Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Syrian territory

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1100125.html

"A cabinet panel has endorsed a bill that would require parliamentary approval or a national referendum before any pullout from Syrian territory, an official said on Tuesday." so now it is changed from 99% to 100% of the world community calling it Syrian land. So whats next people?.. whats next? You want Golda Meir to come back from her grave calling it Syrian territory before we label it as such in the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Notice the words "an official said on Tuesday". This is not in any way proof that Israel considers this to be Syrian land. 2) I would like to see a RS saying 99% of the world considers this to be Syrian. 3) So far most RS haven't said this is Syrian land which means we shouldn't write Golan as Syrian land.Fipplet (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Sources have been provided saying that this is Syrian land, can you provide a source that says either that it is not Syrian or that it is in Israel? nableezy - 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen any reliable source saying that this is Syrian land, but I am sure that if there are any relialbe sources saying this they are in minority. The majority does not refer to it as Syrian. Thus by refering to it as syrian we misrepresent the reliable sources. And just cause no source say it is not in Syria doesn't mean that it is in Syria, saying this would also misrepresent the sources. But here is a rs more or less saying the Golan is not in Syria "The Golan Heights form a strategic plateau between Israel and Syria of about 1,200 square kilometers". By the way I am not saying we should write it as undisputed Israeli land. You see just cause it isn't Israeli doesn't mean it's Syrian and vice verca.Fipplet (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You have indeed seen RSs that say it is in Syria, or at least they have been provided. Just the first one that I have at my fingers is this BBC piece that we argued over some time ago. There are also the CIA maps that clearly shows the Golan as being a part of Syria, though if you want to dismiss that as merely a POV fine. Give me a bit and I will get you a list of sources describing it as in Syria. The Reuters source is good (though if you want to use Reuters as a source I wonder if you would object to sourcing "Israeli occupied" to it per these various Reuters stories). Also a note on this one, it does say "Israel was willing to give back Syria's Golan Heights" (not in quotes) implying that it is in Syria. nableezy - 20:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not worth an edit war. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
you haven't seen any reliable sources saying this is Syrian, ok then take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Golan_Heights#Is_this_article_gonna_follow_the_rules_of_wikipedia_or_not.3F --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The only source you have at your fingers also says Mount Herman is straddling the Israeli-Syrian border implying Golan is in Israel. And I think using a picture as a source to the text is against wp policy. Furthermore that one does not say Golan is Syrian. It says, although not in quotes; "Israel was willing to give back Syria's Golan Heights in return for peace with the Arab state, a Syrian cabinet minister said". This is from a Syrian minister. So of all sources I have seen, no one says it is Syrian (except for bbc also saying it is Israeli, and even if BBC say it is Syrian an overwhemingly majority doesn't refer to it as Syrian). Fipplet (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it implies that a part of the Golan is in Israel. The Reuters source, well that can be read a number of ways. If Reuters had wanted to distance itself from "Syria's Golan" they could have put it in quotes or removed "Syria's". nableezy - 14:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks. excuse me, but this is not how to address edit issues around here. if you want to clarify the article's content, find a way to add some materials which lay out your viewpoint. there is no reason to fight over a single phrase. the phrase as it is has stability, so it seems like it might be ok to keep. further down, you can add any fact which may be needed. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes it implies a part of the Golan is in Israel, sorry my mistake. I don't know what Reuters want or not want. All I know is that is that they say this is what a Syrian minister has said. They do not say Golan is Syrian. On the other hand we have a Reuters source explicitly telling us Golan is not Syrian.Fipplet (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Point is vast majority (or all) of sources do not refer to the Golan as syrian so the phrase; "Golan and the rest of Syria" is against wp:due. All these are your sources not refering to the Golan as Syrian: LA Times, The Times, Mount Herman is straddling the Israeli-Syrian border. And my Reuters explicitly telling us that it is between Israel and Syria "The Golan Heights form a strategic plateau between Israel and Syria of about 1,200 square kilometers". Please try to create a balanced article, it is obvious many here try to impose their own view here.Fipplet (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Because a source does not say it is in Syria that makes it so the source is saying it is not in Syria? That is nonsense, multiple sources say explicitly that the Golan is in Syria or is Syrian territory. We need every source to explicitly say that the Golan is in Syria? You provided one source saying that it is between Syria and Israel, I provided others that say it is in Syria. nableezy - 14:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Here "The return of the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights, lost in the 1967 Middle East war", "The Syrian Golan Heights were then occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war", "Will Israel withdraw from all of the Syrian Golan Heights?", "Shara was referring to an Arab peace proposal which offers Israel normal ties in return for withdrawal from all the land occupied by Israel in 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights." (OMG, look, its Reuters!!!), "In the Six-Day War, it took the Israel Defense Forces less than 30 hours to break through the front line and occupy most of the Syrian Golan". Want more? nableezy - 15:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of those cites are disingenuous. Like the second one and last one, which refer to the "Syrian Golan Heights" before and during the Six Day War! Of course the Heights were Syrian then. Multiple of these are also quoting Syrian officials. When cites that are talking about pre-67 and ones quoting Syrians are removed, I see exactly one source in your list that is actually a reporter/news agency claiming the Golan to be Syrian, and that's the Independent article which appears to be an Op-ed. Oren0 (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Which ones are disingenuous? The Times one? "The return of the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights, lost in the 1967 Middle East war, remains Damascus’ primary strategic goal. Freeing occupied territory from the "Israeli aggressor" is the PR boost this four-decade old Baath regime craves." is said as a fact in a news story. The Guardian one is a country profile. Saying "The Syrian Golan Heights were then occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war" is not saying the ceased to be Syrian after. Perhaps the Reuters one is relaying the Arab demands, but they do say in the narrative voice "all lands occupied by Israel in 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights". The Haaretz one maybe Ill give you, but those others are certainly not disingenuous. Neither is the BBC source posted earlier that states unequivocally that the Golan is Syrian territory. nableezy - 02:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact any source that calls the Golan "Israeli-occupied" or something of that nature is saying that the Golan is Syrian territory. A country does not "occupy" territory within its own borders. nableezy - 02:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, the independent article is not an op-ed, it is filed under "News > World > Middle East" and even if it were Robert Fisk himself is a RS. nableezy - 13:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No defintely not, if a source calls the Golan "Israeli-occupied" they are saying the Golan is occupied by Israel and nothing else. And as oren0 said few people dispute the fact that the Golan was Syrian before 67, when source 2 & 5 say "Syrian" they are not talking about the current status of the territory but the status of the territory before and during the Six Day War. Reuters are citing an Arab peace proposal and the independent is an op-ed. Now the only source actually saying the Golan is in Syria is BBC once. Now compare these to all other sources, including bbc itself, not refering to it as Syrian territory or refering to it as not Syrian territory you see that only a very small minority refers to it as Syrian and the vast majority do not:

Says the Golan heights is not in Syria:

  • Reuters
  • BBC (Truckloads of apples from Israeli-occupied Golan heights have crossed into Syria in the first trade deal between the enemy states)
  • The Economist (Very much of this article implies Golan heights is not Syria)
  • Time (Caught in between four countries and sixty years of conflict, the disputed territory of the Golan Heights...)

Says parts the Golan heights including mount Hermon is in Israel:

Does not refer to the Golan as Syrian:

These are the most prominent news sources and they do not refer to the Golan as Syria, some of them implies and explicitly tells us that the Golan is not Syria and one even says parts of the Golan is Israel. Now I cand find many many more sources saying Golan heights is not in Syria but these are the most prominant ones. Now saying Golan heights is in Syria is incredibely biased and completely against wp:due as the majority of sources do not describe Golan as Syrian. It would also be biased to write explicitely in our article that "Golan is definitely not Syria" as most sources does not describe it as such. Now stop write that it is Syria cause it is completely misrepresenting the sources and facts. السلام عليكم (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? I gave you how many sources that specifically say it is in Syria and your answer is well these sources dont say? Can you provide anywhere close to the number of sources that say it is not in Syria? Or are you just saying because a source doesn't explicitly say it is in Syria that means it is not? And yes, to say it is occupied is to say it is outside of Israel. That is what occupied means, to control another nations territory. nableezy - 13:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Fipplet/السلام عليكم is wrong to suggest that the BBC says that the Golan is not in Syria, the BBC's "profile" or the Area refers to it being Syrian territory: "the golan heights, a rocky plateu in South Western Syria. The BBC referred to shipments from the Golan "to Syria" as such for ease of reporting and the illustrate how transport and trade have improved between Israeli occupied areas and the rest of Syria. In my view the BBC describing the Golan as "in Syria" in the FIRST LINE of the country profile holds more weight than some BBC report about a shipment of food. AreaControl (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I answer first to Nableezy:

Sources

I have seen one source specifically saying it is in Syria and that is BBC, I'll give you that. But other then that I have seen nothing in the near. I have seen 2 saying it was Syrian before the six day war, no one disputes that, 1 op-ed, some quoting officials. Ok Reuters maybe said it in a narrative voice but we still have the Reuters factbox specifically telling us that Golan is not in Syria but between Syria and Israel which makes it hard to believe that they are not quoting the Arab peace plan in the article you provided. I also belive the fact box holds more weight. So you have provided 1 source specifically saying the Golan is in Syria and some which are very vague. Now why is my answer "well these sources dont say"? Because these sources avoid saying "Golan is in Syria" or "Golan is in Israel" because by doing so they are being neutral and does not take side between the different claims. And this is exactly what neutrality means. 2 countries are claiming the same territory and they give the pure facts and not their own view of who it really belongs to. Ok so when the sources are not saying that Golan is in Syria it doesn't mean that they say it is not in Syria, as you say. But it also doesn't mean that they say it is not in Israel. It does not mean they say it is in Syria or Israel. And this is what is called neutrality and these sources are in majority. And we would not be representing the sources correctly if we said any of these: 1) It is in Israel 2) It is not in Israel 3) It is in Syria 4) It is not in Syria. Cause this would misrepresent the majority of sources. Now imagine these sources didn't exist then I still have provieded lots of prominent sources saying it is not in Syria: Reuters, BBC, The Economist, Time, and one saying parts of the Golan is in Israel: BBC. I can give you more if you want.

Now let's represent the majority of sources by not saying it is in Israel, Syria, not in Israel or not in Syria since any of these would be biased and misrepresentative of facts and sources.

Occupation

Actually the definition of occupation according to wikipedia is: "when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army" and according to the Hague convention: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army". And no one here doubts that the Golan was placed under the Authority of Israel. So it does not neccesarly mean it is outside of Israel and even if it did mean, it doesn't mean it is inside Syria. When they say Golan is occupied they don't say it is Syrian. If they wanted to say it is in Syria they would say it is in Syria.

Areacontrol:

I agree with you that the countryprofile holds more weight but it doesn't mean the reports are insignificant. Also remember that this is only one source and the only one clearly saying the Golan is in Syria. But I think you are wrong in assuming they really meant between Israeli occupied areas and the rest of Syria when they I think on 3 separate occations said from Golan to Syria and never "the rest of Syria". If they really meant the rest of Syria they would have written the rest of Syria. Fipplet (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but this is a common media practice to refer to disputed territories in their own right. They do it with Kashmir all the time, South Ossetia likewise. A BBC report saying "apples moving from the Golan Heights to Syria" does not imply a BBC endorsement of Israeli sovereignty, but we actually have a BBC profile which would appear to endorse Syrian sovereignty. AreaControl (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say it endorsed Israeli sovereignty only that it did not endorse Syrian sovereignty. Nevertheless this is only one article.Fipplet (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fipplet, your case here is incomprehensible. It is blindingly obvious that almost the entire world outside Israel regards the Golan as Syrian. Proof that the great majority of countries have that opinion officially can be found in a large number of UNGA resolutions. For example, A/RES/63/99 (Dec 2008) which says "Deeply concerned that the Syrian Golan, occupied since 1967, has been under continued Israeli military occupation" (my emphasis) was passed by 171 votes against 1. Guess which 1? Please get real. Zerotalk 15:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Zero, the UN position is already noted in the article. Fipplet (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
But that is not the UN position, it is the position of 171 out of 172 countries. You wanted a source saying 90% of the world, well here you have one saying 99.4% of the countries in the UN say so. nableezy - 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur, I think Fipplet's argument is sunk AreaControl (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: what the majority of countries, people, or organizations believe is irrelevant from a perspective of WP:WEIGHT. All that matters is what a preponderance of reliable sources say. Oren0 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think that would change the result? Incidentally (this is OR) I searched a large newspaper database for the phrases "Syrian Golan" (3946 hits) and "Israeli Golan" (121 hits). Most of the 121 seem to be hits on phrases like "Israeli Golan withdrawal" and "Israeli Golan forces". Trying to avoid such spurious hits using "Syrian Golan Heights" and "Israeli Golan Heights" gives 2194 versus 22. Most of the 22 are Israeli newspapers or quotations of Israeli officials. This suggests that at least the press portion of Reliable Sources overwhelmingly regards the Golan Heights as Syrian. Zerotalk 04:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Similarly searching for "Syrian Golan Heights" at Google Scholar gives 356 hits that include many reliable sources, whereas "Israeli Golan Heights" gives only 6 hits: "Israeli Golan Heights Law", "Israeli Golan Heights counterattack", "Israeli Golan Heights frontier", a quote from an Israeli minister, and two I can't easily check. So here again it is clear that the opinion of reliable sources is overwhelmingly that the Golan Heights are Syrian. Zerotalk 04:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all I don't think that we can say the territory is Syrian based on your search on a large newspaper database or on the number of hits on Google scholar. Nevertheless you seem to have misunderstood me, so I suggest you read my long comment written 18:20, 26 July. Here's one thing I wrote: "Let's represent the majority of sources by not saying it is in Israel, Syria, not in Israel or not in Syria since any of these would be biased and misrepresentative of facts and sources". As you see I do not advocate saying this is Israeli territory in the article. I say we write it is neither Syrian or Israeli but just describe the situation based on the facts we have. Incidentally I searched on Google scholar and got 10,700 hits when searching for "Golan heights" but only "366" when I searched for "Syrian Golan heights". This means that out of 10,700 articles about the Golan heights only 3.4% of them has the word "Syrian" in front of "golan heights". This means that we would represent the tiny 3.4% minority if we write it as Syrian. Also I got 460 hits (>366) when I searched for "Golan heigts, Israel". Wow let's write it is in Israel! No cause the majority of sources does not write it as Israel, and we cannot base something like this on the number of hits on Google scholar. I am pretty sure it is against wiki policy. Furthermore we cannot assume these are reliable sources or that they are really meaning it is Syrian territory, for example the first result when searching for "Syrian golan" is one quoting some Jerusalem Arab Association when saying it is Syrian. Fipplet (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I say we shouldn't say any of these; it is in Israel, Syria, not in Israel or not in Syria. Fipplet (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

<- I'm not sure which part of the article this discussion relates to, perhaps it relates to many parts but having had a quick read through the article it seems to me that it is not making it clear to readers that the consensus view of the international community is that the Golan Heights are Syrian territories occupied by Israel. This important, uncontroversial and verifiable piece of information should be presented to the reader early in the lede, right there in the third sentence being a good place. Other than providing readers with that information once in the lede and once in the article there shouldn't be a need to refer to the Golan Heights as in Syria or Israel etc should there ? They can simply be referred to as the Golan Heights from that point on. Lengthy explanations of various positions on the issue are all very well and informative but the article should at least make it clear to the reader that the Golan Heights are currently considered to be Syrian territories occupied by Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now added material from the General Assembly resolution supported by 161 members and only oppsed by Israel referring to the "occupied Syrian Golan".--Peter cohen (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you Sean. But this was already in the article (before peter cohens addition); the third scentence says "The United Nations, the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the Arab League, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch consider the Golan Heights to be territory occupied by Israel and not part of Israel proper.", the infobox says: "internationally recognized as Syrian territory" and further down it says Israels annexation was condemned by the Security counsil. I find this well enough and more about the UN position would be excessive. The latest addition by Peter Cohen is a bit too much of the UN position. For example this sentence; "The overwhelming majority of the international community supported the Security Council in this and have continued to do so. For example, in 2008 a plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly voted by 161-1 in favour of a motion on the "occupied Syrian Golan" Heights that reaffirmed Security Council motion 497" is unnececary since it already says above that the UN "consider the Golan Heights to be territory occupied by Israel". This is too much information in the lead about the UN, especially since Security Council resolutions holds more weight than the UNGA does. And this goes for all the article. With your addition I think we give too much weight to the Un and especially to the less significant GA. I tink the securiy council resolutions are well enough. They give you the UN position, any more would be excessive. Fipplet (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Given User:Oren0's recent bizarre insistence on the removal of mention that the countries and organisations mentioned in the earlier sentence regard the Golan as Syrian, I felt it necessary to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of countries backed a motion repeatedly repeatedly referring to this territory as "the occupied Syrain Golan".--Peter cohen (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I never advocated for the removal of this material, provided it is properly sourced. The sources provided at the time only used the term "occupied", and it would be WP:OR to use those sources to back the statement "Syrian land occupied by Israel." My point remains though: the opinions of countries has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT, despite repeated claims to the contrary. Oren0 (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand you mr Cohen, but as you see you seem to have misunderstood Oren0. so there is no need to emphasise the UN view to this extent. The international view was clearly stated before. This is just excessive. Of course I will keep what was stated before. Fipplet (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Certainly not excessive. Nowhere is there mention of the near unanimity of the agreement among the UN's membership of this being occupied Syrian territory. Mention of it in the article is not excessive. That section is used to demonstrate that most of the world does regard the Golan as Syrian. That is a good source for that. nableezy - 18:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Before mr Cohens Change;

The infobox says:

  • "Internationally recognized as Syrian territory"

The lead says:

  • "The United Nations consider the Golan Heights to be territory occupied by Israel"
  • "the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which passed November 22, 1967 and called for "secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force for every state, as well as the withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the Six Day War"
  • "a move internationally condemned and unrecognized, and labeled "inadmissible" by the UN Security Council"
  • "UN Resolution 242 considers the area part of the Israeli-occupied territories"
  • "in 2006, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on Israel to end its occupation of the Golan"

The article says:

  • "Israel's action has not been recognized internationally. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 which declared the Golan Heights an Israeli occupied territory continues to apply. Israel maintains that it may retain the area as the text of Resolution 242 calls for "safe and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".
  • "The UN does not recognize the "annexation", and officially considers the Heights to be Israeli occupied. This view was expressed in the unanimous UN Security Council Resolution 497"
  • "This action caused an international outcry including two condemnatory UN resolutions."

See also:

  • UN Security Council Resolution 242
  • UN Security Council Resolution 452
  • UN Security Council Resolution 465
  • UN Security Council Resolution 471
  • UN Security Council Resolution 497

This clearly gives you the UN view. If this is not excessive then anything beyond this is. What Mr Cohen added is not untrue or inadequately sourced, but it doesn't improve the article, it just gives much more space to the UN. Also I don't think this is the right article for presenting the content of every UN resolution concerning the Golan. What we have is well enough providing us the UN view. Also under the see also section you can add any resolution if anyone wants to look deeper into the subject. Fipplet (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything you listed are Security Council resolutions, which are fine for the views of the UNSC. What you removed was a General Assembly resolution which shows the views of the individual countries that voted. You are not removing the UN view with what you removed, you are removing the views of the nations that voted on that resolution. Oren0 wanted a source for the countries that say it is Syrian territory, now we have one. This resolution does not tell us the "UN view", it tells us the views of the nations of the world. nableezy - 19:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"Internationally recognized as Syrian territory", "The United Nations consider the Golan Heights to be territory occupied by Israel", "a move internationally condemned and unrecognized", "Israel's action has not been recognized internationally", *"The UN does not recognize the "annexation", and officially considers the Heights to be Israeli occupied.", *"This action caused an international outcry including two condemnatory UN resolutions". You see we don't need to know every countrys oppinion. Saying the view of the international community is well enough. Again anything beyond this is excessive. If you say the international community you are saying the nations of the world. And if the UN is not the international community it is in any case representing the international community.Fipplet (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You've recently posted to this page expressing doubt that the international community regard the area as Syrian. Then when I change the article showing that 161 nations voted for a UNGA motion that repeatedly refered to "the occupied Syrian Golan", you claim that this information is excessive. If someone who follows the situation as closely as you do did not realise that the overwhelming majority of countries that make up the international community recognise the Golan as Syrian and none were prepared to back Israel in disagreeing with this, then the description of the vote for the UNGA motion is very much needed in the article. And if you are now saying that the UN equals the international community, how could you claim in your first post to the Ski resort and Gajar section just below this that you were not sure that the international community did regard the area as Golan. I have extreme difficulty in reconciling what you say in simultaneous threads going on in the same talk page [1] [2] [3]. If the international view was "clearly stated before", how come you were "not sure that the international community consider the Golan to be Syrian"? Please explain how we can reeconcile these claims of yours.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood me. I never doubted this unga resolution exists, Zero already told us about this resolution long time ago. So my issue, down there, was not "does this resolution exist?", it was "can we really base our statement "internationally recognized as syria" on this resolution?" (this is a totally different question which I will discuss when Im finished here). So in conclusion: The un view was cleraly stated before, including our consensus here that they regarded Golan as Syria. I dispute that we can base our statement on this resolution. So there's no problem. The UN view was already there, this insignificant resolution doesn't deserve this much space. It already said before that the UN viewed the Golan as Syrian. And if this is not true then it is even more excessive.Fipplet (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Oren0 required clearer evidence that the world regards the Golan as Syrian. All but a single figure number of UN members voting for a motion repeatedly referring to the heights as Syrian is as good as we can get to demonstrate that itnernational consensus. And the GA vote is more than a position of the UN as a beaurocracy with its own administration and agents, it is the aggregate expression of the views of the governments of the member countries on an issue.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok if this is evidence (will discuss further down) then you have provided us with clearer evidence. Put it as a refernce next to syrian territory. Fipplet (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ski resort and Ghajar

Fipplet, you wrote we shouldnt say it is in Israel or in Syria, but you write that the ski resort which is in the Golan is in Israel. I ask you to keep it as "Israeli-controlled" as it most certainly not in Israel. nableezy - 15:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't you are right. But I didn't write that. I wrote that it is an Israeli ski resort and I am pretty sure that's not the same thing as in Israel (then all israeli settlements would be in israel). Cause the resort is Israeli even if it's not neccesarly in Israel. It is built, used & administered by Israel so it's Israeli. But if Israeli means in Israel then I will "surrender"(couldn't think of any better word) this discussion.
The second point is Ghajar. It says in the Ghajar article itself that it is on the Lebanon-Golan border so why you keep writing Lebanon-Syrian border?
I also have another thought and that is that I am not sure that the international community consider the Golan to be Syrian. Certanly occupied but not neccesarly Syrian. I know you will show me some UNGA resolutions but I have some thoughts about that. Fipplet (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
What you mean like the GA motion, the coverage of which you complain about above? 161 countries voted for a motion that repeated called the Heights "the occupied Syrian Golan." One country, we all know which, voted against. And the number of abstentions was seven with the US being the only Western country abstaining. No doubt it would be regarded as original research if I explained the US abstention as not wanting to support the degree of criticism of Israel in motion while still believing that the Heights are occupied Syrian territory and therefore the administration did not want to oppose the motion either. However we still have the original CIA map labelling the area as Syrian to confirm the United States' position on whose territory it is. The other abstainers were Cameroon, the Ivory Coast and four island nations whose population totals approximately a quarter of a million between them. So there we have it. Every major Western country regards the Golan as Syrain; so do all Asian countries apart from Israel herself (and maybe the Republic of China as it didn't get a vote, though she did vote for the original SC motion referred to in the GA motion text and which also refers to "the occupied Syrian Golan"); and so do all the rest of the third world with the possible exception of two medium-sized African countries and four tiny ones in Oceania depending on exactly why they abstained. The GA doesn't have the legal powers of the SC but it does show the weight of international opinion and that is that they without a shred of doubt consider the territory Syrian. No doubt one of the ultra-Zionist POV-pushers will crop up to point out how biased the UN is and that the motion should be disregarded as should Australia, the Netherlands, Poland and all the other countries that supported the motion as they were motivated by a deep-seated anti-Israeli prejudice as were the Arab-lovers in the CIA who created the map. But anyone who is remotely impartial will see this is incontrovertible evidence that the international community does regard the Heights as Syrian.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
A country voting for a resolution calling the Heights "the occupied Syrian Golan" is not the same as the country itself viewing it as Syrian. The vote is about something else and that is what they are voting about, not on which country it is in(unless there is a resolution like that). There are also resolutions calling it Syrian Golan but with countries voting against. For example A/63/401. In this the US is voting against. They are voting against a resolution calling it Syrian. So am I suppose to write in the article that the US does not see it as Syria? Saying they view it as Syria because they vote on something unrelated to which country it is far fetched. Fipplet (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
63/99 is entitled "The occupied Syrian Golan" and uses that exact phrase seven times in the body of the text as well as referring to "the Syrian Golan, occupied since 1967" and you take the highly original position of claiming that that is not evidence that the 171 countries that voted for it (the press release figure of 161 appears to be a typo) are clear on whether the territory is Syrian. The other motion you mention, presumably 63/97 as the other one from the report with "Syrian Golan" is broader dealing with all the occupied territories. If the US having objections to the description of the Golan as Syrian was the reason for its vote against, it would also have voted against 63/99. Not to mention that SC497 also uses the term and the US most certainly had the ability to force a rewording there.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, voting on something where "syrian golan" is mentioned is not the same as considering golan to be Syria, since the vote is about something else. Now I haven't seen the resolution itself, so if you please can show it to me we can determine what they are voting about. My point with the US is that just cause they voting against a resolution mentioning "syrian golan" doesn't mean that they don't consider the territory to be Syrian, and vice verca, since the vote is about something else. Fipplet (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox vote! Cancelled !

Put letter A or B infront of your name for which version of the infobox you support. A. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=304911794


B. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=304913374

Put names here:

A.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

B.--Yazan (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

B.--Fipplet (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This isnt how things are done here, or at least it isnt how things should be done. Whoever says A explain why A is better, whoever says B explain why B is better. This is not a numbers game where the greater number of people determine what goes into an article, or at least is not supposed to be like that. With sources provide reasoning for what you prefer. nableezy - 20:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What Nableezy says is true. Fipplet (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
But for the record, I think that the older version (marked "A") is probably the better of the two. We should discuss our reasons for our opinions though rather than a straight poll which is a violation of the above policy AreaControl (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

Ok, this was stupid, sorry, lets just deleted it and discuss, ok?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I would support the older version of the infobox. It looks much more tidy, the addition of the flags in the newer infobox looks somewhat cluttered, if this territory was undisputed then the flags may be appropriate but here they just look messy. The older version gives all relevant dates and looks much more professional in my view. AreaControl (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
the infobox is right now saying "Country Prior to 1967: controlled by Syria" which means it wasn't undoubtedly part of it and it also means that as of 1967 it no longer is part of Syria. This is the Israeli point of view. Then it says: "Country 1967 - current Controlled by Israel since the Six-Day War" but this has nothing to do with what country it is in now, it has to do with israeli occupation. The only legitimate version is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=304911794 I would like to hear more views. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
People, this isn't a fight between box A vs box B. There's only one infobx and there are many options how we can make it look. Between A and B there's lots of different shapes, and words. Area I like the flags but I find it confusing that there's 2 syrian flags, Supremilicious for I all care we might as well remove "Country Prior to 1967" amd only have country. That solves my confusion with the flags also. And also for all I care we might as well remove the box completely. I think it doesn't improve the article that much but causes a lot of issues. Nevertheless I will try my suggestion now. If you don't like it there's plenty of more room for discussion. Fipplet (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, personally I think it looks so good right now.Fipplet (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Right now it says "Country - controlled by Israel..." this is not acceptable, it implies that it is a part of the country Israel. Israeli control has nothing to do with country, if you don't come up with a real suggestion following the vast majority of world views and political organizations, im gonna revert it back. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Öhm, no it implies Israel controls the territory, and actually control has Very much to do with the country. This maybe explanes a little Sovereignty#De_jure_and_de_facto. Sovereignty requires both conrol and legal right to exercise it. What I mean is what some old man in the UN is dreaming about doesn't matter so much when you actually don't have the territory and vice verca. Fipplet (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Control has nothing to do with country, where there is a "country" section, Israel can not be in it. it is only control.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Then Syria cannot be there either since a claim on a territory not under Syrias control has nothing to do with the country. It is only a claim. Fipplet (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't say "Country Syria" - it says Internationally recognized as part of Syria, claimed by Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
So this version only gives you the UN view, completely against wp:due, whereas the other one gives you all viewpoints in accordance with npov and due. Im changing it back to the neutral version.Fipplet (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not the UN view, this is the situation. It says in control "controlled by Israel since 1967" This is the neutral version, the one you will change to is the Israeli version. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
God you are unreasonable. Yes it is. The UN position is the UN view not any kind of fact. The actual situation is that it is controlled by Israel but claimed by Syria. Now I will not change to any Israeli version but to the neutral one giving all significant viewpoints. Fipplet (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes the actual situation is that it is controlled by Israel as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=304911794 But this has nothing to do with country. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Then tell me what has to do with the country. Fipplet (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Country has to do with Golan being part of a country, and that country is Syria, the Israeli occupation does not change this fact, the Israeli occupation is control of Syrian land, and has nothing to do with it being part of Israel, therefor the only neutral version is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=305617908 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This has been thoroughly disccused at the section "Syrian territory". Read it and if you do not agree please continue discuss there but until then we do not say Golan is in Syria but only describes the facts. Fipplet (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Question: what is Szczecin and Kaliningrad? So, Assad wants Golan back, up to 4th June 1967 line, unconditionally before the start of negotiations. So, he is backed by the whole world. But. The inadmissability of territorial conquest is inapplicable to Golan Heights, I hope this respected forum understands it. If not, I'll remind that it was conquered in the defensive war. And Syria was supposed to negotiate its return, not accept 3 NOs of 1967 and certainly not to start 1973 October war. The Golan Heights are disputable territory, claimed by both Syria and Israel, its definition and final status pending the negotiations and resolution by both sides. If, despite Assad's desire, Israel will convince him to accept the treaty without Golan, it will be then Israeli territory. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Some people say 67 was a defensive war, many do not. And people havent been pushing for it to say "illegally occupied" just "occupied" which I dont think you can argue against. And sources do say it is Syrian territory. But I give up. nableezy - 14:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
(the 'Majority' argument does not impress me much, there were times only one man on Earth thought the world is round. and there are few who realize that Gaza is no longer occupied, even fewer understand why it is no longer occupied, but it doesn't change the fact you know). It was Syrian territory (except of course DMZ) until 1967, now it is Israeli territory, its future status will be determined by negotiations in accordance with 242, until then it is sovereign Israeli territory regardless of what political considerations say. At most, it could be said that it is 'disputable'. And whoever questions definition of 1967 war as 'defensive' - you know I usually do not make ungrounded statements. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
And you eluded the truly puzzling question - what is Szczecin and Kaliningrad? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Sceptic, it is not Israeli territory, not a single reliable source has been presented that says it is. It is Israeli controlled, or more accurately Israeli occupied territory. And as to your earth is round, if Wikipedia had been around at that time we would have an article on the Earth stating as a matter of fact that the Earth is flat. Remember verifiability not truth. But the sources are pretty clear here. The Golan is Syrian territory occupied by (which implies administered by and controlled by) Israel. I dont know what you are asking about Szczecin and Kaliningrad. nableezy - 18:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
sources on 67; [4], [5], [6], let me know if you want more. nableezy - 18:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
But that is a discussion for another place and time, we dont determine whether or not it is occupied territory on the basis of the war being aggressive or defensive, we let the sources do that. The sources do say that the Golan is Israeli occupied territory, not Israeli territory. nableezy - 18:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Too tired to look seriously at your sources; as a farewell gift I'll leave you with this: "Following the Knesset's approval of the law, Professor Julius Stone of Hastings College of the Law wrote: “There is no rule of international law which requires a lawful military occupant, in this situation, to wait forever before [making] control and government of the territory permanent....Many international lawyers have wondered, indeed, at the patience which led Israel to wait as long as she did.” Unfortunately, no URL. To sum it up, it is a conquered (occupied if you insist, but I prefer conquered) territory, its final status is subjected to negotiation. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The illegality of "conquering" territory in a war is one of the foundations of post-WWII international law. The only way for the Golan to become Israeli territory is for Syria to cede it to Israel. But again, I give up here, at least for the time being. nableezy - 20:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
'The illegality of "conquering"...' - Exactly! This is why the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by Jordan and Egypt before 1967 was in itself illegal, and "ceding" this territories to anyone (i.e. Palestinians) has no legal basis. 'The only way for the Golan...' - not in the case when Syria is aggressor. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You forgot to take your anti-advocacy pill again today Sceptic. You need to keep the bottle next to something that you use everyday like the kettle or the TV remote. For example, I keep my anti-sarcasm pills right next to the...damn it, they're not there. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I will bring up the flag discussion here, as this is the closest place to where it was discussed. There are two problems with including the flags in the infobox. First, as AreaControl stated, it makes the box rather cluttered. Second, and more importantly, including the flags will lead to edit wars. Some editors will insist on having the Israeli flag on top, and some editors will insist on having the Syrian flag on top, and they will revert over it - endlessly. It's better to leave them both out and just have it be a sentence describing the situation. ← George [talk] 16:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
How about having them both on top next to each other? Fipplet (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No, because a flag represents a nation, and where there is "country" talking about Golan, there is no Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The flags here merely represents the nations claiming the Golan. Fipplet (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I just don't see the advantage of including both flags. If it were one country, or even a list of countries, using the flags would be fine. But the infobox isn't listing countries, it's explaining the situation in a sentence, so I don't see any value added by the flags. ← George [talk] 20:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
George is right on the money, the complex nature of the Golan Heights require a full explanation (as a sentance rather than a list) in the infobox therefore the flags shouldn't be there. AreaControl (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with the flags. But I can't think of a good reason to keep them. So this is fine ;) Fipplet (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golan_Heights/Archive_7&oldid=1136353944"