Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sceptic Ashdod (talk | contribs) at 06:17, 3 August 2009 (→Infobox discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golan Heights article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Volcanoes Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

I do not support the actions and views of Oren0 as 3rd party

In his userpage it says "This user supports the continued existence of a free and independent state of Israel." and "This user is a Jew." Therefore Oren0 can not be considered neutral to this subject, of course he is gonna side with Israel. Another 3rd point of view should have been picked. Another 3rd point of view that takes a second look at the disputed/occupied argument. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this is an issue, while I disagree with Oren0's view I do not find it unreasonable and have no reason to dispute his impartiality in evaluating the discussion. And being a Jew who supports the existence of Israel does not factor into the discussion. Nableezy (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

His position and views makes it inappropriate for him to be a 3rd view. He is not neutral to the subject. If there is a football game between USA and France, FIFA do not pick a french referee. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The following photograph clearly showcases Supreme's neutral and objective perspective towards the Jewish state: Image:No_Israel.svg‎

You happened to have blanked your page right before posting this hit piece. Coincidence? Perhaps. Give Supreme a warning and lets continue with the discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

SD isn't presenting himself as a neutral third party. Oren0 closed the Rfc in that capacity. Doing so was ill-judged, as it would be for other people with strong views on the subject, such as you and I, to do so.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oren0 is a capable and accomplished editor, and has earned enough respect to be awarded administrative privileges. If Oren had a prior history of conflicts, the closure would certainly be suspect, but by virtue of being a Jew and happening to support Israel does not automatically make him biased in applying 3rd party rights. To even pose such a challenge is borderline antisemitic and offensive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Of all the people to pick as 3rd view, did they have to pick a zionist in this kind of article? Is this fair? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wkikfan12345, by the same token, SD is entited to their views to oppose Israel until the cows go home, especially that Israel occupies a portion of their country. You cannot take that right away from them. SD does not have to be unbiased on this subject, but the 3rd party does. Please do not sing the antisemitic song unnecessarily all the time. --98.194.124.102 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Many would consider "Israel has nt right to exist" as a strong indication of antisemitism. Per the Hama Massacre, where the Syrian military under the previous Assad despot decided to level an entire city loaded with civilians (30,000), killing most of them...maybe I should troll and challenge Syria's "right to exist." Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint and I won't question motivations but I will never tolerate outing a respected administrator by an Arab nationalist. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a Jew doesn't negate oneself from being impartial, neither does personal feelings towards a country, as long as they look at the facts and do not allow emotions to play into the decision. That said, I feel his response gave a balanced solution to the question at hand, allowing for all sourced viewpoints to be stated, so long as they dont overstep WP:UNDUE. Misplaced Pages is not a place to criminialize a nation because some editors do not agree with its actions or existance, nor is it a place to straight-forward deny the viewpoint of an occupied people. --Nsaum75 (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"as long as they look at the facts and do not allow emotions to play into the decision", if they have any emotions at all, and they obviously do since they advertise it on their user page, then they should personally request to stand down from the refereeing position, for conflict of interest. --98.194.124.102 (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no religious or ethnic connection to the region, and I would have closed the RfC in exactly the same way if Oren0 hadn't beaten me to it. In his closing statement Oren0 simply noted the two terms are not mutually exclusive, and its not Misplaced Pages's place to make a definitive pronouncement on the validity of national territorial issues. There is scope for both points of view to be covered in the article in proportion to both weight and reliable sourcing. This seems like a commonsense approach. Please consider this a 4th opinion, if you like.

