Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Recent changes

Jijutsuguy, I object to your changes you made to the infobox, you removed that its internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Both these two facts belongs in the infobox. Per npov undue weight, we should represent the worldview. "The international community maintains that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and without international legal effect" p 23 Or this GA vote about "occupied Syrian Golan", 161-1 [1] "the United States considers the Golan Heights to be occupied territory subject to negotiation and Israeli withdrawal" p. 8. EU: [2]. Arab League:[3] Amnesty International: [4]

The only alternative would be to just state the fact that its "Syrian territory occupied by Israel" and skipping the "internationally recognized as".

And about the International view in the article, you changed "the international community", to "many states". This is not presenting it correctly, "many states" could be 60%. "International community" better represents the facts. See the sources above. You also added "compatible with international law." without adding any new source. You also removed "while Syria doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist." which changes the meaning of the sentence. And that the IC "consider Israel a belligerent occupant of the territory." is important. The sentence here:[5] better represents the situation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ford and Carter

I removed the Jimmy Carter democratic candidate position and "Ford letter" section for several reasons.

Personal views of individual people that aren't from the country the area is part of or the country that occupies it, has no significance or importance to the topic. Carters irrelevant believes are also contradicted by what he says in his book today where he says in: "We can have peace in the Holy Land: a plan that will work" on p 175-176: "Syria's Golan Heights"

Concerning the "Ford letter", Its about a letter that one former US president sent 36 years ago, the claims that it has been renewed by U.S. administrations after are only found in JCPA sources, which are not reliable, and other advocacy websites. And the only thing said is: "would give 'great weight to Israel's position that any peace agreement with Syria must be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights", a Ford letter 36 years ago about "would give 'great weight", does not deserve its own section in this article.

Also this Edgar S. Marshall source has its own section about the official US position: p 27 "United States policy toward the Golan Heights has remained constant since June 1967: first, that the Golan Heights is occupied territory subject to U.N. Resolution 242 and the principle of exchanging territory for peace", "the United States does not recognize Israels 1981 unilateral action annexation of the Golan" There is much more in the source.

And this is the official US position from the Congressional Research Service, from 2002: "the United States considers the Golan Heights to be occupied territory subject to negotiation and Israeli withdrawal" p. 8.

And the US view is one country of 200 countries. It does not deserve its own section. Specially not a section about a 36 year old letter without having today's US position. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

These are not just views of some individual people that aren't from the area. US policy on this matter is arguably important, and opinion of a US president arguably has some influence on the US policy. The statute of limitation does not apply here, especially because much of the article describes events of that time. If these former leaders have changed their position since then, this should be also mentioned. Please restore this notable material. - BorisG (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a source about today's official US policy together with the IC view in the lead. Concerning Carter, why would his view during his presidential candidate be notable for inclusion here? How is that notable? Today's US position is not mentioned separately anywhere in the article, how is a 36 year old Ford letter notable enough to have its own section here without having today's US position? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Ford letter is an important document re-affirmed by each subsequent U.S. administration. You have reverted well-sourced information that is very germane to the subject at hand.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that its "re-affirmed by each subsequent U.S. administration" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading the source before you reverted? Keep it up SD--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the claims that it has been renewed by U.S. administrations after I have only found in JCPA sources, which are not reliable, and other advocacy websites. The JPCA source also does not say "re-affirmed by each subsequent U.S. administration", it says 1991, and 1996. There has been several administrations after this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Translation

Two users have recently changed to placement of the names here:[6][7]

These changes have been made without explanation or discussion. This is a place internationally recognized as in Syria, Syria's official language is Arabic, so that should come before any other. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Biblical occurrences in lead

Biblical occurrences are not history, should not be in lead.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why have you added this then? There is no extra-biblical evidence for this piece of "real history" you have inserted instead. Chesdovi (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats not biblical. [8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes it is. Chesdovi (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How come? The books looks historical. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat hypocritical of you SD to revert information that is amply noted in historical text claiming that it's "biblical" but at the same time inserting information about the ancient amorites claiming that's "historical."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The information I removed from the lead said: "During the biblical era", do you have source that its noted in historical texts? I have not added information about ancient Amorites to the lead. I have added about Arameans, I don't see anything in the source I linked to that implys that its not historical but biblical. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The bible is a historical text. That book relys on it. There is no reason why such material can not be put in the lead. Abraham is mentioned in the lead of Hebron, so the Tribe of Menashe can be mentioned here. Chesdovi (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the bible is not a historical text, its religion, you know better then that. The text in the book that I brought is about The Iron age in the southern Levant. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bible documents historical events, like the wars between King David and the Arameans to the north of his Kingdom. There are no accounts of the Arameans residing in this are or of Arameans themselves besides from in the Bibile. And that's where that book sourcs its infomation. Chesdovi (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bible may contain real historical events, but we cant take whats in the bible and present it as history, it it were real events there would be other sources. This is a source that talks about the Iron age in the southern Levant. The same section talks about water systems on p 379: "a large reservoir has been cleared at Hesban that was certainly in use during Iron". It also talks about an Aramaic inscription found at Dan on the same page. On p 377, there is text where he mentions the bible and it is specifically attributed to it: "according to the bible" "official cult was sanctioned only in Jerusalem". Later he also talks about "small cult rooms or shrines have been identified at...." and tombs found. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a misguided discussion. The Bible does contain history, but as such it is a primary source. We rely on archeologists and historians to use the bible, and other primary sources, to construct historical narratives in secondary and tertiary sources. Those are the sources we can use in our entries. The Bible can only be directly used as a source on its own contents, and not on history. So if a historical work uses the bible as a primary source that's not a problem, but if we do that is a problem. That's the long and short of it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that's exactly what this book does. There is no external evidence of King David, yet his kingdom is mentioned on the same page. Same with Arameans. The book sources the Bible, and since it documents biblical events, we can use it. So I will be re-adding Menashe. Chesdovi (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to have the bible in the lead, then all of it should be there, so I added some more information how Israelites got there. Also the source says: Arameans controlled "Most of", so "majority" is better then "parts". Also where did you get the "9th century BC" and "13th century BC" from? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I had the same dating question. I checked these sources out after commenting here, and I did not find those dates in there.Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

SD, these edits are a WP:POINT violation. You had the right idea above when you argued against including the Bible as a primary source, now you appear to be editing in direct opposition to your beliefs to prove a point. Please revert yourself. This is not the way forward. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I said that the bible does not belong in the lead, but Chesdovi re added instances from the bible to the lead, so although I don't think it belongs there, we shouldn't cherry pick from the bible, if one part of it must be there, then all of it should be there to be balanced and neutral.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

SD, I have no desire to pick a fight. I'm telling you this because I'm hoping its helpful. You ought to read over WP:POINT, because what you describe is textbook. Chesdovi didn't source his addition to the Bible, but to a secondary source, as you did with your other addition. Perhaps there is a difference between what you added and he added still. OK, then discuss it here, don't add material you clearly think doesn't belong to prove a point. I wont say this again, and frankly I can see that its better if I high-tale it out of this talk page for good, but you would do well to take my advice on this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The secondary source he added does not say that "the Israelite tribe of Manasseh inhabited the region during the 13th century BC" as not being from the bible, but history. I didn't ad it to prove a point, I added it because I don't want to pick a fight (edit war), and remove it, so if it must be in, then it should at least not be cherry picked, but balanced and neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Suit yourself. You either don't get it or something else is going on, but I wont continue this discussion.Griswaldo (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Okey so if we remove the Amorite part of the bible from the lead, and only keep the Manasseh part. How would this be better for the article when that would be cherry picking? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

SD, you would do well to read, ponder and absorb Griswaldo's first comment here. You have added the Bible as a primary source. I spent a while trying to find a suitable source regarding the occupation of the Israelite tribe on the Golan. If you want to add other biblical info about the Amorties, you have find a suitable source too. Chesdovi (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Bible can only be directly used as a source on its own contents, and not on history." and thats exactly what I have done. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That I understood means on articles about the Bible itself. Chesdovi (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what difference it makes as I have presented it as from the bible. But since you want other sources there are several others: Here is a priest on p 64 [9], here is another source on p 181 [10], is this what you want? And are you also going to reply to where you got the 13 and 9 BC from? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would discount both as unsuitable. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How come? The book by the priest for example, a priest should be more knowledgeable then any other in the subject. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So can I add stuff aswell from biblical scholars? Chesdovi (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is that we have two sources speaking about what the bible says, and anyone can see that what they are saying is in the bible, how are both of then unsuitable? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. In articles where a rendering of the bible's contents is appropriate. This would not be such an article.Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

georeferenced image illustrating the topography

The SRTM was flown on an 11-day mission of the Space Shuttle Endeavour in February of 2000.

I've just stumbled upon a properly licensed shaded relief image illustrating the topography in talk archives. I'm bold with it in infobox, let's see if it sticks. Since this image includes geographic coordinates Template Location map could be crafted and used for pushpin_map Infobox field in this and other GH articles. Elevation data is from NASA. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The new map is a bit off in that it never labels which part is the golan heights and instead, in small light pink print, labels it a disputed area. The map also draws an international border line between the golan heights ans Syria as if they were different nations, and the border line is missing between Israel and the golan heights. To me this looks like this image is clearly pro-Israeli ownership of the golan heights and anti-Syrian. Passionless -Talk 22:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove the original CIA map:[11] This CIA map:[12] showed basically the same thing as the previous, following the international view. So I guess this was why no one objected to it. This map was later reverted back to the modified CIA map that had no consensus by a user who did not give one single new argument for replacing it with the modified one:[13]. So the original unedited CIA map should be re added as no new consensus has been established to replace it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Love it. "Disputed area" is perfect. It functions as Israel (so it could be labeled "Israel") but it might be so illegally (which could lead to it being Syrian) So "Disputed area". Great balance since it leaves the info box out of settling a long going intl dispute while keeping it as a summary. Plus topography is always good, IMO, but that is by far the least of my worries. This map embodies what we should be striving for as editors.Cptnono (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It has inaccurate borders, showing the ceasefire line as a "border" and not showing the border as a ceasefire line. This is basically showing that the area is "a part of" Israel, which is something rejected by the international community. The map is not representing the view of the international community as the two unedited CIA maps does:[14][15]. The lines are also incorrect, see the real DMZ in this other map: [16], the map you want to use doesn't even point out the DMZs, it doesn't show the Israeli settlements, it doesn't show any villages, its much less detailed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The map is very much pro-israeli, I was only waiting to revert its addition as POV pushing until the one who added it responded. Passionless -Talk 09:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention it earlier, because it is a minor issue if you ask me, but since this question was raised, according to the image summary description borders, cities, and geographic features date used is by The Natural Earth. I'm not an expert in political issues, so I'm not going to express any opinion if borders are in fact drawn in the right place. My suggestion would be to evaluate neutrality using npov noticebord review. Back to the point of content, with the help of help desk we have Template:Location_map_Golan_Heights. I was bold with it on couple of GH articles, let's see if it sticks. I'm discussing this here, since I do not want to fragment this discussion to each instance of GH article and suggest to see it as "centralized" discussion for template location map. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

First, bring up all the points of why the map you want to use, is better then the other maps, whether its the CIA or the location map. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see I already addressed it above, I like this image, because:

1. It is properly licensed shaded relief image illustrating the topography
2. This image includes geographic coordinates Template Location map was crafted and could used for pushpin_map Infobox field in this and other GH articles. This would allow us to use two images in the infobox: one for overview and another for location.
3. I love the technology used for gathering Elevation data by NASA; topography is important for region which is geographically a plateau. Hope it answers your question SD. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning this article: The original CIA map also shows the topography:[17]. You have not addressed any of the inaccuracy border/ceasefire line issues, pov issues and lack of settlements/villages and DMZ that I have brought up above about the image you want to use. Concerning the pushpin map: it has the pov and inaccurate border/ceasefire line issues. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that anyone claims that CIA map is defective in any way. And I already noted at point #2 that currently two infobox images could be used. Anyway, here is link for neutrality discussions, thank you for responding there, SD. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

For Golan heights I would not be opposed to having both a Syria map and the Golan Heights pin map. It has its use.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to second what other editors have already pointed out: By drawing a border of the same colour as other international borders also shown, the map do endorse the Israeli POV that the Golan Heights is part of Israel and ignores other POVs. Thus, it is in violation of [WP:NPOV]. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

On my monitor the borders and the ceasefire line appear in different colors. Perhaps we can adjust the image colors to prevent confusion, being presented on low-end hardware. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The colour difference is real. It is not related to choise of monitor. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused a bit. Could you elaborate, please? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What part was confusing? --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you intend to write that on your "monitor the borders and the ceasefire line do not appear in different colors" (bolded text added by me)? --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha, seems I have managed to confuse not only myself. Back to square one: if the ceasefire lines and the borders are in different colors, what's wrong with the map? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The map shows a border between Israel and Syria, but with Golan Heights within Israel. It should not show such a border, as that is an endorsement of one POV (the Israeli). Furthermore, it is also a minority POV, as very few countries recognise the Israeli annexation of said territory. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. Let's get into some details, may be we can figure out something positive here. There are three kinds of lines on this map:

1. Black lines for borders
2. Red lines for disputed borders or whatever
3. Brown line for occupied territory (that to my assumption has been mistakenly taken for black)

Is it the right and NPOV marking? If not, what the right marking is? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Its not only the colors of the lines that are pov, the image have other problems as brought up above, even if the colors are fixed, these issues will still not be taken care of. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Red lines are for UN disengagement borders, 'brown' lines are just where the black and red lines are mixed together. Now, if the lines where drawn NPOV there would be a line between israel and the golan heights as most of the world thinks that the golan heights are not a part of israel. Also the map kinda sucks in that the golan heights are never even labelled and that the font is harder than average to read. Also 'disputed area' seems to me like POV pushing like when creationist say that evolution is a 'disputed theory' because only 99.9% of scientist agree with it, disputed is being used to give the idea there is a large dispute when really it is only israel vs the world. The previous map was great, why change it.Passionless -Talk 20:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO this map is more convenient for the reader (in the means of getting better idea in lesser time of what and where Golan is) because:

1. it shows more vicinity
2. it is less crowded with all these unimportant villages
3. topography really shown

If you guys can tell what color goes where I'll repaint the borders. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and let me add the maps here, hopefully to save extra clicks to us all:

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I see now. The disputed line is drawn with a third 'colour' in addition to the red and black ones. That was definitely not easy to see. I had actually looked at both the standard size version and the full size version without noticing this subtle difference. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

