Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

The Golan Heights not in Syria

Meanwhile, Syrian state television reported that Israeli forces killed four Syrian citizens who had been taking part in an anti-Israeli rally on the Syrian side of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights border on Sunday.

Israeli army radio said earlier that dozens were wounded when Palestinian refugees from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights border were shot for trying to break through the frontier fence.

Deaths at Syria-Lebanon-Israel borders

Three killed as thousands flee violent crackdown in Syrian town, while four others shot and killed near Israeli border.

Mobilized by calls on Facebook, thousands of Arab protesters marched on Israel's borders with Syria, Lebanon and Gaza on Sunday in an unprecedented wave of demonstrations, sparking clashes that left at least 15 people dead in an annual Palestinian mourning ritual marking the anniversary of Israel's birth.

In a surprising turn of events, hundreds of Palestinians and supporters poured across the Syrian frontier and staged riots, drawing Israeli accusations that Damascus, and its ally Iran, orchestrated the unrest to shift attention from an uprising back home. It was a rare incursion from the usually tightly controlled Syrian side and could upset the delicate balance between the two longtime foes.

  • Miami Herald[4]

Violence erupted along three of Israel's land borders Sunday, as Palestinian protesters attempted to enter Israeli territory.

More than a dozen people were killed when Israeli military forces opened fire on demonstrators who crossed into Israel.

Along the Syrian border, thousands of protesters stormed the fence and hundreds burst through, pelting Israeli soldiers with stones.

  • Washington Post (Associated Press)[5]

Israeli troops clash with Arab protesters along three hostile borders — Syria, Lebanon and Gaza — leaving 16 people dead and dozens more wounded in an unprecedented wave of demonstrations marking a Palestinian day of mourning for their defeat at Israel’s hands in 1948. Along Israel’s border with Syria, thousands storm the fence and hundreds burst through, pelting soldiers with stones, Soldiers open fire, and dozens were wounded and four were reported killed.

The 15 May challenges to Israel on its borders with Lebanon and Syria, within the fragmented West Bank and on the Gaza frontier, undoubtedly embodied the same kind of risk-taking, confrontational people-power ethos that has fired the revolts in many parts of the Arab world.

There is clearly another dimension to the unprecedented eruptions on Israel's borders with Lebanon and Syria, in which a number of protesters are reported to have been shot dead and many others wounded.

  • Voice of America[7]

In the north, Israeli soldiers fired on Palestinians who breached a fence separating the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights and Syria.

  • Christian Science Monitor[8]

But deadly clashes Sunday with Arab demonstrators who challenged Israeli forces at the Lebanese, Syrian, Gazan, and West Bank borders showed it may be difficult for Israel to remain above the fray.

Protests have erupted in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as well as on the borders with Syria and Lebanon

Between four and 10 people were reportedly killed in or near the village of Majdal Shams, close to the Israeli-Syrian border.

Today's demonstrations - what activists called "Nakba" (Arabic for "catastrophe") - produced clashes at Israel's borders with Lebanon, Syria and the Gaza Strip. At least 12 people were killed.

Protests at Israel's borders with Syria and Lebanon also cast the spotlight on a diaspora marginalized in Palestinian politics since Yasser Arafat moved from exile to the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip two decades ago.

Israel was accused of shooting dead at least 13 Palestinian refugees trying to breach its frontiers from Syria, Lebanon and Gaza on Sunday, after a Facebook campaign to storm the borders.

Israeli soldiers killed at least two protesters and wounded 15 more after dozens cut their way through the fenced ceasefire line separating Syria from the occupied Golan Heights, seized by Israel during the Six Day War of 1967.

  • The New York Times[13]

Israel Clashes With Protesters on Four Borders

Israel’s borders erupted in deadly clashes on Sunday as thousands of Palestinians — marching from Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank — confronted Israeli troops to mark the anniversary of Israel’s creation.

  • The Wall Street Journal[14]

Israeli soldiers opened fire on demonstrators attempting to cross the border into Israel from Lebanon, Syria and the Gaza Strip on Sunday, as unprecedented protests erupted across the region on the anniversary of the creation of Israel, which Palestinians call the Nakba, or "catastrophe."—Biosketch (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


Cherry picked sources by authors who use terminology that only represent themselves, see here: BBC: "The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria", Guardian: "Israel, which still occupies Syria's Golan Heights from the 1967 war.", Landmine monitor report:"The Golan, in southwest Syria, is divided into three areas": Journal of Palestine Studies "The Golan Heights-most of the Qunaytra province and parts of the Dera'a province of southwest Syria" UN:"Golan Heights/Quneitra area in southwest Syria", Encyclopedia of world geography:"The GOLAN HEIGHTS are a mountain plateau area in southwestern Syria overlooking the Sea of Galilee. Israel currently occupies the area.", Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East & North Africa: D-K: "The Golan Heights region is a hilly plateau with a predominately rocky terrain located in southwestern Syria." Foreign policy of the United States: "Syria's demand that Israel withdraw unconditionally from the Golan Heights, a 450-square mile portion of southwestern Syria" Academic American encyclopedia:"The Golan Heights is a barren, hilly plateau in southwestern Syria occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War."

Nothing you brought supersedes the international view sources that has been provided before:[15][16]

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources I listed are all reliable per WP:RS. The assertion that they've been cherry-picked is absurd: they were at the top of Google News yesterday following the events in the Majdal Shams area. Were I in the business of picking cherries, I would have listed Haaretz or Arutz Sheva. I was careful to list only sources recognized for their neutrality and credibility. For the same reason, I've undone the revert ([17]) that restored "in southwestern Syria" to the Geography section as it is now clear that such a claim does not meet the neutrality demands of WP:NPOV – namely, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them."—Biosketch (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well obviously per the sources I added above they are cherry picked, and non of them supersedes the international view sources which is what matters here. You also claimed I violated the 1rr which I didn't do. You also claim that the edit violates npov which it doesn't do as it follows the international view. Per the fact that you are claiming my edit engages in the dispute when I am following the international view, and as I have pointed out before, that you yourself edit other articles about disputed places in the disputed area of Israel/Palestine without saying anything about them articles engaging in the dispute (when they are), then you don't really believe in what you yourself are saying here.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to intervene - this logic is a bit strange. When Supreme Deliciousness bring sources, including Arab and Palestinian ones, they are strong evidence. When Biosketch brings sources, they are "cherry picked" (that's quite a lot of cherries, BTW). There is another false logic here: If a source says "from Syria to the Golan Heights" (namely that the Golan is not in Syria) then it must be an editorial error, when it says "the Golan in Syria" then it must be the correct text. This is not relying on sources, this is manipulating sources. 212.143.221.156 (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The first sources I brought were only to show that his were cherry picked. But as shown above, my sources follow an international view, which his doesn't, that's the difference, his follows the view of one country. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why editors keep going in circles on this issue. The Golan Heights is controlled by Israel (the de facto status). The international community considers it Syrian territory (the de jure status). Biosketch's sources are describing the recent events in terms of the de facto status, while SD's sources are describing the area in terms of its de jure status. The two are separate and independent. The sources aren't contradicting each other, they're just two sides of the same coin. Biosketch has shown that the Golan Heights is de facto Israeli, and SD has show that the Golan Heights is de jure Syrian. The article should simply reflect both of those things. ← George talk 18:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason why editors keep going in circles on this issue is because some editors never stop trying removing neutrality from the article. Biosketch's sources are following the Israeli narrative. Israel occupies the area, this doesn't mean its part of it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The sources I provided are "following the Israeli narrative"? Here is the Israeli narrative: Olmert Says Golan Heights are an 'Integral Part' of Israel[18]; In Golan, Netanyahu Vows: Gamla Shall not Fall Again[19], etc. And the official Israeli position is that the Golan is just as much a part of the State of Israel as Tel Aviv or Haifa are. That is not the narrative espoused by the news sources above. The news sources above avoid engaging in the dispute by leaving the ownership of the Golan Heights ambiguous. They do not say it is in Israel or in Syria. That is neutrality. That is what some editors are endeavoring to remove from the article.—Biosketch (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Well obviously they don't avoid engaging in the dispute as several of those you brought said its Israel, therefor they follow the Israeli view, and those I brought follow the worldview. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
And yes, this edit violated the 1RR restriction because immediately preceding it came this edit, which was also a revert. The only reason I didn't go with it to AE is because it's a technicality – that and I have a tendency to botch up my reports at the Admin noticeboards, file them in the wrong places etc., which just makes me frustrated.—Biosketch (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Edits right after each other doesn't count as separate reverts in regards to reverting rules. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo

This photo [20] now has a dead link as a source, but previously it linked to the same website with the text: "syrian families evacuating golan heights after israeli occupation during arab israeli war" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's still here. Gilabrand nominated it for speedy deletion, writing that it shows Indians. I've removed the speedy deletion tag, and asked them why they think it shows Indians. ← George talk 07:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The photo is misidentified. It was not taken in the Golan Heights. It does not show Arab villagers evacuating. It is a photo of Indian women and children, as indicated by their dress and facial features. This photo comes with no source or photographic information. It should not be used in this article.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thats not up to you to decide, source says its Syrian families evacuating the Golan Heights during the 1967 War. The first women and her child certainly doesn't look like Indians, those in the back look darker but there is no way to identify them as non Syrians, there are many different kinds of people in Syria, its not up to you to decide who is not a Syrian.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
It may be misidentified, but we need a better reason than racial and ethnic stereotyping. The license plate on the car doesn't match license plates from India (which were white on black in 1967, not black on white as in the photo). ← George talk 07:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, it doesn't look like a Syrian license plate to me either. But I'm having a much harder time finding information on Syrian plates than on the Indian ones, so I'm not completely sure.
Question to editors that want to keep this image: While I don't agree with Gilabrand that the picture shows Indians, is there any reason to keep this image? I mean, it doesn't show people running for their lives, being shot at. It could be titled "Family heading out for a picnic" and the image would be equally meaningless. My understanding is that there was some mass exodus that took place. I don't think this image does a good job of representing that. Therefore, I propose removing it from the article, not because it is an inaccurate or misidentified image, but simply because it doesn't add much value to the article. Thoughts? ← George talk 08:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Since over 100 000 Syrians lived there and many left and were expelled, the image is good in representing that important occurrence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with the first half of your sentence SD, I think the image in question does a terrible job of representing the event. When I see the image I don't think "Wow, so that's what it looks like to be kicked out of you home", I think "What am I supposed to be looking at a picture of?" Really the image does a disservice to the thousands of people expelled. ← George talk 18:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerning this photo: [21], there is nothing in its information that says that the image has anything to do with the Israeli-Syrian conflict, they might have been in the shelter because of attacks from Jordan or the West Bank or Lebanon, we don't know this.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know where Kibutz Dan is? It's located in the most northeastern point of Israel's 1949 lines, so Jordan is out of the question. Lebanon did not take part of the war, so that rules it out as well. Who else can it be except Syria? TFighterPilot (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see how it would be "out of the question" for attacks from Jordan or the West Bank on Kibbutz Dan. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
It can also be from Mars. It's certainly more likely than it being from Jordan or the WB, which are over 60km away from Dan, in contest to Syria which was less than 1km away from it and had high ground. The people evacuating in the other picture could just as well be some family going for a picnic. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how Jordan and the West Bank being 60 km away from Dan wouldn't mean that attacks couldn't have come from there. Why not? Concerning the other picture it says in the source: "Syrian families evacuating the Golan Heights during the 1967 War", so it has nothing to do with a picnic.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
No. It's definately a Syrian bunker. Just look at the baby on the top-left. In fact none of them are sporting typically Jewish features. And just look at that wooly hat. Looks like it's from taliban land. Chesdovi (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Huh? I don't follow. ← George talk 18:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
It was a joke. Point being that SD is grasping at straws here. TFighterPilot (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Ugh, so hard to tell who is joking and isn't. Gilabrand dislikes one photo because he thinks it shows Indians based on "their dress and facial features", yet Chesdovi is joking that the people in the other image are Syrian because "none of them are sporting typically Jewish features". Can we please just leave the stereotyping out guys? It's confusing, and it's impossible to convince those who disagree that the sources are wrong and the images are fake based on what someones face looks like.
I still think we should remove the image of fleeing Syrians, simply because it isn't a good representation of an exodus of tens of thousands of people. I think there's something to be said for balancing the Israeli viewpoint (the children in the bunker) with a Syrian viewpoint, and the current image does that to some extent, but I'm just not sure that the current image is the best at doing that. ← George talk 23:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Its better then nothing and its from the actual events, so we should be happy that we have it at least. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with SD. If the image is said to correspond to a particular event, then there is no reason to remove it. If and when we have other images that illustrate this event, then we can discuss what is better. But until that happens, this is better than nothing. - BorisG (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Israeli settlements?

As we have seen above, there are numerous sources that refer alternatively to the area as Syrian and Israeli. However, the Jewish communities in the area are referred to as Israeli settlements in their respective articles. Although the Golan Heights is treated internationally as occupied territory, it is de facto a part of Israel, since Israeli law and jurisdiction and military control apply there. International law on the subject is debatable as well. The original League of Nations mandate for Palestine envisioned the Golan Heights as part of the Jewish state, but the British ceded it to the French Mandate of Syria in an action that itself violated international law. Whether Israel was abiding by law in annexing the area after taking it from Syria, I don't know, but as far as I know, the UN Security Council Resolution condemning it was non-binding, since only Resolutions dealing with "peace and security" are binding.