On an unrelated note I've converted the enormous image posted above into a wikilink for readability's sake. It's the same image, and the point being made is still understandable, but the massive image was interrupting the discussion. This is a layout issue rather than a content one, but if there's disagreement with this action please let me know.Euryalus (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article, especially on top of the map, state that, according to Israel the territory is disputed, and according to the rest of the world the territory is Syrian and occupied by Israel? --98.194.124.102 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good comment by 98.194.124.102 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious IP? The entire RFC has been over that POV. Ugh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is very hard for many editors to continue assuming WP:Good Faith when a group of editors continually find fault with any solution that doesn't reflect their own viewpoints 100%. We are trying to achieve balance and NPOV, not the rejection of all claims made which don't outright demonize the actions and status of one particular nation which some feel has no right to exist. --Nsaum75 (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You realize you keep saying that, but a number of people no doubt are having a hard time assuming good faith when RSs are shown to explicitly and without any disclaimer say that it is Israeli-occupied territory, and the response we get is nobody is disputing reliable sources. Really? Then why are we having this discussion, because people dont like what the reliable sources say? And nobody can provide a source where Israel itself actually disputes that the territory is occupied. And even if somebody could produce such a source no answer is given as to why there is a problem with the phrasing "The Golan Heights are Israeli occupied territory, though Israel disputes this". You keep raising AGF as though the actions of "your side" of the argument are without doubt pure and pristine. To some of us, this feels as a complete whitewash of verifiable facts, and when that happens it is indeed hard to assume good faith. Though nobody keeps questioning your motives and actions or bringing up your personal views, whatever they might be. Try to stop questioning everybody elses. That a user feels Israel does not have a right to exist has absolutely nothing to do with this, that another admin closed this RfC happens to be a Jew also has nothing to do with this. So please stop bringing up what you feel are faults with a users personal POV, unless that user tries to put into the article that Israel has no right to exist this conversation is useless. Nableezy (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood my comment, or maybe I wasn't entirely clear -- and for that I am sorry, I need to better proof-read before I hit "save page"; I wasn't debating the use of RS in my comment, rather the fact that an editor is trying to use an Admins religion and personal views as a basis for rejecting an RfC they don't agree with -- at least that is how it appears in the heading of this section and the first lines of the discussion. As for content, I personally am ok with the reliably sourced use of "occupied", for reasons I stated previously in the RfC; as long as its done in a manner which doesn't violate WP:UNDUE and we balance it with dissenting viewpoints. --Nsaum75 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And I think that user is wrong for raising such objections (in fact I said so above), but realize it is hard for "the other side" to assume good faith as well. But do it anyway. Nableezy (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I do support the existence of the state of Israel and I make no apology for that. At the same time, I don't generally edit Israel-related articles on Misplaced Pages and was completely neutral when it came to the RfC on this page. The fact that I am Jewish should have no bearing on my ability to close an RfC, any more than an African American wouldn't be precluded from closing a dispute on Barack Obama or an American wouldn't be disallowed from settling a dispute on a topic related to the USA. In reality, there was no other way to close this RfC. What did you think was going to happen, the infobox would say "illegally occupied"? The current state of the lead, outlining the claims of all sides, is the only neutral way to determine the issue. Oren0 (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Oren0 can not be considered neutral to this subject, of course he is gonna side with Israel" - I think you're framing the dispute here the wrong way. This isn't the United Nations. The dispute on this page is not one between Israel and Syria, it's a dispute between Misplaced Pages editors who believe that the correct NPOV term is "occupied" versus those who believe that the correct NPOV term is "disputed." Not all editors here are citizens or supporters of either nation, and even if they are that doesn't imply one side of the dispute they must be on. Not everyone carries their politics or nationality on their sleeves. I'm also curious why you believe that I "side with Israel", given that I support the lead as it currently is, immediately rattling off a list of those who consider the land to be occupied. For the record, the reason I closed this is because my background gives me more historical context than someone who is totally unfamiliar with the issue, but at the same time I'm not so close to the issue to not act impartially. Rather than question my beliefs or motives, I would ask that you look at the material of my close and tell me if, independent of who wrote it, you believe it to be biased or unfair. If so, I'm curious how you believe the discussion could have been resolved more fairly. Oren0 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oren0, I for one am not questioning your objectivity here, but what you wrote above shows the problem in the RfC. There was no serious suggestion for it to say "Illegally occupied", the choice was "Occupied territory", which I think is clear the sources provided above, such as BBC, NYTimes and others, is correct terminology, and "Disputed". It is unfortunate that so much of the discussion got sidetracked on what I feel is a strawman argument. Of the editors who felt that "occupied" should be used not many said we should say "illegally" in Misplaced Pages's narrative NPOV voice, just "occupied". I for one felt those disputing the term "occupied" did so with no sources backing them up, and when presented with undeniably RSs that say "occupied" without qualification just shrugged it off. But I for one am not about to start another dispute resolution process on this one, it is too contentious of an issue for people to actually come to a consensus on the matter. But it does annoy me that sources are just shrugged off and OR such as "but there is no military occupation in the Golan" is presented without any source backing it up. I really don't see how we (Misplaced Pages) make a judgement by using the word occupied. But the RfC is closed so no need to continue arguing I suppose. Nableezy (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a one month long debate on weather we should call Jerusalem as "the capital of Israel" or call it "disputed". Eventually the decision was made that we should stick by the dictionary definition that actually Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and neglect all other factors. And now, the decision is made that Golan Heights are "disputed territories", ignoring the dictionary definition and ignoring the mainstream sources. And ironically some of the editors who voted for "Jerusalem dictionary definition" want to ignore the dictionary definition here, and ignore the RS's. That's just an example of wikipedia bias. Imad marie (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not at all the decision that was made. We explicitly will not use the terms "disputed territory" or "occupied territory" as statements of fact. Instead, we will make sourced claims about who considers the territories to be "disputed" versus "occupied". See the first paragraph of this article. Oren0 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, as I recall the idiotic Jerusalem debate, there were something like a dozen reliable sources stating unequivocally that Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel. The Golan Heights is not as cut and dry. --GHcool (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Really, we have not provided a number of reliable sources that state unequivocally that the Golan is, in fact, Syrian territory occupied by Israel? nableezy - 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Conduct on this page

Note to all editors: please be aware that this page falls under the purview of the arbitration committee's decision regarding Israeli and Palestinian-related articles. What this means to all of you is that people should be extra careful to not edit war, not make personal attacks or inflammatory comments, and to use the talk page. The current edit war regarding whether to list Hebrew or Arabic first is both pedantic and unacceptable. If it continues, this page will be fully protected. All editors should also note that the three revert rule applies to all reverts on a single page, even regarding different issues. Oren0 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

nsaum75 should be blocked from editing this and similar articles. it is clear he is zionist and only edits from that standpoint. his attempt at creating a stacked rfc with a "independent" closing admin being jewish is further examples of his attemp to hijack this article for the zionists. Freegolan (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I posted a request for a third party admin at the Admin Noticeboards; I had no influence over who chose to close it nor did I have a choice over their religion or beliefs. Furthermore, a review of my contributions will show I edit far more than just middle eastern related articles. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You should probably review Misplaced Pages's policy regarding no personal attacks. ← George 02:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Syria

• These reliable sources -- , , -- say the modern, independent nation of the Republic of Syria didn't come into existance until the 1940s/1946. Prior to that the land area of modern Syria was not independent, and in fact was part of different nations or mandates, some with names like "Ottoman Syria". Therefore, given the fact we have at least three sources that say the Republic of Syria didn't exist until gaining its independence in the 1940s, the infobox should reflect that, showing that it controlled the Golan "between 1946-1967", not "before 1967". Afterall, this article is about a dispute between the Republic of Syria and Israel, not the mandates or Ottoman Syria and Israel.

