide sources of comparable quality disputing that fact there is nothing to discuss here. nableezy - 17:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


This is starting to get silly, what do you mean 'desirable situation'? What leads you to believe that those sources find the occupied status of the territory to be desirable? No, the sources that I have brought show that the attempted annexation, if you will, is null and void. I thank you for the comments to the effect that I am relying on sources and that you agree that many sources support my argument. I am getting the distinct impression that you are not taking the arguments against your position on board. un☯mi 17:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) That other editors did not revert your edits is not an indication that they agreed with your edits, note that I myself applied some spelling and link fixes prior to taking a better look at your wide ranging edit. un☯mi 17:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This has gotten hopelessly muddled with the constant goalpost moving. I don't have a problem with describing Golan Heights as under de facto annexation (without the force of law); my problem is with "control", "administered" and other euphemisms that downplay its controversial political status by changing key words in source material.
With the caveat that "occupation" is the better term with wider recognition and should be preferred if possible.
If anyone wants another headache they can contemplate whether a NPOV issue arises from "de facto annexed by Israel" when it 'has' the force of law there but nowhere else. Again, if anyone can find a good source detailing the Israeli government's precise position that would be excellent. Sol Goldstone (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, while I have concerns about the use of "de facto annexed" or "annexed" as a statement of fact (due to the legal ramifications under GCIV and other reasons), I am not totally against using it in a limited fashion if there is a consensus for it. In my partial revert I left some of 79's wording which reflected his preferred phraseology, this may or may not be found desirable by other editors. I share Sol's concerns regarding sidestepping the common descriptor as used in sources. un☯mi 18:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
How many times did we ask 79 to bring sources saying its not occupied? How many sources did he bring? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably infobox, like WP:LEAD, does not require strict sourcing, it just summarizes the body, but I might be wrong on it. Agree with 79, we (as Wikipedia) should treat disputed territories equally. We could always expand in the body on different points of view on current political situation in Golan Heights and Bing Bang story about how it get like this. It appears that proposed change is according to Wikipedia neutrality policy and would make Wikipedia more consistent and encyclopedic. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How is the "proposed change" "ccording to Wikipedia neutrality policy and would make Wikipedia more consistent and encyclopedic"? There are a large number of articles discussing occupied territory as occupied territory, the "consistency" argument is pure hogwash. The argument about "neutrality" is likewise nonsense as it uses an imaginary definition of "neutral" that WP:NPOV does not use and ignores what what WP does use. nableezy - 00:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
AgadaUrbanit, IP 79.181.9.231 did not bring one single source supporting any of his changes, and neither have you, so how can the changes be "according to Wikipedia neutrality policy" when they do not follow the sources or the principles of Wikipedia npov? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not interested in wiki lawyering, 79 explained why this change would approve Wikipedia quality. I don't need to pedantically repeat myself, probably infobox, like WP:LEAD, does not require strict sourcing, it just summarizes the body, but I might be wrong on it. I think it is brave on 79 part to edit without logging in. There is that annoying commit warning log in or else as she/he essentially gives up a lot of anonymity privileges every editor is entitled to. Though agree name could be more natural than number, after all people are demanding names and not numbers and it is natural. If editors opposing the change believe it is required to review on neutrality or other policy related issues, they know the ways of NPOV and other noticeboards. However, till then, on the change itself, I suggest to assume that it is wiki holy book compliant. Anyway, I think I did what I could, I'm going to bed now. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You not understanding an argument is not cause for you to call it "wiki lawyering"; the IP has not made an argument consistent with the policies of this website, and you're agreement with that argument lacks any reasoning as to how it is consistent with the policies of this website. "Neutral" does not mean that you like the language used. We go by sources here, and the sources say that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. That is all that matters in this discussion. Unless you or the IP can bring sources of comparable quality disputing that fact backed by hundreds of sources there is nothing more to discuss here. nableezy - 03:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is 79 opinion on question of Golan ownership and the change does not deal with such deep questions. I've already suggested the way to determine change neutrality. Feel free to go that way instead of stone walling. I might be mistaken we're editing Wikipedia not in order to yell at each other, Golan is Syrian or Golan is Israeli or to make an opinion survey about it. We're here to improve Wikipedia content. So on question of this change still looks improving Wikipedia content and making it more consistent. 