In East Jerusalem, Jewish neighborhoods are not referred to as "Israeli settlements" in the beginning of the introduction, but as Israeli neighborhoods, and then it is mentioned that they are considered settlements under international law. Unlike the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, the West Bank is under military authority, so the settlements there can freely be called settlements, as they are not even considered a part of Israel by Israel itself. Remember, even though international law is highly debatable on these subjects, the facts on the ground are a different story.

I therefore propose that all articles on Israeli communities in the Golan Heights be referred to as kibbutzim, moshavim, villages, towns, etc in the beginning of the introductions. Then, the intro can go on to say that it is considered an Israeli settlement on occupied territory by the international community. This is the same policy that applies to East Jerusalem, because official annexation and civilian rule as opposed to military authority is very different.--RM (Be my friend) 23:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As can been seen above, the sources saying its in Syria are following the international view. The sources saying its Israel are following Israels view. The original League of Nations mandate for Palestine did not envision the Golan Heights as part of any Jewish state and the British did not cede it to the French Mandate of Syria because it was never part of the British Mandate but always part of the French mandate. The area in question you are referring to is a triangle in northwestern Golan that was exchanged for land in other areas in Syria and Lebanon that Palestine received. But all of this has nothing to do with Israeli settlements. Show me the law that says that Israel was abiding by laws by annexing lands in Syria and what this has to do with the issue. I dont really understand what UN resolutions being non binding has to do with this. What other articles says is not an argument for removing that they are Israeli settlements. That the West bank is under military authority and other Israeli occupied territories are not is not a reason to remove that they are Israeli settlements. All Israeli built up settlements in land it occupied in 1967 are Israeli settlements. Here is only one source showing a large majority of the international community calling them Israeli settlements: [22], many more sources like these can be found. I haven't seen one single valid argument from you for removing that they are Israeli settlements. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, the neighborhoods in EJ are neighborhoods of course, since they're not independent entities. The word "settlement" is just a general word to describe any sort of municipal entity. As long as the word "illegal" doesn't precede it, I see no problem using it. The Hebrew word for settlement is Yishuv and a settler is Mityashev, both have positive connotations. What you call in English illegal settlement are called in Hebrew "Hitnahlut". So unless you wish to be specific, the word "settlement" is perfectly acceptable. TFighterPilot (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not true that the Golan was ever part of the British mandate. An interim border agreement in 1920 placed a small part in Palestine but the final agreement in 1923 did not. This map, which is in the article, shows the portion involved. As SD mentioned, Palestine received a substantial compensation for this change. Actually the adjustment between 1920 and 1923 was partly due to pressure from the Zionist organization (if that's not in the article I'll add it). Zerotalk 05:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Bloodshed and attempts by protesters to storm the border, why no mention or section?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13660311

Reaper7 (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawful Possession?

Concerning the sentence: "Many states consider continued Israeli control over the Golan Heights as lawful possession justified by a claim of self-defense, while Syria doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist.[14]": first, this is not an accurate reflection of what is written in the book, which states "The continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights is recognized by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, on a self-defence basis." and continues "But the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory...has been universally rejected by the international community..." This says nothing about "lawful possession", which is quite different from "belligerent occupant." Second, what are these "many states" that hold this view? This is unacceptably vague, and neither the article nor the referenced book tells us what these many states are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Holden Caulfield (talk • contribs) 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The book is a reliable source and so can be cited on this issue. We rely on reliable sources to make generalisations and summary observations that we are not allowed to make ourselves. I would also like to know who these "many states" are, but that is not a reason to reject the citation. In this instance though it is essential that the opinion of the book be cited precisely, using the words like "occupation" and "valid" that the source uses. This is an expert book on international law and its use of such words is carefully chosen. We should also include enough from the source so that its view is not unrepresentative, which in this case means citing the second part in addition to the first part. I put the second part into the footnote, but it would be fine to have it in the text instead. Zerotalk 00:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Cat

I have no idea how to describe this edit. On the basis of Micronesia supposedly recognizing the Golan as being Israeli territory, the view of nearly the entire world that it is Israeli-occupied Syrian territory is removed? Just wow. nableezy - 03:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree about Micronesia, but what really matters, as I see it, is that half of the involved parties recognize it as Israeli territory. The involved parties being Israel and Syria. TFighterPilot (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Before we go down this path, I would like to ask a question. Do you really think that this article should not be in the category Category:Israeli-occupied territories? nableezy - 20:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess I've seen this conversation 1000 times. 1001 is redundant, isn't it? There are countless RS saying it is occupied territory; some can be found in the very beginning of the reference list. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I believe it shouldn't be called occupied territories. There are countless territorial disputes in the world. All except in this one Wikipedia is taking a NPOV. Look at Northern Cyprus, for example. Not a single country in the world recognizes it, and it's stated in article. However, it consists of only three occurrences of words that being with "occup". This article, on the other hand, has 22. That's over seven times as many. TFighterPilot (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Some repetitive appearances of the O-word can be removed. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
But I found none. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
(2x ec) If you have a problem with the article Northern Cyprus then by all means go fix those problems. However, for this article, there are, as ElComandanteChe wrote, "countless RS saying it is occupied territory". That is enough of a reason for it to be in the category. NPOV does not mean that "both sides" are treated the same. NPOV means that POVs are given their due weight, with the weight due being in proportion to the prominence that they have in reliable sources. But, and I hope you trust me on this, you really do not want to get into an argument about how both "sides" should be treated equally, you will end up abandoning that argument for a huge number of articles in the topic area (for example, Jerusalem is that capital of Israel? Or Palestine? The Six-day War was "preemptive"? Or an "act of aggression"? And so on) (after first ec) In reply to ElCom's comment about removing "repetitive appearances", that may be true, but each case would have to be examined. But what so often happens is people, be it named accounts or IPs, try to remove the well sourced fact that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. If there are places where occupied is not used correctly then that should be corrected. I am however unaware of such instances. (after 2nd ec) Me either, but there may be. TFighter, are there any specific places where the word should not be used? nableezy - 20:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The infobox, fox example, contains the same information twice. My point is that after we established that the international community considers it occupied territory we don't need to mention this fact every time Israel is mentioned it the article. The word "Controlled" is NPOV and can be used to replace the word "Occupied" in places where the word is not used to describe the international POV. TFighterPilot (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if a couple (but no more) of "occupied" is replaced with "controlled", IMHO it doesn't really matter. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Since this is supposedly a centralized discussion about the use of the term occupied, in my opinion the choice between "occupied" and "controlled" depends on the context. If we are talking about territory then "occupied" is more accurate. If we are talking about a specific building, "controlled" is more fitting. But the "control" that Israel exercises of the Golan has a name, that name is "military occupation". nableezy - 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it centralized? or does centralized only refer to what's at IPCOLL? Anyway, it's been my experience that reliable sources like the NYT often alternate between "Israeli occupied" and "Israeli controlled." I've even come across the latter variant in Syrian and Iranian reports, if that means anything. I can compile a list, though the methodology involved might be considered cherry picking, since there's no way to do it other than perform a deliberately targeted search.—Biosketch (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate my point:

  • The New York Times says, "...Israel has occupied this strategic plateau since the 1967 war and has extended Israeli law here," but also uses "the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights."
  • Sky News uses "Israeli-controlled Golan Heights."
  • Reuters uses "Israeli-occupied Golan" but also "Israeli-controlled territory."
  • CBC explains, "...Syria demands a return of the Golan, a strategic plateau overlooking northern Israel that Israel captured in 1967 and annexed 14 years later. The annexation is not internationally recognized." But it also uses "Israeli-controlled Golan Heights."
  • CSMonitor uses "Israeli-controlled Golan Heights" but also says, "...a strategic Syrian territory occupied by Israel."

So the bottom line is that saying "occupied" each and every time goes against WP:DUE, which instructs, "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" (emphasis added). Insisting on the word "occupied" over and over in Golan Heights-related articles is POV-pushy.—Biosketch (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Controlled" does not contradict occupied, so none of the sources you have demonstrate anything about undue weight. Insisting on using terminology that is less accurate to appease certain political views is "POV-pushy". nableezy - 12:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Less accurate? Wikipedia is about verfyability, not truth. If reliable sources prefer the word 'controlled', they must have a reason (perhaps neutrality?). Then this is the word we should use. Doing otherwise is pushing a POV. Certainly the view of the international bodies (such as the UN) needs to be clearly spelled out, but where other aspects are discussed, we should use terminology employed by the corresponding sources. - BorisG (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not "prefer" the word "controlled" over "occupied", some use one, some the other, some both. But given that "controlled" does not contradict "occupied" (in fact, it is implied by "occupied"), using "controlled" in place of "occupied" does nothing but provide a less complete in meaning, and accurate, word. Also, "occupied" is verifiable. If you really want me to compile a list of sources for "occupied" I can do that. It will take a bit of time as there are literally thousands of such sources. It is not only "international bodies" that use occupied, it is reliable sources. The first example comes to mind is this, which says that the Golan is an area in south-western Syria with a current status of "Israeli-occupied". But I would not want to use that source, as news sources should only really be used for, well, news. This topic is not one that is about breaking news, and it has a wealth of scholarly sources that discuss its political status. Those are the sources that we should be using, not a collection of news sources. If you really want me to, I will compile a list of peer-reviewed journal articles or books published by university presses that back the word "occupied". nableezy - 16:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
You yourself said that the word controlled does not contradict occupied. Then why not use it alongside occupied, for example, in the geography section (where the word is used once)? TFighterPilot (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
He also said "depends on context". Actually, I see this occupied->controlled and the other way around conversions as a pure WP:POINT editing, of no encyclopedic value. It's rarely justified by the context and rarely clarifies anything. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The thing about WP:POINT is that it's highly subjective. To the other side, everything will look like it. The discussion is about making this article as NPOV as possible (that is, without deleting the whole thing). If it had no importance, Nableezy wouldn't care about changing it. The main question is what weight should the international POV be given in an article. TFighterPilot (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about others motives, but mine are: building encyclopedia, maintaining article stability and reducing the tension in I/P area. We can discuss the nuances of describing this or that as occupied or controlled or annexed or governed under Golan Law for years, but honestly, given the current political situation is clearly explained in the lede, how it affects neutrality? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not trying to say that reliable sources prefer 'controlled'; I said 'IF'. No I don't want you to compile a pile of reliable sources which use this or that word. I would like us to use the word that is used by a reliable source from which a particular piece of information is sourced (this assumes that every bit of info in the article is sourced, as it should be). And where information is sourced from more than one source, we can use the word used by the majority of these cited cources. Sounds simple, isn't it? I do agree that this is a subtle and relatively unimportant point, but the problem is that it appears to be very important for some editors. - BorisG (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

occupied since/annexation

Reenem earlier made, without any comment, this edit. This edit changed the meaning of the sentence to claim that this territory is not currently occupied by Israel and further that the Golan Law was an act of annexation. The Israeli government, shortly after passing the Golan Law, said that the law was not an act of annexation. I could give several sources on this, but for example see here. If you have access to HeinOnline you can also see this article. Additionally, it is almost undisputed that the Golan is currently occupied. I have restored the wording as it was prior to that edit. nableezy - 22:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I won't have access to HeinOnline until Sunday, but there are two reasons I'm inclined to think the non-annexation argument fails. 1. It matters more how Israel's official legal declaration and how reliable sources define the status of the Golan vis-a-vis annexed or not annexed. That Google Books source (can't you find something a little more authoritative and less tendentious?) is quoting someone who's probably trying to minimize international criticism of the Golan Law. I.e., he could have wanted to avoid using the word "annexed" for PR reasons. 2. It's crucial to go back to the original Hebrew wording of the law. If the word סיפוח was used, it's basically the equivalent of annexation. It's certainly the case that סיפוח is the word used when reliable sources describe what Israel did to the Golan Heights and to East Jerusalem.—Biosketch (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Things are a bit more complicated than that. There are two papers on the question back to back in the source Nableezy mentioned: one by Sheleff and by Maoz. Both of them agree that the wording of the Golan Heights Law intentionally avoided words that amounted to annexation. However, Maoz argues that regardless of the wording Israeli has in fact annexed the Golan, whereas Sheleff argues otherwise. These two articles together are a fine example of the truth that lawyers can make an argument for anything. Israel's explanation to the UN is also vague with regards to annexation, though I would read it as a denial, see here. If that is not a stable link, go here and enter "S/14821" in the "search by symbol" box. Zerotalk 13:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
My recollection of all this is that there was more than one reason to avoid explicit mentioning of annexation. One was obviously to minimize the international outcry. But the other, also important, was internal: to leave the door open (if only very slightly) to reverse this action in the right circumstances. I am sure I've read this in reliable sources. Anyway, both points of view presented in reliable sources should be mentioned. - BorisG (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If this is a discussion on whether the Golan Heights are occupied or not, in relation to Reenem (talk · contribs)'s edits, then it's a moot point since I believe all the editors participating in this conversation agree that the Golan is occupied. If it's a discussion on whether the Golan heights are annexed or not, that's a separate issue. Israel's declaration didn't use the word סיפוח "annexation" – it didn't even use the word ריבונות "sovereignty." De jure, then, an argument can be made that Israel never formally annexed the territory. De facto, however, it has. And because it's annexed the territory de facto, the occupation is not a military one. I don't know what the position of the article is vis-a-vis military or non-military occupation. My instinct is to say that it's not a military occupation, at last not in practice. I don't have time now to go through the article or start citing sources, but I wanted to comment here before the thread got archived, because this is something that should be worked out through consensus: is or isn't Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights a military one, and on what level does it qualify as a military occupation.—Biosketch (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I dont agree with the premise. That Israel applied civil law to the Golan does not make it that it is no longer held under military occupation. What it means is that Israel violated the articles of GCIV that require the prior legal system be retained, with certain exceptions (all dealing with military necessity). See for example Roberts, Adam. Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967 The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Jan., 1990)

p. 584: Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.