ElComandanteChe, that's not the original CIA map, this is the original CIA map that was never agreed to be replaced: [18] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain the dif SD, I don't see it immediately.Passionless -Talk 21:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The placement of the word "Syria". --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see now, lol. Not sure what to say about that. Though it also does label the golan heights as israeli occupied which is good. Passionless -Talk 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Topography is about equal in both images, and the villages are important when one is trying to figure out exactly where villages/the borders in comparison to villages lie. (There are many times I need to look up if vilages in the news/wikipedia are in israel/west bank/gaza/golan heights due to people deleting information as a form of POV pushing.) Passionless -Talk 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The current map isn't good. It doesn't state where the Golan Heights are. Instead, the reader must know that the words "disputed area" refers to the Golan. TFighterPilot (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, these are good points. Not sure about the villages - from one point it is important indeed, from other - absolutely useless at 300px resolution. Topography is ways better on the new map, sorry :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course its not useless, people can click on it and look closer, see the villages, settlements, DMZs, roads and other details, all missing in this map:[19] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the villages inhibit the image at 300px either. And I guess I could care less about topography...there are some mountains, some sand, little bit of water, whatever, . Passionless -Talk 21:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit that being a military history fun (a common psychosis among nerds) I like to see terrain maps, where it's relevant. For example, I was quite pissed to be unable to find a proper map of Pinsk Marshes - a terrain that has a notable impact on Operation Barbarossa. Golan is so notable because of its military importance, which is defined by its topography. (I'm not arguing, I just want you to understand my considerations.) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The areas topography is more detailed in the CIA map then in this one: [20] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well if the map is re-wrote to remove the POV pushing that I among others have described above, it can be added to commons where many excess photos are placed. Passionless -Talk 22:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh thank you )))) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"It doesn't state where the Golan Heights are". Yes it does. It is in a "disputed area". Saying anything else is against the guidelines for infoboxes. It is part of Israel. This is more than likely illegal. The dispute is too long for an infobox. However, the map not laying out the political details but showing where in the world it is and what the topograph is is exactly what an infobox is for. Of course, no map is still my preferred option since any other version (except maybe for this one) leads the reader to editor's POV. The infobox is supposed to be an easy summary and not long details. It certainly should not be POV but that is actually the base of the problem but not the real issue to someone not familiar with Wikipedia's P-I conflict. Cptnono (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So you like this map because it shows where the golan heights are in the world even though it is not labeled and is only a little more zoomed out than the other maps, it has a little better topography, and pushes the POV that you agree with that the GH are a part of Israel. Since the opinion that the GH are in Israel is a minority opinion it would be WP:UNDUE to have the article's map represent that opinion. Plus the removal of the villages is detrimental and people should be able to locate it since the four bordering nations are all labelled on the original map, seeing Palestine and an unlabelled Mediterranean doesn't help much. Passionless -Talk 07:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"So you like this map because it shows where the golan heights are in the world even though it is not labeled and is only a little more zoomed out than the other maps, [and] it has a little better topography, and pushes the POV that you agree with that the GH are a part of Israel [and does not assist either POV.]" is more like it. Also, do not comment on the contributor since I have been in trouble for it and love seeing others do it. Also, please reread my comments above where I mention the purpose of the infobox and their lack of ability (based on design) to explain complex situations. Thanks. Cptnono (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, how's about adding a new set of lines to describe the geographical borders of the Golan Heights (including the parts which under Lebanese and Syria control) and adding a map legend bellow the image? TFighterPilot (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The map clearly gives the impression that the golan heights are a part of Israel, an idea rejected by most of the world thus can't be used due to WP:UNDUE. No complaints have been made about the previous map, either version. Besides the incorrect borders on the map, the labels for the Golan Heights, Palestine, and the Mediterranean Sea are missing. The lack of information on roads, villages, and landmarks certainly does not benefit the map. I suggest that the map is fixed and placed with the other not so good maps in the commons. I think all editors here but Cptnono and possibly AgadaUrbanit would be happy with that. Passionless -Talk 08:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This edited map:[21] is still not neutral, as it puts Israel in the same position as Syria, something that is not the case. The original CIA map [22] presents the situation according to the international view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate community input. I'm going to restore the topography image per following rational, I'd appreciate Passionless's patience, while the discussion is ongoing. I'd like to remind people that neutrality of the map is being reviewed, per request of number of editors who are concerned about underrepresentation of Syrian POV, anyone is welcome to contribute there. Wikipedia is neutral and does not take sides. I'm somehow surprised by some analysis of lines meaning drawn without any map legend. As a reminder, we do have a verbose political map in the article, maybe it could be used as one of two vacant infobox images? In addition there were remarks generally about design, I've contacted the image contributer their input would be very welcome here. See their map gallery for more samples. There are strong feelings on all sides and their perspective would be helpful. I'd like to remind everyone that there is a genuine consensus on this talk page and in the world generally that the map describes Syrian territory occupied by Israel. I'm not concerned this way or other, but I would not object changes in the image that would make the point that the Golan Height is Syrian even more clear, but again the article generally is consistent on this point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You do not have any consensus to ad the map you added, the consensus has not been changed for the original unedited CIA map. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The topography image makes it appear as though Lebanon and Jordan are as much a party to the territorial dispute around the Golan as are Israel and Syria. I say keep the earlier political map – it's a political dispute, after all –, paint Lebanon and Jordan a dull gray color, and indicate that the Golan is at the center of an Israeli-Syrian dispute by means of diagonal strips whose colors alternate between the color assigned to Israel and the color assigned to Syria. It's less confusing than it sounds.—Biosketch (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points by Biosketch, Jordan is not part of dispute, though I would not draw any conclusion about dispute participants from the topography image. We talk in the body of the article about Lebanon participation in GH dispute, see Territorial sub-disputes, there is an issue, per provided sources, among them UN, of the territory, known as the Shebaa Farms, measuring 22 square kilometres (8.5 sq mi) and in addition there is a complex issue of the Al Ghajar village, west of Shebaa farms. We're probably too sloppy to not mention this in the infobox wording, appears as underrepresentation of Lebanon POV on this issue. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@Biosketch, I understand what you mean, but to draw it as to split ownership between Israel and Syria (plus a little to Lebanon) would be to give way too much weight to the minority opinion that the GHs are Israeli territory per UNDUE. I don't think it is possible to show both the minor opinion without ruining the map, just like how the Earth picture is 100% round and no flat image is given or mixed in with the majorly held thought. The original map *posted furthest right above* however does make it clear that the territory is widely thought to be Syrian territory held occupation by Israel. Passionless -Talk 20:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Passionless, there is a genuine consensus on this talk page and in the world generally that the map describes Syrian territory occupied by Israel. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I clarified exactly which map I meant. The map that you added AgadaUrbanit *posted furthest left above* states that the GH are a part of Israel and not Syrian territory. Even if is says disputed territory, the map is clearly pro-israeli, thus breaks NPOV. Passionless -Talk 21:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the NPOV consensus isn't being disputed here. The question is how best to represent the political reality visually to the article's reader, since the political context is what the Golan Heights are most frequently grounded in. Representing the Golan as intermediate between Israel and Syria doesn't necessarily imply that the international community is split as to the territory's underlying political identity; rather, the map should make it clear that Israel and Syria are the two parties claiming the territory as theirs. (Whatever claim Lebanon has to the territory, regardless of the international community's stance in that regard, is comparatively minor.) The topographic map is nice with its elevation shading and all, but it doesn't clearly reflect the reality that the Golan is at the center of a dispute between two parties, Israel and Syria. That aim would be better served by displaying a political map highlighting the Golan as being at the center of an Israeli-Syrian dispute. Painting diagonal stripes of alternating colors – say blue for Israel and red or black for Syria – would convey the political reality that the Golan is a politically disputed territory. It's a matter of what message the image wants to emphasize: the fact that the international community recognizes the Golan as Syrian territory, or the fact that Israel and Syria both claim it as theirs. Isn't the second consideration more important?—Biosketch (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Biosketsch, what is the problem with this map? [23] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Supreme_Deliciousness, the answer should be obvious from my post above. (WP:TLDR?) The map you're asking about has the same potential to mislead readers that the topographical map has. In both cases, Lebanon and Jordan are made to appear as sharing the same status vis-a-vis the Golan as Israel and Syria. Our goal should be a map highlighting the fact that the dispute is between Israel and Syria. (Then again, looking for example at Kashmir, it's impossible at first glance to make sense of what's going on there, so perhaps I'm demanding a higher standard of clarity than is the norm for Wikipedia.)—Biosketch (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't put Lebanon and Jordan in the same position as Syria and Israel, the name "Syria" is on the GH, this represents the international recognition, and the name "Israeli occupied" is also on the area, showing that Israel occupies it. The ceasefire line is also slightly thinner then the international border.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@Biosketch, The map is not a stand alone article, it is there for various purposes but it does not need to explain everything which is why there is text which clarifies everything. The important thing is that the map does not serve a minority POV instead of what is accepted by most of the world. And to your 2nd last post, I think the colouring has much more ability to confuse people than does the text in the furthest right CIA map, which clearly states the GH are Syrian territory and occupied by Israel. Passionless -Talk 00:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, the point the two of you are trying to advance is clear. I mean, you go to Kashmir and, like I said, it's impossible to figure anything out just by looking at the map. You go to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus or the Falkland Islands and there they're just generic maps – blank, without names of anything. That being said, the problem I still have with the maps being proposed here is that I find them cognitively difficult to process – not as bad as the Kashmir mess, but that might just be because I'm more familiar with the Golan's history than I am with Kashmir's. As for which of the three maps is best, I have to say the "far right" one (on my laptop the "far right" one is actually on the left in the second row) is the most confusing, because of the overlap of "Israel occupied" and "Syria." I understand the word "Syria" was centered in the image for aesthetic reasons, but it's still confusing because it's half in the gray and half in the white. User:Passionless is right that the map doesn't need to explain everything. Best then would be to go with the one that's the least confusing. I withdraw my earlier opposition to the topographical map; it now seems to me the cleanest and least confusing of the three.—Biosketch (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The topographic one may be simple, but the problem is that it is a map designed to support a minority POV. It goes against the majority of the world, and thus goes against NPOV and UNDUE, and should not be presented as fact. The overlap I think is quite straight forward in that it shows the GH is Syrian territory but does remind people that Israel is occuping the territory, and the reason it is white is to make the GH distinct from surrounding territory, as the article is only about the GH. Passionless -Talk 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

How the topographic map currently stands is the equivalent of if the Falkland Islands' map was changed to show the whole of Argentina highlighted along with the islands. But, because the argentinan claim is a minority POV, the map is not like that, and rather shows the Islands' by themselves. Passionless -Talk 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if it's a majority POV (how can you say that for a fact?), it's still a POV. A map that has Syria written on the border is clearly pushing that POV while a map that has neither Israel nor Syria written there and instead just Golan is not pushing any POV whatsoever. No POV is always better than majority POV when it's possible. TFighterPilot (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several sources within the article that shows that its internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel, (see references currently at number 13) that is exactly what the unedited CIA map shows. According to Wikipedia policy npov: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." [24]. At many articles at Wikipedia we say that city's such as Haifa etc are located in Israel, but according to about 20 countries, the area is called Palestine. so how come "we take side" in those articles? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Even if it's a majority POV (how can you say that for a fact?), it's still a POV. A map that has Syria written on the border is clearly pushing that POV while a map that has neither Israel nor Syria written there and instead just Golan is not pushing any POV whatsoever. No POV is always better than majority POV when it's possible." (-TFP)Cptnono (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And based on that reasoning, we have about 20 times as much reason to go to the Haifa article and remove that its located in Israel. The edited CIA map puts Israel in the same position as Syria which is not the international view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to look at the map in the Haifa article. You'll see that it doesn't have the word Israel written anywhere on it. I don't see how your example is relevant. TFighterPilot (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Its a location map of Israel, and it says in the first line of the article that its located in Israel. We are therefor, as you said: - "pushing that POV". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:TFighterPilot articulates another valid argument in favor of using the topographical map, in addition to the argument put forth by User:Passionless that the map "does not need to explain everything which is why there is text which clarifies everything." Basically there are two advantages to using the topographical map now rather than the overtly political one. 1. The topographical map is visually clean and cognitively easy to process (similar to the generic maps at Northern Cyprus and the Falkland Islands). 2. The topographical map avoids embracing any POV and as such qualifies as WP:NPOV par excellence (which, after all, is just what we want).—Biosketch (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The CIA map shows more detailed topography then the one Agada brought, so you shouldn't call Agadas map "the topographical map". The fact that the map you want is "visually clean" is not an advantage as important information is not shown in the map, that Israel occupies it, that its internationally regarded a part of Syria, the location of the settlements, the location of the villages, the roads, the DMZs. All these are very important facts for the reader. You have also not addressed the issues that the map Agada brought shows it as being part of Israel trough the colors, so how does it "qualify as WP:NPOV"? It has inaccurate ceasefire/border lines, both in placement and in colors. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's a question of what we want the image to stress more, the geographic context or the political one. Initially I was of the opinion that the political context is integral to any visual representation of the Golan Heights. However, after seeing the chaos of the political map at Kashmir, I much prefer the simplified geographic maps at Northern Cyprus and the Falkland Islands. User:AgadaUrbanit's map avoids the political confusion by making the reader's geographic orientation the foremost consideration. Now, User:Supreme Deliciousness has a couple of compelling counterarguments in his favor as well, which do need to be addressed. Firstly, if the boundaries on the topographical map aren't drawn right, then there's no question it's a bad map and, at least until such time as the boundaries can be redrawn accurately, we need to revert to the more accurate map, it's other problems notwithstanding. Secondly, the topographical map doesn't say "Golan Heights" anywhere, which is rather bizarre, given that we're trying to orient the reader's geographic context. But as to User:Supreme Deliciousness' claim that the CIA maps have more detailed terrain data, I frankly don't see that at all. To recap for now: 1. If the topographical map is sloppy, scratch it for now and revert to the CIA map. 2. The topographical map doesn't say "Golan Heights." That's another reason to scratch it and prefer the CIA map. 3. On the other hand, the geographic context should take precedence over the political context, following the example of Northern Cyprus and the Falkland Islands, which is a reason to favor the topographical map. 4. And finally, the topographical map steers clear of potential POV pitfalls by treating the Golan Heights as a discrete geographical entity.—Biosketch (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The CIA map shows both geography and political. Not the same thing as Falkland Islands and northern Cyprus are neither regarded as integral parts of the United Kingdom or Turkey by the international community. The unedited CIA map represents the international view and shows who occupies it today. The GH is also not a "discrete geographical entity", so to present it as such would be inaccurate and not in accordance with the views of the international community. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

SD, this discussion is about the map, not the article. Making articles related to Israel NPOV is nearly impossible. However, making the map devoid of any POV, in this case, is very much possible. The whole controversy around the ownership of the Golan should be in the article, not on the map and preferably not on the infobox either. TFighterPilot (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