If this is disputed, reliable sources must be introduced that state otherwise, otherwise I move that someone change the infobox to represent the sourced material we have on hand. --Nsaum75 (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

These links says that Syria got its independence in 1946, nothing else, what you want to do is minimize the Syrian history in this article. If we only put "part of Syria from 1946-1967", the reader would believe that before 1946 it wasn't part of Syria which is not true, Today's "Syrian entity" is not something you can separate from the French mandate of Syria or the Vilayet of Damascus (smaller district in Ottoman Syria) as if they were completely different things. Now another thing I thought about, if it says in the infobox: "Part of Syria 1946-1967" or "part of Syria before 1967" It means that its not part of Syria today, which is the Israeli position and completely against Syria's, UNs, and the rest of the worlds position that still today it is Syrian. Is this fair? Is this neutral? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody actually claims the land to be under Syrian control today. Syria and the UN claim that the land should be controlled by Syria, and that Israel's "occupation" is illegitimate, but I don't see how one could dispute that the land is currently under Israeli control. Oren0 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not wrong, but SD has a point. It would be better to say in the infobox "governed by Syria" or "controlled by Syria" and likewise for Israel as that doesnt imply that it is no longer a part of Syria. Nableezy (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oren0, I didn't say it is under Syrian control today, I said that Syria and the rest of the world considers Golan to be Syrian land today, and the UN considers it to be undoubtedly Syrian land, thats why when Golan is mentioned in the UN it is called the Syrian Golan Heights. The Israeli presence is considered an occupation in southwestern Syria. The infobox is right now saying that as of 1967 Golan is no longer part of Syria, this is against 99% of the world views. Is this the neutrality that should be here on wikipedia? and Nableezy, "governed" and "controlled" by Syria is not a good thing to call it because it means that Syria was controlling a part that does not belong to it. Imagine if someone said that Syria was controlling Aleppo. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As WP:Due says: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views..."--Peter cohen (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The UN position is not a fact in any way. The UN position should be, and is, noted. But it should not be noted as a fact. The facts we have is that Israel controls the Golan, Syria claims it and that the UN is not recognizing it as Israeli. The UN view is not a fact. Per WP:Due: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints". Now is the Israeli view sigficant/prominent? Yes definitely since they claim, control and has annexed the territory. Now is for example the Brazilian view significant/prominent? No. Fipplet (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

WP due: "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views" So its Israel against the world. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints". The viewpoint of the "majority of the world" is pretty insignificant in this case. The viewpoint of the involved parties is obviously more significant. Fipplet (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No its not, we are all living in an international world and this is important and is highly significant if 99% of the world considers it to be Syrian occupied by Israel. And then the Syrian viewpoint which is not presented at all here. This whole article is hijacked. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some reliable source saying 99% of the world considers it to be Syrian? Not to mention that the view of uninvolved parties is pretty insignificant compared to the involved. Fipplet (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

read what I posted in the "Is this article gonna follow the rules of wikipedia or not?" section. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Map caption

I have corrected the caption on the Golan Heights map to reflect that it shows the area as part of Syria. If anyone doubts this or thinks I am making an original interpretation, then please look at this which shows the original CIA map on which the Misplaced Pages map is based. (Trace back the successive image descriptions to confirm this.) The "S" of Syria is within the Israeli-controlled area and the "y" straddles the border with the UNDOF zone.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but the map that we use in the article doesn't show the Golan Heights as part of Syria so I don't see why you changed it. Now the caption doesn't agree with the map that we are using. Fipplet (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... so there's a couple issues. First, as Peter mentioned, the unedited map from the CIA (prior to Misplaced Pages editors modifying it) clearly shows the area labeled as Syria. A Misplaced Pages editor went in and modified the original from a reliable source, changing what it shows, which is a definite issue. I'm unclear why anyone would do that except to push a POV. Second, even the modified version shows the area as part of Syria. Notice that the line between Lebanon and Syria is thick. That's an international border, and the same border used between Jordan and Syria. Notice also that the line between Lebanon and Israel is dashed - that's the Armistice Line. The Armistice Line runs between Israel and Lebanon, and Israel and the Golan Heights. There is no Armistice Line nor an international border between Syria and the Golan Heights, clearly indicating that the area is within Syria (from the viewpoint of the map maker). ← George 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

But right now that is irrelevant since we are not using the unedited map. Secondly it is not true what you say, if it was shown as part of syria there would be an international boundry line between Golan and Israel, and there is a line between the Golan and Syria called line A. Furthermore it says at the bottom map that the boundry representation is not authorative. Fipplet (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No. That's why I pointed out that the border between Lebanon and Israel is the exact same as the border between the Golan Heights and Israel. This is an Armistice Line, and carries the exact same weight as an international border. A country will never have an Armistice Line – a ceasefire line – running within it's own territory; that makes no sense. If the creator of the map wanted to indicate that the Golan Heights was Israeli territory, the Armistice line would have been on the other side of the area, between the Golan Heights and Syria. Likewise, it doesn't matter if the representation is "authoritative" or not – the caption is just a description of what the map shows, which is the Golan Heights as part of Syria, bordered by three other nations. Now, you can make the case that we shouldn't say what the map shows, but you can't make the claim that the map doesn't show the Golan Heights as being part of Syria. ← George 22:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's completely untrue. Even if an Armistice Line carried the exact same weight as an international border it still says 1949 Armistice Line, which means it isn't necessarily the international border of today. Regardless of that an armistice line is not the same as an international border. These lines are the result of agreements between Syria and Israel.

These are some of the provisions that were agreed upon : It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military, and not by political, considerations... It is emphasized that the following arrangements for the Armistice Demarcation Line between the Israeli and Syrian armed forces and for the Demilitarized Zone are not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements affecting the two Parties to this Agreement... The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move... etc. An Armistice Line is a military border not a political one. An agreement were set up betwee Lebanon and Israel as well. Furthermore there is a non-dashed line between Syria and the Golan and there is no explanation to any of the lines so you can't say anyone of them is this or that. The current map does not show Golan as part of Israel in any way. Fipplet (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the military ceasefire line acts as a de facto border between Israel and Syria, in lieu of a political agreement between them - the exact same way the ceasefire line between Israel and Lebanon does. This map was made well after 1967, so the year the line was agreed upon has little bearing. The lines between the Golan Heights and Syria are clearly outlining the region the UN controls as a buffer. No one can argue that those are meant to delineate international borders, as they are not weighted as internal borders. Nobody said that the map shows the Golan as part of Israel. It does, however, clearly show the Golan as part of Syria. Whether the map is right or wrong, that's clearly what the map shows, and to state otherwise is disingenuous at the very least. ← George 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this article gonna follow the rules of wikipedia or not?

Is the Israeli minority gonna dominate this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Due#Undue_weight

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."

So why aren't this article calling Golan Syrian territory occupied by Israel?

EU: http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_6477_en.htm "Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan"

US: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9570.pdf Israeli settlements in occupied territories, Golan.