I am unaware of the word "occupied" being used in international humanitarian law in a context other than military occupation. Do you have any sources that give such a distinction? I cant find any, but I cant say I have looked too hard. nableezy - 22:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Just saw this discussion. Regarding Biosketch's earlier comments above that "De jure, then, an argument can be made that Israel never formally annexed the territory. De facto, however, it has." This just doesn't make sense. Annexation is a legal term meaning the formal joining of captured or occupied land, making "de facto annexation" a contradiction in terms. Control of land that hasn't been formalized is by definition not annexation, it's occupation. Whether that occupation is a military or non-military occupation seems like a rather odd question to me. The area was controlled by Syria, and recognized as Syrian territory. Israel took control of the area using military force in 1967. Israel has maintained control of it since then using military force (e.g., if a Syrian tries to walk into the Golan Heights from Syria they get shot). How can that constitute a non-military occupation? ← George talk 23:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the point that is trying to be made is that the Golan is not under a military administration but a civil one. But that does not mean that the territory is not under military occupation. The requirement for military occupation is for territory to be under the effective military control of a foreign power (and yes, in the Golan Israel is a "foreign power"). It is not that there are "boots on the ground". For this reason, several human rights groups and international organizations continue to consider Gaza to be under Israeli-occupation, despite Israel's "unilateral withdrawal". The same is true for the Golan. Yes, Israel has replaced the military government that had been in place until 1981 with a civilian one, but as the world continues to recognize the territory as Syrian and considers Israel to be a belligerent occupant, and the UNSC has called Israel's decision to extend its civil law in to the territory "null and void", they consider the territory to be held under military occupation. As far as your point of annexation being a formal legal term, I think the bit I quoted from Roberts put it best; "by acts that amount to annexation". nableezy - 02:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
In the end, this is a matter that reliable sources'll have to settle. But to respond on a theoretical level to Nableezy (talk · contribs), it's important to recognize that there are realities on the ground in the Golan Heights and, although the United Nations may not officially accept them, an article reporting on the Golan Heights needs to convey to the reader what the reality is both at the formal level and in practice. When we talk about the 1923 international border, for instance, it ought to be noted that there is no actual border one can stand next to and feel with any of his senses. It is, rather, a formal construct that exists at certain discourse levels, such as international law and diplomacy. Presumably, this is why media reports no longer use the 1923 line as a contextual frame and instead refer to the '73 line as the border. They prefer to acknowledge the practical reality over the U.N.-declared state of affairs. This, by the way, is the reason news reports are crucial to this article. It isn't enough to consult how this or another legal scholar interprets international law in relation to the situation in the Golan. That is but one aspect of reality. It is just as important – arguably even more so – to convey what the current prevailing attitude is among reporters as to the reality there. And in that sense, it is problematic to say that the Golan Heights are under military occupation. That designation could apply to parts of the Palestinian territories, because there the military still inserts itself into how affairs are run, such as with checkpoints and water rights. But in the Golan, life is administered entirely by Israel's civil apparatus – i.e., the police, local political councils, and national political institutions.
@George (talk · contribs), now you understand why even though annexation is a legal term, it also has practical dimensions. We're saying Israel did not officially annex the Golan, correct? Because in its own declarations, it didn't use that word and instead proclaimed that it was transferring administrative powers to the Minister of the Interior. Yet on every other level, the Golan Heights functions as an integral part of the State of Israel (which isn't the case for West Bank). And sources have been brought here previously establishing that at least as far as reliable sources go, the Golan Heights Law amounted to an Israeli annexation of the territory. Basically what I'm saying is that confining the article only to the level of Israeli or U.N. proclamations is to give the reader a distorted – of, if that word is too harsh, an incomplete – picture of reality. Incidentally, this is why I have to disagree with the comment by Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) in the "Lead" section below. Jerusalem functions as the capital of the State of Israel. People can deny that it is the capital, but it's where Parliament convenes and it's the denotation of the expression "the capital" for millions of people who exist and go to Jerusalem in order to interact with their government. I'm not necessarily saying I know what the right formula is to apply all this to our articles here, but the bottom line is that there needs to be an acknowledgment not only of how scholars and international bodies interpret law formally but also of what the situation is in practice.—Biosketch (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Billions of people think that God is great or Jesus saves. They function as religious figures in a very real practical sense in the lives of billions of people. It is their "reality". Wikipedia treats them for what they are, claims, and attributes the claims to the sources of the claims. If we can do it in those cases it should be really easy to do it for some pieces of land. Apparently it isn't easy at all. Funny old world. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Biosketch that we should include both viewpoints, carefully. Maybe part of the problem is that Reneem's edit that started this discussion removed one of those viewpoints in favor of the other? It's hard to judge when we're taking in the abstract, so maybe if there are specific phrases or sentences editors take issue with we could discuss those one-by-one. I think that Nableezy's cited quote above ("Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.") is a fairly well balanced statement describing both viewpoints. It doesn't explicitly label the situation as annexation, nor as military occupation, but vaguely alludes to both in a pretty neutral manner. What do you think of the phrasing that source uses? ← George talk 08:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with both comments above. It should be easy (by the way, very nice: most people might have said "It shouldn't be difficult" in litotes, which is a less direct utterance) to attribute prominent claims to their respective sources. If we can capture the spirit of that quote Nableezy (talk · contribs) brought, in my opinion that'll be great.—Biosketch (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, you write that media reports no longer use the 1923 line as a contextual frame and instead refer to the '73 line as the border. That is only partially true, as there are any number of news sources that do not use the 1973 lines as a "border". But that misses a pretty important point. Earlier, you brought a collection of news sources that mistakenly used the word "border" for something that is not a "border". A news report should be used to source, well, news. What are Israel's borders (where they exist) is not exactly news. We have much higher quality sources for that topic, we do not need to pick a collection of news stories for it. You brought these stories as if you thought that they proved that the Golan is not in Syria. For example, this AJE report was used by you to back the idea that the Golan is not in Syria, on the basis that it says on the Syrian side of the border with the occupied Golan Heights and, later the Syrian side of the Golan Heights border (but even this does not say it is a border with Israel). A journalist can be forgiven for mistaking a boundary with a border, an encyclopedia however cannot. But if you want news sources, here is one that says that the Golan is in "south-western Syria". Or, if you have access, the Times of London ran a story on the same protests, opening with The Golan Heights, the strategic plateau in southwest Syria (the piece is Blanford, Nicholas (9 June 2011). "Deadly diversion takes its toll". The Times of London.). But enough of the news sources, lets look at one that is a bit more reliable (see WP:RS for why I say this is "more" reliable):

  • Mara'i, Tayseer; Halabi, Usama (1992), "Life under Occupation in the Golan Heights", Journal of Palestine Studies, 22 (1), University of California Press: pp. 78-93 {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help):

    p. 78: The Golan Heights-most of the Qunaytra province and parts of the Dera'a province of southwest Syria

I honestly have not had the time to get many more sources, but I will soon(ish). But Israel does not have a border with Syria, on either side of the Golan. There are several sets of boundaries. There isnt even a formal border between Syria and Lebanon (for example, where the Shebaa Farms are wont be settled until a border treaty between Syria and Lebanon is signed that deals with this and other issues, Ghajar for one). But I cant honestly figure out what it is you want to change about the article. This has gone from whether or not the Golan is occupied, to if it is annexed, to if there is some meaning of occupied that is not the same as under military occupation, to I dont know what. What exactly are you trying to say? That the Golan is not under Israeli military occupation? nableezy - 16:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's I was trying to say. I don't remember now why it was important for me to have made that point. Conceivably, I was under the impression that the article called Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights a military one, or that you were trying to argue against Israel having annexed the Golan as a precursor to editing the article so as to claim that the Golan is under military occupation. But as far as I can tell without reading through the whole thing, the article does make clear that the Golan is under Israeli civil administration, so in the end all of us're happy. Which is pretty rare.—Biosketch (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I did quite a bit of reading on this point some time ago. It seems that international law recognizes only two types of occupation, namely occupation of "empty" land under the principle of terra nullius and belligerent occupation. Belligerent occupation starts when a state seizes the territory of another state and ends when the territory is released (by withdrawal or treaty). The nature of the control exercised by the occupying state is not part of the definition. So the situation in the Golan is belligerent occupation regardless of whether the regime there is military or civil. Sources would not hard to provide. Zerotalk 12:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox again

Infobox says that The Golan Heights are Syrian territory occupied by Israel. But the article says that only part of the Golan Heights is occupied by Israel, and part is under Syrian administration. Which one of these is correct? - BorisG (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The article, Israel withdrew from a portion of the Golan in 1974 (the area where the UNDOF is active). nableezy - 12:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not the whole story. The article says "Two-thirds of the land was captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War and has since been occupied by Israel." Also, further down the infobox itself says that Population (2005) is " Total 38,900 (in the Israeli-occupied part); 79,000 (in the Syrian-controlled part). " This is all very confusing. - BorisG (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The article is not accurate. The entire Golan was captured in 67, portions of it recovered by Syria in the early stages of 73, then again completely taken by Israel by the end of that war, and a partial withdrawal in 74. Ill work on that part of the article sometime soon (not now). nableezy - 16:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that when the Infobox says "79,000 (in the Syrian-controlled part).", these 79,000 people live in the territory which Israel occupied between 1967 and 1973/4? Or that the Infobox is incorrect on this point? - BorisG (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Population

The article is locked, can somebody update the population figures for the Israeli-controlled area? According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics as of 2010 there are 17,600 Jewish settlers and 22,500 Arabs [23]. According to this Hebrew-language article 7.6% of the Druze in the Israeli-controlled area have Israeli citizenship, based on data from the Israel Ministry of the Interior.--84.108.213.97 (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Why isn't it mentioned further up in the lead that the Golan heights is Israeli territory captured by Israel after the six days war? The current administration should be mentioned in the intermediate lead, say " The Golan heights is an contested area in Israel..." and such. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it isn't. Bodies with international legal powers such as the UNSC agree that it is Syrian territory occupied by Israel.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Then it should state that in the lead, really. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
If we wanted to list every body that considers the GHs as occupied, the lead would be longer than the article. -asad (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The article on Jerusalem states it is in Israel but not internationally recognised as such. Why can't this be used here? --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
To be accurate it says "is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" rather than "in Israel" although it amounts to the same thing. The Jerusalem article should not say that. Many editors know that and have worked very hard to either get it changed or prevent it from being changed. It's a pretty blatant WP:NPOV policy violation but it's been impossible to get that article to comply with policy by saying "declared", "claimed" etc rather than stating as fact that Jerusalem, a city that includes areas outside of the green line, is "in Israel". Sean.hoyland - talk 19:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Governed might be a better choice of words? --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Better than? nableezy - 02:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Occupied vs. Controlled

In the "population" part of the infobox, it says 39,900 people live in the "Israeli-occupied part", while 79,000 live in the "Syrian-controlled part". I suggest replacing "Israeli-occupied" with "Israeli-controlled". Simply put, it is highly debatable whether Israel's annexation was illegal or not (see here). I'm simply stating that we should just state that Israel controls the Golan Heights, because it does, because it is debatable whether it is occupied or lawfully annexed under international law. The world (save for Micronesia) may not recognize it, but the dubiousness of international law on this matter and facts on the ground need to be taken into consideration). In the rest of the infobox, it already aknowledges that it is de-facto annexed by Israel and under Israeli civil administration, while internationally recognized as being part of Syria. Using "controlled" would be neutral, as it doesn't imply either sovereignty or occupation.--RM (Be my friend) 04:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Myths and facts is so far from being a reliable source that it merits no consideration. Not even the United States, whose Congress is apparently more "pro-Israel" than the Israeli government, says the Golan is anything other than Syrian territory occupied by Israel. You are right that the rest of the infobox acknowledges that Israel has applied its laws to the territory. That is how it should be. It also should include the fact that Israel's status in the Golan is universally accepted as being that of belligerent occupant. "Neutral" in "neutral point of view" means fairly and proportionately representing all significant POVs. The super-majority, near unanimous, view that the Golan is territory occupied by Israel is certainly significant and efforts to suppress that view in favor of emphasizing an extreme minority claim is what is not "neutral". nableezy - 04:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
And the question of the legality of the Golan Law is not "highly debatable", UNSC 497 is pretty clear on that. nableezy - 04:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Occupied is correct, notable fringe opinions go to the fine print. Zerotalk 09:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality does not mean false equivalence. It means following the reliable sources. A preponderance of which talk about Israeli occupation. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Even if the majority of sources refer to it as "occupied", there is still the de facto situation on the ground and in Israeli law that needs to be taken into consideration. First off, UNSC Resolution 497 is not legally binding. Only UNSC Resolutions adopted under Chapter VII, actions "with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression" are binding. See the article United Nations Security Council Resolution 497: the article itself states that it was not adopted under Chapter VII, and was therefore not an international legal obligation on Israel. But anyway, this dispute over legality is between Israel and the rest of the world. To put "occupied" is to accept the position of the world, the equivalent of putting "part of Israel" in the infobox. Putting "controlled" is neutral, as it doesn't take any side, simply stating the facts.--RM (Be my friend) 23:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The Israeli position can be expressed in a place where it is not given undue weight. But just because Israel, and Israel alone, takes a particular position does not require us to compromise on our reliable sources when we describe the status of the relevant territory. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that Wikipedia should not be taking sides. This site's policy is to be neutral. Just because slavery is universally accepted today as an evil, it is not appropriate to say "slavery is evil" on this site, as that is an opinion, no matter how widely accepted. This article already says that the Golan Heights is regarded as occupied territory, but to say it is is taking sides. There is no source for the statement of "occupied" in the infobox anyway, and it would not be compromising your sources elsewhere in the article, as "controlled" would not deny that it is occupied either.--RM (Be my friend) 23:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Since this discussion repeats itself from time to time, please take a look at its previous instance. In particular, the outcome of the discussion was that the territory is described both as "occupied" and "controlled" in reliable sources, and that one of this words shall chosen on case-by-case basis. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Golan evacuation.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Golan evacuation.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

three million tourists?