79 explained why. To me 208 revert is unexplained. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Agada, because it does not reflect the sources, while 'occupied' does. un☯mi 08:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Unomi, we don't need to repeat ourselves pedantically. I have to work now. Maybe other editors would like to comment. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? You studiously ignore the sources I have put forward, offer none of your own and then you link me to The Soup Nazi? un☯mi 09:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Some say infoboxes should burn in hell. I just like Seinfeld, he kind of reflects the reality, a reliable source if you want. However we get off point. Sources vs. neutrality issue was addressed by 79 as point #1, I also added on WP:LEAD/infobox citition requirements. That's why I mention pedantically. And really I, personally, have to work now. Thank you for discussion, Unomi. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
No, he absolutely did not address "Sources vs. neutrality" and neither have you, there is no such thing, neutrality on wikipedia is exactly reflecting the weight of the sources, and they expressly and consistently deny using the euphemistic language that you are trying to employ. Linking me to any kind of article containing the word Nazi is wildly and utterly inappropriate and you really should know better. You should also know better than to reinstate that edit against consensus, you are making a total mockery of our efforts to discuss this and find common ground. un☯mi 10:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
79 said, Nothing in WP's rules suggest that sourcing overrules neutrality.. We could resolve it if editors are willing to aproach NPOV noticeboard. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
How is it neutral to remove the words used by the entire international community? Occupation and Israeli settlements ?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
79 is operating with a deficient understanding of WP:NEUTRAL, please refer to WP:YESPOV and the second section under WP:ASF. If there is any doubt in your mind that the vast majority of RS do in fact state unequivocally that these territories are occupied now is the time to say so. I am fine with taking it to WP:NPOVN but I ask you to self revert until the matter is settled. Please also strike your comments linking me to The Soup Nazi, thank you, un☯mi 10:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
SD, Nothing is removed. I think you missed the discussion bellow, I've expanded on POV that the region is The Syrian Golan occupied by Israeli forces since June 5 1967. Syria wants the region to be liberated. It is important POV, since it is POV held by side involved in the dispute. We already have UN POV. Do you want to add in section bellow? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes you removed both these terms, and replaced them with "held" and "post-1967 Israeli built areas" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Unomi, I suggest to assume 79 good faith, till this issue is settled via noticeboard procedure, if editors are willing to approach it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This edit reinstated edits which does not have consensus support from the people partaking in the discussion, in fact quite the opposite, it does not reflect the weight of the quality sources available to us and runs afoul of wikipedia policy, see specifically WP:GEVAL. On a 1rr article with ongoing discussion this constitutes edit warring, consider this your final warning. Please self-revert as your next edit, if you do not do so, my next edit with be to WP:AE or WP:3RR. un☯mi 10:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Agada, we have already discussed the Occupied issue at a board, look here: (ignore all the comments from socks of banned users Nacnikparos(Drork) and (Dajudem)Stellarkid) [13]. The issue has been settled. "Occupied" and "Israeli settlement" is what the sources use, its the entire international view, so that is npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is not productive. Same arguments are used over and over. If editors feel that Wikipedia policies are not followed, they are welcome to approach wider audience, via noticeboard procedure if they are willing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I have told you that I welcome using NPOVN, I also told you that you should self revert as your actions constitute editwarring on a 1rr article in the midst of an ongoing discussion. un☯mi 11:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Then we mostly agree. I personally was convinced by 79 argumentation. Without canvassing, maybe it is a good idea to post a link to relevant noticeboard discussions also here, since our common aim is wider audience. Procedurally, maybe it is better if we act on after the noticeboard review completion though, the skies would not fall on us, assuming 79's good faith meanwhile. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reported you for disruptive edit warring here. Feel free to self-revert and I will retract the report. un☯mi 11:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we agreed on NPOV noticeboard, oh well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Unomi is right, if the sources say Israel occupied the Golan Heights the article should say Israel occupied the Golan Heights. I don't think it is neutral to use language different from the sources. It is not neutral to say that the Golan Heights is not in Syria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.7.173 (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The name "Golan Heights"