So why do we have a location map of Israel in the Haifa article and all other articles about places in Israel? Why doesn't they instead have a map of the area with the text "disputed territory" on it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that the map should have "Disputed territory" written on it. I actually said that this text should be replaced simply with "Golan Heights" which carries no POV whatsoever, just like the map in Haifa's article only has Haifa written on it. Enough with the Strawmanning TFighterPilot (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Okey I thought you wanted this map: [25]. Must have confused you with Biosketch. Biosketch also said above: "User:TFighterPilot articulates another valid argument in favor of using the topographical map", which might have got me to think you wanted it. The map in the Haifa article is a location map for Israel. Concerning content of the articles for places in Israel, for example in the Haifa article, it says that its located in Israel in the first line of the article. If it instead said: "Haifa is a city in Mount Carmel next to the Mediterranean coast" (or something like this), without mentioning any country, this way we wouldn't have the majority or minority POV either.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Again with the straw man. I didn't say anything about either article, only about the maps (the topic of the discussion). The articles themselves cannot and will never be NPOV. Who said it's a map of Israel? Maybe it's a map of the mystical kingdom of Palestine. Your claim that it's a map of Israel comes from your knowledge, not from the map. That's the point. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you only said about the map, I'm only trying to present this other situation for you about basically the same thing. If its to be done to maps, then it can also be done to text in articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well? Is anyone going to edit the map so the label "Golan Heights" at least appears somewhere on it? For all its flaws, the CIA map at least indicates the region the article's about. The topographical map just says "Disputed Area." That's too vague.—Biosketch (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to put the CIA map back, but it was reverted, somehow statusquo got switched around, feel free to re-add the CIA map, I would but I'm on sanctions. Passionless -Talk 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough people have disagreed with inclusion that reverting will be continuing the edit war. How about trying to edit it? Anyone familiar enough with images to add "Golan Heights" onto the map? Also, the name of the article, infobox heading, caption, and so on should make it clear but I could see reasoning to make it clearer. The balance and POV issues outweight the argument that ti is not clear enough in my opinion.Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above you would see that the issues with Agadas map is not just to ad "Golan heights" on the area, there are many other things that I would not think would even be possible to edit on this map, and there is no reason either, when we have the CIA map.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No consensus over which map to use means no map in the infobox doesn't it ? And yet there is a map in the infobox. Something is wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Where was there consensus to remove the original unedited CIA map? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the original CIA map. This conversation started when AgadaUrbanit added a new map which he thought had better topography, but his new map draws the GH as part of Israel which is an idea rejected by every nation but Israel, with everyone else stating that the territory is Syrian. The conversation continues on because some people agree with the POV pushing the map makes, while others like the topography better and are hoping someone just edits out the POV pushing, but it seems no one here knows how to edit maps, and some others are confused about neutrality-incorrectly thinking that both sides, Israel and the world should be given equal weight, when NPOV and UNDUE are actually about representing the majorly held idea. Eitherway the current map needs to go per NPOV, UNDUE and STATUSQUO, but I am unable to make reverts currently. QQ Passionless -Talk 06:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary. I read the whole thread but periodic summaries are useful. For what it's worth, my view is that there are policy based reasons to exclude the topographic map (which I like) for the time being until the issues are resolved but there are not policy based reasons to exclude either of the CIA maps. Editor opinion head counts don't change that. Consensus is secondary to policy compliance everytime. Having no map for the time being while discussions continue is better than having a map that doesn't comply with mandatory policy. In other words, no information is better than incorrect information. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, policy is more important than consensus, but since the CIA map does not conflict with policy, why not keep the CIA map up during the discussion/fixing of the topographic map? Passionless -Talk 07:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Arguments on policy is consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you will be prevented from doing that despite there being no policy based reason not to use either of the CIA maps right now. I've seen objections in this discussion and previous discussions but I haven't seen any policy based objections. That's presumably because there aren't any policy based reasons to object to the CIA map. It's fine, it comes from an RS and it fully complies with policy. If everyone could agree to only make arguments and edits based on the policies of this project the issue would be sorted out in no time, there would be an informative policy compliant map in the infobox and people could work on the topo map in the meantime to see if they can make it better than the CIA map or something that could be used in addition to the CIA map. Unfortuately that doesn't seem to be possible. Having nothing in the infobox for now means that editors don't need to spend their time dealing with spurious objections to the CIA map and can do something more productive. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe there still is consensus for the original unedited CIA map, and the only way to overturn it is to establish a new consensus, and I haven't seen one, so the original CIA map should be returned, as it was removed disregarding consensus building on the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agada made a bold edit here replacing the CIA map.
• It was reverted by Passionless here citing "reverting map in line with talk; many editors believe the map violates NPOV, if the map is edited for correctness it might be re-added". That is a valid revert. Discussion should follow and it did.
• Agada reverted that revert here citing "rv, see talk for rationale". There is, in my view, no policy or guideline based rationale for that edit and I think Agada should self revert. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just did. As I've got older I've realised that I actually know very little about anything and what I thought I knew often turns out to be wrong but I tend to not let that stand in my way of contributing to Wikipedia. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and that was the edited CIA map, there was never any new consensus reached for it to replace the unedited CIA map, its the unedited that should be restored until a new consensus is reached. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

When the original CIA map was replaced with the edited one? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoever replaced the the image left old description. Currently after my self revert it is from previous unedited CIA image: File:Golan Heights and vicinity, October 1994.png. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, SD. There may not have been consensus to remove but it looks to me that consensus now leans that it was problematic. Editors have met the issues by moving the Syria label over. If you insist that Syria must be labeled over the Golan Heights then you should expect some roadblocks. I think the most recent solution is good enough. You should be happy unless your only intent with the map is to show that it is in Syria. If that is your intent, enough editors have spoken against it that I believe you are misreading consensus. Do you have any other issues or am I misreading your statements? Cptnono (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is the consensus that it was problematic? Some people thought it was problematic, some people didn't, some people thought the edited was problematic, some people wanted the unedited, some people wanted the edited: [26], where is the consensus to change the unedited with the edited? Consensus is also not the number of "editors have spoken against it". I believe the map should represent the international view. Enough arguments have been provided that shows that the edited is not following npov and is problematic. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what? ))) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is sample infobox from Majdal Shams, for visual clarity. Two images featured, using: :image_skyline = MajdalShamsMay2009.jpg

pushpin_map = Golan Heights

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

See also that they are following the international view in the infobox at the Cyprus article by having a map showing entire Cyprus:[27]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion edit

I have in this edit made a suggestion:[28] the map in the infobox has been replaced with a geographical map showing where the area is located. It does not show any details or politics. And I have replaced one of the images in the Geography section with the unedited CIA map showing the details and politics. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. One question, though – what map was in the Geography section before your edit?—Biosketch (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no map there, it was a picture of a water stream.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that might be a problem.—Biosketch (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

But you have again inserted a map that others take issue with. We d not need to label it as Syria in the map. The lead image is fine, though. I think it would be better if it showed where in the world it was like the Falkland's but we got what we got. Anyways, I am removing the second map you included. This is based on 1 half BRD and 1 half not throwing out the baby. That second map is still a problem. To not have any problem you can simply use the version that does not have Syria plastered on top of the area. Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"others take issue with" is not a policy based reason. The discussions have been about the map in the infobox. Some people did not want a political map in the infobox. There is no reason why a map showing its politics (and geography other details) cant be elsewhere in the article. It is not us that is labeling it as Syria on the map, its the CIA that did that according to the international view. There was never any agreement in the first place to remove it from the infobox. The edited CIA map you want does not show its politics, it misrepresents it. This was a compromise to have the real CIA map (including showing its politics) somewhere else.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use the original CIA map as the infobox image? I have yet to hear any reasons why we don't besides a WP:IDONTLIKE. Passionless -Talk 04:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The you have not read the discussion. Please reread the discussion if you want to provide anything more than a completely misrepresenting and humorously canned answer.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There was never any consensus to remove the original CIA map.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read it all, please enlighten me with quotes where policy has been raised to show the CIA map is unacceptable. Passionless -Talk 06:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A discussion roughly paralleling this one was going on for a while here:[29]. A number of editors, myself included, felt that, while a valid representation of the political context of the Golan Heights, the CIA map was not appropriate for display in the article's infobox.—Biosketch (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not ad it to the infobox now, I added it to another section of the article, to show the regions geography, other details and politics. This was a compromise. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The satellite map you added to the infobox is fine with everyone, and I also think it was an admirable move on your part as it demonstrated forbearance. User:Sean.hoyland suggested having no infobox image while arguments for and against it were still being debated, and that made sense – but having no infobox image would have been sad for the page, so posting the satellite map was an innovative way of bringing a potentially unending controversy to a swift resolution.

Now that the question of the infobox image is out of the way, though, the focus has shifted to the image that belongs in the Geography section. User:Sean.hoyland has suggested placing the CIA map in the Current status section (section 4.5), presumably because of its overtly political features. That is a sensible solution, in my opinion. In principle I have no beef with the CIA map, as it does illustrate the prevailing attitude toward the Golan Heights territorial dispute among the international community. I do, however, have reservations about using it at the top of the Geography section. It would be nice if a super-detailed relief map could be obtained for this section, or an animated surface temperature map, or something in a similar vain that doesn't push politics in where they don't belong but rather illustrates some of the geographical features that the accompanying text recounts.—Biosketch (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The map shows the topography/geography of the region, where the settlements, villages, roads, water streams, ceasefire lines and international borders are located. This is part of geography, see also that the CIA map is in the geography section in the Northern Ireland article:[30]. The map also shows the view of the international community that its Syrian territory occupied by Israel. A map showing the IC view is something that deserves to be high up in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of a more appropriate map for the Geography section – like I proposed, something strictly topographical or climate-related, that isn't politically motivated – the CIA map can remain as far as I'm concerned. However, should one become available, a map that's purely geographical will make a more meaningful contribution to the section and would therefore be preferable.—Biosketch (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The map is appropriate for the section as it is a geographical map and shows different kinds of geography details. And its less politically motivated then saying "Haifa is in Israel" is politically motivated. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, saying "Haifa is in Israel" is making a political observation. Saying "The average high temperature in Haifa in August is X degrees" or "Haifa is situated on the X tectonic shelf" or "Haifa gets X inches of rain in a typical year," on the other hand, is making a geographical observation.—Biosketch (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

post-1981 settlement construction

Fourth paragraph says,

Israel began constructing settlements in the remainder of the territory it held which was governed under military administration until 1981 when Israel passed the Golan Heights Law, which extended Israeli law and administration throughout the territory.

However, the MFA source does not say anything about Israel constructing settlements. The question is: is there a source to back the claim that Israel, i.e. the Israeli government, constructed settlements in the Golan? If not, it may be that Israel countenanced the construction of settlements while the ones who actually constructed them were private developers. I'm tagging the first part of the sentence with to give other editors (including myself) time to resolve the matter before having to actually edit the text.

References

—Biosketch (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no difference whether the settlements were constructed by the Israeli government or private developers. Israel was in control either way and is thus responsible as occupying power. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is no difference, then you will have no problem if I change the text say,

Israel began countenancing settlement construction by private land developers in the remainder of the territory it held, which was governed under military administration until 1981, at which time Israel passed the Golan Heights Law extending Israeli law and administration throughout the territory.

Do other editors object?—Biosketch (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What source says: "by private land developers" ? And it doesn't really matter if it was the Israeli government or private developers. What matters is that Israel settlements were constructed there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a source for the "by private land developers" proposal; it's pure speculation on my part. The point is that there is also, as of yet, no source for the "Israel began constructing" claim that's on the page now. Both User:Frederico1234 ("There is no difference") and User:Supreme Deliciousness ("it doesn't really matter") have implied that the two versions of post-1981 settlement construction are equivalent in their eyes, which would suggest that I may go ahead and replace the current text with what I've proposed, leaving the tag of course until an adequate source can be found. I'll ask again if this is acceptable, in case I've misrepresented anyone's view: Are there any objections to my proposed edit (in bold above)?—Biosketch (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I object based on the reasons above, it could just say "Construction of Israeli settlements began..." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Objection noted; I'll hold off deciding between "by private land developers" and "Israel began constructing" until a source favoring one over the other can be located. Meanwhile, I will perform the edit such that the neutral "Construction of Israeli settlements began..." is the consensus wording and remove the template.—Biosketch (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

pre-1981 settlement construction

Fourth paragraph says,

Construction of Israeli settlements began in the remainder of the territory held by Israel which was governed under military administration until 1981, when Israel passed the Golan Heights Law extending Israeli law and administration throughout the territory.

The paragraph makes it seem as though Israeli settlements in the Golan starting being constructed after the 1981 GH Law. But on the Katzrin page it says,

Modern Katzrin was established in 1977 after the government of Israel decided settling and populating the Golan Heights was of prime importance for Israeli security.