Not sure where the lead section is getting it's info from. in 2011, Israel celebrated 3.6 million tourists. certainly, 3million of them didn't visit the Golan. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2011/Tourism_to_Israel_grows_21-Sep-2011.htm Al-Ahram Weekly is clearly not a reliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.97.109 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Map problems

There are currently three maps used in the article which is way too many. This one [24] is not neutral as it shows the Golan as part of Syria. The Golan Heights have been under Israeli civilian control for 44.5 years. They have been under Syrian control for only 21. I have compiled a number of maps from reliable sources (including National Geographic and United Press International) showing the Golan as belonging to neither Israel nor Syria. Please note the UPI map.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] The Golan remains under defacto Israeli control and it’s disputed status should be reflected on corresponding maps.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Maps that don't indicate Israeli control of the area are a disservice to our readers.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
However the one JJG indicated [34] does show Israeli control. Zerotalk 06:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, it actually specifically says that Israel controls the territory, with that control having a name. This attempt to whitewash the near consensus among competent parties on the Golan's status is more than silly, it is disruptive as it attempts to distort facts backed by countless scholarly sources to allow for a fringe narrative that the Golan is not Syrian territory held by Israel under military occupation. That is the position of nearly the entire world, and the sources in the article back that up. nableezy - 15:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Improve readability of the lede

I think that the lede is currently way too wordy and dense with information. Let's work on improving the summary so it's readable and easy to understand. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock

I see nothing basically wrong with it. It would be best to set forth your proposals here for general consideration.Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've improved it considerably since my last comment. The lede is pretty good now, in my opinion. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock

Purple Line, disambiguation

Small fix, but could someone make it so "Purple Line" doesn't link to the disambiguation page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.98.183 (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for bringing that up. nableezy - 17:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Heights and WP:COMMONNAME

The following phrase has been inserted into the Lead, “also referred to as Syrian Golan or the Syrian Heights.” The reference for the POV edit is one 30-year old source. Per WP:COMMONNAME, it doesn’t hold up. One ref to a 30-year old source is insufficient to establish a commonly used name. Moreover, I have found the following sources that refer to it as the Israeli Golan;

[35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

If one can refer to the Golan as “Syrian Golan” on reliance on one 30-year old source, surely one can easily call it the "Israeli Golan Heights" based on a multiplicity of much more recent sources that refer to it by that name.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Syrian Heights" was common before 1967 and doesn't need to be in the lead. "Syrian Golan" is the standard name used by the UN and other international bodies and must remain (with a more recent source). "Israeli Golan" is not a name at all but a description. Zerotalk 06:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "Syrian Golan" must remain. The United Nations frequently refers to the region as "Syrian Golan"[44] and there are many other reputable sources that use that name.[45][46] This is an encyclopedia article, not a soapbox.YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock
"Syrian Golan" isn't a name in the same sense that "Syrian Heights" or "Golan Heights" are names. "Egyptian Sinai" and "Israeli Dead Sea" similarly aren't names but rather nationally designated territories or sites. Is there a source establishing that the Golan Heights are also referred to as the "Syrian Golan"?—Biosketch (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Many of the articles references address that, but the one that I linked to above is especially clear. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock

Revert edit by Biosketch

I just reverted this edit -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=463492771 -- by Biosketch in which he or she reverted an edit from a day earlier. In the earlier edit, I replaced a Subdivision Infobox section that had the word "Status" as "subdivision type" and a paragraph of text as "subdivision name" with "Country" as the subdivision type and "Syria (occupied by Israel)" as the name. Also, Biosketch did not bring his or her revert to attention on this talk page, as required by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock

This has already been discussed. Months ago it was pointed out that while the international community considers the Golan Heights Syrian territory occupied by Israel, sources disagree as to whether it is in Israel, in Syria, in neither, or in both. None of the sources cited for the claim that the Golan Heights are located in Syria actually says what you're claiming they say. The version I reverted to corresponds to the language used by the reliable sources cited in this article. Your version, on the other hand, pushes a POV not supported by any of the sources.—Biosketch (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the facts in the long text, but I don't think that a 16-word entry for "Country" is a sufficient summary. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, the purpose of an Infobox is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears." I'm open to other condensed wording, as long as it's still factually correct. Many of the references support the current wording. For example, reference #2, [47] is the CIA World Factbook article on Syria and it states, "there are 41 Israeli settlements and civilian land use sites in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights." The current infobox wording is "Syria (occupied by Israel)". YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock
"Many of the references support the current wording." No they do not. They support the earlier consensus-based NPOV wording describing the Golan Heights as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. The CIA source, moreover, is only representative of the perspective of the CIA, or maximally the U.S. It doesn't merit greater weight in the infobox than the other sources cited in the article. Regarding the "16-word entry" concern, the geographic location of the Golan Heights is controversial; an exceptionally long description of the Golan's geographic location is justified by the exceptional circumstances involved with the territory in practice.—Biosketch (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
'"Many of the references support the current wording." No they do not.' -- Based on that quote, I do not think you can be reasoned with. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads up that Biosketch made this new revert to this section before consensus was reached here and without mentioning the new edit here on this talk page. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock
The consensus was already reached and you acted against it please WP:BRD.--Shrike (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverts must be discussed

In August 2010 I put a sanction in place on this article related to reverts[[48] which required that all reverts be explained on the talk page. I also put a warning at the top of this page[49] as well as an edit notice [50]. Golan Heights is a disputed region and disputes in this topic naturally arise and tempers flare.

At the time there wasn't a 1RR restriction on Palestine-Israel Conflict articles, that was done in November 2010. When that new restriction was put in place and the new warning template created someone replaced the template without preserving my sanction for this article from the top of the talk page but not from the edit warning.

The sanction is still in place and, given the history of this article, still clearly needed. Therefore I have put the notice back on the talk page and advise all editors here now that all reverts on this page need to be explained. Yes, even for vandalism (given the way the term is abused in this topic area). No action will be taken against anyone who reverted without discussion before now given the removal of my notice on the talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "see also" links to U.N. Security Council Resolutions

Scroll to the end of this diff, an edit that Gilabrand describes as "removing some overlinking". In it she removes links to Golan Regional Council that presents information critical of Israeli settlements in the area, but more importantly, she likewise removes links to the three U.N. Security Council resolutions that are of historic importance to the region and the article, and that are likewise critical of Israel's occupation, viz.

I notice she leaves untouched the article's much less important links to Israel's Golan Heights Wind Farm and Golan Heights Winery, however.

Now is the removal of this important information added previously by another editor a "revert" according to admin W.G. Finley's presently imposed restriction on this article, or not? ( permalink ). I know from previous discussions with admin Ed Johnston, for example, that he would most likely say it is a revert, while others would disagree with that. There have been very long and tedious discussions over the years about "what constitutes a revert". So how are we all to interpret W.G. Finley's statement in this context? If I restore the very important "see also" links that Gilabrand removed is W.G. Finley going to interpret that as a "revert", rather than Gilabrand's initial deletion of the material?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The removal of the 'see also' links is (to me) a revert, though not everyone might agree. But if you put them back that is clearly a revert. It would be best for you to wait to see what other editors think before you restore them. I will notify User:Gilabrand that her action is being discussed here. The links to the UN resolutions are also in the body of the article so their removal from the 'see also' section is not necessarily alarming. EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I think you might be mistaken, Ed. A couple other UN resolutions are mentioned in the body of the article, one used to support Israel's actions and one used to condemn them, but a search for each of "452", "465", "471", as well as just the word "resolution" shows these three historic resolutions are not present in the post-Gilabrand version.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
My personal definition of a "revert" has been using the revert tool to remove an entire recent edit. However, I see the case of interpreting removal of previous material as a revert. To me, on P-I articles, the removal of substantive material (I.e. not CLEAR vandalism) should be discussed on the talk page. DISCUSSION is what leads to consensus and avoids edit warring. So my answer is, definitely, those changes you referenced should have been explained. --WGFinley (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
If we were having a content discussion about 'see also', we might ask how germane the links were to the article. It is usually preferable if the material linked by 'see also' is embedded in the article prose. If the regular editors feel that the links are useful, then restoring the ones not mentioned in the article text could be the right thing to do. In addition, consider the wisdom of adding a couple of sentences of prose about each UN resolution. Gilabrand ought to have provided a more complete edit summary if she was actually removing links not currently in the article. 'Removing some overlinking' does not cover it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, although you both ( Ed and W.G. ) think Gilabrand was obliged under W.G. Finley's requirement to discuss here, I presume neither of you intends to sanction her for failing to do so? I won't insist on that, but I do think it's wholly in order under the circumstances to return the situation to its starting point by at least reinstating the most crucial links she unilaterally removed without discussion.
It seems more in order under the circumstances, that is, for editors who would like to delete those links to try to make their case here, than for editors who see it differently to have to argue for their reinstatement against an undiscussed fait accompli that rewards an editor for failing to follow an editing requirement.
For that reason, and because I consider the three resolutions to be of historic and crucial importance to the status of the Golan, I'd like to reinstate those three, along with the Golan Regional Council link, although I'm willing to leave Gilabrand's removal of other links and wikilinks alone for now. I'll also defer adding any in-body content about these historic UN Resolutions at this point, although I also think that would also be appropriate. Do either of you, Ed or W.G. take exception to this?  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed multiple links to articles that were already linked in the article, as stated in the edit summary, in an effort to clean up overlinking. What does this have to do with reverts?
Attacking every edit to articles as some kind of conspiracy is beyond belief. There are many more links that need to be removed. This has not removed any material from the article as far as I am aware. I also fixed several spelling mistakes. Are you saying that is also a revert? If so, how is any work on the article (or any article) possible???--Geewhiz (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the resolution numbers again and see that I unwittingly removed resolutions that were not in the article (the ones that do appear are 242, 497 and 425). They have been restored. Other links (to wine and old synagogues) have been added and a sentence about the Katzrin ancient village has been edited to reflect the essence of the site, along with a reference where there was none. I added content on an archaeological site with a reference. Typos fixed: Kats should Katz, PJCA should be PICA. Golan Regional Council appears at least twice in the article. Did I miss any other big no-no that someone thinks should be reported here?--Geewhiz (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert without discussion by Gilabrand

Gilabrand's revert at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=463945517&oldid=463944854 of this edit was not discussed on this talk page. As stated on this talk page, "All editors of this article are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page and are subject to remedies as outlined above if they fail to do so."