Although the name "Golan" is ancient, I am unable to find any definite usage of "Golan Heights" prior to 1967. Can anyone else find one? Zerotalk 09:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume what you want to define what this page should cover - just the political entity created in 1967 or the geographical location, which would include areas over the '67 line. Currently it covers both, but as you correctly state, today the “Golan Heights” usually refers only to the territory Israel controls. The article does mention that Israel controls 2/3 of the Golan Heights, although this is uncited. I have found an 1829 reference to "Golan Heights, Syria" (The Encyclopedia Americana International Edition, pg. 330.) Other early books refer to the "Syrian Heights" (Lands of the Moslem, (1851), pg. 341 and The trees and plants mentioned in the Bible, (1895), pg. 57) A Hebrew book from 1927 refers to Ramat Hagolan (הארץ: ספר לידיעת ארץ ישראל, pg. 75) while others refer to the "Golan Plateau". (A day in Capernaum, (1892), pg. 113.) I still have not found sources which give the precise geograhical boundaries of this area. Chesdovi (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You can't trust the year shown by Google Books as it is very often wrong (one of my main peeves about it). The Encyclopedia Americana you found is a 1970 edition even though it has "1829" written beside it; try searching for "1970" to see the copyright page. The other examples don't work as "heights" or "plateau" are in lowercase and so are descriptions rather than names. (In at least one of them, "Syrian heights" is clearly referring to the mountains rather than the plateau.) My Hebrew is primitive, but I suspect that example is also not clearly using "ramat Golan" as a name but is using a description analogous to "Golan plateau"--please correct me if I'm wrong. So my question remains open. On the other hand we don't have an article on the Golan region except this one so I am not completely opposed to covering a larger area. My main concern is that we carefully follow the sources in regard to use of names, and at the moment we have no source using "Golan Heights" for more than what Israel controls. Zerotalk 12:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This source states: "The Golan Heights is divided into three areas consisting of a Syrian-controlled area, an Israeli-controlled area, and a buffer zone—the Area of Separation (AOS)—monitored by the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)." Chesdovi (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
al Jābiyah of the Ghassanids is referred to as being “on the Golan Heights”. This area is well inside Syrian territory. Chesdovi (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

When the block terminates, I will add: "also known as the Galilee Heights,[3] and Golan Plateau[4]". Chesdovi (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Galilee Heights" is a term used to describe an area in the Galilee, not Golan:

  • The inclusive Hebrew Scriptures: Volume 2 - Page 598 "The name "Jezreel" refers to the valley or broad plain between the mountains of Samaria in the south and the Galilee heights in the north" trekker.co.il Jezreel Valley - "It is located between the mountains of Samaria in the south and the Galilee heights in the north." If you look at these pictures of the area of the Jezreel Valley: [14] [15][16] The Jezreel Valley is located below the Galilee, so its clear that the "Galilee Heights" the sources speaks of is in the Galilee and not the Golan Heights.
  • Israel travel website "About Villa Galilee Hotel Safed The Villa Galilee is a family-run boutique hotel located in the Galilee heights." - Safed being a village in the Galilee, not Golan.
  • Israel exploration journal, Volumes 29-30 "Since the beginning of the century information has been received of accidental finds of prehistoric artifacts in the Galilee Heights (Merom ha-Galil in Hebrew). This information unfortunately was not adequately recorded and early scholars who mentioned such finds in their writings did so only in Passing. General interest in the region gradually increased from the late 1940s and early 1950s on, thanks to a few dedicated amateurs, members of kibbutzim such as Bar`am, Sasa, and Yiron who collected a wealth of material, some of which is now exhibited at" This also shows, that considering which years artifacts were collected by these "members of kibbutzim", the "Galilee Heights" is clearly not the Golan Heights.