Both statements can't be right, unless there's a nuance to them I'm not picking up on. And unfortunately, neither of the two claims is referenced. Can anyone shed light?—Biosketch (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Afik was established in 1972. It's sourced. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as there are three sources for Afik's establishment in 1972 – one of which is a 1978 document from the United States Congress – the 1981 text on the GH page cannot be considered a historical fact and needs to be removed. But it still isn't clear what's going on here exactly. The GH page says the Yom Kippur War was fought in 1973. Then how could Afik have been established in 1972? Something's still not right.—Biosketch (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Afik was derived from a military/Nahal settlement from 1967 wasn't it ? Maybe this helps. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

1. This tiresome controversy has been raging ever since Israel captured the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (along with the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula) in the 1967 Middle East War. The first settlement was built in the Golan a month later. see here
2. The first Israeli settlement on the Golan was established at July 1967 see here
3. It was on July 15, 1967—just five weeks after the end of the Six-Day War—that Israel quietly established its first settlement in the occupied territories, despite promises to Washington that it had no intention to do so. The settlement was Kibbutz Merom Hagolan near Quneitra on the Golan Heights. see here.
4. Givat Yoav, one of the territory’s first Israeli settlements founded shortly after the Six-Day War. see here
5. In 1968 Israel established its first settlement on the Golan Heights. In the next four years, Israel introduced only about 600 settlers, but after the October 1973 War, that number grew to 1 ,800 in one year and to 7.000 by 1980. see here

So basically we could say, according to the provided sources:

a. Golan was the first territory Israel started to settle

b. Settlement activity started shortly after the Six Days War

Hope it helps, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In other words, Israelis were settling in the Golan Heights well before the 1981 annexation. The article will have to be reworded to accommodate this. There are still conflicting numbers, though. Firstly, User:Sean.hoyland's source lists Afik as having been established in 1967 – presumably as a Nahal outpost, as he suggested. The year given at the Afik article, on the other hand, is 1972. Secondly, User:AgadaAmamit says Merom Golan was the first settlement to materialize in the Golan, in July 1967 (and a kibbutz is not quite the same as a Nahal outpost), but Agada also says that Israel established its first settlement in 1968.—Biosketch (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think 1972 is when Afik became a civilian settlement per this. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Splitting History Section

This has apparently been discussed before (based on link to discussion page in article), but I'm unable to find the previous discussion. The history section has gotten quite long and it seems that it would make sense to split it off into its own article, as is done with many geographies. Any reason not to split history? --Sjsilverman (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The article size is in accordance with policy, if I remember correctly, so there is no reason to split it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you feel you have the energy for it, sure. Expect other editors to frequently challenge your edits, though. Provided you can endure criticism and keep a cool temper when discussions heat up, there shouldn't be any problem.—Biosketch (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea. Although the article may not be too long if content is not considered, recent history dwarfs centuries before Israel was established. Quick (and not perfect) check shows 11,200 bytes between "700,000 and 230,000 BCE" and 1944. The rest of the history section (less than 70 years) is actually 13,600 bytes. The "Aspects of dispute" section functions partially as a "Recent history" section and it is another 7,500 bytes. It is clear that politics and recentism have overtaken the article. The political stuff needs to be moved into sub articles substantially since thousands of years of history is important even if the source are harder to find. That being said, the political dispute is of course important and deserves space. Just not 75% (a made up number but I wouldn't be shocked) of it.Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if other significant aspects of the subject were actually even discussed in the article (like cattle) then the article would probably go over our length standards. Imaging if the fruit industry (not just grapes) was given more than a couple brief mentions with a source. Cptnono (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wolf Blitzer interview with Shimon Peres

There are two RSes claiming that in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer yesterday Shimon Peres indicated that Israel would, under certain conditions, cede the Golan Heights to Syria. At first blush this would seem to be news worthy of adding to the "History: Recent developments" section, which hasn't been updated since 2010. The problem is that there are only two RSes, and neither of them has a direct quote from the president. CNN.com has a 5-minute video of Blitzer's interview, but it doesn't include anything on the Golan. Without an actual quote, I think we need to consider this a case of editorializing on the part of both Arutz Sheva and Foreign Policy.—Biosketch (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Peres isn't the prime minister of Israel, he's only the president. He's opinions are well known, but he represents no one but himself when he say them. Remember that in Israel presidents aren't elected by the people. TFighterPilot (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Towns, villages and settlements

Previously when I changed back this section I had explained the reasons for the revert here, and the issues I brought up were never addressed. I had also made some other changes that were reverted without explanation. So I changed it back to how it was before. The source about the population in the Quneitra gov only says that 79 000 people live there not: "in response to a Syrian government plan, the region has been settled", concerning Quneitra, the UN report showed what happened, and there wasn't a "major controversy". Also removed the Majdal Shams picture now as it doesn't fit in the section. Also removed the "Druze of the Golan Heights" link as it doesn't lead to anything. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Hasmonean map

This map:[31] has different boundaries then the one in the source: History of the Jewish people: the Second Temple era By Hersh Goldwurm, Yekutiel Friedner p 86 [32] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, page 86 isn't included in the link you gave. Do you have any source that actually has the map you speak of? TFighterPilot (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Link works for me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The link works fine, but pages 69-110 are not shown TFighterPilot (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Page 86 is viewable for me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's weird. Is there any other place I can see this map? TFighterPilot (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Different national mirrors of Google books can show different pages sometimes. Try changing books.google.com to books.google.co.uk, books.google.ca, etc.. Incidentally I have seen other variations of this map too. I think the explanation is that all of them are guesses made on the basis of very partial information. Zero^talk 01:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

After trying many extensions, ".ad" finally worked. The maps aren't very different except that the map in the book has the area north of Gaza as part of the kingdom and the one here doesn't. TFighterPilot (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Both show the Hasmonean Kingdom expansion into Golan, but the boundary differences are big, look at the Wikipedia map how much it extends into Syria compared to the map in the book. There are also other differences. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As Zero said, the ancient sources weren't specific enough, so any guess is as good as any other. TFighterPilot (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit

I have begun to copyedit this long-winded article full of repetitions and statements that say nothing. With judicious pruning, it will not need to be broken down as suggested in all the tags that currently deface the article. Much more needs to be done to get it into shape. Instead of adding maps that show nothing and endlessly arguing, year after year. over the same issues, editors should pare down the blah blah and make the text comprehensible.--Geewhiz (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The information from the UN vote that you removed is important and should be in the article as it was. "French control" is also more accurate then "transferred to France", as it wasn't part of France, but only controlled by it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Frommers tourist guide

Frommers tourist guide is not a RS for what happened under the period of Israeli control. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not?Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a tourist guide and not a high quality source for this kind of information. Notice for example that it says "the period of Israeli control in the Golan has been marked by economic development, prosperity, and relatively tranquil relations between the Druze and the Israeli settlers."... but not one single word about the 100,000 Syrians many of them expelled from the area and their villages demolished. This also took place during the period of Israeli control. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

SDW section

The part of the interview were Dayan said the delegation "were thinking about the heights' land" is not even in the article, so there is no need to have the response of it by the kibbutz leader. Also since the lengthy Dayan quote was edit warred out of the article, there is no reason to have a lengthy Golda Meir quote in the same section instead, it can be re added when we re ad the Dayan quote. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

map in infobox

This had been edit-warred out of the article without consensus in the past, but I re-added the CIA map to the infobox. There needs to be a map of the area in the infobox. nableezy - 13:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, "no consensus" is not a valid reason to oppose a change. A section has been opened here. Please explain your revert. I have seen the archived discussion, and despite the no consensus claim now there was never any consensus to remove the map. nableezy - 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not one single policy based argument was provided in the previous discussion to remove the CIA map, to have it in the geography section instead of the infobox is a compromise. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nableezy (talk · contribs)→Firstly, when was the map you added "edit-warred out of the article"? As I remember, there was consensus to replace it with the satellite image. Secondly, there is no Wikipedia policy that says, "There needs to be a map of the area in the infobox." What there is a policy on is editing in a spirit of consensus. The map removed hasn't been replaced with a different POV map, which would just be two wrongs; rather, it has been removed because the discussion at Archive 13 raised opposition to it on the basis of its imposing a particular POV onto the infobox. That is the reason for it's removal. Since you were the one who added the map, WP:BOP is on you to defend its inclusion, and the first message above is insufficient in that regard. Do you disagree that no map is better than a potentially POV map?—Biosketch (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There was never any consensus to remove the CIA map, it doesn't have to be in the infobox, but there was never any consensus to remove it from the article. Not one single policy based argument was provided by anyone for its removal. Those who claimed the map had a "POV" in the infobox where given the option to remove the same kind of "pov" from other articles by removing that Haifa is "in Israel", I don't believe one single person removed that same kind of "POV" from the Haifa article or any other article about locations in Israel, which means that the people who wanted the CIA map removed claiming it was "pov" did not apply the exact same reasoning to other articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont accept the premise that the map is "POV". What sources dispute what the map showed, that being the area is Syrian territory occupied by Israel? That is a super-majority view and should have its place as that. The article itself says that the area is considered Syrian territory occupied by Israel. I fail to see what the "POV" is in the map saying the exact same thing. But please, read WP:BOP. That deals with verifiability. It is easily verifiable that the map you removed is supported by a reliable source, see the map's description for the link to the original. nableezy - 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs).→Like I said at Archive 13, we need to be especially sensitive vis-a-vis the infobox map. Having the map in the geography section is better, but it is not a geographical map in the pure sense of the word. It is a political map, and as such it rightly belongs in the section of the article discussing the area's political aspects. The geography section, ideally, would have a map illustrating the geographical properties of the area, which is what that section of the article discusses. It doesn't discuss how the international community recognizes Syria's claim, etc.; it discusses elevations and geological features.—Biosketch (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The CIA map also shows geography. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of argument let's suppose no sources dispute that the area is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. But then, why not paint it the same color as Israel, seeing as there is no official Syrian presence there? I'll tell you why: because both approaches are points of view, subjective interpretations. Yes, the CIA website whence the map originated is a WP:RS. However, it is a politically-motivated RS. Lonely Planet, which displays the Golan as part of Israel,[33] is also an RS, but its angle is different – it cares more about making sure its readers understand where realpolitik borders are. One could argue that's also a POV approach, and that would be just as true. The point is that where an NPOV controversy cannot be reconciled, the element that is the source of the controversy is best removed or somehow balanced. The infobox is not the place for controversy.—Biosketch (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because Syria isn't controlling it is not a reason to paint it in the same color as Israel. Lonely planet is not a RS, worldview sources are in the article showing the international community view, the CIA map follows it. The CIA map also shows that Israel occupies it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the reason you would not have it be the same color as Israel because it is not in Israel. You cannot seriously be bringing a map from a travel guide as though it means something, at least bring the maps from the National Geographic, that would give me a reason to argue. The "balance" that you speak of is included in the CIA map, it includes the fact that Israel occupies that territory, a fact that is almost undisputed. nableezy - 16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the CIA map is that it's a political map. And when the Golan Heights intersects with politics, there can be no consensus. Why insist on dragging the infobox into that mess? That's what I don't understand. The National Geographic map, incidentally, indicates that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.[34]—Biosketch (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It follows the worldview, I don't understand what you mean by " And when the Golan Heights intersects with politics, there can be no consensus." The nationalgeographic map is not following the worldview.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm all on Biosketch side on this. The map is POV because it only reflects one view when there is at least 2 major views. Nableezy the article itself says that the area is considered Syrian territory occupied by Israel by the International community! Israel (and nauru and micronesia possibly) consider this to be Israeli territory and it's De Facto Israeli territory. Implying it is Syrian is taking ones side view and thus POV, in accordance with NPOV we should remain neutral and not take any side in this conflict and consequently not listing the Golan Heights as in any country. This is why the map is POV, it only reflects one view which in this case I think would be that of the united states. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there is the view of the international community, and the view of Israel, Wikipedia policy says we should follow the worldview. And the CIA map is also presented as a CIA map. If you believe the map is pov and you want to remove it, first go through all these location's here:[35] and remove the location maps of Israel and all text in the articles saying they are located in Israel since Hamas and several countries call the area "Palestine", and after you have "removed the pov" and been "neutral" and not "taking ones side view and thus POV, in accordance with NPOV we should remain neutral and not take any side in this conflict and consequently not listing Haifa, Tel Aviv, Kiryat Shmona etc as in any country." at those articles, you can do the same at this article. Bring source that says Nauru and Micronesia considers it part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a super majority view on the status of the Golan Heights. That view is "Syrian territory occupied by Israel". Whereas Israel argues that the West Bank and Gaza are not occupied as there had not been a legal sovereign in control of those territories when Israel seized them, they make no such argument with regard to the Golan. In fact, I am not aware of Israel even disputing that the Golan is Syrian territory under Israeli occupation. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Israel does in fact dispute this. NPOV requires that all significant views be included in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. It cannot be seriously argued that the argument that the Golan is anything other than Syrian territory occupied by Israel has anywhere near the prominence of the super majority view. Minority opinions can, and should, be included, but they cannot be allowed to be given the same standing as super-majority views. nableezy - 18:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is not a supermajority view. There are 3 parties here, the 2 involved parties are Syria & Israel, and then there is the 3rd uninvolved observer which is the UN. Sure you might include Iran or Hizbullah, but these are the major "participants" in this dispute. And furthermore wikipedia has never used the UN view as a fact. For example would it be NPOV to write in the Zionism article: Zionism is a movement that supports Jewish self-determination and between the years of 1970-1990 it was a form of racism but in 1990 it stopped being racism? No, however somewhere in the article we write that the UN passed a resolution calling it racism that later was revoked. And this was the super majority view. This is hypothetical of course. Even if Golan Heigts being syrian is the super majority view it still doesn't mean we should state their view as fact only give it more attention. This isn't a case of flat earth vs round earth. Israel is not a group of conspiracy theorists, it's a sovereign country that represents 50% of this conflict & which has control of the territory in question. It's most definitely a very prominent view. I recommend reading this; NPOV: Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them

Yes there is, which is the view of the international community (not only UN) there are sources in the article currently at ref nr 1 that shows the IC view, NPOV policy also goes into details on how to handle due and undue weight and that is to follow the worldview:[36]. If you believe in what you said here above then you would have gone through this category: [37] and removed that all those location's are "in Israel", as those articles are "taking one side of the dispute", your cheery picked quote from the npov policy: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them", so go ahead and remove that all those locations are "in Israel", so we wouldn't be "engaging in the disputes". And the CIA map is presented as a CIA map, not as a fact. The Israeli view is presented in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The international community's view is expressed through the organisation that is UN, it is in any case a third party and nothing else. As I said earlier due & undue weight doesn't mean we should state the majority view as fact, it means that thew minority view shouldn't gain as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views which I'm pretty sure this article is already doing with lots of information of various un resolutions for example. Again it's clear that this is a dispute that Wikipeda should not engage in. It's not "flat earth vs round earth" it's two sovereign countries having a territorial dispute.

And your example with Israeli cities is flawed, the only dispute is with a small islamic organisation and I'm not even sure they regard for example Haifa as not being located in Israel for the moment. The others who dispute this are uninvolved countries that again I'm not sure they regard Haifa as not being Israel, they just don't have full diplomatic relations with the country. But the fact is Israel do have somewhat diplomatic relations with these countries. Furhermore Israel also controls the cities which is another import factor. But sure delicious you go ahead and remove the locations I won't object.