I am going to undo that portion of his edit. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock

As I replied on my talk page, YehudaTelAviv64, I did not touch the infobox and I did not make content changes beyond adding material today. In fact, from what I see, it appears that you yourself are the only one who made changes to the infobox.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
*You seem to be confused. I linked to your revert and the edit that you reverted. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock
So can you explain to us why did you change consensus wording that was reaching ago and started to edit war?--Shrike (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I did not change any consensus wording. YehudaTelAviv did.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It was directed to YTA64 anyhow because there was no consensus to his change I am reverting it.--Shrike (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Because whatever discussion you're talking about where consensus was reached happened so long ago it no longer appears on the talk page and because of Wikipedia:Be bold. I'd rather improve the article than leave unreadable blobs of text lying around. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock
I already directed you to WP:BRD please read it. Moreover there is still no consensus to your edits so you should discuss it in talk.--Shrike (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Then why did you ask why I made my edit? YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock
  • You were reverted now its time to discuss please explain the changes that you want to introduce in to the article.--Shrike (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • We have a lot of folks pointing to BRD and the need to be bold. However, it's BRD, not to B and not just R, there's a D there and that D is for "discussion". Discuss things with each other to try to work out differences and be prepared to make compromises. --WGFinley (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Added a photo

I added a photo of the remains of an ancient fortress in the history section.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I corrected PJCA to PICA. I changed a gibberish word to "dwindled."--Geewhiz (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I added information on planting of vineyards.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I added a wind farm photo.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I added a photo of Birket Ram in the geography section. To whom it may concern: Whoever added back all the typos, spelling mistakes and redundant links I spent time fixing, please restore the corrected version.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I added a photo of Hamat Gader antiquities.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I added a photo of a natural spring in the Golan Heights.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I know it's tough to find them, but please try to use more diverse photo sources instead of relying on a single one. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock

Israel/JNF owns Golan Heights land (both in Israeli controlled area and Syrian area)

Someone should add information about this as it is missing from the article and very relevant. http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=381343 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.77.156.152 (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  • It's covered in the "History" section. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock

revert explantion

In the following revert I removed information that was already stated in the lede a few paragraphs below. There is no neutral reason for the information to be repeated twice in the lede.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The territory's country isn't mentioned until the third paragraph. It should be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph. Per WP:BRD, I am reverting your revert to attract editors. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)s>Blocked Sock
Content is not generally repeated in the lede. Indeed, it appears that your addition is the only redundant information in the lede. Before you revert, I would advise that you re-read WP:BRD to see whether you might be doing the exact opposite of the suggested guideline and also be aware of the general 1RR restrictions on this article, though I think you've been warned plenty of the latter in the last few days.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I agreed with you about the redundancy, and I have removed redundant wording from the third paragraph. I think that you may need to re-read WP:BRD, since I clearly followed the method. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock
    BRD-NOT, and one of those "nots" is it's not BRRD, definitely not BRRRRRRRD. --WGFinley (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
*The first item in that list is: BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
The article also mentions: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. and Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock

Full Protection 48 Hours

The edit warring over the past few days has not subsided and multiple AE reports have been generated from it. I'm protecting the article for 48 hours so that discussion can resume about the merit of changes. Once that 48 hours is up I will continue to monitor the page. Please help make this article better and avoid the battleground. Thanks. --WGFinley (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Golan evacuation.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Golan evacuation.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to vote *Delete*, but in the meantime I think it should be taken out of this article. No one has any clue where the image came from. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock
Its not a vote, no evidence that its not in the PD has been presented , some have questioned that its real, and this link:[51] proves that it is real. So there is no reson to remove it from the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
*That link points out that the image is not in the public domain. On a side note, Brewcrewer accused me of being a sockpuppet for you a few days ago. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock
That webiste might think it is under a specific copyright, but the laws of the country it was taken in should superseed it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, its a historical image, so fair use applys, gonna upload it to wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


I have uploaded it as fair use now so we can use it in the article: [52]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
There are currently two images in the SDW section, so one of them has to go so we can put back this one, I suggest we removed this one: [53], as there is no evidence the children in the picture are in the shelter as a result with anything connected to Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The photo was taken in Galil during the war.And that exactly what caption says.I don't see any problem with it.--Shrike (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
It doenst say the children in the picture are in the shelter as a result with anything connected to Syria, it could have been because of something with Jordan, Lebanon or West Bank, we dont know this. The Syrian image was also there first. There is also another image showing Israeli invasion into Syria: [54], but that image is important considering what it shows so it should stay, so the Israeli kibbutz shelter image is the one that should be removed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

*I've tagged File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg for speedy deletion with this reasoning: "No license given in source. The source doesn't say anything about the origin of the photo. The author is unknown. The country where it was taken is unknown, so the copyright is unknown. Clear speedy delete." YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Country section wording in infobox

Time for a fresh discussion. The "Country" section in the infobox currently reads: "Internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel.[1] Currently under Israeli civil administration. Claimed by Syria." From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, the purpose of an Infobox is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears."

I don't dispute the facts in the current wording, but I am sure that we can come up with more concise wording. Please propose improved wording below. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock

The wording is OK nothing should be changed.--Shrike (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
"Syrian territory under Israeli civil administration.[1][2]" seems enough for the infobox. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
*That seems sufficient to me. It conveys the same information as the current wording but is much more readable. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Any complaints with that as the new wording? YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock
  • "Syrian territory occupied by Israel" seems to reflect the language used in the weight of sources better. un☯mi 09:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • First source: "Israel occupied the Syrian Goaln in 1967 and formally annexed it in 1981"
Second: "...occupied Syrian Golan Heights..."
Third: "...the occupied Syrian Golan..."
Fourth: "the Syrian Golan Heights territory, which Israel has occupied since 1967"
Fifth: "Israeli-occupied. Captured from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war, and annexed in 1981, a move condemned internationally. Lebanon claims Shab'a Farms area." YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Blocked Sock
Nod, I find that "under Israeli civil administration" obfuscates the language used by sources, there is no reason for us to try to sanitize their wording. un☯mi 09:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Syrian Golan"

In a now archived discussion with Blocked sockpuppet:YehudaTalAviv64, I demanded a source demonstrating that the Golan Heights are referred to as the "Syrian Golan" by the United Nations as justification for this edit on 29 November (his first in the article). He failed to produce any sources to that effect, instead merely confirming the trivial fact that the United Nations considers the Golan Heights Syrian and refers to it as Syrian. His claim is therefore original research, and I've reverted it pending information to the contrary based on reliable secondary sources.—Biosketch (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This Google search will show you a large number of UN documents refering to the "Syrian Golan". Zerotalk 08:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The United Nations considers the Golan Heights Syrian territory, and it therefore calls the Golan "Syrian." That doesn't make "Syrian Golan" an alternative name. Do you have a source that says "Syrian Golan" is a name used by the United Nations – or anyone – in addition to Golan Heights? If the answer's no, you're editorializing.—Biosketch (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The question you posed was captious. The Syrian Golan as any google search will immediately show, is used in UN resolutions from decades back, right through to the present day in official documents. The usage is official, verifiably so, and you do not need a metasource to specify that the usage is standard in UN documents. Your revert was inappropriate.Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing captious about insisting on a reliable source to verify a debatable claim that was inserted into the article by a sockpuppet against consensus. You're invited to produce a reliable source to confirm the claim you're endeavoring to establish – indeed, the burden of proof is on you to do so. Until then, though, it remains original research.—Biosketch (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The editor may have made it a claim. The fact that 'Syrian Golan' is established usage cannot be disputed. All that worries you is the idea that this usage be associated with the UN. Well drop the UN, and leave the term. Commonsense required simply, 'Syrian Golan' (in UN documents). They are official, and to pretend that somehow a statement of UN usage required third party sources in patent nonsense. There is no need to use Yehuda's language, it can be twigged to state the obvious verifiable fact. Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
"Syrian Golan" is such a stock phrase in UN documents that calling it anything except a name seems rather odd. I don't think explicit identification as a name is requested for other similar cases. But anyway, this page says "The UN- which always refers to the area as 'the Syrian Golan Heights'". Zerotalk 08:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Of course it can be disputed, and that's exactly what's happening. User:Zero0000's Google search shows that the word "occupied" precedes "Syrian Golan" in every instance where "Syrian Golan" is invoked in eight out of the first nine search results. Does that mean "occupied Syrian Golan" is an alt name for "Golan Heights"? It could mean that, but neither you nor I are qualified to make a determination one way or the other. That's what WP:V is for. When you want to make a claim that's obvious to the point where no sources are necessary because no one could reasonable challenge it, policy makes allowances for that. When a claim is being challenged, on the other hand, it's necessary to support it with reliable sources – and support here means "support directly," not "bring sources from which it can be inferred that x is true."—Biosketch (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Zero0000's source above my last comment satisfies BOP as far as I'm concerned.—Biosketch (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey lads, if only all editing on the I/P was as fleet and fair as the above exchanges! In any case, I'm not article editing on these articles till 10th Jan as per my violation of IR. Would you restore it, with Zero's source, in whatever wording you think appropriate, Bio? Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Thanks
I was sure one of you two would have performed the edit by now. The earlier formulation can be restored, just with Zero's source as the ref instead of the refs YTA64 had there.—Biosketch (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Michael, and it's one thing I like about his style since he's done this several times, has jumped in and fixed it for us.Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Explaining my revert

[55] I don't really know what to say, other than the area is not disputed territory held by Israel, but rather Syrian territory occupied by Israel. I am also here so I don't get blocked. -asad (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done. -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 21:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Revert