Protected - 7 Days

Edit warring on this article has raged for a month now, the page is now protected 7 days. Some editors need to review the 1RR restriction that's in place on this article. Not only that but what the spirit of the 1RR restriction means. It doesn't mean that someone else with similar ideals should reinstate their edits. Both sides in this dispute have allowed this to carry on instead of working out differences. I really wish the editors here would cease bringing outside conflicts to this WP article.

Also I restored a revert that was a clear violation. However, it's clear this page needed protection so I reverted my action there and restored to a version of the article that more represents the status quo when this edit war began. --WGFinley (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

79.181.9.231, these links doesn't mean anything for setting the areas status, you have cherry picked some news articles written by a couple of journalists that use a certain wording or pov. There are many other sources that use other wordings and clearly show that Israels control is an occupation and these represent the entire world view. Also notice that in the second Times article you bring up, it also says: "which Israel captured in 1967, and whose return to its Syrian owners remains a basic requirement for peace" "Between War and Peace, a Certain Tranquility" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


Recent articles by Time Magazine

    • "In the absence of any peace process by which Syria can recover the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since the 1967 war, Syria continues to support Hizballah as its prime form of leverage against the Jewish state." -- Is the Middle East on the Brink of Another War?, By Tony Karon Tuesday, Aug. 03, 2010
    • "In recent years, the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad has used the occasion to call for Israel — which has occupied most of the Golan Heights since the war of 1967 — to return the territory in exchange for an end to the conflict between the two countries" --Syrian Saber-Rattling Has U.S. Concerned By Andrew Lee Butters Thursday, Apr. 15, 2010
    • "Syrian officials have long said they would be open to a regional peace if Israel returned occupied Syrian land in the Golan Heights and offered a just settlement to the Palestinian question." --A Rapprochement Between Syria and Saudi Arabia? By Andrew Lee Butters Thursday, Oct. 08, 2009
    • "Syria, which backs the Lebanese opposition, says it will only participate in the conference if the Golan Heights, Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, is included on the agenda." -- Lebanon: Once More to the Brink By Nicholas Blanford Saturday, Nov. 24, 2007 un☯mi 10:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent articles by NY Times

  • The top priority for Syria in peace talks is the return of the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967. World report on Syria
  • In a news analysis in Wednesday’s left-leaning Haaretz newspaper, two military writers, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, speculated that the Syrians were making the missile transfer because while they might want to trade the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights for peace, “they do not sense that there is a genuine Israeli partner with whom they can reach agreement.” Israel Says Syria Gave Missiles to Hezbollah By Ethan Bronner Published: April 14, 2010

un☯mi 11:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Reuters articles

"Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967"

"Israeli-occupied Golan Heights"

"occupied Syrian territory"

"the Israeli-occupied Golan" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Worldview sources

United Nations

"Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan"

"7. Also calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cease the dumping of all kinds of waste materials in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, which gravely threaten their natural resources, namely the water and land resources, and pose an environmental hazard and health threat to the civilian populations"

"The occupied Syrian Golan"

"Deeply concerned that the Syrian Golan, occupied since 1967, has been under continued Israeli military occupation,"

"1. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, in particular Security Council resolution 497 (1981), in which the Council, inter alia, decided that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void and without international legal effect and demanded that Israel, the occupying Power, rescind forthwith its decision;

"2. Also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan and in particular to desist from the establishment of settlements;"

"3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,3 and have no legal effect;"

4. Calls upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan, and from its repressive measures against the population of the occupied Syrian Golan;

"Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan"

"Reaffirming once more the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, 2 to the occupied Syrian Golan, Deeply concerned that Israel has not withdrawn from the Syrian Golan, which has been under occupation since 1967, contrary to the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, Stressing the illegality of the Israeli settlement construction and other activities in the occupied Syrian Golan since 1967,"