Then you wouldn't object with for example a mossad map as long as we say it's from mossad? No we can't have any picture from anywhere just cause we state the source. What next a map of greater Israel as long as we state it's from kach followers? Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This map does a much better job at illustrating geography by the way;[38], I say we go choose this one which reflects the disputed nature of this territory and which isn't the result of personal oppinions getting in the way of neutrality. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are different sources in the article, including votes at UN and third party International Labour Office. Due & undue weight does show that in this case we should state the vast majority view as a fact, and if you don't believe it should then you have already twice now been given the option to use the same reasoning at other articles, but you haven't. There are around 20 countries who don't recognize Israel including those who refer to the area as Palestine. Plus Hezbollah and Hamas. Hamas was elected by the Palestinians as their government. The entire area of Israel is disputed, so to claim that any place there is "in Israel", we are "taking side" in the same way as you claim this article shouldn't take the vast majority side. Well its important to show the vast majority view as that is what npov says we should do, the CIA map does that. If Mossad or Kach had any map of the area, then it wouldn't belong here as this article isn't about Mossad or Kach and to ad maps about their extreme minority opinions here we would give undue weight. The map you brought has been discussed before, its factually incorrect showing the area as part of Israel by having the western ceasefire line shown as a border and the international boundary with Israel in the same color as the most eastern ceasefire line. So it isn't really reflecting the "disputed nature of the area", but reflecting the Israeli pov. Since there isn't currently a problem with any map in the article that is the result of personal opinions getting in the way of neutrality, there is no need to do anything. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To say there is no super majority view is to stick ones head in the sand. There certainly is, and nearly every scholarly work on the topic of the status of the Golan under international law backs that up. The UN is not a party to this "dispute", and I was not using the UN's position as the super-majority view (though they are a part of that super-majority). Fipplet, can you please provide scholarly sources that dispute that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel? I am sure I can provide you 10 articles published by top notch academic presses in peer-reviewed journals on the topic of international law that say flat out that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. And that is just the first page of a JSTOR search. Imagine when I start looking in ProjectMUSE or HeinOnline, or even go to page 2 of the JSTOR search results. nableezy - 23:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, could you please provide a source for the claim that two sovereign nations dispute the status of the territory? I have looked, and I cannot actually find Israel making any such claims. nableezy - 23:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Two separate issues are being conflated into one here, which is making this discussion futile. One issue is the view of the international community vis-a-vis the status of the Golan. We agree that the international community acknowledges Israel's occupation of the area but recognizes Syria's claim to sovereignty over it. That was not the problem with Nableezy (talk · contribs)'s edit. The problem was his choice of map and the place where he chose to put it. The map itself is problematic because it does not accurately represent the view of the international community. What it represents is the view of the CIA. An NPOV map would not shrink the comment "Israeli occupied" to the point of being hardly legible while printing "Syria" in larger and bolder font than "Israel." And the infobox is not an appropriate place to promote a POV regarding the dispute; the appropriate place for that is the section on the political dispute, where the two relevant POVs can each be addressed in context.

And with respect to Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs)' proposal that Haifa be considered a disputed city because Hamas and Hezbollah don't recognize Israel's sovereignty over it, that is again conflating two separate issues. In so far as the "dispute" over Haifa is between anyone, it is between Israel and the Palestinians. The body recognized by the international community as representing the Palestinians is the Palestinian Authority, and the leaders of the Palestinian Authority as recognized by the Quartet are the Fatah guys – and correct me if I'm wrong but I'm quite sure they have formally withdrawn their claim to Haifa. East Jerusalem would be an apt analogy here, but Haifa is irrelevant.—Biosketch (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it does represent the view of the international community perfectly - it shows that its part of Syria, and that Israel occupies it. As I have already said above, the map shows geography, so it can be in the geography section. The "pov" it shows is a neutral pov following WP policy, so there is no problem in that aspect. Your comments about the size of the print are frivolous, "Israel" is almost the same size, and there is no problem with having the "Syria" print a (little bit) bigger since its located in that country, when people click on the map they can clearly see "Israeli occupied". This is the way a RS has chosen to do the map. Maps are mainly for showing where a place is located, Iraq maps and Afghanistan maps don't need "United States-occupied" in huge letters on them. I wasn't talking about Fatah, I was talking about 20 countries who don't recognize Israel including those who call the area Palestine, and Hezbollah and Hamas. Hamas was elected by the Palestinians, and even the views of other countries and organizations are relevant.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, I will gladly increase the size of the words Israeli occupied if you would like. It would be my pleasure. The purpose of the map is to show where it is and what its status is at a quick glance, which is what the infobox is for. The infobox itself says what the map says, so I cant see a problem with the map saying the same thing. Finally, you are wrong on a point, that "the body recognized by the international community as representing the Palestinians is the Palestinian Authority". No, it is not. The PLO is recognized as the representative of the Palestinians, the PNA is an administrative organization created by Oslo to run, or I might say collaborate with Israel's running of, portions of the occupied territories. They are not the representative of the Palestinian people. The seat at the UN is granted to the PLO, as is the Arab League seat. But none of that really matters on an article on a place in Syria. nableezy - 13:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What the article says is that it is syrian territory according to the IC but administered by Israel and claimed by Syria, not that it is located in Syria which is in contrast to the map. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 13:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And? You want to change the text to say that its located in Syria instead of that its internationally recognized as Syrian territory? The map is following the IC view, so there is nothing wrong with it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Deliciousness I already told you once that I won't object with you editing those articles, I have no obligation to edit them myself though and I don't have the time, but I am giving you green light, go ahead buddy.Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 13:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not because I know that is a violation of npov, it was only a couple days ago you edited the Nazareth article, so you apparently have time editing articles about locations in Israel while at the same time are not "removing the pov", so unless you apply the same reasoning for those article you are editing, then you cant do it here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't edit the Nazareth article I discussed at the discussion page which I left to come here, and my time is not your bussines. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 15:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You edited the Nazareth article: [39], and you discussed at the talkpage, and you have also edited the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem articles, so you have the time to "remove the pov" at those articles if you wanted to. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy first of all extending your law over a territory is definitely a way to claim that territory, furthermore former PM olmert said that Golan is an integral part of Israel and current PM said that Golan will remain in Israel's hands. Plus there is Israeli flags everywhere in the golan. They don't have to explicitly say "we think the Golan is located in Israel" for them to claim it. It's definitely a claim. Unless you have something that would say otherwise? I know that Shimon Peres once said he wanted to return it to Syria and he considered it Syrian land but that's just one man and a president not pm. Nevertheless Israel is definitely claiming it with what I said before.

Anyway I took a look at Jstor and I don't know what you searched for but I think it's pretty clear that the majority of sources does not say that the Golan is located in Syria. They don't have to explicitly say it isn't part of syria as long as they don't say it as being part of any country. Simply put they don't engage in the dispute and neither should we. This one implies that Golan is not in Syria; students from the Golan went to study in Syria, for example u don't say 65 students from New York went to study in Usa no? [40] & [41] refrain from saying which country the Golan is located in. That's three articles already. I found that the Journal of Palestine Studies used the term Syrian Golan, but that's just one source and of dubious neutrality in this question. I'm sure you can find many sources saying "syrian golan" etc. But the fact is most sources refrain from using such labels in order to remain neutral. Furthermore NPOV doesn't require us to represent all sources equally it require us to represent all significant viewpoints presented in sources equally. The Syrian claim is one and the Israeli claim is another we do not engage in this dispute and even if there's a majority considering the Golan to be Syrian that doesn't mean we should state it as fact only give the majority view a more detailed description which this article is already doing with for example numerous un resolutions, if I'm not mistaken. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 13:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You can find some articles following the Israeli pov, but all worldview sources say its part of Syria, and the worldview is what we should follow according to npov. Here is a source saying a place in the West Bank is "in Israel":[42] this doesn't mean we should disregard the worldview. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There's obviously a dispute about this map and replacing it with another withouth the text Syria in the Golan would maybe not end it. I say we should just remove it. In that case we won't saying it is in Israel, Syria or neither, the text in the infobox stays and the whole article is still there describing the situation. That should be a fair compromise. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 13:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been one single policy based argument against the map, there really isn't a dispute about the map, so there is no reason to remove it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes there have been arguments that it is against npov. Just because you dissagree doesn't mean there isn't a dispute. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 15:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not policy based arguments. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your links dont work for me. You are requesting that we treat a minority view as the same as a super-majority view. That is not how NPOV works. nableezy - 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to be a member of an university or a library listed to acces them, why you mention them if you can't acces? But here is the short versions [43], creation of an Israeli-Syrian boundry. I didn't request that I said first of all that the majority view is to not saying the Golan is in any country. Secondly the majority view in a case like this can't be stated as fact only given a more detailed description which is the whole point of due weight. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As said above, apply the exact same reasoning you want here to other articles, then you can do it here.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can get to JSTOR just fine, but I cant access your libraries link. That is a bit too technical to explain, but Ill look at these now. This is not a "Syrian claim" and an "Israeli claim". The entire world, almost without exception, says the Golan is in Syria. These are not two equal, or even close to equal, "claims". To treat it as such is to violate "due weight", which states that each view should be given weight relative to the weight sources give them. A super-majority view deserves, in fact is required to have, greater weight attached to it. But your links about a PM making some statement about the Golan staying in Israel was not what I was looking for. Is there a source for Israel actually arguing that the Golan is not Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation? nableezy - 14:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok then this where the titles; War and Settlement Change: The Golan Heights and the Jordan Rift, 1967-77; Climbing down the Golan Heights: Advantage to Syria; Education, Control and Resistance in the Golan Heights. Again a majority of sources refrain from "saying the golan is in Syria" thus it is not the world view. Unless you're talking about the UN which we already discussed and it is an uninvolved 3rd party. Also due weight says each view should be given the amount of detailed description relative to the weight of sources nothing about using the majority view as fact.

If you're saying the area is an integral part of Israel I'm pretty sure that means it's not syrian territory. And it's not really required either since there is no source for Israel actually arguing that Tel Aviv is not Italian territory either. It's not the same but point is you don't have to argue it isn't part of another country just to claim it as part of your country. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 15:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This has already been replied to above that you ignored and you are now beginning the same conversation, just because you can find articles that doesn't say that its Syrian, doesn't mean we can disregard the IC view, I showed you a RS above that said a place n the West Bank is "in Israel". And its not only the UN, its the vast majority of all countries, a reliable source calls it "international community". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong wikipedia never uses the IC view as fact. And it isn't it's a uninvolved 3rd party view.Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it is a view not a fact. Ask Jim Wales. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the IC, it is a fact.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The IC view maybe is that it is a fact. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There are statements made by politicians in public, then there are arguments made by the state. Those are not the same thing. Where are you getting that a majority of sources "refrain from 'saying the golan is in Syria' and thus it is not a world view"? Which sources would those be? nableezy - 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, would you object to a map similar to the one here? nableezy - 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The source for that map says the golan heights is in Israel even: The town is perched on the slopes of the majestic Mount Herman - or Jabal Sheikh to Arabs - straddling the Israeli-Syrian border

I know but as I said about Tel Aviv; you don't have to argue it isn't part of another country just to claim it as part of your country. For example the three I showed you and sent their name so you can look it up on Jstore. Here's another from Reuters saying the Golan heights is between Israel and Syria [44]Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This has already been replied to above that you have ignored. Here is a source saying a place in the West Bank is "in Israel":[45] this doesn't mean we should cherry pick it and disregard the worldview. The BBCs GH article says: "The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria" [46], but it doesn't matter, its enough that all worldview sources say its in Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't look below I showed at least 6 sources that speaks against you.Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And not a single of them a worldview source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What's a worldview source? If it's the un again it should be noted but not stated as fact, uninvolved 3rd party viewpoint. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The international community, vast majority of all countries. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are three from Reuters were they say it is Israeli occupied: [47], [48], [49]. The Golan does not exist in some mystical neverland where it is not in any state. nableezy - 16:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't occupied, the article itself says it is occupied as well: Two-thirds of the land was captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War and has since been occupied. That is not the question, if you can find a map where it says Israel to the west Syria to the east(not straddling the Golan heights and not any borders or colours implying ownership) and then Golan (Israeli occupied) then I would find that completely acceptable even better than my suggestion (which was the same but withouth Israeli occupied) since it reflects the situation more accurately. Your second argument is flawed, there is a dispute over which state the Golan belong to and we should list both viewpoints. We're not living in a neverland just because there are international disputes with different viewpoints. If it is that important to you to list it in a state list it in Israel then. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The map you are suggesting would not be accurate or neutral as it wouldn't show a part internationally recognized as part of Syria as being in Syria. Your arguments about the "dispute" here has been replied to several times above. You are not editing other articles based on the same arguments you are using here.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your BBC source says, several times, that the Golan is occupied by Israel. When it uses "border" it is referring to the ceasefire line that separates the Israeli-occupied portion of the Golan from the rest of Syria. You cant really pretend to believe that the BBC says the Golan is in Israel, can you? At least 10 sources from the BBC can be provided that make clear that they acknowledge the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. nableezy - 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No it shows the Golan as not being part of any country which is the NPOV. How I edit other articles is completely irrelevant. As far as I know there's no policy on wikipedia which says you have to discuss at the Haifa discussion to be allowed to discuss at the Golan heights discussion.Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No its not, as it gives the extreme minority view the same weight as vast majority, in direct violation of npov. How you edit other articles are directly relevant as you are not applying the same reasoning at other articles as you want to do here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that about BBC for example your map is from there so the BBC is pretty clear case, nevertheless they still said the Israeli-syrian border is at mount hermon (no mention of ceasefireline). Now this is obviously not enough for saying it should be in Israel and that's not what I'm arguing for either but this is what was said in the BBC once, it's obviously a disputed situation. [50] another BBC which implies Israeli-occupied Golan is not part of Syria. So not even BBC themselves are sure. Never mind about the BBC here's more sources [51], [52]. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Has been replied to above and you have ignored, you are cherry picking articles only representing themselves. Worldview sources [53][54] shows its internationally recognized as part of Syria, that's what matters. And the CIA map is presented as from the CIA.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The UN is not fact not on wikipedia. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources above are not the UN organizations view, one is a third part source speaking about the international community view, the other a UN vote where countries have voted, therefor representing countries.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's neverthless an uninvolved 3rd part view, keyword is view. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Really it's time to end this discussions a plethora of sources refrain from using the Golan heights as located in Syria, Im sure there are also sources who dissagree but then we shouldn't take side in that dispute either! If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. There are two prominient viewpoints and in accordance with NPOV we should not engage in disputes. I already offered 3 alternatives; remove the map, use this map [55] or use a the aforementioned map or similar and add Israeli occupied/annexed (whatever you find more preferable), I hope one of these compromises could be acceptable to you. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is like the fourth time you are ignoring the arguments above, you bring cherry picked articles that doesn't say its part of Syria, ignoring them that say it is and ignoring all worldview sources says it is, NPOV: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. " "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. 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." ,[56]. You have repeatedly given the option to apply the same reasoning that you claim is "npov" and "engaging in disputes" at other articles that you want to do here, and you haven't, so you cant do it here either. The three "alternatives" you are suggesting are not compromises, 1. there is no policy based reason to remove the map, 2. the relief map has been replied to above which you ignored, 3. has also been replied to above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't ignored them I acknowledged them but they are not better than my sources and what you just posted I've said all along. And as far as Im aware of nableezy didn't answer to my alternative. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is sure, see here or a large number of other articles. So is the US, the EU, the UN, the ICRC, every major human rights organization I can think of, countless scholars in international law, nearly every member state of the UN, and an abundance of other sources. This is going to be settled by the best sources, not seeing who can google faster (though if it comes to that I can do that too. See for example The Economist: tthe Israeli-occupied part of Syria's Golan Heights, or another from the Economist: so long as Israel remains in occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights, TIME: Israel's occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights). nableezy - 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