UN: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45fa5e8e2.html "Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 61/120. The occupied Syrian Golan The General Assembly, Having considered the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories,1 Deeply concerned that the Syrian Golan, occupied since 1967, has been under continued Israeli military occupation, Recalling Security Council resolution 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981, Recalling also its previous relevant resolutions, the most recent of which was resolution 60/108 of 8 December 2005, Having considered the report of the Secretary-General submitted in pursuance of resolution 60/108,2 Recalling its previous relevant resolutions in which, inter alia, it called upon Israel to put an end to its occupation of the Arab territories, Reaffirming once more the illegality of the decision of 14 December 1981 taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan, which has resulted in the effective annexation of that territory, Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, Reaffirming also the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,3 to the occupied Syrian Golan, Bearing in mind Security Council resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, _______________ 1 See A/61/500. 2 A/61/327. 3 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, No. 973. A/RES/61/120 2 Welcoming the convening at Madrid of the Peace Conference on the Middle East on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973 aimed at the realization of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace, and expressing grave concern about the stalling of the peace process on all tracks, 1. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, in particular Security Council resolution 497 (1981), in which the Council, inter alia, decided that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void and without international legal effect and demanded that Israel, the occupying Power, rescind forthwith its decision; 2. Also calls upon Israel to desist from changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan and in particular to desist from the establishment of settlements; 3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,3 and have no legal effect; 4. Calls upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan, and from its repressive measures against the population of the occupied Syrian Golan; 5. Deplores the violations by Israel of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949; 6. Calls once again upon Member States not to recognize any of the legislative or administrative measures and actions referred to above; 7. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-second session on the implementation of the present resolution."

Show me now, how many countries sees Golan as Israeli and not part of Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"published by a reliable source" is something quite different from UN resolutions. Countries voting do not decide what WP should say. Is this discussion right back where it started weeks ago? WP cannot take sides. We are here to report cited viewpoints, not to express them as truths in WP's own voice. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."... I ask you again, how many countries sees Golan as Israeli and not part of Syria? How many countries considers it Syria occupied by Israel? How many countries views that as of 1967 Golan is no longer part of Syria? And yet look at the infobox now.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hertz1888 wrote that "We are here to report cited viewpoints, not to express them as truths". Correct, and I think that's exactly the point. A plethora of reliable sources – from news articles, to politicians, to noted scholars and historians – can be found that label the territory as "occupied". Oren0 wrote that "some do dispute that it is occupied", yet, despite my requests both here and on Oren0's own talk page, I have yet to see anyone provide any reliable sources that dispute the term "occupied". Does anyone, outside of Misplaced Pages editors, actually dispute the term? Where are the reliable sources that state that the term is inaccurate, or a misnomer. Without any sources to support it, I tend to question the validity of statements like "some do dispute that it is occupied". If you believe that those who dispute the term are not in the extreme minority (which would fall under undue weight policy), can you provide reliable sources that dispute it? ← George 22:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking for a source of Israel saying "we don't like the term 'occupied'", no, I can't provide you that. Nor do I expect that you could provide a source of anyone saying "I don't like the term 'disputed'". What I can provide are sources, in abundance, where Israel does not use that term to describe the land. Similarly, most of the American news articles I've found on the subject also carefully avoid using the term occupied to refer to the current status of the land. Most American news sources I've seen either say "disputed", "considered to be occupied by Syria" or "capture by Israel in 1967." For example, Al Jazeera, CNN, The Associated Press WorldNetDaily, not to mention Israeli sources. I could go on all day. WP:WEIGHT is not about the opinions of people or even nations, it is about the opinions of reliable sources. Many sources avoid the use of the term "occupied" as an unqualified fact and therefore it does not violate WEIGHT to qualify the use of the term "occupied" with who it is claiming it. Oren0 (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for the source of your statement that "some... dispute that is occupied". I read each of your sources, and none of them says that the fact that it is an occupation is disputed, only that the land itself is disputed – something we all agree on. What has been claimed and is still unsourced is that the occupation itself – not the land – is disputed. Saying that the land is disputed – which is what your sources do, and which we all agree on – is completely different than saying that the occupation of that land is disputed. Likewise, we can't infer any "avoidance" of the term "occupation" from sources that discuss the disputed nature of the land but don't discuss the nature of the governance of that land (that is, the "occupation"). ← George 05:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First off, your premise that "we all agree" that the land is disputed isn't true. Read the RfC above, several people claimed that the land is Syrian and that calling it disputed is incorrect. Secondly, I'm not saying that the article should state that the term occupied is disputed, as that would require a source. I'm saying that many sources avoid the use of the term "occupied" because occupation is a term that some use and some don't. You can't source a negative, and the fact that Israel hasn't come out and said "please don't call it occupied, that term offends us" is not the same as saying that Israel has tacitly accepted that term. Oren0 (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can translate what you perceive to be avoidance of the term "occupied" into an opposition to the term's reliably-sourced usage, without either providing reliable sources that counter the label, or resorting to original research. Following the same logic, I could say that many sources (especially in the US) that mention China choose to not mention that the government of China is communist (which is true, due in large part to political sensitives and close business ties between the US and China). Does that mean the the Misplaced Pages article on China shouldn't label it a communist country, because I perceive many sources avoiding the term communist?? Of course not. ← George 01:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible resolution

We should probably remember to keep in mind WP:Tendentious editing when discussing UNDUE and other issues. --Nsaum75 (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont see how that is relevant, but sure. But to the point, the question isnt how many countries say it is occupied, it is how do reliable sources overwhelmingly describe this place. The answer to that question is clear, but for reasons I care not to speculate about it has been ignored. To answer SD's question as to will this article follow wikipedia core policies, I think the answer is a resounding no. Sources, especially scholarly sources, tend not to matter in this area as much as personal feelings. Nableezy (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The question here, as I seem to understand it, is a) whether or not "Occupied Territory" should be used exclusively with no mention that the land is under "dispute" by one/some countries, or b) should all different viewpoints and/or wordchoice be included.