"2. Also declares that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and has no validity whatsoever, as confirmed by the Security Council in its resolution 497 (1981), and calls upon Israel to rescind it; 3. Reaffirms its determination that all relevant provisions of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907,3 and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,2 continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, and calls upon the parties thereto to respect and ensure respect for their obligations under those instruments in all circumstances; 4. Determines once more that the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan and its de facto annexation constitute a stumbling block in the way of achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region; 5. Calls upon Israel to resume the talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and to respect the commitments and undertakings reached during the previous talks; 6. Demands once more that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967 in implementation of the relevant Security Council"

"DECEMBER 17, 1981

The Security Council,

Having considered the letter of 14 December 1981 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic contained in document S/14791,

Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of international law, and relevant Security Council resolutions,

1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect;

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;

3. Determines that all the provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of this resolution within two weeks and decides that in the event of non-compliance by Israel, the Security Council would meet urgently, and not later than 5 January 1982, to consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." - Adopted unanimously at the 2319th meeting.

United States:

  • [22] "United States considers the Golan Heights to be occupied territory" "on December 14, 1981, the Knesset passed legislation applying Israeli “law, jurisdiction, and administration” to the Golan Heights, in effect, annexing the territory. The United States disagreed with the Israeli move as a violation of international law (Article 47 of the Geneva Convention which forbids acquisition of territory by force, and U.N. Security Council Resolution 242),"

European Union:

  • [23] "Statement by Mr. Taisto Huimasalo, Ambassador, Permanent Mission of Finland to the UN, on behalf of the European Union, UN 61st Session; II Committee, Agenda Item 40: Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources; New York"

Arab League:

  • [24] "Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights"

United Kingdom:

  • [25] "Occupied Golan Heights"

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Neutrality is precisely reflecting the weight of the sources, this saves us from rhetorical shell games.
2. News papers are generally not the best of sources, they are ofcourse allowed, but generally we should rely on more scholarly works.
3. I stated that they were not used by the weight of the sources, something which "Israeli-occupied" is.
4. I have already answered those questions, most recently on this very talk page, and also in the IPCOLL discussion which I had presented a link for earlier. See this discussion on this very issue. You may want to do an intext search for "stellarkid" and you will find a near verbatim rendition of the issues you have raised. un☯mi 11:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this 'bilateral conflict' is one which has seen considerable input from governments, NGOs, courts of law, scholars of history, political science and of law. It is my distinct impression that the weight of their assessments supports wording such as "Israeli occupied"(see here for an incomplete list) - News outlets are obviously allowed as sources, but it should be clear that they are not of the same quality as papers published in peer reviewed journals, books by university presses or findings of law, I don't understand how you can reasonably argue otherwise.
The sources that you present were obviously cherry picked as I have shown in terms of articles and as SD has shown with selective quoting within the articles.
It is hilarious that you argue against the weight of quality sources claiming that those who would like to see them represented have a 'political agenda', please see WP:TEND#Characteristics_of_problem_editors. un☯mi 12:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The posts of socks of banned users are struck as a matter of routine.
I don't think anyone has argued that the Israeli government position should not be presented fairly, only that their preferred phraseology should not be presented as fact, nor in a manner not consistent with WP:GEVAL. Anyway, I need to get some work done. Best, un☯mi 12:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The posts of socks of banned users are struck as a matter of routine. See also irony. nableezy - 00:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed his posts, he have wasted enough of our time. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
79.181.9.231, the discussion clearly showed that the majority supported "occupied", and Stellarkids posts aren't struck out, but you can ignore them as well as his posts there are illegal. So if you want to remove "occupied" from this article I suggest you open a new noticeboard discussion, and until you have new consensus that "occupied" is not npov, (replacing the previous and current consensus) you can not remove "occupied" from this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Evaluating sources in Wikipedia context is a complex issue. Agree with Unomi and 79, the relevant policy is neutrality. Good arguments were put forward from multiple angles. Regarding dispute resolution, I'm glad there is an agreement to approach NPOV noticeboard to resolve a dispute about the diff. Since editing Wikipedia is a communal process, I suggest to create sandbox neutral draft, somewhere in the article talk namespace, so all editors could participate in review prior to submission. I trust Unomi internal integrity fully and suggest Unomi would put a neutrality hat and coordinate the submission effort. I don't mind 79's help either, she/he slso brings good points into this discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I agree with this approach, I would suggest that we flesh out the NPOVN post at WP:IPCOLL in the spirit of collaboration and hopefully it can draw wider attention as well. Unfortunately I have a fair bit of work I need to attend to at the moment, but my initial thought was to employ a table which could show the various sources side by side, a column for each. Best, un☯mi 15:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, nothing is burning and the procedure could take some time. The NPOV noticeboard request text should be neutral, bringing points from both sides of the diff dispute. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A few more relevant comments