[56] Unexplained removal, I reverted back to correct text. -asad (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What a silly revert. The BBC source says "Population estimate: 20,000 Israeli settlers, 20,000 Syrians". How is it inaccurate? I am reverting back. -asad (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Other sources use different terminology [57].--Shrike (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
So what? Here are sources that uses "Zionist entity" for "Israel" [58] Are you going to remove "Israel" everywhere here and replace it with "Zionist entity" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
An Israeli source using Israeli terminology vs BBC source, using worldview terminology. Which is better? -asad (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Its an academic source.Do you think its not reliable just because it Israeli?--Shrike (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
When did I ever mention reliability? -asad (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
So if its reliable.What the problem with the source?--Shrike (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is wording. The source you provided doesn't even mention the world "Israelis" when referring to the population, it just says "20,000 Jews". I feel that is incorrect as well. Besides the BBC, we have other RSs using the term "Israeli settlers". See [59][60][61] -asad (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Why did you pick that source out of all of the sources available ? Surely you know the answer to your question about the source. This is exactly the kind of, disingenuous bullshit is the only way I can describe it, that is not supposed to happen in this topic area. You must know the difference between the language of Israeli nationalists who regard the Golan as part of Israel, who dislike the term settler, and the standard worldview terminology. You surely must be able to see the difference between your source, the BBC source and many others. Advocating that Wikipedia use terminology used by a minority by cherry picking a source is not "merely a content dispute". Sean.hoyland - talk 19:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
BBC does not provide "world view", it provides "left-wing British press view". In this context the phrase "settler" is at best redundant - is it possible for any other kind of Israeli to live there? Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems WP:RSN would disagree about the BBC. -asad (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
What about those Druze who have taken up Israeli citizenship? [62] (subscription required). Are they still Syrians or Israeli settlers? - BorisG (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me like we shouldn't even be breaking down the demographic makeup there. Mentioning just the general population figures with the demographic breakdown provided elsewhere in the article, along with a brief mention in the lede, is a preferred scenario.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This [63] is not acceptable for several reasons, why would we put together the Syrian population with the Israeli settlers and present them together in one number as if they are the same thing? Syrians in internationally recognized Syrian land and settlers in Israeli-occupied internationally recognized Syrian land who are regarded as illegal by the international community. The other reason is the reason for The Devils advocates edit, you say in the edit summary: "contentious nationality" ... why is it contentious? Arent the Syrians Syrians? Arent the Israeli settlers Israeli settlers? This is not contentious, an IP went in and did some changes without explanation and then two non neutral editors Plot Spoiler and Shuki joined an edit war to force they're pov into the article without any kind of valid argument for the change. Plot spoiler: "Previous was accurate" [64], how is it "accurate" to remove the nationality of Syrians and replace it with their religion? and how is it accurate to remove that the Israeli settlers are settlers? Shuki: "either Israelis and Syrians or settlers and Druze" [65].. So if we mention the nationality of the Syrian population, we are not allowed to call the Israeli settlers settlers? What kind of argument is this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Like it or not, both of them live there and both constitute part of the population. Until that changes there is no reason why we should not regard them as representing the whole population of the Golan Heights. Demographic breakdown can be mentioned in the lede and elsewhere in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
You have not addressed any of the points I brought up. We have settlers from the Soviet Union who moved into what is internationally recognized as Israeli-occupied Syria, and settled on top of destroyed Syrian villages demolished by Israel.[66] These peoples presence there is regarded as illegal by the international community. Your edit puts their presence there in the same position as Syrians living in Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No it doesn't. The category is Population qualified with Total. It says nothing about citizenry or legality. A reasonable remedy for the tendentious POV pushing over it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes it does, as the numbers of the Syrians are put together with the Israeli settlers, and presented in one number together, the two separate peoples are presented as equal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
For population count, they are equal. Qualifying citizenry and legality seems better done elsewhere, as TDA suggests.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No they are not, per my arguments above and per the BBC source that specifically separates them, another example is US soldiers who live for many years in other countries are not counted together with the population of those countries. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand why you feel that way, but there are many parts of the world where such contentious population issues arise. The best approach is to only talk about the total population in the infobox and leave discussion of demographic issues to the rest of the article. Rather than focusing on what is said in the infobox, how about figuring out ways to include this issue in the lede or other parts of the article?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No that is not the best approach, it is more like the worst approach as it presents Syrians and Israeli settlers as equal. The total population can be in the infobox, (X Syrians, Y Israeli settlers) I have not said anything about this, but the numbers for Syrians can not be put together with the Israeli settlers and presented as one number per my arguments above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with TDA. I'd suggest to use another approach (i.e. the previous settlers-druze or any variation of it) only if these two groups are always distinguished by RS. -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 22:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The text as written currently as a clear violation of WP:CALC, as there is clearly no consensus that is calculation is a "obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources". No one has brought a counter argument as to why the BBC source shouldn't be used. -asad (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[67] - BorisG (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what that has to do with the BBC source which calls them "Syrians". -asad (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The obvious calculation is that 20,000 + 20,000 = 40,000. We are saying there are about 40,000 people living there, which is accurate and verifiable. I have restored the population figure (we kind of need to note the current population figures) with the caveat that it is including citizens of both countries. What you should do is focus on ways to detail the specific nature of the dispute in the lede and article body, rather than edit-warring over the issue in the infobox.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no consensus reached to put the Syrian population together with the Israeli settlers and present them together in one number.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Reverting due to "no consensus" is inappropriate. Edits are actually the preferred means to achieve consensus on Wikipedia, not discussion. Like it or not the Israeli settlers do, in fact, live there. Many have lived there for over 30 years. Being there illegally is quite irrelevant in my opinion as to the question of whether they should be counted as part of the population in the area. Many people from Mexico live in the United States illegally, but if any of them have been here for such a long time I would consider them when judging the population of this country. Should you want a more severe comparison, the white population in the United States are all descendants of people who forcibly took the land from its natives.
There is another aspect to this issue as well that merits the change, I think. The dispute has been between separating them as "Israeli settlers" and "Syrians" or "Israeli settlers" and "Druze" without regard to the particular accuracy of the statement. A significant portion of the Druze population there have obtained Israeli citizenship. Are they "settlers" or should they be counted as "Syrians" without regard to their choice of citizenship? Similarly separating "Israeli settlers" and "Druze" ignores that there is a small population that fit into neither of those categories. Rather than getting the infobox bogged down in the demographics of the situation we should focus on providing the simplest description there, and provide more detail elsewhere. Would you object to putting the population figures together if material was inserted into the lede and article body clarifying the demographic situation?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I should not that as recently as the 2010 edition the CIA World Factbook has presented the same sort of combined figure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
No its not. Repeatedly reverting to a version of an article that several editors have objected to without getting consensus for the edit in the first place (like you did) is what is inappropriate. You previous edit didn't have any consensus, so just because you waited a while and came back to do the same edit again doesn't get us closer to "consensus through editing instead of discussion". I have never said that Israeli settlers doesn't live there. How you see Mexicans or white people in the US is interesting but its not supported by sources and is not even relevant here as the situation is not the same. The sources I have seen say that about 10% of the Syrian population have accepted Israeli citizenship. They are not settlers, but the Israeli settlers are settlers, your "simple" solution is inaccurate, see previous argument: [68]. This is not accurate in any way. There is also the fact that your edit doesn't refer to the Israeli settlers as settlers. Your CIA source puts the population numbers together and separates them right after including referring to the settlers as settlers, the BBC source does not put the numbers together. Why cheery pick half the CIA source and forget about the other part of the CIA source and the BBC source?. The demographics are already in the article body. I don't see anything here dismantling my previous arguments [69], so I don't see any consensus for your edit. I also suggest you do not do any more changes to that part of the article unless there is clear consensus at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't follow your last point. The CIA World Factbook presents a combined figure together with the figures for Druze, Alawites and Israelis living in the Israeli occupied part of the Golan. Could you clarify ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
What are you not following exactly?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not following why you noted that the CIA World Factbook presented "the same sort of combined figure" but you did not note that they also presented the individual figures for Druze, Alawites and Israeli settlers. You cited it as if it supported using a combined figure. It's unclear why given that it includes the breakdown into the 3 demographic sets and therefore also supports that approach too. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The World Factbook is not an encyclopedia. As I said, we can address the specific demographics of the situation in the lede and in the article body. Do you think that would be acceptable? If you want I think we could add a note to the infobox in small text with the following wording: "Includes Israeli citizens (mostly settlers) and Syrian citizens."--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the advantage or purpose of presenting a combined figure in the infobox when an RS provides superior data broken down into demographic sets. The factual data seems perfectly suited to an infobox in an encyclopedia and it's directly supported by an RS. I'm keen to avoid any approach via a note or something like that that can't be directly supported by a cited source. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The advantage is that it can present a basic overview without getting bogged down in the contentious ethnic issues. Usually we don't break down the demographics in the infobox, leaving that information for inclusion in the article proper.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, well, I don't think it matters very much whether the infobox just includes the combined figure or whether it includes the break down into demographic sets but I can't think of a policy based or even a common sense based reason why we wouldn't include the details in the infobox when we have them available from high quality sources. I do think it's important to not be distracted by arguments and objections raised by editors that are simply based on personal opinions not backed up by RS and to not drift away from an objective reflection of how sources deal with the issue in order to find an unnecessary compromise. I don't really understand why this is being described as contentious. Unless an editor can show that something is contentious by providing a set of conflicting high quality RS that demonstrate that it is contentious, it isn't contentious. Perhaps I'm missing something. Obviously the word settler is contentious for some editors but that isn't relevant to content decisions. There isn't a policy or guideline that covers this issue as far as I know and there aren't many places left that are occupied and being colonized for comparison purposes. A combined figure is used in Western Sahara (although I might change that at some point) and Tibet, but demographic details are included in the infobox for Cyprus (and Northern Ireland which I suppose was and is to some extent still regarded as being under foreign occupation by some Irish nationalists). I think the best thing to do is to simply follow the sources and do what they do. We have a BBC source that says 20,000 Israeli settlers, 20,000 Syrians. We have a CIA source that provides the data broken down in a slightly different and more detailed way. Those 2 sources could be described as high quality and neutral. We also have another source that says 20,000 Jews and 20,000 Druze although that source is about as non-neutral as it gets. I still think having the details in the infobox is better than not having them. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Sean. -asad (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, for interest, Israel has the demographic details in the infobox, as does Judea and Samaria Area, although only the Israelis. Syria doesn't. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Those breakdowns are presented in the form of percentages, on top of providing a combined figure. In several of those cases, such as Northern Ireland, the breakdown is not relevant to the most contentious demographic dispute (it doesn't break it down into Anglicans and Catholics). If you want to have an additional percentage-based section of the infobox working off the CIA figures for the various ethnic/religious groups that would be acceptable I think.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's entirely unnecessary. 20,000 Israeli settlers, 20,000 Syrians. Let the readers do the math if they want. -asad (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Except that isn't accurate. There are Druze Arabs who are from the Golan Heights but have sought Israeli citizenship. What you are suggesting would either imply they are the same as the Israeli settlers, inflammatory and inaccurate, or insist they are Syrian despite their own choice to have Israeli citizenship. That version simply will not fly. At the same time the suggestion to make it Israelis and Druze ignores the significant population of Alawites. Sean noted above that the Israel article has demographic details, but it still provides a combined figure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
They are in a third category: "Former Syrians who have accepted Israeli citizenship" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Accuracy on Wikipedia is determined by what high-quality, reliable sources say. In this instance, the sources say there are 20,000 Israeli settlers and 20,000 Syrians. You seem ardent on applying WP:SYNTH and WP:CALC to come up with your numbers. Even so, the few Druze in the Golan Heights who have accepted Israeli citizenship becomes null outside of anywhere except Israel. See page 5 of the US State Department classification on people born in Israeli-occupied territory [70]. It clearly says that anyone born in the Golan Heights, will have the classification of SYRIA as the POB. -asad (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
No, actually. Accuracy is determined by what is accurate. Combining population figures is perfectly acceptable, and we actually don't even have to make a calculation as the CIA World Factbook already did that. So we actually have conflicting sources presenting different methods. In this case, we should go by what is common practice in these articles. That would mean presenting a combined population figure and maybe noting the demographics as a percentage. As a result we can avoid all the messy ethnic issues with the infobox and focus on dealing with the messy ethnic issues in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
And it is what the WP policy says we have to do that? We have two highly reliable sources saying mentioning the split population. Your proposal escapes logic. You are proposing to have something like population: 40,000 (20,000 Israeli settlers and 20,000 Syrians). That is an unnecessary waste of bandwidth to be pandering to the POV pushers. One source uses the combined figure, but both use the split figure, it seems obvious we should use the common figure between the too. If you are not willing to accept that, I really need to see where in WP policy it is prescribed that we must do what you are suggesting. -asad (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
That is not what I was suggesting, because it would still be inaccurate. My main suggestion was to keep demographics out of the infobox altogether but, failing that, it would be fine to have percentages breaking down ethnicity/religion. That breakdown, however, is simply inaccurate. Some of the people living there are Israeli citizens, but not settlers. In that respect there is a pretty straightforward policy to apply: WP:NPOV. Verifiability does not negate neutrality, the two have to be satisfied together. Something can be verifiable, but not neutral. I honestly think you are taking this way too seriously, though. Saying 40,000 people live in the Golan Heights is not going to lead to people thinking Israel was right or that somehow the settlers are there legally, especially not if we do the work to have the rest of the article reflect the situation accurately and objectively. Rather than fixating on the infobox, focus on the article itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Inforbox: Country vs Area

In Infobox, section Country says that the Golan is "Syrian territory occupied by Israel". However, section Area says that only part (1200 sq.km. out of 1800 sq.km.) is occupied by Israel. This is inconsistent. Is all or part of the Golan occupied? I simply don't know. - BorisG (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Percent of Israel's water supply supplied from Golan Heights

The last sentence of the first paragraph states: "The region attracts three million tourists a year and supplies Israel with one-third of its water." The last sentence of the 'Geography' section states: "The Golan Heights are the source of about 15% of Israel's water supply." A conflict exists regarding the percentage of water supplied. As this is a fairly critical geopolitical issue, I recommend that this be reconciled or explained.--Rpclod (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable source

I previously had brought up that the frommers travel guide is an unreliable source:[71], it was later reinstated without addressing any of the points I brought up:[72], as my arguments are unchallenged there was no valid reason to reinstate this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


There are conflicting statistics on how much water the Golan Heights supplies Israel with. One says one-third of the water the other says 15%. Moreover, the calculation for the second one was incorrect with the cited information as it should round up to 16%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satchal (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of edit

The word "condemned" is not used in the text issued by the UNSC.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Korman, Sharon, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, pp. 262–263
Condemnation by the UN Security Council and General Assembly

In response to an immediate formal complaint from the Syrian government, the United Nations Security Council convened on 16 December 1981, and on 17 December unanimously adopted Resolution 497 (1981). Reaffriming 'that the acquisation of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of international law, and relevant Security Council resoltions', the resolution condemned Israel's decision to impose its law, jurisdiction, and administration in 'the occupied Syrian Golan Heights' as 'null and void' and 'without international legal effect'; demanded that 'Israel, the occupying Power', should rescind the decision forthwith; determined that all provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967; and called upon the Council to meet again not later than 5 January 1982 to consider 'appropriate measure' in accordance with the United Nations Charter if Israel did not comply.

I'll be restoring that word, citing this source. nableezy - 21:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't do that. You have the direct UNSC resolution that does not utilize that word.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a secondary source published by Oxford University Press that specifically says the resolution "condemned" Israel's action. A condemnation need not say "I condemn thee" for it to be a condemnation. nableezy - 21:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
So I see you went ahead and did it anyway. T-Bans usually have a tempering effect on editors. In your case it appears to have had the opposite effect. It's almost as if you want to get yourself indef'd. Your conduct is strange.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Article talk pages are for discussing article content. Kindly restrain yourself from making personal comments on article talk pages. Thank you. nableezy - 21:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

any explanation which is not given by the UN is irrelevant, you should delete it, or put it for vote. Exx8 (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, we base our articles on reliable sources. Such a source explicitly calls the UNSC resolution a "condemnation" of Israel's action, and in fact that condemnation led Israel to back track quite swiftly and claim that the Golan Law was not an act of annexation. nableezy - 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that most of the article is irrelevant

a new regime is going to rule Syria. We don't know what its claims about the Golan Heights. It might recognize the Israeli ruling. I believe, till it will be clear we should delete any setence about politics, and about Syria. We even don't know if there will be Syria in few month from now. Exx8 (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Multiple noes. The current status of the Golan is not in any real dispute. Even the United States, Israel's BFFF, says that the Golan is Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation. Until that status changes, the article will reflect what reliable sources say about the topic. Not what a random person on the internet feels about the topic. Thank you, nableezy - 22:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

USA has too intrests in Syria, and it is again irrelevant. If you have any scources, reliable ones, of the new Syrian regime claims about the golan heights, please present them. otherwise you cannot claim this.Exx8 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no new Syrian regime. The status of the Golan Heights is clear, and your edits are highly improper. nableezy - 22:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

if there is no Syrian regime, there is no another state the clame the golan heights.Exx8 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You missed a word in my reply, try again. nableezy - 22:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Assad is no more, he fled to latikya.by days he will be a history, live or dead. Exx8 (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats nice. It doesnt address the topic under discussion in any way, but thank you for that prescient piece of news. nableezy - 22:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Assad does not represent the Syrian people anymore.