According to TIME itself the golan heights is disputed territory between four countries, and one mention of Syrian Golan Heights isn't better than one mention of mount hermon straddling the border. Point is a plethora of sources refrain from labeling the territory as Syrian and some like Times and Reuters say it is disputed and between the countries, some do label it as Syrian territory but again we shouldn't take sides. And also again the view of uninvolved 3rd parties is not fact but of course should be noted in the article. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[57]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've said this many times "As I said earlier due & undue weight doesn't mean we should state the majority view as fact, it means that thew minority view shouldn't gain as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views which I'm pretty sure this article is already doing with lots of information of various un resolutions for example". Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you really believed it: "You have repeatedly given the option to apply the same reasoning that you claim is "npov" and "engaging in disputes" at other articles that you want to do here, and you haven't, so you cant do it here either." [58] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't edit any other articles for the moment which this reasoning can be applied to. It's furthermore very irrelevant for this article. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You joined Wikipedia in 2007, four years later and you haven't applied the same reasoning at other articles that you now want here. And again, the map is presented as a CIA map. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy (talk · contribs), [that map would not be appropriate for the infobox because it is not NPOV; the infobox map should be NPOV. It would be fine as part of the section in the article elaborating on the political POVs in the dispute, though. Also, to make a constructive suggestion, here is a map that would be great for the geography section, though I can't vouch for its reliability or anything: [59]. If someone knows of a similar map that's usable and published by an RS, it would be better than the one currently in the Geography section.—Biosketch (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but now I dont understand your position at all. Maybe I imagined this, but I was under the impression that you viewed the CIA map as non "NPOV" because it had Israel the same color as the other countries that surround the Golan and the words "Israeli occupied" were too small which made it seem as though Israel has no status at all. This map has neither of those issues. Exactly what would the map have to show for you to say it is "NPOV"? nableezy - 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A more careful review of Archive 13 would have clarified your confusion. An NPOV map would illustrate the location of the Golan in the world without committing itself to either of the two prominent POVs – that the Golan is in Israel or Syria. One way to do this was elaborated on in Archive 13: paint Israel one color, Syria another, and fill the Golan with diagonal stripes of alternating colors. Another way could be to use the map you are suggesting, but move the "Syria" label to the right so it doesn't overlap with the GH.—Biosketch (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are in oxymoron, a npov map can not show Golans location in the world without showing it as in Syria. The map you are suggesting would put Israel in the same position as Syria for a location internationally recognized as in Syria, thus violating npov. We don't put Palestine in the same position as Israel for location's internationally recognized as in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All right, now I see the problem. Let's see if we cant move forward. If you would indulge me, Id like to ask a few questions, but one at a time. Is there a super-majority view, near unanimous, on the political status of the Golan among competent parties (that being other sovereign states, the UN, and the ICRC)? nableezy - 21:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

View on legality has nothing to do with lines of control. The territory should simply have dashes around it while neither Israel or Syria should have prominence in the map. This makes sure that Wikipedia is not viewed on taking a side in the conflict. It also makes it clear enough without adding tons of notes to the infobox. Keep in mind that the infobox is supposed to be a quick glance thing and not a place to overly expand on disputes or promote a disputed (several variables and significant enough to not be "fringe") POV. This should be an easy fix and anything less shows that the editing process here is flawed.Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In articles about locations in Israel, which you have edited, Israel always have the prominence, why don't you ever edit them so that we don't take side in the conflict Israel against Palestine? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about legality? Whose side would Wikipedia be taking by labeling a part of Syria occupied by Israel as Syrian territory occupied by Israel? If, as you say, the infobox is supposed to be a "quick glance", shouldn't somebody who quickly glances be able to see what country the Golan is in? nableezy - 03:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Legality is the problem. I assume you have read my previous arguments (the area functions as part of Israel with enforced laws, border patrol, Israeli business, a decent share of residents claiming to be in Israeli, and so on and so on). This is viewed as illegal by many legal scholars and most of the international community. However, we cannot take sides on it and should leave it ambiguous in the infobox so that the prose can clearly lay out the multiple variables. The area of contention should have dashed lines where Sryia claims a border and Israel claims a border. A line of control is often used in atlases and this would be similar. Presenting the area as part of Syria causes confusion to the reader since it does not function as part of the nation. Presenting it as part of Israel is confusing to the reader since it might be legally incorrect. Are you trying to present the legal reality (those arguing against you are certainly trying to present the on the ground reality) or are you trying to use Wikipedia to establish validity? If it is the former I totally get it but have to point out the other side of the coin. If it is the later than I cannot comment on it.

But please feel free to ignore the question altogether and consider that adding two lines of dashes at separate ends of the are would be an easy solution.Cptnono (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are using legality in a way that I am not. Nobody has tried to say that Israel's occupation of the Golan is itself illegal (though the imposition of Israeli law is illegal). Military occupation is not "illegal". Everything that you say about the "functions as part of Israel" is covered by "Israeli occupied". Israel controls the territory, there is no dispute about that. That control, however, is called "occupation". That has nothing to do with legality, nothing at all. nableezy - 13:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The map is not in the infobox, and the map is presented as from the CIA. We take side at articles about places in Israel which you have no problem with. The CIA map also shows that Israel occupies it, so there's no confusion. The map you are suggesting would put Israel in the same position as Syria for a location internationally recognized as in Syria, thus violating npov. We don't put Palestine in the same position as Israel for location's internationally recognized as in Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), there is no contradiction at all. We do not say that Majdal Shams is in Syria, for that would be condoning a POV. As an editor who has been active on that page, I presume you understand why that is the consensus. There is no reason to treat the Golan Heights any differently. It is a disputed region, and to say that it is "in Syria" or "in Israel" is to favor one POV over another. It is also incorrect to say that "a npov map can not show Golans location in the world without showing it as in Syria." That comment suggests that not taking a side is equivalent to embracing an Israeli POV. But the Israeli POV is that the GH is in Israel, so there is no equivalence.—Biosketch (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Majdal Shams article has large problems including pov. I don't believe that article has consensus for how it is. Its an article I have wanted to correct for a long time, but never got around to it. We take sides at articles about places in Israel which you have no problem with. But the CIA map is now not in the infobox and it is presented as from the CIA, so I believe you should accept it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), "Is there a super-majority view, near unanimous, on the political status of the Golan among competent parties (that being other sovereign states, the UN, and the ICRC)?" That is a vital question, which I don't have a conclusive answer to. You'll notice that the text in the infobox does not accurately reflect the quoted sources in the refs. The consensus among the refs is that the Golan is Israeli-occupied territory. Only two of the seven refs, however, explicitly call the Golan "Syrian." Our infobox says, "Internationally recognised as Syrian territory occupied by Israel." That would seem to be a minority view at least among the sources cited. Frapper also raised the point that recognizing Syria's claim to sovereignty is not the same as saying the land is in Syria. This is perhaps the reason so few RSes actually say the Golan is in Syria.—Biosketch (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There is the international community view. The text in the infobox does accurately reflect the sources, one is a third party source saying: "The international community maintains that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and without international legal effect." , one is a UN vote 161-1 for the "occupied Syrian Golan". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, are you serious? You think that the majority view is that the territory is "Israeli occupied" but not "Syrian"? Wow. Im sorry, but I have no idea who Frapper is, could you clarify? It is going to take me a minute to to wipe the disbelief of seeing your answer from eyes, but Ill bring sources that explain this a bit better. Thousands of reliable sources say the Golan is Syrian territory, some of which are quoted or linked on this page. There is no paucity of sources that make this point crystal clear. nableezy - 13:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, you say thatOnly two of the seven refs, however, explicitly call the Golan "Syrian." And from this you argue that it is a "minority view among the sources cited" that the Golan is Syrian territory. Two of the remaining 5 references are for the US position. One of those references is to the CIA world factbook, where it discusses the Golan in the entry on Syria. If you really dispute that the US considers the Golan to be Syrian territory, please see for example the map here, or this State Department briefing to Congress which says In particular, the Syrian Golan Heights territory, which Israel has occupied since 1967, has been one of the most intractable issues in the Arab-Israeli dispute. That crosses two of those sources that you believe make it a minority opinion that the Golan is Syrian off. The other source is the ICRC. See for example this, which is about Syrian residents of the Golan having ties with "the rest of Syria". Or see, for example this map from the ICRC. Or the ICRC annual report on Syria which focuses mostly on the Golan. The last source also says Syrian Golan, I do not know how you counted 3 of 5 not saying such. But each of the organizations listed clearly says the Golan is Syrian territory. Do you still dispute that? nableezy - 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), if no one voices objection to an edit, then it is, with some exceptions, the equivalent of saying it has consensus until someone else comes along and says otherwise. And if you say you have not been able to get around to editing Majdal Shams for so long, your frustration over my and other editors' lack of involvement at hundreds of other articles where you expect us to be involved is puzzling to say the least. Each of us edits Wikipedia as a function of his or her subjective priorities. Most of the articles I've edited aren't even in the I/P domain, so there should be nothing surprising about me or User:Fipplet or anyone else not editing the articles you demand that we edit. Concluding that we don't have a problem with what's there just because we've never edited those articles is absurd.—Biosketch (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't voice objection to an edit doesn't mean that they accept it or that there is consensus for it. Not really the same thing, the changes I would think I should do at Majdal Shams I do at other articles when I edit them, but the changes Fipplet wants to do here, he hasn't done at other articles which he has edited many of for 4 years. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree there isn't complete overlap, but still: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus" (WP:CONS). SD, for the record, would you say that Qatzrin is a village/settlement in Syria?—Biosketch (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe sometimes, but in some cases it doesn't. Kazrin is an Israeli settlement in Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. And would you consider that to be your personal opinion and/or a verifiable consensus shared by an overwhelming majority of the international community?—Biosketch (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not my personal opinion, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are generally called Israeli settlements, and the international community regards the GH as in Syria as shown with sources above, so = Israeli settlement in Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy (talk · contribs), please keep your dramatizations out of the Discussion page. Your question as to the sincerity of my comments was out of line, and I am not interested in hearing about which parts of your body you rub pursuant to reading my messages. There are seven bullets corresponding to citation no. 1 in the infobox. My observation was based on the quotes provided in the References section of the article where, indeed, the first source explicitly refers to the Golan as Syrian ("the occupied Syrian Golan"); sources 2 through 5 do not; source six does; and source seven does. For whatever reason I had counted two out seven; now I acknowledge there are three out of seven that explicitly call the Golan "Syrian." Arithmetically, that is still three sevenths, i.e. a minority. As to "Frapper," what I meant to say was Fipplet (talk · contribs). He made an important point that just because the international community may acknowledge that Israel occupies the Golan does not necessarily mean they recognize Syria's claim to it. Hopefully my position is clearer to you now, and any further questions you have I'll be happy to address, provided they're confined to content and not to anything else.—Biosketch (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The: The situation of workers of the occupied Arab territories source and the UN vote sources, shows the international community view, it doesn't matter if the other say its occupied because it doesn't contradict the worldview that its Syrian in the other sources. Well, in this case, the international community does say its Syrian, not only that its occupied. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Two of those other references are about the US government position. Given we have had this discussion about a US government produced map that places, in very large letters, the word Syria on a map of the Golan, I cannot believe that you feel that their position is that the Golan is not in Syria. No matter though, I have provided several other sources that make that clear. I also provided an additional reference for the ICRC. If you like, I'll replace the US references with the one provided here that makes the point. Do you still dispute the point? nableezy - 16:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, where did I say that I feel that the position of the U.S. government is that the Golan is not in Syria? Please show me where I said that.—Biosketch (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Two of the references you use to say that the apparent majority view is that the Golan is not Syrian territory were references from the US government. But as we agree that the US does say the Golan is in Syria, there is not much of a point to continuing in this line of discussion. Do you agree that each of the following considers the Golan as Syrian territory occupied by Israel: the UN and its various bodies, the EU, the US, the Russia, China, and a near unanimity of the member states of the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the ICRC? Who exactly does not say the Golan is in Syria? nableezy - 17:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm seeing where the confusion is originating from. Calling the Golan "Syrian" and saying it is "in Syria" are two different things. We use the adjective Israeli to modify the word settlement, but that does not necessarily mean the settlement is in Israel. In order to use a map that suggests the Golan is in Syria (e.g. the CIA map), it is necessary to establish that the consensus among the overwhelming majority of the parties to the dispute and/or among independent third-party sources is that the Golan is in Syria. This is the crux of the problem. There appear to be parties insisting that the Golan should be ceded to Syria, but that would imply that they concede it is not currently part of Syria.—Biosketch (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Who says it is not in Syria? I can find sources, but you need to tell me who it is you think disputes this fact. nableezy - 18:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is in Syria, then it cannot be returned to Syria. Last time I checked, Syria wanted it back, which means they don't currently have it. Same with Taiwan. - BorisG (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Who says that the Golan is not in Syria? The US clearly does, as does the UN, the EU, the ICRC, and countless other sources. Who says it is not? I really am beginning to get annoyed with these unsubstantiated opinions from random people on the internet when I ask for sources. nableezy - 18:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should the onus be on me? An editor tried to add a map to the infobox, and I subsequently removed it arguing that it was POV. The burden should be on the editor trying to add the map to establish that it reflects a consensus wherein there's near-unanimous agreement that the Golan is in Syria. There are sources in the infobox that do not recognize the absorption of the Golan into the State of Israel, but that does not mean they view it as being in Syria. I understand that this can be considered a subtle difference and sympathize with you for becoming annoyed, but you still must provide sources that establish unequivocally that the Golan Heights are in Syria.—Biosketch (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already discussed the infobox and the citations in there. Let me repeat, two of those sources that you say do not support the view that the Golan is in Syria are from the US. One of them is discussing the Golan in the Syria section of the CIA World Factbook. I have given you several sources that make clear the US view that the Golan is in Syria. But yet you continue to give this line that the sources dont support it. Fine, in about 10 seconds they will. nableezy - 19:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that that is done, could you please tell me who it is that you think says the Golan is not Syrian territory? I am willing to provide the sources, but I do not know who it is that you think disputes this fact. The US? The UN or any of its bodies? The ICRC? The EU? Which of these, or anybody/thing else, would you like more sources for? nableezy - 19:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that what is done? I see that you edited the article. Where are the sources establishing that there is a consensus that the Golan Heights are in or are a part of Syria? It was explained above that calling the Golan "Syrian" and saying it is "in Syria" are two different things. Can I ask that you duplicate here only those refs that clearly state that the Golan is in Syria with accompanying quotations? Thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not different things, and that is a ludicrous assertion you are making. Saying a territory is Syrian is saying it is in Syria. Syrian territory occupied by Israel. That is what the Golan is and that is what the sources say. This word playing notwithstanding, do you accept that each of the organizations listed above consider the Golan to be Syrian territory held by Israel under military occupation? nableezy - 19:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

They can certainly be construed as different, and the distinction here is a crucial one: the same editors that would argue that "Syrian territory" means in Syria would likely not argue that "Israeli settlement" means in Israel. Even if my answer to your question were yes, it would still be necessary to cite sources that explicitly identify the Golan as being in Syria. Simply calling the Golan Syrian is too ambiguous for the CIA map to be considered NPOV.—Biosketch (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The area being "Syrian" and it being "Syria" is the same thing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The analogy fails as ""Israeli settlement" is a noun phrase that means a locality established by Israel in the occupied territories, not a settlement, in the generic sense of the term, of Israel. Saying something is "Syrian territory" is not in any way analogous to saying "Israeli settlement". "Syrian territory" has a clear meaning. But I can even give sources that say "southwestern Syria". For example, this for the US. Here is a map from the UN showing the Golan in Syria (compare to the map of Israel where it shows it outside of Israel). These word playing games serve no purpose except to filibuster. "Syrian territory" has a well defined meaning; it is not open to the type of games being seen here. nableezy - 20:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is crucial a difference between insisting on solid sources that meet policy requirements and filibustering. Calling the former the latter is distorting the reality of what is happening here. Remember that you inserted a POV map into the infobox with no attempt at all to furnish an explanation for it on the Discussion page, despite the fact that not a fortnight before there was a discussion between about a dozen editors on why that map was unsuitable for the infobox. If an editor's patience is so thin that he cannot engage in a BRD interaction for three days without recourse to accusations of insincere editing, then Wikipedia is not the proper forum for him as he is only inviting more frustration on his part.