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not only the view of the United nations that its Syrian territory occupied by Israel, its the view of all countries on earth with no objection, click on the link I posted above about UNSCR 497 "Adopted unanimously at the 2319th meeting." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, what fun! I'm fully in favor of taking it to the NPOV boards. This is all entertaining but we keep chasing our tails over the same ground. So we are all perfectly clear, what exactly is at issue? The "annexation and occupied" versus "held" debate? Whether it's bilateral (Syriva vs. Israel) and both perspectives should be weighted equally or multilateral with the NPOV as the stance of the UN and the international community? What else? Sol Goldstone (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Drorks sock redacted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see texts written in Wikipedia articles as "truth" to anything so I don't really care what that Wikipedia article says. And this article already says now that Israel extended it laws. What matters is what the source say: UNSCR 497: "occupied Syrian Golan Heights", "Syrian territory occupied by Israel" Adopted unanimously at the 2319th meeting. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

79 has a point. Maybe this dispute will end up like the Hatay dispute which has "fallen into the sidelines as Syria appeared to have accepted Turkish rule over the province without publicly renouncing its sovereignty". It's amazing. Hatay is 4.5 times larger and Syria seemed to have let Turkey keep it. Why? Chesdovi (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Syrian claim to Hatay is an order of magnitude weaker than the Syrian claim to Golan, plus it doesn't have the natural resources of Golan. And I get the feeling that the Syrian government just doesn't like Israel as much as Turkey. But I digress.
So how about this solution; the buzzwords on political status are written from the perspective of the international community (with regard to Golan as an occupied part of Syria, "de facto annexation" and "settlements" and not "held/administered" or anything that clouds the issue) with clear attribution to the UN, US, EU, etc ad nauseam as holding the perspective. A sub-section describing the Israeli perspective would be included as balance. Sol Goldstone (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we could use all words. This is not an Arab League report. Neither do we need a sub-section for Israel's view. All views can be contained within Current Status. "Settlement" can be used as long as its not preceeded by "illegal" and the map caption should contian occupied only. Chesdovi (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Not Arab League, the entire world say "occupied". Per that all sources above show the world view is "occupied", that is npov, so "occupied" can be used in the entire article per npov and not just in the map caption. No separate section for the Israeli view is needed. The article already says that Israel extend its laws, so its already clear what they're position is. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Occupied" can be used in the article, but so can "de facto annexation", "controlled", "held" and "administered". Chesdovi (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to change the terms, get consensus first.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
They were being used before 79 intervened. Chesdovi (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
At a few instances, for example to describe that Israel "administers" the area. At the majority places mentioning the area, the npov term "occupied" was used. If you want to change the term, get consensus first for the change, just like we discussed the occupied issue before to get to the current consensus.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
As long as they can be used in some instances. Just not like what Sol Goldstone suggests. Chesdovi (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to reveal here at what sentences you would like to make the change? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Chesdovi (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You make an excellent argument. Thank you for reminding me that this isn't an Arab League report, I write so many of those I sometimes get confused. I don't have a problem with using the words as long as the article clearly conveys the majority view of international community as conveyed by U.N resolutions, E.U. court rulings, U.S policy statements, N.A.S.A probes, whatever. My problem is that I didn't know a damn thing about Golan two weeks ago (I've never had Golan mentioned in an international law course, perhaps because there isn't much to discuss) and this article as it was played fast and loose with the legal terms of art, making it hard to understand Golan's current political status. One in particular made it sound like the international community supported annexation. Thanks to reverts, that problem has largely cleared up but "held" is still an unnecessary obfuscation in an already confusing issue. Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

typo

{{editprotected}} Please correct the word "recongnised" to "recognised" under the Territorial claims section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Number (talk • contribs) 16:37, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Done, except I used the American spelling in conformance with the rest of the article. Favonian (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Another typo