"Dispute", as a matter of word choice, can many different things; Specifically, one can refer to the area as being disputed not in terms of who rightfully owns the land in question, but rather representative of a disagreement over whom should currently exhert civil or military control over a land which is almost "universally" admitted to being "occupied". For instance, I can certainly occupy my neighbors house and live in it, while acknowleding it belongs to him. The term dispute would not be over ownership but rather current control. Obviously my neighbor would want to exercise complete control over his house and occupy it, while I would dispute that and for whatever reasons say that while he may own it, I was most fit to currently control it. I know that may seem to be a silly argument, but is that not what is going on in the Golan right now? There seems to be an overwhelming amount of RS saying the land is occupied, and there are some RS that state even Israel refers to the land as "Occupied", but by virtue of their continued "occupation", Israel obviously disputes the fact with Syria over who should exert control over the land at this moment. I think that may be part of where the "dispute" over the terminology may be coming from. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe your initial understanding is wrong, or possibly mine is. :) I do not support the exclusive use of the term "occupied territory" in the article, and I have no problem mixing use of the term "occupied" with "disputed" throughout the body of the article (which is currently being done). There are plenty of articles from reliables sources that call it a disputed region without mentioning that it is occupied, and vice versa. However, as the area is more often referred to as occupied, I think that the term should be used in the lead (as is currently the case) and infobox (where it was removed by Oren0). One slight problem with the term "disputed", as you illustrated, is that it's a bit ambiguous. You state that Israel disputes "who should exert control over the land at this moment", but the term "disputed territory" is usually used to refer to an area where two parties disagree on who should exert control permanently (Kashmir, for instance). ← George 01:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with "Occupied" in the lead, my main concern is that differing viewpoints and terminology will be excluded from the article as a whole. In previous edit-wars over the terms (prior to the RfC), there seemed to be an "all or nothing" stance from both sides of the issue. Regardless of outcome, the end result needs to be built on an overall consensus. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I oppose the exclusive use of either term; a mix is best. However, I do favor the weighted use of the term "occupied" in the lead & infobox, as I view that term as representative of the majority viewpoint on the issue. ← George 01:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, re: equitable use of terminology. I think we are both on the same page then. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this exchange perhaps getting us closer to an edit compromise? I have created some section breaks here to show that perhaps this discussion here offers a possible edit compromise. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

”’Reply to RFC” This is about international legality and standards. It's "occupied" territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.196.123 (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember:""Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." I agree with George, "occupied" is the vast majority viewpoint, and should be in the lead and infobox, but this doesn't mean that we have to remove any other minority positions from the article, but yet, I have not even seen a tiny minority viewpoint. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Weight applies to the preponderance of a view in reliable sources, not to the opinions of individuals or governments. I performed a Google News search yesterday for "Golan Heights", and more than half of the results on page 1 did not use the term occupied (using instead "disputed" or "captured in 1967"). The fact that national governments believe something is not the same as having it reported in sources. Do you have evidence that the term "occupied" is the one used by a majority of reliable sources? Oren0 (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As you yourself stated, the two terms are not mutually exclusive. Sources that label the region as "occupied" are not stating that the area isn't disputed, and sources that label it as disputed are not stating that the area isn't "occupied". The statistically accurate sample to take when attempting such a comparison is sources that describe it as "occupied" versus those that describe it as some form of not occupied – that is, "not occupied", "part of Israel", "soverign territory", etc. ← George 02:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As perhaps not convincing but still somewhat interesting information in 2003 the Knesset passed a resolution declaring that "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank) and Gaza are not occupied territories. The Golan Heights are not mentioned in that resolution. I have yet to see a source that says that Israel itself disputes that it is occupied territory. Even the Golan Heights Law excluded the use of the word annex, implicitly accepting that it is not Israeli territory. I would very much like to see a source where the government of Israel disputes that the Golan Heights are occupied. It is clear the dispute that for the West Bank and Gaza, but it has not been shown that the title is in dispute among anybody for the Golan. Nableezy (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

All this aruging over a single word will be unhelpful for both sides. Can we just say "a region which Israel occupied in 1967 after the Six-Day War"? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli sympathizers are not allowing the word "occupied" in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Its best to avoid language like that, and the issue isnt the word (it is currently in the lead), it is whether or not in Misplaced Pages's narrative voice we can say "Israel occupied/occupies" at all. Nableezy (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that this is not worth an edit conflict. I suggest that the article say "many notable groups consider the territory to be occupied. The government of Israel considers it to be the subject of legitimate diplomatic dispute, " or something like that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sm8900, the article already says something like that in the beginning, the problem is with the infobox.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

oh, ok. hmmm, have to think about that. thanks for your very helpful replies. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

• According to Noam Chomsky, lots of authoritative American sources refer to thef Golan Heighs as disputed territories, Chomsky prefers to say ""occupied."

• Beverley Milton-Edwards, no friend of Israel, confirms Chomsky's opinion.

• Even John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, who dislike both the Jews and the Jewish State, refer to the Golan Heights as "disputed territory". in the The Israel Lobby (p. 268) They are livid about this, and totally pro-Syrian, but they call it like it is in this case, and this territory is disputed.