The proposed CIA map labeled the Golan Heights as part of Syria. Unless it can be conclusively established that that map reflects the consensus of the overwhelming majority of observers, policy-makers and parties to the Golan Heights dispute, it is not an appropriate map for the infobox, because the infobox is not articulating the claim that the Golan Heights are a part of Syria. What the infobox says is that the Golan Heights are "Internationally recognised as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Currently under Israeli civil administration. Claimed by Syria." The international community, then, recognizes two things a-la the infobox: that Syria's claim to the territory is valid and that Israel is its occupier at the present time. Does that mean the international community conceives of the Golan Heights as being currently a part of the Syrian Republic? The answer is that it could mean that, but there is no assurance that that is the correct interpretation. "Internationally recognised as Syrian territory occupied by Israel" can just as well mean that, ideally, the Golan Heights would be part of the Syrian Republic, but owing to Israel's occupation of it they cannot be said to be so at this time. The two interpretation are equally sound, wherefore the burden of proof is still on the editor who wishes to illustrate one interpretation but not the other via a map. As far as the CIA map itself goes, although it does not say so in words, it is espousing the claim that the Republic of Syria includes the Golan Heights, Israel's occupation of it notwithstanding. Until someone comes along and provides evidence to the contrary, it can be said with confidence that the official policy of the United States is that the Golan Heights are a part of Syria. You also linked to another document that says essentially the same thing. So we have one country that explicitly says the Golan Heights are in Syria. But that we already knew from the map, so it isn't anything new and has really just reverted the argument back to square one – that the view of the United States is not grounds for using a CIA map in the infobox for which there is no consensus. Which brings us to the United Nations maps ([60] and [61]). Those maps have a message at the bottom cautioning the reader against construing them as official United Nations policy, which makes them invalid for our purposes. So at the end of the day – or three days, rather – the conclusion we reach is that the only source for the claim that the Golan Heights are in Syria today is the United States. One wonders, Are there countries or prominent independent third-party sources that explicitly say the Golan is actually in Israel? If the answer to that question turned out to be Yes, well then it would be futile to try to establish a consensus that the Golan Heights are in Syria, for clearly no such consensus exists in the real world. Well, as it turns out, aside from Israel itself, which has on numerous occasions repeated its claim that the Golan Heights are an integral part of the State of Israel, The New York Times – arguably the most important source of information in the world – has actually called the Golan Heights "formally...part of Israel" [62]. Similarly, National Geographic, perhaps the world's most esteemed publication on world geography, not only invoked the expression "Israel's Golan Heights"[63], but in an official map from the year 2000[64] actually extended Israel's border to encompass the Golan Heights and printed the label "ISRAEL" so as to stretch across them. These examples are of course not being brought here to argue that a map showing the Golan Heights as part of Israel should be displayed in the infobox. Rather, they reinforce the conclusion already reached in previous discussions that there is no consensus for showing the Golan Heights as part of Syria today.—Biosketch (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In the previous discussion and this, no policy based arguments were provided showing that the map was pov. And the map is not in the infobox now, but even if it was there wouldn't be any problem. You have already been shown worldview sources that say its part of Syria. Again: "Syrian" is the same thing "Syria". Yes the CIA map says its part of Syria, and that Israel occupies it, in accordance with npov. A couple of UN maps with disclaimers doesn't change the fact what the IC view is. There are several sources shown that says that the IC view is that GH is in Syria. There are news article that follow the Israeli pov that Golan is part of Israel, several are published in reliable sources, but they only represent their own authors. Here is a reliable source (National Geographic) article that says that a place in the West Bank is "in Israel", [65] but it isn't in Israel. So we cant cherry pick articles that only represent the pov of the authors and disregard other sources, and in this case no worldview sources has been provided saying its not in Syria, only that it is, the consensus is therefore that there is no problem with a map saying it is in Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Making an argument that makes a mockery of the policies of the website, such as saying "Syrian territory" is not equivalent to "territory in Syria", is filibustering. The fact is that this map had been in the article for years, and was removed without policy backing it up by a set of editors who had attempted to edit-war it out of the article in the past. You are twisting clear words into something other than what they are. You bring a 30 year old source discussing the Golan law, a law that the UN ruled null and void. And you use this to say "the most important source of information in the world" says the Golan is part of Israel? The National Geographic has a maps policy which says they aim to show "a de facto point of view". That is, because Israel has illegally applied its law to the Golan, in the National Geographic Map Policy Committee's view, the Golan de facto functions as part of Israel. The article makes this point already, however a "de facto point of view" for a legal boundary is not a "neutral point of view". If you would like sources from what is "arguably the most important source of information in the world", here is one from the AP: "Plateau at southwestern corner of Syria." And here is a source from the NYTimes, in which it says Israel explains why it did not withdraw from the Shebaa Farms as part of its withdrawal from Lebanon: [66]: "Israel and the United Nations say the land belongs to Syria and is part of the Golan Heights that has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 war." But news sources are not the best sources, not even close, and the NYTimes is certainly not "the most important source of information in the world". Neither the National Geographic or the NYTimes is a competent party to determine international borders. The world, almost without exception, considers the 1949 armistice line to be the international border between Israel and Syria, at least until an agreement between those two countries makes a different one. I am not annoyed of "BRD", I am annoyed of the disingenuous arguments, such as saying "Syrian territory" means something other than "territory in Syria". That is what is annoying, these arguments that have no merit being used to filibuster the inclusion of what the entire world acknowledges as a fact. nableezy - 13:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Buddy, it's time to move on. If there were unanimity among the RSes that the Golan Heights were in Syria, it would not be such a difficult task finding sources that explicitly say so. 1. The only sources yet provided that say so explicitly are the CIA and the Associated Press. 2. Two exceedingly reliable sources have been provided that explicitly say the Golan Heights are a part of the State of Israel. (Here is another that distinguishes between Quneitra as "the Syrian side of the Golan Heights" and the rest of the territory.) 3. I did not try to add a POV map that says the Golan Heights are in X country; it was you who tried to do that. 4. An NPOV map would not commit itself to showing the Golan Heights as being in either country, and until such a map is proposed for the infobox it is best left without a map. 5. Please explain why you moved sources out of the infobox in this edit. 6. I have changed the text in the lead from "the international community rejects Israeli claims to the territory and regards it as part of Syria" to now read "the international community rejects Israeli claims to the territory and regards it as Syrian territory," based on the sources provided. Nableezy (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) will not object to the change as they consider the two sentences equivalent; however, my insistence is that the language of the article reflect the language of the sources used in order to preserve their ambiguity.

And please stop accusing me of filibustering. Did you read WP:FILIBUSTERS? "Rather than making a string of silent edits to articles, Filibusters will do the exact opposite: They will make edits, possibly bold and usually contentious, to a single article. Once they are reverted, they will write a 10-page essay on the talkpage." You made the bold edit, I reverted you, now you are filibustering.—Biosketch (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I use filibuster in the way that it is used in the US Senate, so no I have never read WP:FIL... . There are meanings to words outside of Wikipeda. Why did I remove references in the infobox? That isnt exactly an accurate statement. I split the references that say occupied with those that say occupied Syrian. I also added another reference that says in Syria. You above were saying you felt that a majority, then changed to 40%, of the references in the infobox did not support it. So I made the references in the box support it. I stopped trying to understand you when you again repeat the mantra that a map that fits the view of nearly every country in the world, the UN, the ICRC, ... is a "POV map". Ill get real sources, not a 1981 NYTimes piece, just need a bit of time. nableezy - 15:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Not really, UN vote and another third party source has been provided above showing the worldview that its Syria. 2. Already replied to above, which you ignored. 3. Nableezy did not ad any pov map, he added a neutral map following thew worldview. 4. A npov map would follow the worldview, so there wouldn't be any problems with having a map showing it as part of Syria in the infobox, but the map isn't even in the infobox. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Consult the definition of POV at WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts"; "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts"; "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." The map is by no stretch of the imagination NPOV. It is the opinion of the CIA, seriously contested by numerous reliable sources, and it does not accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. And the reason the map isn't in the infobox is because I removed it from there. I take it you don't contest my removal, but Nableezy (talk · contribs) continues to.—Biosketch (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For the same reasons as why we say state as a fact that Haifa is in Israel at that article and not as an opinion, we state that this area is part of Syria in this article. Read Npov on how to handle Due and undue weight. The CIA map represents the opinion of the international community as shown with sources above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think to say "seriously contested" is to inaccurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views which is something everyone is seeking to avoid. It's contested, yes, like pretty much everything is contested, including things that are "seriously" regarded as facts by serious sources, but I still remain unconvinced by arguments that the CIA map or one very much like that does not fully comply with NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

How do you reconcile NPOV with the fact that reliable sources such as the NYT, CNN and National Geographic dispute the CIA's representation of the Golan Heights as part of Syria. Those are three prominent RSes. On what basis are they being disregarded? Furthermore, think of NPOV as a scale, if it helps. On the scale of NPOV, which is a better map – one that represents as fact that the Golan Heights are a part of Syria or one that does not commit itself to saying that the Golan Heights are in country X or country Y?—Biosketch (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As said above, these articles only represent their authors pov. Here is a source saying a place in the West Bank is "in Israel":[67] this doesn't mean we should disregard the worldview. All worldview sources say GH in Syria, no worldview sources dispute this or say its in Israel. Here is a map at Syrian parliament website saying the area to the southwest is Palestine: [68], based on your argument: "On the scale of NPOV, which is better – to say that Haifa, Tel Aviv etc are in Israel as a fact or to not commit ourselves to saying that they are in neither "Israel" or "Palestine" ?" In the case of the CIA map its presented as from the CIA and not as a fact. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs)→Please consult WP:3PARTY: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is independent of the subject being covered" (emphasis in the original). Are there independent third-party sources for saying Haifa and Tel Aviv are in Palestine and not Israel? No. Are there independent third-party sources for saying the Golan Heights aren't in Syria? Yes siree Bob.—Biosketch (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats an essay, read the npov policy again. The Syrian government is a reliable source for the views of the Syrian government, its a significant pov, and other significant povs like it can be found for several other countries and organizations.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like AgadaUrbanit removed the map claiming "rv, clearly no consensus for this map, see talk", but there hasn't been any policy based arguments against the map, and biosektch who is objecting to it is objecting to it being in the infobox, which the map wasn't located. This means that Agadas removal of the map and edit summary for its removal is inconsistent with anything that has occured here at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The policy based argument is that a vast majority or worldview POV is not the same as NPOV. Arguably, there is a significant minority position (of Israel and its supporters worldwide) that disagrees with the majority POV. Yes it is a minority position, but I don't think we can consider it fringe, if only because Israel's position on this issue is kind of disproportionally important. In addition, but importantly, many sources (some mentioned above) reflect the de facto situation, which is that the Golan is currently de facto part of Israel. Many Israelis live in the Golan, spend holidays on the Golan, there is a bus connection, etc. etc. Do they spend holidays in Syria? Have bus connection between Israel and Syria? This may be seriously confusing for less informed readers. I agree with some people that the best map would be the one that takes no position on the issue. The article should reflect the balance of views on the issue, but since it is impractical for the map to reflect this balance, it should, ideally, not be taking any POV at all. Doesn't this make sense? - BorisG (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well thats not a policy based argument, thats you saying something in contradiction to the npov policy. Npov say that we should follow the worldview, and the map does that, so the map is npov. The map says that Israel occupies it, no one has said that Israeli settlers aren't living there or that there isn't a buss connection. By having the map, people can see that Israel controls it and that Israeli settlements are there per that the map shows these things. Your believe that a map should take no position on the issue is not in accordance with npov or in your own editing of Wikipedia, because if you really believed that "the best map" would take no position, how come when you for example edited the Ajami and Giv'at Shmuel articles you didnt remove the "pov" that they are located in Israel which is taking a position against a large minority? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My view is that the map we use in the infobox should look like this, not literally of course, although we could just use that map as a very rough approximation of where the Golan Heights are on the planet and save a lot of time. It doesn't need to take a position on anything but the actual position of the Golan Heights as an independent, standalone, spatial object on the surface of the planet. For a map that shows the political status and geography of the Golan according to the mandatory policies of this project, which are immune to bus routes, outlier samples in reliable-source-space, and the kind of due weight distortions that can occur from not seeing the NPOV mountain because a POV hair is blocking the view, the CIA map is fine. If an uninformed reader who looks at the map comes away with the knowledge that the Golan Heights is Israeli occupied Syrian territory, I think we will have done our job according to the policies of the project. If they look at a map and come away unsure about the political status in some sense, think that the Golan Heights is part of the State of Israel rather than part of the Israeli occupied territories, we will have failed to adequately inform them. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with this. Let's say on the map that it is Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, rather than SYRIA across it.BorisG (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The map does say that, "Syria" on it means its Syrian, and it says Israel occupies it, (though not since 1967 which is not needed.) This is the way a reliable source has done the map, and its presented as from the CIA. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can interpret what is in the map in this way, but a lay person totally unfamiliar with the situation can be confused. How one is supposed to understand that Syria written across reflects the legal position of the international community and not the de facto situation on the ground? Of course, they can get a better idea by reading the article, but it would be better to write the entire sentence the way Sean and I wrote it. I agree 1967 is unnecessary (but would be helpful). - BorisG (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The map shows the area highlighted and ceasefire lines which clearly shows the reader a difference in the area from the rest of Syria, and it has "Israeli occupied" on it, so people can see that Israel controls it. That Israel occupies it is also in the infobox. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy (talk · contribs) has asked for additional time to produce sources that will compellingly demonstrate that there is a consensus for showing the Golan Heights as part of Syria. I expect him to fail in that regard, but there's no reason to deny him the opportunity. For the record, though, I endorse Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs)'s proposal above as a way to resolve our dispute regarding the infobox map.—Biosketch (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources for that that is the view of the international community has already been provided and they are sufficient. Regarding the infobox, Seans suggestion is bad because Western Sahara is not internationally recognized as part of any country, so Morocco can be shown without WS within its borders and it would be neutral. This is not the same case here, if Golan was shown in the same way as Western Sahara, then Syria would have false boundaries as it wouldn't included part of what is internationally recognized as part of its nation, which would both be violation of npov and inaccurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an article about Syria. - BorisG (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct, but its about a geographical location internationally recognized as in Syria, so to have a map of this location in the same way as the Western Sahara map, would be a false and inaccurate map that would show false borders for Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends how you do it. For instance, if in the CIA map, Syria were written slightly to the east of the demilitarised zone, it would not shift the boundary, but would rather not take a posiiton on whether the Golan is 'in Syria. The boundary would still be where its position is recognised by the UN. As I said, no objection to saying that it is Syrian territory occupied by Israel... Look, the positions are clear. Let's see if any neutral editors can help resove this. - BorisG (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case it would be difficult to see that its part of Syria. This is the way a reliable source have done the map. Why would we have map in the infobox that doesn't take position? Previously when you said that to not take position would be the "best map", I asked you why you didn't edit other articles in the same way, and you didn't reply. If in the same CIA map we replace "Israel", with "Israel or Palestine", we would not take position about that area either, would you want that? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, this is a ridiculous analogy and you know this. Haifa and Giv'at Shmuel are not under de facto Palestinian control. The situation is not remotely similar. Besides I am not proposing to write Syria/Israel. I am not proposing to write disputed territory. I am proposing to write Syrian territory occupied by Israel, a position Israel rejects. This is crystal clear. But apparently not clear enough for you. - BorisG (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the area isn't under de facto Palestinian control, there are many countries and organizations who call the area Palestine, so there is a dispute. So unless you start complaining about that the CIA map says "Israel" and start editing articles in that area by removing that they are "in Israel" so not to "take a position", then you are not supporting your own argument here. Its not clear what you are talking about now, the map that should be in the infobox or the map for the geography and politics that is elsewhere in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I tried to establish some balance, but I have learned that with you it is not possible. I have no more time for this. Clearly, compromise is not something you are interested in. Cheers and good luck with your approach. - BorisG (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