{{editprotected}} Please remove the redundant word "which" from the second sentence of section Golan Heights#Current status. --Sir48 (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Hertz1888 (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Spin off

Maybe it is time to spin off sub-articles. Otherwise there is a chance that readers would not go beyond lead/infobox and contributors continue arguing about minor details. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not needed now, its far from being too long. And parts of the article are factually incorrect, unsourced, unrelated and repeat. It needs a rewrite, not sub articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
It's just a wiki-way, if you edit the article itself you get the warning: This page is 88 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. Otherwise a quality of article may decrease. It is not a policy though, we can ignore it within consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The readable prose of this page is ~43 kB. That is fine and does not need to be split. nableezy - 23:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I could see an article only covering the conflict over the region while this one just has the info in a summary style as being a decent idea. I believe a rewrite would be the first step before pulling the trigger on something like that though.Cptnono (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the length is relatively ok at the moment (it's almost curt compared to some of the I/P articles but those are unreadable). We could try cutting some fat but, given the agony caused in the past weeks over the changing of a single word, it might be too much trouble. Length will probably always be an issue with contentious articles under the current policies. Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
But here there isn't even a problem with the length, Wikipedia:Article size says 88 kilobytes, while this article if you remove all the references, external links, images, see also, will get to about half of that, so we can double the size of the article before beginning to think about dividing it. And the article right now can easily be cut down by removing unrelated and repeated information. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
What is easiest way to calculate the readable prose of any article page? WP:SIZE is 88K, readability Issues: Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. I guess the relevant guideline is WP:SPLIT: There are no hard and fast rules for when an article should be split, but the guideline suggests the following: (Readable prose size) What to do > 40 KB May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size). Is it appropriate to tag this article at this stage? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I typically go to the print screen the copy and paste into a sandbox from there. Actual number of words is available b copy and pasting into Word and I believe you can d it through the DYK tool. Your best bet if you want to see this become a reality is to point to specific line as being cumbersome and showing a proper draft of a new article. Summary style can be great if done correctly. I doubt anyone can look at this page and not see that the conflict receives so much weight that it overshadows other aspects of the topic. At least the lead was adjustd a little bit ago so that is not as big of a concern.Cptnono (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Blue line

I removed the Blue line section. The section has really no relation with the Golan Heights. If it really need to be added that part of the blue line also extends to occupied Syrian land, it can be added with one sentence where its appropriate, but to have a separate section about this subject and the map is not needed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing, SD. I'm not sure what 'no relation' means in this context, could you explain?
For clarity this is the discussed edit:
The chapter removed contained two sub-chapters: Shebaa_Farms and Al-Ghajar. Currently those two appear as sub-chapters of Three lines: 1923 border, 1949 armistice, 1967 ceasefire.
Your thoughts are welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The topic of the Blue Line, Lebanon's lack of participation in the six day war, and Israels withdrawal from Lebanon, is insignificant for this article. The Blue Line doesn't need its own separate section here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
According to UN source provided, Blue line is not a border (emphasis by source), thus withdrawal issue is being disputed. Maybe the line worth mentioning as a boundary between Lebanon and Golan Heights. The removed ref issue was partly restored by bot, nevertheless, putting Shebaa_Farms and Al-Ghajar as sub-chapters of Three lines: 1923 border, 1949 armistice, 1967 ceasefire, looks strange, imho. Maybe you could address it, SD, do you feel any adjustment is due? Alternatively, maybe since all mentioned topics have main articles, it is possible to follow Petroleum Road precedent, if we consider Lebanon issues were given too much prominence. But those are just my thoughts. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
There might be some styling and structure issues, I'd like to hear about it. I would agree that there may be better sources to represent the UN viewpoint. If better sources are added to the article, we could evaluate whether that particular source can be dropped for another, better one. Per WP:DUE, the source should not be removed without adding better sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No one wishing to add their comments? Are we good to go on adding the line description back in, verified by the provided source? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
What line? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
SD, thank you for joining the discussion again. The line in the subject. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Why would a section about a line about Israels withdrawal from Lebanon be in this article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've addressed withdrawal. The line is Golan's northern international boundary. Could you address my points above for constructive discussion? We mention Lebanese-Golan dispute through out this article. For instance, Shebaa farm dispute first brought in Etymology section, then referenced by Geography and then we have full section for it. The line specifically is referenced twice. Though I would not object reviewing the reflection of Lebanese issue generally, maybe trimming and providing links to main article could be acceptable. Questions of style and structure are also open. The content however is based on source. I also would not mind reviewing additional sources. Do you feel that content fails verification by the provided source? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
No one wishing to add their comments? Are we good to go on adding the line description back in, verified by the provided source? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Just came across this discussion. I'm not 100% sure I understand what is being discussed, but I don't see why we would have a section on the Blue Line. It probably warrants a one-line sentence somewhere in the article (The Golan Height's northern border with Lebanon was demarcated by the United Nation Blue Line, or something), but not a full section in an already too long article. My thoughts anyways. ← George talk 18:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Lebanon is located north of Golan Heights and was not directly involved in 1967 conflict. On June 7, 2000, the demarcation line Blue Line, which is not a border, was established by UN in order to ensure full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, according to UN Security Council Resolution 425. After Israeli troops left Lebanon soil, UN announced the resolution was respected. However after its creation the line is often violated by both sides.[5]
George, I guess this is the discussed wording, I have no problem dropping original first and last sentences out. However UN clarification that the line is not a border is crucial, imho. It is still two sentences though. Better ideas? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Those sentences are sourced, and factual, but I still don't see what they have to do with the Golan Heights. They read like sentences that belong in the article on the Blue Line itself, to me anyways. ← George talk 01:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
We discuss Lebanese dispute widely. We also discuss UN resolutions. Would not it be neutral to bring UN view on this resolution, while noting that even UN admit they are confused where exactly border is. Maybe it could fit in Shebaa section? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I actually don't think we should discuss the Lebanese dispute widely in this article, as it's a fairly minor point relative to the Golan Heights in general. But yes, I think mentioning it in the section about the Shebaa farms makes sense, but it is already mentioned and linked there: "Maps used by the UN in demarcating the Blue Line were not able to conclusively show the border between Lebanon and Syria in the area." If a reader wanted to know more about this blue line, they could just click the link and read the whole article about the blue line itself. Just my thoughts anyways. ← George talk 05:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with scaling down Lebanese issue, while providing links to main articles. Generally maybe discussing UN Security Council Resolutions in the lede might be over politicization, though I'm not sure about it. I guess Shebaa section info-wise, in current form, is missing info about how and when the blue line was established and UN view on Security Council Resolution 425 implementation by Israel. After reading the section text, I'm not sure whether the farms are to the south or to the north of the line, so I have doubts about restoring the map, since this article might be to heavy to load as-is and additionally the line is not a border anyways. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
It appears we have couple of options on how to proceed. SD, do you mind to share your thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Both me and George have already shared our thoughts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ UN
  2. ^ UN.
  3. ^ Atam Parkash Singh Bindra. Suez thrombosis: causes and propects, Vikas Publications, 1969. pg. 75.
  4. ^ Simon Dunstan. urion Vs T-55: Yom Kippur War 1973, Osprey Publishing, 2009. pg. 51. ISBN: 1846033691.
  5. ^ Border problems. Lebanon, UNIFIL and Italian participation by Lucrezia Gwinnett Liguori
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golan_Heights/Archive_11&oldid=1079504412"