• Disputed Territory is the phrase that people apply to the Golan Heights when they are attempting to sound neutral or objective . Even people like Noam Chomsky who have strongly and well-known anti-Israel opinions.Historicist (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read what you cite instead of just googling phrases, you will see that the "disputed territories" title in the second link is used for the West Bank and Gaza (and people who try to sound neutral, objective and accurate rightly call these territories occupied, those who are virulently biased will say disputed). The second link does not discuss the term disputed as it relates to the Golan, only Gaza and the West Bank. The first one is describing what one person not affiliated with the government of Israel used, so that hardly shows that the government of Israel disputes that the Golan is occupied. And that source itself shows the absurdity of calling these territories disputed and that the term disputed is biased. But to "call it like it is" in this case (and for the oPt) is to say the territories are occupied. No serious commentator on international law has said otherwise. The term "disputed territories" is itself incredibly biased, as it is the term favored by one "side" and nobody else, whereas the term occupied is used by the whole world when discussing these territories. Might want to try again to prove your point, but the fact is it cannot be proven because it is nonsense. Nableezy (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And as much as I like Noam Chomsky he did make a mistake in that book, the US does not support the "annexation" of the Golan, in fact there are sources that say the US views the Golan as Israeli-occupied territory subject to withdrawal by Israel. Nableezy (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• There are sources that say "occupied," but the NPOV thing to say is "disputed"Historicist (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I guess that settles it. There are of course two problems with that, the first being it has not even been shown that Israel disputes that the Golan is occupied, the second being that it is most certainly not NPOV to use the chosen language of one side in the issue and ignore what the whole world says. That qualifies as a fringe theory given greater weight than international consensus. That may fit your definition of NPOV, but thankfully not Misplaced Pages's. Nableezy (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your first source, Chomsky, is actually saying that "disputed territory" is an inaccurate word for describing the Golan Heights, and he's claiming that the term is being used to whitewash history – specifically when people are trying to not be neutral or objective. Your second source is talking about the Palestinian territories, not the Golan. I'm not sure the point of your third source. I fully agree that the area is disputed, but I also think that Israel's control of the area is most commonly referred to as "occupied". Now – and this is critical to understand – two people can dispute who should own a piece of land, and the one who currently controls it can still be considered an occupier – the terms are not mutually exclusive. The opposite of "occupied" isn't "disputed", it's "not occupied". It's also not a question of what the most vocal critics of Israel think, it's a question of what is most commonly used internationally, which is the term "occupied". ← George 22:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The UN and International Court of Justice call the territories occupied. They can be disputed as well, but as far as I know "disputed" isn't a legal term. The territories are occupied in the sense of e.g. the Fourth Geneva Convention, so it could be correct to say "occupied and disputed", however the legal status is "belligerent occupation" which is a well-understood term. Belligerent occupation is also the status of the territories according to the Israeli Supreme Court in 2004 (Beit Sourik Village Council v. the Government of Israel: paragraph 23, HCJ 2056/04, Beit Sourik Village Council v. the Government of Israel and the Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, 30 June 2004.) "The general point of departure of all parties – which is also our point of departure – is that Israel holds the area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica)." http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/04/560/020/A28/04020560.a28.pdf --Dailycare (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well this does it, Ill ad "Occupied/Belligerent occupied"--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use_of_.22disputed_territories.22.2C_.22occupied_territories.22_and_related_terminology_in_the_context_of_the_Arab-Israeli_dispute

I'm wanting to alert people to the existence of the above request for arbitration. There's been a delay in my adding parties to the request as I wanted some guidance on whom to name and was away for the weekend by the time that my question weas answered. There are a couple of people whose names have appeared in the discussion. I'll add and notify them tonight, but I won't add anyone else until tomorrow (UK time). In the mean time, could I invite those who have been most talkative about this to add themselves as parties, as you're likely to get mentioned or added by me or someone else over the next couple of days anyway. I see that yet another thread on the subject has appeared here and the number of article talk pages where related issues have been discussed is into double figures. For that rerason I don't think that this is the best place to reach a decision, when editors of other articles might not feel bound by a decision here. People who agree or disagree with me on this or feel there is somethign else that needs a mention are also welcome to add themselves to the case and express their views.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

improper categories

Since The Golan Heights Are Syrian, the categories 'regions of israel' 'history of israel' and 'voolcanos of israel' are wrong & and require deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolof359 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the first two: The Golan is considered, by at least Israel, to be part of its North District. Secondly, by virtue of such a lengthy occupation/control/administration by Israel (40+ years), the Golan is indeed part of Israel's history. The categories involving Volcanos of both Israel AND Syria does not belong, because the article is about the territory as a whole, not a specific mountain or volcano. That would be like adding to the Gaza Strip article the categories of "Deserts of Israel" or "Deserts of the Palestinian Territories". --Nsaum75 (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I just looked through the current categories, and I actually don't think most of them belong:

• Regions in Israel & Geography of Syria – the article is already in the Golan Heights category. The Golan Heights category is a sub-category of both the Regions of Israel and Geography of Syria categories, so the latter two are redundant.
• History of Israel, History of Syria, Jewish history, Islamic history – This is an article about a region, not specifically about the history of that region, so I don't think that any of these make sense. Tel Aviv isn't in the History of Israel category, and, likewise, Damascus isn't in the History of Syria category.
• Volcanoes of Israel, Volcanoes of Syria, Volcanic plateaus, Volcanoes of the Great Rift Valley, Volcanic fields – five categories in an article that spends only two paragraphs discussing the volcanic nature of the area seems like too much to me.

I'm going to be bold and remove most of these categories. We'll see what other editors think. ← George 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

They certainly were excessive. Someone researching volcanic fields might want to be led to this article, though. I think I'll be bold too and put just that one back in. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone once told me Misplaced Pages is NPOV