map in geography section

“ No consensus means no map. ” — User:Sean.hoyland (paraphrase), [69]

—AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked to explain my revert on the article. My explanation is that "no consensus", the reason given in Agada's edit summary, is not a valid reason to remove the map. nableezy - 15:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem everybody could make a mistake. This was discussed, you could look up in the archives, as I remember from the top of my head the map is biased, i.e. violating WP:NPOV policy. Bottom line consensus was reached and the map was removed. I personally don't mind this map, but I feel it is inappropriate for geography section, since while it is also kind of geographic map, mainly it is a political one. And yeah sure, GH is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Still, prior discussions exist. And while WP:BRD is not a policy, it makes life easier. So what did we have here:

• Bold edit
• Revert
• Revert

It sounds wrong. Would you mind to self-revert and to restore the image removed by the bold edit? I have missed geographic image removal initially, it might be unfortunate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agada, Your comments above are not in accordance with anything that has ever happened at the talkpage. You say: "as I remember from the top of my head the map is biased, i.e. violating WP:NPOV policy. Bottom line consensus was reached and the map was removed."... but the map is not biased as no evidence of such has been provided by anyone, and the map is not violating npov as no evidence has been provided by anyone that it does, and no consensus was reached to remove this neutral map from the geography section. So you are just saying things that has never happened. The map is both geographical and political so it could be in either the "Geography" or "Current status" section, but I believe it should be in the Geography section as a map showing the area should be high up in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are also misrepresenting Seans comments by quoting him here as you are making it look like he has said that there is no consensus for the map and that Sean doesn't support it, but there is no evidence that there is no consensus for the map in the geography section and if you had seen Seans comments above, you would have seen that Sean infact supports the CIA map.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And if you care so much about "BRD", this is the original recent "bold edit" [70] where a CIA map was replaced with a fake one. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk)

You're probably right, SD, the map in the infobox should be Northern Cyprus style, and the geography section already has an image, which is unfortunate, from MOS:IMAGE point of view. I'd appreciate the restoration of status quo before the bold edit was done, for WP:BRD sake. It would be interesting to hear User:Nableezy thoughts if that would be possible. I'm going to sleep, Good night AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont see anything in MOS:Image saying two images cant be in one section, if thats really a problem, the Umm Qais Galilee-Golan panorama.jpg can be removed. So are you saying that you are going to restore the CIA map to the infobox for BRDs sake? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

BRD is an essay. You have to have reasons to remove content, including maps, and no consensus is not a reason. You cannot simply use BRD as a tool to filibuster content. That is what you are doing and that is unacceptable. nableezy - 13:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

External image
Golan geography

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), in general, leaving aside issues of copyright for the moment, would you have a problem displaying this map in the "Geography" section?—Biosketch (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes for several reasons, it doesn't show any settlements, villages, DMZ, UNDOF lines, roads, all of this is part of geography. Lebanons border with the rest of Syria right after the Israeli occupied portion is missing. Furthermore the small difference between border and ceasefire lines wouldn't make the reader understand what they are and therefor put the rest of Syria in the same position as Israel to the area. Golans border with Lebanon is the same as Golans ceasefire line with the rest of Syria and this is not accurate and confusing.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The elements you mention as being "part of geography" – settlements, villages, DMZ, UNDOF lines, roads – are actually not part of geography in the strict sense. If they were, they would be mentioned in the article's "Geography" section. MOS:IMAGES policy stipulates that "Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate." The map linked to above is not comprehensive – it does not illustrate every feature of the Golan, as indeed no map can – but it does a profoundly better job highlighting the features elaborated on in the "Geography" section than the current CIA map does. There is no policy-based reason to prefer the CIA map over the PASSIA one (unless PASSIA is an unreliable source), but in fact there are policy-based reasons to prefer the PASSIA map over the CIA one for the Geography section.—Biosketch (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed those things are part of geography, the things I mentioned above are npov violations and inaccuracy problems. There is also no need to discuss a map that we don't have access to. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Those things may be part of geography in a very broad sense, but there is still MOS:IMAGES that says clearly, "Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate." None of what you mentioned – settlements, villages, DMZ, UNDOF lines, roads – is in our article's "Geography" section, ergo there is no policy-based reason to prefer the CIA map over the PASSIA one. How is the PASSIA map an NPOV violation and in what respects do you feel it to be inaccurate?—Biosketch (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The image also shows streams, Sea of Galilee, Jordan river, Hermon, hills, ridges, Yarmuk river, Raqqad river, this information is in the geography section. As I said, it could be moved to to the current status section, but it could also stay in the geo section, but I believe it should be high up in the article. As I said, there is no need to discuss a map we have no access to as that is a waste of time, but there is policy based reasons and inaccuracy's as I mentioned them above at 15:50, 12 May 2011. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a decent chance I'll be able to persuade the people at PASSIA to sign the OTRS ticket for the map. Now's just not the best timing to approach them. I'd still like to know what in your opinion makes their map inaccurate and POV, though. Remember, it's not a political map – it's not meant to represent every detail of the Golan Heights' political situation. Its focus is geographic – elevation and water, primarily, like our Geography section.—Biosketch (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should not ignore my comments as you have repeatedly done, I have already said what is pov and inaccurate about the map above [71] and in regards to geography, the CIA map is better in that aspect as it better points out what is what in regards to many geographical features and also shows many geographical features that the Passia map does not include.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The PASSIA map is completely neutral. It does not say whether the Golan is in Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan or, perhaps, an independent state, or the narture of its boundaries. But SD does not want a neutral map, even if it is in the geography section. I tried to understand the sentence Golans border with Lebanon is the same as Golans ceasefire line with the rest of Syria until I realised that he means not that they are the same, but that they are shown by the same symbol. No one says of course that these are international borders. But not good enough. Oh well. - BorisG (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As already pointed out before, your definition of what "neutral" is in this context is not in accordance with your own edits at other articles, so you don't really believe in what you yourself are saying. Of course I want a neutral map, that's why I don't want the non neutral and factually incorrect PASSIA map. And there is already a neutral map that is better in all aspects in the geography section. In the PASSIA map, the line for the international boundary between Jordan-Syria, Israel-Syria and Lebanon-Israel is different from the Israeli occupied Golan-Lebanon boundary, that line is instead the same as the ceasefire line between the Israeli occupied Golan and the rest of Syria and therefor is presenting the line as something different from the other national boundary lines, this is factually incorrect and confusing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), I respectfully ask that you stop arguing that the CIA map is neutral or that it represents consensus. It has been demonstrated to you already that exceedingly reliable news sources do not agree with that map's portrayal of the Golan Heights as part of Syria. Nableezy (talk · contribs) was supposed to produce sources here establishing that the Golan Heights are part of Syria, but he is figuratively speaking incapacitated – and pending the expiration of his sanctions, the evidence presented from The New York Times, CNN and National Geographic stands unchallenged. And see section below for even more evidence. Virtually every news source that reported on yesterday's events near Majdal Shams flat out rejected the POV espoused by the CIA map that the Golan Heights are a part of Syria. For all but the Tehran Times[72], Syria ends where the Israel-occupied Golan Heights begin, and the border between the two countries is the line separating their respective armies.—Biosketch (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

<- The map was removed. I restored it simply because Gilabrand's aggressive drive by style of editing and unwillingness to join discussions is unacceptable. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What was wrong with this map ? I forget. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It puts Israel in the same position as Syria to the area, therefor violates npov. It doesn't show that Israel occupies it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please retract your comment about my editing. I am a veteran editor who has spent more than five years upgrading thousands of articles (including this one) while people like you and your buddies spend endless hours arguing ad nauseum and contributing nothing but hot air. My "drive by" editing has already improved this mess of an article immeasurably. I have copyedited poor phrasing, added sources, removed falsified photos and images that add nothing. What have you done apart from leaving bullying remarks about others?--Geewhiz (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Geewhiz, your edits at this article has been troubling and inconsistent with your comments. You removed a map and called it "incorrect" although no evidence has been provided by anyone that it is incorrect including yourself. You removed a photo of Syrians leaving the area based on your own original research "Arab women did not wear pants in 1967" and "It is a photo of Indian women and children, as indicated by their dress and facial features." and then you say that the photo does not come with source or photographic information when it does. You removed that the area is in southwestern Syria when it is. You changed the mandates section to "British" when the area was part of the French, the term "occupied" is the term used by the international community, you changed it to "control", you changed the headline to present ceasefire lines as borders, which is inaccurate.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The WSJ source you added is also incorrect,[73] it says Israeli troops opened fire on protesters on the country's borders with Syria which is not correct. As the area the soldiers opened fire on is not on Israels border, but on the ceasefire line between the Israeli-occupied portion of Golan and the rest of Syria. The area is internationally not recognized as part of Israel, but of Syria. The source is therefor following an Israeli pov disregarding the international view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, what is going to happen is that I will continue to check edits you and others make to articles on my watchlist and if see any more aggressive drive by editing that reverts while discussions are ongoing such as your removal of the map here, your reverts that ignored the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#West_Jerusalem, unhelpful comments like this that make editing here so very difficult and failure to engage in ongoing discussions I will file an AE report. Gilabrand, please, it's time to stop the nonsense in this topic area. Please don't make it worse. What have I done ? Perhaps you can help me with Todros Geller, Saul Raskin, Doris Zinkeisen, Royal Robertson for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, stalk me. I have nothing to hide. I stand behind my edits and I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a productive manner while you bully others and fill talk pages to the point where they are unreadable. --Geewhiz (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Or you could simply agree to participate in consensus building (an unavoidable part of the editing process), not make contentious edits that ignore ongoing discussions, not act as if you can reliably identify a productive edit every time and try not to insult other editors. I think that would be better for everyone and the topic in general. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The only issue I had with the map was that it was misidentified in the article as being the CIA's map of the region. It isn't the CIA's map, it is a modification of the CIA map. Other editors took issue with the modifications that were made to the map itself, though I didn't have a problem with those. ← George ^talk 07:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is wrong that the map puts Israel in the same position as Syria. The label "Syria" on the map is about 30% larger than the label "Israel." Scoff if you want, but people do notice these things, and there's no reason to display "Syria" in a larger font than "Israel." An ideally NPOV map is the one I proposed and the one Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) described by analogy to Western Sahara. They do not engage in the dispute by assigning the Golan Heights to either party in the dispute; rather, they avoids taking sides by leaving the territory blank.—Biosketch (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like same size to me, but it doesn't matter, as the location of the name and drawing of the lines is what mostly matters, and in this regard it puts Israel in the same position and as also pointed out, the lines are also inaccurate. Ideally npov is not what you proposed as it puts Israel in the same position for a place internationally recognized as part of Syria. Sean also supported the CIA map to show geography and politics, but wanted another map for the infobox, the map is not in the infobox but in the geo section. As already pointed out before, what you claim is neutral by not "engaging in disputes" by not following the international view and instead give minority position the same weight is not in accordance with your own editing of other articles or wikipedia policy npov. In this case the map is presented as a CIA map, it shows geography and politics, even if you added another geography map or a map to the infobox, the CIA map would still have a place in the article to show the politics. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well they're not the same size, and that's the reality. And the recurring argument that the map, apart from the font issue, "puts Israel in the same position as Syria" means that WP:NPOV is simply not clear to you. WP:NPOV says, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." The dispute is over to whom the Golan Heights belongs currently – Israel or Syria. Engaging in the dispute would mean choosing one of those two countries. Not choosing either country is avoiding the dispute. Hence Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs)'s suggestion, as well as the map I proposed, are WP:NPOV. The insistence on a map displaying the Golan Heights within Syria as an undisputed consensus, on the other hand, is engaging in the dispute and therefore POV.—Biosketch (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any difference in the size, but as I said above before, thats not what the problem with the image is. Concerning npov, read Due and undue weight on how to handle that. The CIA map is not engaging in a equal dispute, it is presenting the worldview of it. And it is presented as a CIA map, not as a fact, and its not in the infobox. Once again, Sean supported the CIA map to show geography and political status, which it is doing, but not in the infobox, where the map isn't, you are misrepresenting his view. As already said several times before, your comments about what is "engaging in disputes" and what is "pov" or "npov" is not in accordance with your own editing of other Wikipedia articles, do you have anything new to say? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)