So nobody but Israel claims the Golan heightsExx8 (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for these laughable claims? nableezy - 22:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


please learn how to act. Till then I won't answer you. Exx8 (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

restoration of status

Re this revert, reliable sources state, clearly and unambiguously, that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory held by Israel under military occupation. See endless discussions in the archive about exactly this issue. nableezy - 22:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So you tell me that this territory is not disputed? Exx8 (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont see how that is relevant to the topic. Whether or not a territory is "disputed" does not change whether the territory is "occupied" or who the recognized sovereign is. nableezy - 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it deceives the reader, the area is more time Israeli than Syrian. all of the country in the world are led by one goal intrest in the middle east, oil. Exx8 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What you believe is immaterial. What matters is what reliable sources say. They say that the Golan is Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation. nableezy - 22:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


Those aren't reliable. the BBC has an Arabic station. The Brits create Jordan, so of course their national station is not reliable. Exx8 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. That was fantastic. Now back to reality. WP:RS defines what a reliable source is, not some true believer of the expansionist cause. nableezy - 22:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I won't answer you till you learn how to act. I'm not your dog, speak with me with respect, as I do. Exx8 (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont believe I called you my dog. What I said, and will say again, is that WP:RS defines what a reliable source is. Not somebody who believes that Palestinians didnt exist until 1964, or that no state besides Israel claims the Golan. nableezy - 22:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You were given a lot of scources that show otherwise, I saw it at the archives. Is the name of BBC is written in your document? Exx8 (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you looked in the archives then you saw an abundance of sources, and a consensus among editors, supporting the phrase Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation. I have no idea what your last line means. nableezy - 23:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

okay let's make a vote. Exx8 (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been voted on every year for many years by the nations of the world, and this year's result was 162 for, 1 against, 11 abstained. Actually it is difficult to find any issue of international dispute on which the opinion of the world is so overwhelming. Zerotalk 23:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

no, let us wikis decide what should be titled. Even if you're right, and that is a Syrian land, I believe that it shouldn't be at the country section; like each other disputed area in wiki, the claimer should be at the country, and the ruler as well.Exx8 (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It already says that Israel occupies it. All of Israel is disputed territory, yet at articles like Tel Aviv we follow the majority position that its "in Israel" and do not mention the other position that the land is Palestine. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you looked at the previous discussions of this issue in the archives of this talk page? Links are at the top. You need to provide a very clear and weighty reasons for reopening an issue discussed repeatedly before. So far you didn't. I don't even understand your last sentence. Zerotalk 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Small typo

I noticed a small typo. Where the article reads ‘... Golan Heights has been occupied and administered by Israel since the 1967.’ it should instead read ‘... Golan Heights has been occupied and administered by Israel since 1967.’ The ‘the’ before ‘1967’ is an inappropriate way to refer to a year. However, I can see that in the past, this sentence read ‘... since the 1967 [Six-Day] War.’ This, of course, would be grammatical as well, but would clash stylistically (being redundant) with the subsequent mention of the ‘1967 Six-Day War’ in the following sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyeirishman (talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. nableezy - 16:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"occupied" vs. "controlled"

Most newspapers that I've seen refer to the Golan as the "Israeli-controlled Golan Heights" rather than "Israeli-occupied". I think for neutrality purposes we need to do the same. Abundant reliable sources use this terminology, which reflects the fact that there is a dispute between the Israeli and international view. Not surprisingly, sources that reflect the international view use the term "occupied". I imagine that some of the pro-P editors may be tempted to revert, but please don't. This way, we follow what newspapers do in letting the reader judge for him/herself whether the Golan Heights is under "military occupation" (the international de-jure view), under Israeli civilian administration (the Israeli view, and evidently the de-facto situation given current Israeli control over the territory), or some other position. None of the positions is inherently "right" or "wrong" and the fact that there are "reliable sources" saying contrary things should cause us to tread very carefully. Benwing (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that is taking a minority viewpoint and giving it equal standing with an extreme majority view. "Most" newspapers do not in fact do that, some do, some don't, but even then newspapers are not the best sources out there. This has been discussed several times in the past, and, per WP:WEIGHT, the standard terminology used is what we use. I am reverting the edit. nableezy - 04:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
That said, I am willing to add internationally recognized to the beginning of the status in the infobox. Replacing every instance of occupied with controlled is not, however, in keeping with the requirements of NPOV. nableezy - 04:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"Controlled" is a neutral term. "Occupied" expresses one side; "annexed" (or "part of Israel") the other. What exactly is your objection to "controlled"? We state clearly the international position (occupied, not annexed) and the Israeli position (annexed, not occupied). Further use of "occupied" assumes one side. "Controlled" favors neither. If it were NPOV to use the word "occupied", we would simply state as fact the international view rather than expressing the two views without stating either as fact.

Do you not see the difference between "controlled" (which makes no assertions of legal status) vs. the opposing positions of "occupied" vs. "annexed"?

As for minority vs. majority, this is not clearly a minority vs. majority issue, because the two sides aren't remotely similar (in a way that such a comparison could be made). If it were simply a case of minority vs. majority, the "majority" would obviously have prevailed long ago.

Nableezy, I am honestly trying to be neutral. But consistently I see you reverting every change of mine that you don't like. You seem to see Wikipedia as a zero-sum game where either pro-I or pro-P "wins", and if you stick it out, your pro-P position will eventually win. I don't have either a consistently pro-I or pro-P position. There's obviously a conflict. Do you deny this? The international community, making dictates from the outside, says that the Golan Heights are de-jure under military occupation. Israel, with de-facto control over the territory, says the Golan Heights are annexed and not under military occupation (from a de-facto position, the Golan Heights is indeed not under military occupation, or at least not under military administration). I have tried to correct for neutrality, and reverting my entire edit is a classic example of being unhelpful. You even reverted the changes that you presumably don't object to, e.g. my attempts to clarify the dispute, note the differing usages and clean up some redundancy. You made no attempt whatsoever to find a compromise even though you know (since you mentioned the repeated disputes about this) that there is a problem here.

As for your argument based on the previous discussion, it seems to ignore the actual discussion. Nowhere is there consensus on any "standard" terminology, or anything involving WP:WEIGHT. In fact, nowhere is there any consensus of any sort, and I doubt that there can ever be any consensus if all editors try to argue their own side rather than truly finding compromise. Even the claimed consensus of using "occupied" vs. "controlled" on a case-by-case basis (which I see nowhere in the discussions, but which expresses the personal viewpoint of a pro-P editor; and how do you make such a decision, anyway?) ignores the fact that every reference in the article (save one) used to say "occupied".

I am going to put my changes in again. I ask you (and other pro-P editors): Please don't simply revert back. This is not how consensus is formed. Instead, try really hard to step away from your viewpoint and imagine you really have no stake in the issue. Find a compromise, and apply it only to the parts that need changing. My change is an attempt to eliminate a contested term in favor of a neutral term. You already know that many editors object to the word "occupied". If you don't think that "controlled" is neutral, either, try to find some other solution. One possibility is to reword things in a way that avoids the issue entirely. I'm sure if you think creatively and outside the box, you can find your own solutions, too -- that way we can all be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Benwing (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

One other question -- how are newspapers not the best sources? If not, then which sources are better? There's a dispute here between two viewpoints -- an "international" viewpoint (which specifically relates to forums that set international law -- governments, international bodies, etc.) and an Israeli viewpoint. The reason that the Israeli viewpoint is not subsumed as a minor dissenting view in the international viewpoint is that Israel controls the territory in question. Quoting from international sources will obviously support one viewpoint; I don't see how that could make them better than newspapers, which are the only sources I know that actually apply Wikipedia's NPOV standard. Benwing (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is something else you might consider. I took a look at Northern Cyprus to see how they handle this issue. The word "occupied" occurs only in conjunction with assertions that this is the view of the international community. There's in fact a discussion in Talk:Northern_Cyprus/Archive_13 in which they appear to have established consensus to only use "occupied" when describing who holds that view. I don't see the word "controlled"; they seem to have sidestepped it by just saying "Northern Cyprus". This would suggest a similar solution to simply say "Golan Heights" and avoid mentions of "occupied" or "controlled" or anything when it's not necessary. Since Israel does not dispute that it occupied the Golan Heights between 1967 and 1981, it seems reasonable to say "occupied" when the context is clearly referring only to that time; in more general discussions it probably doesn't need mentioning at all. Benwing (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Im sorry, but no, consensus isn't formed by attempting to force changes over the objections of other editors (and yes, there have been a number of discussions, for example this). To begin with, Israel has said that the Golan was not "annexed" by the Golan Heights Law (see eg Komarn 1996, p. 263), so you can throw that supposed POV out. Pretending that using the favored language of the holders of a minority viewpoint (eg "controlled", "disputed") as opposed to what scholarly sources overwhelmingly use ("occupied") is not neutral, it is in fact the opposite of neutral as "neutrality" is defined in WP:NPOV. "Occupied" is the term that almost the entire world, including the United States, uses for the Golan. Wikipedia reflects the weight given to that view, it does not substitute that with something to appease a "pro-I editor"'s sensibilities.

The very idea that a newspaper is the best kind of source makes me hit my head. Newspapers dont "actually apply Wikipedia's NPOV standard", where on Earth are you getting that from? Newspapers, yes even the New York Times, reflect a POV. An important one, but they arent "neutral" by any definition, including Wikipedia's. Please go read WP:RS. Peer reviewed journal articles and books published by quality presses are much better sources, and when one actually looks for the best sources, such as Korman, or Roberts, or any of 100 other authors of actual scholarship, they see that weight given to the view that the Golan Heights is anything other than Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation is what the article properly gives it, next to none. Neutrality does not mean watering down super-majority viewpoints, it means properly representing that weight.

Finally, I am going to tell you this once, and only once. You claim to be "trying to be neutral". That quote might appear reasonable to someone who has not seen such edits as this which replace academics, such as Moshe Ma'oz, writing in books published by quality presses, such as Brill, with such distinguished sources as Dore Gold. I am sorry to tell you, but you do in fact have a consistently "pro-I" position. You do in fact consistently attempt to skew content away from giving each view its due weight towards one that minimizes anything you identify as "anti-Israel". That isnt neutral. Neutral does not mean whatever a "pro-I" editor thinks sounds right. Neutral means properly representing the weight reliable sources give each viewpoint. It does not mean whatever Benwing thinks sounds even-handed. If you have anything else you wish to say about me, instead of the article, kindly take it my user talk page. nableezy - 06:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My shock is the person violating NPOV is calling on NPOV to insert bias and pro-Israeli slant. [[73]] has more weight that a few pro-Israeli newspapers. And yes I am a little shocked to see the version of NPOV the editor is interested in this. Consider this 2:1 and move on.--Inayity (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but this isnt a numbers game, and two editors dont "beat" one. What matters here is what weight do the best sources give each position. In this instance, it is clear, and by a rather wide margin, that such sources overwhelmingly use the term "occupation" when referencing Israel's "control" of the Golan. nableezy - 23:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well my bad for trying to agree with your arguments and close out what is a pointless debate. This is hardly an issue of serious debate needing all of the above. I do believe consensus also is a factor of how wiki operates, and as an un-involved editor it is my opinion that it is beyond debate the correct word is occupied. But since you do not want my help, I will let you continue to debate the obvious with your friend.--Inayity (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
That isnt what I meant, and I am sorry if it came off that way. What I meant was that we cant just shut down discussion because two people agree against one person. nableezy - 14:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
3 ;-)
More seriously, what are the sources that talk about "Israeli-controlled Golan Heights". Pluto2012 (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
News: NYTimes, BBC, NPR, Reuters, Associated Press, ABC News, Khaleej Times, Saudi Gazette ... (et cetera)
Hope it helps, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
How does that supersede the worldview sources that say "occupied" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
That helps.
the same methodology gives 5 times more results for occupied... Pluto2012 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Benwing and Inayity: The only reason that Nableezy has been alone in arguing for "occupied" is that everyone else is tired of it. This issue has been discussed at least a dozen times, on this page, on various project pages, and in various dispute forums. The use of the word "occupied" enjoys a wide consensus that has been confirmed again and again. Unless you have some startling new argument that hasn't been raised yet - which you have not - I suggest you leave off. There are many more constructive ways that you could contribute to improving the Wikipedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Nableezy is tired of it too. nableezy - 18:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Benwing. "Controlled" is the more neutral wording and should be preferred for this article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
More neutral how? nableezy - 23:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Because "controlled" is a factual and neutral impartial tone of what is a verifiable opinion dichotomy about Israel's continued action: "annexation/occupation" of the Golan Heights, see Landmine Monitor Report. Human Rights Watch. 2003. p. 695. ISBN 978-1-56432-287-6. Retrieved 1 August 2012.. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The Landmine Monitor Reports uses both "occupied" and "controlled". How is the Landmine Monitor Reports usage of "controlled" a more "factual and neutral impartial tone of what is a verifiable opinion dichotomy about Israel's continued action" then when itself used "occupied" or other reliable sources including worldview sources that uses "occupied" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Controlled is no more neutral than any other term not justified by reference to the only criterion that should apply in these cases, the status of a disputed territory in international law. Control is, to gather from comments here, a default euphemism to avoid using the legal term. If I may be permitted a personal observation, once the consensus fixes 'control' for the GH, what's the next move, the 'West Bank' is not 'occupied', but 'controlled'? These absolutely futile arguments reoccur obsessively because, rather than adopt legal language we all understand, and do not have to quarrel over, editors appear to prefer to tinker endlessly with guesswork about any other terms that might ignore the fact that these realities are subject to international definitions, not national terminology.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Occupied is a factual and neutral impartial tone, and it has the advantage of being, overwhelmingly, used in the best sources. Wikipedia gives weight to views based on their weight in reliable sources, and the best sources consistently use occupied, so too will Wikipedia. nableezy - 14:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Occupied" can and should be used in political contexts, such as international recognition, but in other contexts like military control and some administrative affairs "controlled" is a better wording. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Assertion unsupported by any source. If you are going to hound somebody to an article to continue a dispute from a completely different subject, at least make an effort to add something of value to the discussion. And the idea that military control of occupied territory should be called something other than occupied is one of the more ridiculous things I have seen on this page, and that really is saying something. nableezy - 16:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be neutral, no matter how much legitimacy does a country have or don't have. Occupied is not neutral, let's make a vote. Exx8 (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I vote that we accept the result of multiple previous discussions and stop flogging dead horses. Zerotalk 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Until there's a change in the legal facts on the ground, as thoroughly demonstrated in numerous early discussions which accepted occupied, attempts to strong-arm the article's NPOV language based on international usage are just that, attempts to fudge a consensus of votes against a consensus of sources, which is all that counts. The legal status remains unaltered, and therefore the article must retain its stability by conserving the agreed upon usage. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian civil war

Should the border clashes between Israel and Syria, which appear to be a spill over of the civil war, be reported? While the fire from Syria is accidental it still has nearly killed or wounded several Israelis and the IDF's response has caused causalities. Cjblair (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect statement about ownership of Golan

During 1895 to 1944 Pika and other organization bought land and maintained ownership, later in 1950's PIKA moved the land ownership rights to Israel.