Map

What is wrong with the existing map, which shows and names the surrounding countries? The new map imparts much less information. Add "Israel" and "Syria" in a neutral manner and I will reconsider. Viewfinder (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Fipplet added the new map, I reverted it, then Fipplet put it back without giving any new reason in edit summary or here. Per WP:BRD it is better to try to get consensus before reinstating challenged edits. The old map is completely neutral about whether the Golan is in Israel or Syria. What is wrong with that? Why do we need a new one? Viewfinder (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to take a look at each of these maps. 2 maps were modified from 1 source (the CIA). The original map (File:Golan heights rel89-orig.jpg as taken from here) shows the Golan Heights marked as Syrian territory with "Israeli occupied" in the occupied area and the UNDOF zone sectioned off as well. This was modified to create the plainly bogus piece of propaganda File:Golan heights rel89.jpg in which a wikipedia editor removed the words "Israeli occupied" and moved the word Syria from the Golan and placed Israel on the Golan. That such a map could even be considered as appropriate for an encyclopedia article is baffling, but I prefer not to get into that. Another map was created from this File:Golan heights rel89B.jpg, which moved the word Israel out of the occupied territory and back into Israel proper, but did not place "Syria" where it had been originally, side-stepping the issue completely. That is what had been in the article for some time. I think the File:Golan heights rel89.jpg map is clearly bogus and merits no discussion as to whether it should be included which leaves us with a decision of the other two. Now while it may appear "neutral" to have a map with neither Israel nor Syria being shown on the Golan, I contest that it is non-neutral to change what a RS says to fit the views of wikipedia editors. Especially when we cite it as a CIA map of the territory. If we do that we should have the actual CIA map (File:Golan heights rel89-orig.jpg), not something that distorts the views of the CIA (indeed, the views of most of the world) as to what country that territory is in and its current status. We have a map from a RS in map-making that is freely available, why should we use something from a non-RS (read the imaginations of a random wikipedia editor)? Nableezy (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And for those who want to say the CIA map is biased, the US government doesn't exactly have a history of being biased against Israel. We took a map from Israel's strongest ally, I do not see how that can be said to be biased against Israel. Nableezy (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Nableezy on the map issue. While version 89B is the most neutral, I have serious concerns about moving the country labels on a map across international borders, changing the intended meaning of the map – especially when the map is from a reliable source, and not user-generated content. Version 89B may be acceptable, as long as it isn't identified as a map created by the CIA, because the modifications made to it fundamentally change the demarcations identified by the CIA. I would prefer to use the original CIA map, or find another map that is from a reliable source and doesn't require any modifications to make it acceptable to other editors. ← George 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The CIA map was replaced by a pro-Israeli editor who found a modification in which the word "Israel" was moved onto the Golan the "Syria" moved off. I then modified this map to move both off, this was most neutral. The original CIA map upholds the official US POV - that the Golan is in Syria, which is not neutral. OK, if other editors agree that we should not have modified this map, then we are better not to use it. But whatever map we use should show Israel and Syria, otherwise it fails to impart essential information. Not all readers know the geography. Viewfinder (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

George, 89b is not the most neutral, the international community sees it as part of Syria, to claim anything else is the opposite of neutral.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

89B is more neutral than the original CIA version. Whatever the international community's position, the de facto situation must also be taken into account. Viewfinder (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The de facto situation is that it is Syria and recognized as as such by the whole international community. To say that its not and ad a map that puts Syria in the same position as Israel to a land area that is Syria, is not neutral.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is the issue of Misplaced Pages editors' opinions not matching up to what is neutral among reliable sources internationally, or English-speakers worldwide. Viewfinder wrote that "the official US POV - that the Golan is in Syria... is not neutral." However, neutral or not, I'm not sure that it doesn't constitute a super-majority view. The view that the Earth is round may not be neutral because not everyone agrees, but so few people think that the Earth is flat that we ignore it as a super-minority view. I've requested sources stating who disagrees with the term "occupied" – Israeli settlers? The government of Israel? Certain scholars? – but nobody has provided such sources, instead citing their own vague conclusions on avoidance of the term "occupied" in the media. For that matter, who claims that the area is a part of Israel? Anyone? That said, I'm not opposed to the modified CIA map, which doesn't label the area as anything other than the Golan Heights, as long as it isn't cited as being from the CIA, which would imply that the POV of the CIA matches the (possibly skewed) POV of Misplaced Pages editors. ← George 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

89b is neutral if you define neutrality as treating two sides equally, regardless of how reliable sources treat those sides. I dont define neutral like that, I define it as taking account minority viewpoints but not allowing those views to override wide-ranging consensus among reliable sources. Thats just me though. And 89-orig does take the current situation into account, it says "Israeli occupied" for the region Israel currently occupies. Nableezy (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The de facto situation is that the Golan is administered as an integral part of Israel, even though the rest of world does not think it ought to be. Syria plays no part in and has no control over its administration. Therefore I have a problem with any map on which the word "Syria" encroaches onto the Golan in a manner that implies that it does play a part. Viewfinder (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The de facto situation is that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. "Occupied" implies "administered" or "controls". Placing "Syria" on territory recognized to be Syrian territory is what maps do. And, again, I would like to raise the point that nobody has provided a single RS disputing that it is Syrian territory, whereas a plethora of sources (government sources, NGO sources, media sources) showing that it is Syrian territory have been presented. Nobody has presented a single RS disputing that the territory is occupied by Israel. This entire argument has been one "side" providing source after source and the other "side" just saying no. Nableezy (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the de facto situation should be reflected, I felt that the label "(Israeli occupied)" under the name "Golan Heights" achieved what you're suggesting – identifying both who controls and administers the area (Israel), as well as who "the rest of the world" thinks it belongs to (Syria). ← George 22:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

89B was stable for about two years. It neither states nor implies anything incorrect and I thought it had been accepted by all. I will be sorry if it goes. Viewfinder (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as long as nobody is identifying it as the CIA map in the article. Is it the perfect map? No, and I don't think it's totally neutral (neutral meaning reflective of reliable sources in the world), but it's probably good enough if it helps avoids an edit war. I'm not going to touch the map, unless someone replaces either of those two semi-neutral versions with something silly. ← George 23:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

back to the map issue - the altered map should definitely go. its misleading, making the golan look like a small country between syria and israel, and it has been falsified to portray a so-called "neutral" picture . i haven't seen any reliable sources which dispute that it is occupied either, and therefore think the original cia map, with occupied territory marked, is the best one. untwirl(talk) 04:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A note for the record - my remarks here are constantly censored, and I received a threat according to which I will be blocked if I continue to write here, unless being supervised by another Israeli. DrorK (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And I accidently revealed my true identity, so you can block both me and my IP address. Nevertheless, I hope the lesson is learned. This debate is political, not about information. I know this kind of "tricks" are formally forbidden, but there was no other way to prove to falasies in this debate. DrorK (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been purposefully trolling here and at Talk:Humus, and now you say this is a threat to block you? Stop trolling, you have been making plainly false assertions turning this into a "political" debate based on your warped views and nothing else (as anybody can see you have yet to provide a single source for a single word you wrote as your ip here). I for one do not want to deal with any more inanity, if you want to stay then stop trolling, if not then actually do what you said you wanted to do and leave. nableezy - 08:33 10.07.2009 (UTC)