More info : http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=185105 https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9F http://knesset.gov.il/privatelaw/data/17/3568.rtf http://knesset.gov.il/tql/knesset_new/knesset15/HTML_28_03_2012_09-20-03-AM/20000112@071-00JAN12@034.html http://www.shishibagolan.co.il/htmls/article.aspx?c0=15659&bsp=15594 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.52.144 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

There was previously one image from a synagogue in the history section, Gilabrand recently added two more making the history section have 3 images from synagogues, this is clearly cherry picking one small part of history and giving it more attention in relation to the history of the area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I dont particularly care one way or the other how many pictures are shown, but blind reverts are not an acceptable method to add pictures. nableezy - 14:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I do care, because it should be discussed. I am sure it was not added because it was a nice picture. It disturbs the tiny section just to make a political point. It seems to give the impression of a Historical Claim to the land. But beyond religious belief there is no continuous connection to the modern Israeli settling that land, from wherever they immigrated from, and that ancient picture. So it is a problem. Beyond that it adds nothing the other pictures have not already done. And that is why I have an issue with it. --Inayity (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

settlements and villages

The common term for Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights is Israeli settlements, not Israeli villages. nableezy - 17:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Saying "eastern third is part of Syria." means that the other part is not, which is an Israeli pov, so "controlled" is a better word in this case. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Druze:There has been more applications for Israeli citizenship among Golan Druze; the information in the Lead should be corrected to reflect current changes.--HeloPait (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Source please. nableezy - 17:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

typo - history/early Jewish settlement

"Between 1891 and 1894, Baron Edmond James de Rothschild purchased around 150,000 dunams of land in the Golan and the Hawran for Jewish settlement.[55] Legal and political permits were secured and ownership of the land was registered in late 1984.[55]" ... should that be 1894? 203.213.90.41 (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make much sense any other way. I think we can safely assume two digits were transposed. Good catch. I've fixed it. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Where is the rest of this sentence?

Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and Ehud Olmert each stated that they were willing to exchange the Golan for peace with Syria and what about the current regime? --Inayity (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

to Supreme Deliciousness: why "doesn't correctly summarize it"?

You undid my added sentence: "The provocations were sending a tractor to plow in the demilitarized areas. The Syrian reaction was shooting the Israeli villages." In my opinion it is accurate and based on the same source mentioned there. your reason is: "This doesn't correctly summarize it." why? Ykantor (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say that The Syrian reaction was shooting the Israeli villages? And why wouldnt we say The provocations were to break the terms of the armistice to antagonize Syria to the point of firing in response. The Israelis would then attack with artillery and with aerial fire? nableezy - 19:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
to nableezy: you said: Where exactly does it say that The Syrian reaction was shooting the Israeli villages?. reply: It is already written here . e.g. "the Syrians constantly harassed Israeli border communities by firing artillery shells ", "Israeli incursions into the zone were responded to with Syrians shooting"
  • you said: "And why wouldnt we say The provocations were to break the terms of the armistice to antagonize Syria to the point of firing in response. The Israelis would then attack with artillery and with aerial fire?". Your sentence is incorrect.
  1. you said:"The provocations were to break the terms of the armistice" . Not true. According to the Israeli interpretation it was non militarized but available to civilians.
  2. you said:"The Israelis would then attack with artillery and with aerial fire" . If the Syrians are shooting first, why the Israeli should not respond? Ykantor (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

in order to return the deleted sentence' ' there are 2 more sources, which in my opinion fully justify this sentence:

if you have no further remarks, I'll re-write this sentence. Ykantor (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Read your sources, one says the tractors were often guarded by police. It also says Syria would fire on those advancing. nableezy - 14:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The sources are clear. The "guarded by police" is not relevant in my opinion, but it can be added .
  • Rabil says: "They followed to a great extent a pattern of action and reaction. Israel would move tractors and equipment, often guarded by police, into disputed areas of the DMZ. From its high ground positions. Syria would fire at those advancing, and would frequently shell Israeli settlements in the Huleh Valley. Israel would retaliate with excessive raids on Syrian positions, including the use of air power. " my sentence was "The provocations were sending a tractor to plow in the demilitarized areas. The Syrian reaction was shooting the Israeli villages" . If that important for you I can slightly modify the second part to say: The Syrian reaction was firing at those advancing, and would frequently shell Israeli settlements". Is that OK with you? Ykantor (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

to Supreme Deliciousness: why have you reverted, and canceled the "unreliable source" tag?

This tag is intended to be used when a statement is sourced, but it is questionable whether the source used is reliable for supporting the statement. The claim of "part of its strategy to annex more land" is not reliable, and should be based on an historian, and not a man with unknown ideology.

As for identifying a quality source, I suggest you read Questionable_sources

Israel said openly that the DMZ lands are used by Israeli farmers. Is that the meaning of "part of its strategy to annex more land"? Ykantor (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You added the Verify credibility tag, the video I linked to shows the man himself saying it, so it doesn't get more reliable then that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
As I said, the question is if this person is a credible source, and not if he really said it. Hypothetically, suppose an Antisemitic man would say that the Jews plan to poison the water wells. the question if he is a reliable source to support that claim, and not if he really said it. Ykantor (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
He was a UN observer so he is notable person, and its attributed to him.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure ? Have read the Questionable_sources ?
would you prefer to solve it via the Dispute_resolution_noticeboard? Ykantor (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The YouTube video was shown to remove doubt. The source is good on its own. Your tag is totally unneeded, because all evidence shows the statement is 100% accurate. Every tag needs a good rationale. --Inayity (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I will wait a couple of days for Supreme Deliciousness reaction, before the next step, as said. Ykantor (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
to Supreme Deliciousness:
  • I suggest you read is youtube a reliable source?
  • Actually, the citation is not that bad. The problematic portion is the: "as part of its strategy to annex more land". This is a mistake. However, Israel said openly that it had the rights to cultivate the DMZ (Syria have not agreed). Thus , if you remove the "as part of its strategy to annex more land" , the remained content seems correct.
Note that I try to avoid the next step ( formal dispute) although you are clearly wrong: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources Ykantor (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Youtube is not the source, its Nova which is a dutch current affairs program on Netherlands Public Broadcasting. http://www.novatv.nl/page/detail/uitzendingen/5206# --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
It is a pity that you do not study the given Wikipedia rules links. Nova is not a good source too. The rules are clear, why do we have to waste our time on that marginal point? Ykantor (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Please always respect Wiki rules and avoid discussing your opinion on Editors studying habits. If the source is bad then spend time on the rationale for why you believe it is a bad source.--Inayity (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
you have a mistake. "Supreme Deliciousness" does not respect Wikipedia rules and not me. It is amazing that you try to advance this source instead of trying to support the presented opinion. Don't you see how ridiculous is the situation? I should have deleted this opinion since it is not supported by a proper source, but I had put a tag only, which unfortunately was removed. Why should we spend our time on that marginal point? I do not understand. Ykantor (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
If you put a tag on Wiki you need to justify that tag. What is wrong with the source, it is a simple question. If you can only say you do not like it, then how can we allow the tag. Just saying it is not R.S is not enough. I am not even picking sides I am picking actions.--Inayity (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
If I would have "enjoy" it there are lot of potential locations for that tag, but here it is simply not true, and I have written it clearly, but anyway, here it is again : The problematic portion is the: "as part of its strategy to annex more land". This is a mistake. However, Israel said openly that it had the rights to cultivate the DMZ (Syria have not agreed). Thus , if you remove the "as part of its strategy to annex more land" , the remained content seems correct.
I try not to be one sided. Note that according to Wikipedia rules, those words should be deleted, and restored only after it is well supported. I have not deleted it although it is an error, and put a tag only. Ykantor (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You are making things up, you seem to be arguing that something is not true and as such should not be included. The requirement is that it verifiable, and it is verifiable that Jan Mühren said exactly that. nableezy - 18:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The claim is not true, and it can not be verified because this is a Questionable_sources. I have already written it few times. Why you people do not bother to use the link and read the Wikipedia rule? Ykantor (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You fail to understand the difference between verifiability and truth, or what "questionable source" is. There is no question that the source is accurately reporting what the person said, and we know that because there is a video showing that person saying what it is reported he said. You really need to understand that other people have a stronger grasp on the content policies of this site, and that you are not infallible. You are wrong, the source is reliable for an attributed statement to Jan Mühren, and we are attributing the statement to Jan Mühren. It may not be reliable for a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice, but that is irrelevant because nobody is using it for a factual statement in Wikipedia's voice. If you can view the source itself then it is a verifiable source. Please stop misrepresenting the policies and guidelines of this site, you do not know what you are talking about. nableezy - 19:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I am fed up with you. You do not bother to read Wikipedia rules. Ykantor (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You've been editing heavily for about a month and have 200 some odd edits in that time. Ive been editing heavily for something like five years and have nearly 28,000 edits since then. You dont think somebody with that much more experience with Wikipedia and its rules maybe, just maybe, knows those rules a little better than you? Really? Seems odd. nableezy - 21:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


The source is fine, its an attributed statement to Jan Mühren, and the view of a UN observer is certainly relevant and when attributed to the horses mouth so to speak there is no question of verifiability. nableezy - 16:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

add landmarks pls

Of similar importance to the "landmarks" already in section #10 are:

Tel Bet Saida http://old.parks.org.il/BuildaGate5/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~25~~644062777~Card12~&ru=&SiteName=parks&Clt=&Bur=61428261

Um el Kanatir http://www.yeshuat.com/

Caesarea Philippi (Paneas)

Bnot Ya'akov Bridge (Gesher Binot Yaakov)

...oh, except for SupremeD, Nablus-ee, inay, Zero & similar sorts, as anyone who's spent >1 week in Israeli archaeology/history articles (read History logs/etc) knows they're just on Wikipedia to POV-push in approx 95% of their edits, yet the community won't pick up their balls ("man up") and just eject their ilk. ;-) 72.48.252.105 (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

hyphen rule

See Noun or not Two-thirds is hyphenated.--Inayity (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal

This article is about two related, but obviously differing topics:

  • 1. The Israeli-controlled part of the Golan Heights (occupied in 1967), which is generally referred as "Golan Heights", "Israeli Golan Heights" or "Occupied Syrian Golan Heights". The area includes the Eastern part of the Golan plateau and the Southern Hermon.
  • 2. Second definition of the Golan is purely geographic and it refers to the volcanic plateau (more or less overlapping the Bashan region), which is about one half controlled by Israel (the western part of the plateau - "Golan Heights") and another half by Syria (the eastern part - modern Eastern "Quneitra Governorate").

I herewith propose to split the geographical definition of the Golan plateau and explain the distinction between geographic-geological area of the Golan plateau and the administrative-political areas of Golan Heights and Quneitra Governorate.GreyShark (dibra) 07:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey User:Greyshark09, I agree with the proposal except for the part indicated on the infobox that asks for a disambiguation page. I think that the common definition for "Golan Heights" is what is mainly indicated by this article, and that a possible future article on the geographical Golan Heights should be located at Golan Heights (geographical region). Regards, smileguy91talk 01:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Withdrawn - i see problems in my proposal, especially considering Golan Heights not being an administrative area from the Israeli point of view (Israelis consider it annexed to Northern District (Israel)).GreyShark (dibra) 16:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Consistency on disputed territories

In the column "Country," the region is defined as "Syrian territory occupied by Israel." The pattern is not the same in the Crimea article. Why? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Having lived in Israel, we consider it Israeli territory. It was annexed by Israel with the Golan Heights Law in the 1980's or 90's, and is always drawn as part of the map of Israel there. If we're going to say “Syrian territory occupied by Israel,” we should also mention Israel claims it or has annexed it. My edit “Syrian territory annexed by Israel” was reverted. But the region is under civil rule, not military rule. -- Daviddwd (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we add Not recognized next to annexed, as it needs to be clear.--Inayity (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Israel, after UNSC resolution 497 which declared the Golan Heights Law to be null and void, said that the law does not actually annex the territory. The distinction between acts that amount to annexation and formal annexation may seem trivial, but it is not. And saying "indeed a part of Israeli territory" is a super-minority view that has been rejected nearly unanimously by the international community. For the Israelis saying the law did not annex the territory see Korman, Sharon. The Right of Conquest : The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice. p 263. As such, I'm reverting the "Syrian territory annexed by Israel", both because it a contradictory statement (if it is annexed it is Israeli territory, not Syrian), and because it is directly refuted by a number of sources. nableezy - 17:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And to address one part of the above, the the region is under civil rule, not military rule doesn't really have an impact on whether or not the territory is under Israeli occupation. It no longer being under military rule means that Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention was violated, it does not however mean that the territory is no longer under enemy occupation. nableezy - 17:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
But the two ref given use annexed? --Inayity (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The BBC one says unilaterally annexed, but it also says The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, and the map shows it as occupied by Israel. There are invariably sources that will say annexed, but if you look at the best quality ones, the ones that have the space and time to lay out the issue, you'll see that whether or not Israel even has claimed to annex the territory is not all that simple. I think the safest thing to do is, where discussing the Golan Law, is say something like acts that amount to annexation, or effectively annexed, but in the infobox the current status should be Syrian territory occupied by Israel as that is the super-majority view. nableezy - 16:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Then the ref should be changed to ones which reflect the complexity of the situation.--Inayity (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
done nableezy - 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golan_Heights/Archive_14&oldid=1136769767"