Drork, don't be silly. Also, don't use static IPs. You also might want to read some Karl Popper. You have some misconceptions about 'proof'. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

..and I hope that my answers to your questions at 79.179.42.116 written before I knew it was you make you feel bad now. They should. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Without taking a side in the debate at hand, Misplaced Pages is notorious for labeling people "trolls" based upon whether or not the majority of the editors in the debate agree or disagree with a vocal user. Its much easier to dismiss someone we disagree with as a "troll" than to debate the merits of their input. That said, we all possess inherant bias. The best we can do is try to look beyond our own insecurities and internal flaws; the end result should be an informative, all inclusive, article, not one that mirrors our pre-conceived outcome. Now lets return to debating the merits of a map, rather than who we think "is" and "is not" a troll. --Nsaum75 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

the "merits of his input" were discussed at length, including the providing of several wp policies and reliable sources. if someone just typed "ignore troll" and then didn't respond, i could see your point. since that didn't happen, your post doesn't really apply to this situation. bring sources and we'll discuss them, but opinions, "truth" and "facts on the ground" don't (and shouldn't) trump RS. untwirl(talk) 17:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that you guys should try to compromise. "Compromise " means first figure out what are the two sides of the argument, then try to find some way to find a compromise between them. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Let's start with the unaltered CIA map (File:Golan heights rel89-orig.jpg). Given that the CIA World Factbook is cited 12 times in the Israel article, by far the most cited RS, do we have any evidence that this map misrepresents anything or gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

by the way, taking a single source, and asking why anyone would diasagree with that single particular source, is not the best way to begin discussing compromise. if other people have other sources, that is considered valid around here. so now let's try to always look at others sources as well and to try to consider them. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, that is not a way to compromise. The way to compromise is that if other good-faith editors have a totally opposed viewpoint, you find a way to hear their proposals, and then to provide a compromise which somehow is responsive to their points of view also.

I know you think that would be wrong, because you think your viewpoint is right and theirs is wrong. but (striking my text which I wrote due to my misreading of other editor's legitimate comments and suggestion.) compromising on Misplaced Pages means accepting that some knowledgable people may legitimately have some opinions which are totally different than yours. you need to accept that their opinion has some value, and start finding ideas and ways to edit the article in a way that both sides consider somewhat useful. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have a viewpoint on this issue that is of any importance at all. I'm not an RS. Perhaps another approach would be a bottom up approach i.e. what are the important/key elements that we think the map should show ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry, by the way, I have just reread the discussion a bit more closely. I misunderstood your suggestion earlier. I agree, using the unaltered map as it appears in the actual source might be a good way to address some of these things. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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/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:

• BBC

Does not refer to the Golan as Syrian:

• LA Times
• The Times
• Reuters
• Reuters
• AFP

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. Zero 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. Zero 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. Zero 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)

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) 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)

Infobox

Right now I am very happy with how the infobox is looking :). But there are some very small issues that I would like to discuss. First of all I think we should have 1946-1967 instead of prior to 1967 since it wasn't part of the Syrian Arab republic until 1946. 1946-1967 is simply more specific. Furthermore some editors have said "Prior to 1967: Syria" implies that it isn't Syrian anymore which would be a little pov, so I suggest we write "Prior to 1967(or 1946-1967): Controlled by Syria", since no one disputes the fact that Syria stopped controlling the Golan in 1967. Also I think we should have the "Prior to 1967" below the "1967-" since I think the current situation is more important then the situation pre-1967. Which country it is in today is more relevant than the country it was in yesterday. And the "country" today is "controlled by Israel, claimed by Syria, internationally recognized as Syrian territory". Of course we should still have "prior to 1967: Syria" since otherwise you will not completely understand the situation, but it is not as relevant. Therefore I say we should put it below. It is just an idea. Fipplet (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think it makes any sense to use (1946-1967), unless you're suggesting we also tag every city in Israel as under Israeli sovereignty (Since 1948). Yazan (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the Israeli point of view that it ended being part of Syria in 1967 and started being part of Israel after 1967. "controlled" is something you say about an area that does not belong to the country. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you(Yazan) have a point, but this is not the same situation, as the Israeli cities are under Israeli sovereingty now whereas Golan is not under Syrian sovereingty now. There's no need to tag the Israeli cities with anything except Israel whereas the tag for Golan should be when Golan was Syrian. And it was 1946-1967 while Israeli cities are now.Fipplet (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"whereas the tag for Golan should be when Golan was Syrian." - This is the Israeli point of view "when", as if its not Syrian today. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry "whereas the tag for Golan should be when Golan was controlled by Syria". I am not saying it is not Syrian but I am not saying it is either. Fipplet (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fipplet, the fact is, it has been under Syrian sovereignty all the way until 1967, in various forms and under successive different regimes. Unless you mean the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic, which was in 1946 (1936 actually with the franco-syrian treaty, and before that in 1920 under the Kingdom of Syria, etc.), but I don't see why we should explicitly state this, and turn it into a point of contention. Yazan (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic of course. And according to the article itself Golan only became a part of Syria(n arab republic) in 1944. The reason is because prior to 1967 implies Syrian sovereignty before 1944(or 1936 if what you say is true) which is untrue. (I didn't know about the kingdom of Syria but it is obviously not the same as modern-day Syria. Should we bring up Kingdom of Israel as well?)Fipplet (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Syria was a shortlived one after WWI, it's quite recent, so it is relevant, because it was in relatively the same borders as modern-day syria. Nonetheless, using the phrasing (1944-1967) is quite contentious because it suggests it wasn't part of what we consider Syria now, which is not true, it's always been a part of it. And modern borders are drawn in relation to that. I would argue that palestinians dispute the sovereignty of EVERY city in Israel (which not supported by the overwhelming majority of the world, much like Israel's claim to the Golan), does that mean that we should explicitly state that it has been under Israeli sovereingty since 1948? Yazan (talk) 17:39, 29 July 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/search/?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=304911794

B. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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)

• I refer you to Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and I would suggest that this peculiar exercise be stopped immediately. AreaControl (talk) 22:35, 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/search/?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)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• All WikiProject Volcanoes pages
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics