Jump to content

Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

a former UN observer

@Supreme Deliciousness and IRISZOOM:: The former UN observer, is a primary source for the first half of the sentence: "Israel provoked most border incidents", but he is not a source of any kind for the later part of the sentence: "as part of its strategy to annex more land".

- WP:PRIMARY : "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." This person is not a primary source for the alleged Israeli policy. Primary source: "Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary".

- I suggest to delete the later half of the sentence. Ykantor (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No, Jan Mühren is quoted from what he said in a Dutch TV program. His view is now fully attributed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It is again a pity that you do not refer to the problem. I repeat: The rule of Primary source says: : "Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary". This person had no personal knowledge concerning the Israeli policy, hence he is not a primary source. independently, he is a source for the border incidents. Ykantor (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You are saying because he can't know that Israel had such a strategy, we can't quote him but no where does it say so at WP:PRIMARY. So I don't see something that say we can't attribute that to him. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It is clearly written. again: The rule of Primary source says: : "Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary". Ykantor (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Jan Mühren's view itself is the "personal knowledge", not that he must have been involved in Israeli policy planning. So I repeat that nothing in that article about the policy says we can't attribute it to him. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Let us see what the experts say about this issue. Ykantor (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, lets see. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Typo. The word "that" needs to be inserted. I don't know how.

Section 3.8, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence should read (in CAPS):

The U.N. representative for Great Britain THAT was responsible for negotiating and drafting the Security Council resolution said that the actions...

174.22.114.173 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. Edit made (I inserted "who"). Hertz1888 (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Golan Heights under Israeli rule!

I do not have good English ... Written page the Golan Heights under Israeli occupation. But it is not conquest, but the government of Israel!Yair9a (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No one responds? It is possible to correct the value? Yair9a (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The Golan Heights are nearly universally regarded as Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation. Thats what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, and as such so does this article. The sentence is correct as is. nableezy - 20:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
What's the connection? You know that a large part of this area from the United States occupied ?! You occupied the Indians 200 years ago! So maybe we'll write on the 'United States, which is Indian territory occupied by the United States? Yair9a (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The connection is clear. Wikipedia is based on WP:RELIABLESOURCES. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I did not understand how it answers my question... Yair9a (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
There arent reliable sources saying that the United States occupies Native American territory. Therein lies the difference. nableezy - 04:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
What is there is no credible sources? Everyone knows that the United States fought viciously Indians about 200 years ago. George Washington fought them, Andrew Jackson fought them, James Monroe fought them. And many presidents. Yair9a (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I can fix what I wanted?Yair9a (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Some steps to take: have a looks at the archives; provide sources which justify the change you'd like to make; propose a neutral wording based on all the available sources.     ←   ZScarpia   10:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I did not understand. Can I change or not? Formulation of "an Israeli government" acceptable?Yair9a (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Not until you provide some sources and then propose a neutral change based on the sources you've provided and those already used by the article.     ←   ZScarpia   13:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, here's a source that Israel controls the Golan - Golan Heights Law.Yair9a (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
What I came to say from the beginning, was that it did not matter to anyone if it is Syrian territory, or space Turkish or Roman territory, or any other area. Because even on 'United States' could be written that Indian territory, and also about Iraq's territory can write it in Aramaic, and around Saudi Arabia can write that area of Medellin - Jethro's country. So it really does not matter. So enough to write only 'Israeli government - this truth. Yair9a (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:Indentifying Reliable Sources: "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." You need "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." With regard to control of the Golan, the article currently states: "In 1981, Israel passed the Golan Heights Law, which applied Israeli "laws, jurisdiction and administration" to the Golan Heights. Although the law in effect annexed the territory to Israel, it did not explicitly spell out the formal annexation." Those statements are cited to Edgar S. Marshall, Israel: current issues and historical background, Nova Publishers, 2002 and an official Israeli Government website. Do you have policy-based reasons for not liking what the article says?     ←   ZScarpia   09:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I really do not understand you. You want me to bring you the quote of the law? I have their pictures from the Golan Heights? Which can be good sources?Yair9a (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
For example, it proves to me that Illinois is part of the United States, then I will know how to prove to you that the Golan Heights is part of Israel.Yair9a (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
No one disputes Israel controls the area but it doesn't make it theirs so your or others pictures is not a proof. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

So are you saying that Israel's take over and imposition of rule in the Golan heights was comparable to massacres of native Americans in the U.S.? because that's what you're repeatedly saying, and I don't get why... A couple of things I would say on this matter 1.) The actions of the U.S. etc. against indigenous Americans were done before a U.N. existed nor sovereignty, they took land etc. It's terrible, but to suggest that the Golan where most people still have Syrian passports etc. and were born there as Syrian citizens, after the U.N. exists and international law existed, is ridiculous, to say Israel has the right to annex that land in the 80s and 90s is a dangerous precident, by that logic Egypt could take over the Negev and then start to ask "Well if the Negev shouldn't be mine, was it ever independent? was there ever a country called Negev? what about the U.S. which took land from natives, or Israel which took over Golan?" - you see this argument doesn't work because if a country invaded and took over say the northern provinces or Tel-aviv from Israel, Israel wouldn't say "Ok, since Americans conquered natives a long time ago you can do it to me too"

2.) Basic things this has boiled down to; after the establishment of Israel and Syria, people were given citizenship, Those in the golan were in the nation Syria and had citizenship to that state, under the current world, explain how either Israel, the U.S. or really anyone would recongnize Isreal's right to just annex and take control of another nation's recongnized sovereign land? It didn't work when Saddam tried to justify taking a province from Iran or annexing Kuwait, and it shouldn't work here either

3.) The sources for these reasons are overwhelmingly in the opinion of international law, this issue is even more simple then Palestine, because this land's people are citizens of a nation that administered the area as part of the internationally recognized, sovereign state of Syria. Although I'm not trying to discount Israel's same sovereignty, I use examples to show how that logic is flawed, especially if it were a piece of Isreali land annexed by a foreign power with those justifications, furthermore I'm not trying to say palestinians are less clear then Golan residents, I was just trying to say that in terms of settlements etc., this is different with citizenship lines, that doesn't mean I don't think Palestinians can't be independent or even have Israeli Citizenship (I believe they should get one because if they are a nation give them independence, if not, give them equal citizenship, so don't get all mad at me as some anti-palestinian, pro-golan etc. guy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.154.153 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible typo, uncertain

Under the "Middle Ages" subheading of "History" there seems to be two different spellings of Muawiyah. Kawakji (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hydrocarbons

The announced discovery of substantial oil reserves in the Golan Heights region deserves mention in the article but I am hesitant to edit such a volatile page. http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Industry/2015/10/09/Major-reserve-discovery-confirmed-in-Golan-Heights/6461444389373/ and many other news sources. Note that the significance of these discoveries is greater in some segments of news reporting and is barely rated a mention in others. The company discovering the oil points out that the economic viability of recovery is not certain.Gerald H -oldeststudent2004- (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[1] [2]

sources

  1. ^ http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Industry/2015/10/09/Major-reserve-discovery-confirmed-in-Golan-Heights/6461444389373/
  2. ^ http://www.hngn.com/articles/138783/20151009/oil-found-in-israeli-occupied-golan-heights-could-spark-new-war-in-region.htm

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Golan Heights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Replace NPOV term 'Old Testament' with the more neutral 'Hebrew Bible'

I don't imagine this would be too controversial. This article uses the offensive term "Old Testament" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.129.5 (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Split proposal 2

I would like to raise a more focused version of the previously withdrawn proposal - to focus this article on the geographical definition of the Golan Heights plateau and explaining the complex nature of administrative-political areas of Golan sub-district and Quneitra Governorate, while splitting information on Golan sub-district into a separate article concerning Western Golan area, occupied by Israel in 1967 and unilaterally annexed up to this day.

In light of the Syrian Civil War, i've tackled a difficulty describing the clashes between Ba'athist Government vs Opposition Groups vs al-Nusra Front vs ISIL affiliates in Golan Heights, since this article seems to focus mostly on Western Golan and ignores Eastern Golan, now split among the factions of the Syrian Civil War. The source of the problem is that this article is describing two related, but obviously differing topics:

  • 1. The Israeli-controlled part of the Golan Heights named Golan sub-district (occupied in 1967 and unilaterally annexed in 1982), which is generally referred as "Israeli-controlled Golan Heights", "Western Golan" or "Occupied Syrian Golan Heights". The area includes the Western part of the Golan plateau and the Southern Hermon.
  • 2. The other definition of the Golan Heights is purely geographic and it refers to the volcanic plateau (more or less overlapping the Bashan region), which is about one half controlled by Israel (the western part of the plateau - "Western Golan Heights" or "Golan sub-district") and another half by Syria (the Eastern part - "Quneitra Governorate").GreyShark (dibra) 16:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - requesting @Smileguy91:, earlier participating in the discussion on the first proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 16:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The "Golan Subdistrict" just a series of offices belonging to the Ministry of Interior. All of Israeli, Arabic and English media refer to the political, administrative and geographical area as the "Golan Heights" ("Golan Plateau" in Arabic and Hebrew).
The split should be like that:
Golan Heights - Geopolitical Golan - the history of the territory since 1967
Golan Heights (geographical region) - Gegraphical Golan - the geographical area, which includes parts of Syria (usually called the "Syrian Golan" by Israel) and excludes the Hermon. The article will also cover archeology and historical settlement in the region
Golan Subdistrict - an Israeli administrative unit--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Golan Heights

My Edit says:

"The Golan Heights (Hebrew: רמת הגולן‎‎ Ramat ha-Golan, Arabic: هضبة الجولان‎‎ Haḍbatu 'l-Jawlān), also known as simply the Golan or the Syrian Golan,[1] is a region in the Levant. The western two-thirds of the Golan Heights are occupied and administrated by Israel, whereas the eastern third is controlled by Syria, with the UNDOF control in between the two sides which implements the ceasefire of the Purple Line.

Currently Administrated by: Israel (western two-thirds) Syria (eastern third)

Israeli District= Part of the Northern District

Syrian Governorate = Quneitra Governorate

Area • Total 1,800 km2 (700 sq mi) • Israeli control 1,200 km2 (500 sq mi) • UNDOF control 235 km2 (91 sq mi)

Where is the occupation fact hidden?

My Edit adds clear view of the area in the head, and administration status in the infobox. My edit does not delete tons of sources, it's changes the date format on the sources.

Do review my edit, before you reverted it. ה-זפרt@lk 22:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox. This region isnt simply divided between a de-facto and a de-jure states. Its occupied by the de-facto state.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
de jure Syria claims it to be Syrian territory but the agreement signed between Israel and Syria established a Purple line, hence western 2/3 of Golan Heights is under Israeli occupation and administration and also de jure Golan heights is in Israeli territory as per Golan Heights Law, making Golan Heights de jure Israeli and Syrian. Internationally the Purple Line is recognized. Hence de facto and de jure status cannot be used. Currently Administrated by Israel/Syria must be used to define the actual administration of Golan Heights area in the infobox, which itself is the de facto status in other words. ה-זפרt@lk 00:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

De-jure Syria doesn't claim it, it owns it legally. The ceasefire line doesnt mean that Israel has some kind of legal claim to it and the Golan Heights Law is an Israeli law, irrelevant and doesnt have any weight.

Again the Purple Line doesnt give legal rights, its just a ceasefire line and if the infobox will reflect the fact that Israel illegally administer a part of Golan, then the infobox should also make it clear that this is legally Syria, and occupied by Israel.

The best is to keep your edit, but also to keep the part about the occupation. I will do that and see if this will solve your issue. (Note, the Arabic name comes first, alphabetically and legally since this is a Syrian occupied land).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


  • The infobox needs to be changed back to how it was before, see here:[1]. Also see MOSFLAG:[2]. The areas status is also that its internationally recognized as part of Syria occupied by Israel. Having Israeli proclaimed districts there is not appropriate. The area is also a part of Syria, why would a foreign language (Hebrew) be put before the official language of Syria? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, but the editor (who I cant read his name) is very passionate and I hate edit wars. So this compromise might be best. Just my opinion.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

volcanic eruptions?

"the series of volcanic eruptions that began recently in geological terms, almost 4 million years ago, and continue to this day." Are there any events? --BunteWelt (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Golan Heights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2017

This line needs to be edited: in July 1966,[79] Fatah began raids into Israeli territory in early 1965, with active support from Syria. At first the militants entered via Lebanon or Jordan, but those countries made concerted attempts to stop them and raids directly from Syria increased.[80] Mgfizero (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: Marked as answered. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Golan Heights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Spelling error

The name "Netanyahu" is misspelled in the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph in the introduction:

"The White House dismissed Netenyahu's suggestion, stating that the president continues to support UN resolutions 242 and 497, and any alterations of this policy could strain American alliances with western-backed Syrian rebel groups.[21]"

Anyone with editing privileges should attend to this. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for catching that. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Population

Really needs something on the population of the area. I make it about 40,000 from the article but it doesn't really state it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.86.170.141 (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Golan Heights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

state in lead

How are a few years of skirmishes in the Syrian Civil War suitable for the lead but what country this place is in not? I restored that material to the lead. nableezy - 16:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"Israeli Golan"

That only appears in the headline, and wouldnt be a common name for the topic of the article as this covers more than just the portion of the Golan that Israel holds under occupation. But again, that appears strictly in the title of the article, seems short hand for the portion of the Golan that is occupied by Israel, not the entirety of the Golan Heights. nableezy - 19:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nableezy: This article is not solely about the geological region; it covers two different concepts known as the Golan Heights– the geological concept and the geopolitical concept. From the lede: "As a geopolitical region, the Golan Heights is the area captured from Syria and occupied by Israel during the Six-Day War, territory which Israel annexed in 1981. This region includes the western two-thirds of the geological Golan Heights, as well as the Israeli-occupied part of Mount Hermon." While I agree that the term "Israeli Golan" is unlikely to be used to apply to the geological region known as the Golan Heights, the term "Israeli Golan" is commonly used to refer to the geopolitical region known as the Golan Heights, so it should be included in the lede.
As for the name "Israeli Golan" appearing only in the headline of that Haaretz article: I don't think that is relevant, but regardless I found plenty of other sources which do use the phrase "Israeli Golan" in a place other than the article title. Here are a few of such sources (note that while these appear to be reliable sources, I haven't fully checked them and would need to do so before including any of them as citations in the article.) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Arut Sheva isnt a reliable source, the Yedioth Aharnoth source only includes it in the title, The Tower isnt a reliable source, Sputnik News? Avalon Publishing? Ill save you the trouble of googling "Israeli Golan", Im sure you can find other webpages that say that. However, you need to demonstrate that it is a common name for the topic of this article. It may be used by people who have trouble articulating the well documented fact that it the "Israeli portion" of the Golan is "Israeli-occupied", but a common name for the heights it is not. nableezy - 05:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
In common parlance, the unqualified Golan Heights (and occasionally Israel occupied Golan Heights) tends to refer to the Israeli portion. When referring to the rump Syrian holding (that is partially an NML/DMZ and that slopes down from the current border) - Syrian is usually prefixed. However as a geopolitical concept - usually Golan Heights refers just to the Israeli held side.Icewhiz (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC) It might make sense to spell this out more clearly - as this is in the news in recent years in the context of the Syrian civil war and spillovers into the Israeli Golan (in this context - Israeli and Syrian Golan are often used - not just by Ha'aretz).Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the majority of the Golan Heights are occupied by Israel, so generally when saying the Golan Heights it is referring to the Israeli-occupied portion. That doesnt make "Israeli Golan" a common name, which is what this was about. nableezy - 17:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
We follow naming used by others, besides the Israeli, Jewish, and pro-Jewish press in the US this used by others, in particular with the war on the Syrian side and spillovers to the Israeli side. In common usage, one tends to contract to shorter forms (Israeli controlled Syrian Golan and Syrian controlledd Syrian Golan being a tad cumbersome), for instance this is a French-Lebanese writer - [3] using "Israeli Golan" in a non-quote context.Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Only some Israeli newspapers refer to it sometimes as "israeli golan", its inaccurate reporting, sometimes other news sources reprint that inaccurate reporting. Its neither common, accurate or belongs in the lead.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
al Monitor shown above is not Israeli. All Israeli sources use this terminology and it has been used in some international sources.Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Did you even read my last post? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Refuted - this is a non-Israeli source - [4] using "Israeli Golan". And there are others.Icewhiz (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
"sometimes other news sources reprint that inaccurate reporting." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
q.e.d COMMONNAME.Icewhiz (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Do you want me to show you sources calling Israel "Zionist entity" or "Zionist regime" or Jerusalem "Occupied Jerusalem" ? Do you want to have those names in the leads of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Zionist entity is the semi-proper name in Arabic, no? Usage in English is mainly limited to cross language seepage. I'm not going to insist on "Israeli Golan" (and I think Chessrat's original edit to be mistaken - it shouldn't have been in that location in the lede). I do however think that the current use of "Syrian Golan" and "Israeli Golan" has shifted - mainly due to Syrian civil war (in the wide sense, including spill overs). e.g. see the following non-Israeli/Jewish (not that they should be discounted entirely!) uses of "Syrian Golan" to refer to rump Syrian holding - [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. 5-10 years ago - this wasn't the case - coverage of the Golan was fairly limited and typically (in international press) scope-limited to the 1967 conflict aftermath and claims. The Syrian civil war and this becoming a "hot" border - has led to some changes in usage.Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC) And more (instead of top google hits - looked up "Syrian Golan" usages in premier news organizations) - [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15].Icewhiz (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Bad metric/English unit conversion

"The area is hilly and elevated, overlooking the Jordan Rift Valley which contains the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River, and is itself dominated by the 2,743.2 metres (9,000 ft) tall Mount Hermon."

This wording takes a round-number measurement in English units (9,000 ft) and converts it to a metric measurement that is far too precise (2,743.2 m). It would be better to give an accurate height of Mount Hermon, 2,814 m, and English equivalent of the same precision, 9,232 ft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKMell (talk • contribs) 19:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you DKMell : I'm in agreement with you. --Eco-climber (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change for clarity: Change 'Barak' to 'Israeli Prime Minister Ehud_Barak'

Hello All

Unless people are an expert on the region, the following reference to a person called 'Barak' doesn't mean anything. Therefore I propose a simple edit, just to give clarity:

In the section on Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations Current text: bla, bla, bla... 'Dennis Ross, Clinton's chief Middle East negotiator, blamed "cold feet" on the part of Barak for the breakdown.'

Proposed replacement 'Dennis Ross, Clinton's chief Middle East negotiator, blamed "cold feet" on the part of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud_Barak for the breakdown.'

Please can a extended confirmed user or administrators edit this? Thanks --Eco-climber (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Done.Icewhiz (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

order of languages

This has been repeatedly discussed, the Golan Heights is Syrian territory, which only has Arabic as an official language. The Hebrew is there as Israel occupies the territory and has Hebrew speaking settlers there as well. But as territory of a state with Arabic as its official language the Arabic is placed first. And has been for years. nableezy - 17:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The Golan Heights have been annexed to Israel, Arabic will not get you far in the Golan. You would be able to converse with residents of the 4 Druze settlements as well as the occasional Israeli who knows Arabic. The Druze residents speak Hebrew as well. The street and road signs are all in Hebrew (with English and/or Arabic as a secondary language).Icewhiz (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The Golan Heights is and remains Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation. That is well sourced in the article. Whether or not Israel even formally annexed the Golan is in dispute, and regardless the effective annexation is regarded as null and void by the international community and even Israel's closest ally considers the Golan to be Syrian territory. The 4 "Druze settlements", more widely known as Syrian villages, include the largest town in the Golan, and there are likewise Hebrew speaking Arabs in the West Bank as well as obviously Hebrew speaking Israeli settlers there. Likewise, the Arabic title for West Bank precedes the Hebrew there, despite it too being held under Israeli occupation. nableezy - 07:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
With respect to the last arguments, all that we can best do in this case is to acknowledge that the international community holds the legality of Israel's annexation of the Golan in 1981 as invalid, but that Israel - who holds a number of Jewish settlements in the region, and which have historical connections with ancient Jewish settlement during the Herodian dynasty - disputes this, per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive._Legality_of_Israeli_settlements#Settlement_illegality_text.. We cannot solve the world's disputes, but we can at least be impartial in talking about them.Davidbena (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
David, why did you cherry pick one small part of Golans ancient history and use it as an argumnet for which order the language should be in? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
David I dont honestly see the relevance of that. My point on whether or not Israel even really annexed the Golan is about some technicalities with the Golan Heights Law that have caused sources to argue that Israel intentionally did not formally annex the Golan so as to avoid a more serious censure that even the US would support in Security Council than it got. But again I dont really see the relevance to your comment here. nableezy - 07:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
If, as you say, that matter is disputed by scholars, then it remains a semi-valid argument. Just trying to be helpful here. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Druze chanting loyalty to Assad

Can someone add this. The druze in the Golan heights were protecting and chanting loyalty to Assad (Syria) https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/golan-druze-gather-at-israel-syria-border-chanting-loyalty-to-assad-1.6532049 SharabSalam (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for Addition of Senators Cruz and Cotton Senate Resolution

Could this news - Cotton, Cruz Introduce Resolution Encouraging U.S. to Recognize Israel’s Sovereignty Over Golan Heights - be added to the article?

Please insert: On December 18, 2018 United States Senators Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz put forth a senate resolution urging the United States to affirm Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights.[1] JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kugle, Andrew (12/18/2018). "Cotton, Cruz Introduce Resolution Encouraging U.S. to Recognize Israel's Sovereignty Over Golan Heights". The Washington Free Beacon. Retrieved 12/19/2018. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Effectively annexed removal request

"territory which Israel effectively annexed in 1981"

This should be removed. The only concrete facts are that Israel currently occupies the territory which belongs to Syria. Using words like effectively brings up POV issues, which are especially poignant with such a contested article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.113.49 (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Facts from the past can be concrete as well. One of our jobs as Wikipedia writers (that is, historians) is to make it clear to the reader how a certain situation came to be. "Effectively" in itself carries no POV, of course. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Well after googling your username and seeing some pretty disturbing accounts of your conduct it would appear any discussion is futile even in situations like this where you are wrong. Happy days indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.113.49 (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • It think "effectively" is a correct choice of words, as opposed to formally. The territory has never been formerly annexed, but is administered as a de facto part of Israel, so it's effectively (but not officially) governed by Israel. But it brings me to another problem which I'll address with a new entry:

Yes, I was agreeing with effectively (i.e.) "for all intents and purposes if not an official annexation." I'm agreeing, not quibbling. 71.226.227.121 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

3.7 De facto annexation by Israel and civil rule || 3.8 Subdistrict of the Golan Heights

Section 3.7 is fairly straightforward, explaining the area's de facto annexation and governance by Israel. The following section, 3.8, seems like it totally ignores 3.7 and starts referring to the area as completely and unquestionably part of Israel.

When it says: The territory of the Golan was transferred to Israeli sovereignty after the promulgation of the Law of the Golan Heights by the Israeli parliament in 1981, The question becomes: "transferred" by whom? Transfer usually implies two or more political entities agreeing to an official territorial change, which is not the case with the Golan Heights.

Perhaps the section can be re-written to clarify that the state of Israel administers the Golan Heights territory as a subdistrict of the Northern District, subject to Israeli law as per the 1981 decree, but still a unique entity and not a formal annexation.

As written, 3.8 kind of contradicts 3.7. 71.226.227.121 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That is factually inaccurate. The Golan is adminstered, under Israeli law, as any other territory. The lack of a "formal declaration" of whther this is only de-facto annexation or official annexation has no bearing on the Israeli law status (the sole relevance of the possible ambiguity (possibly resolved by subsequent gvmt announcements - e.g. in the 2000s) is outside of Israel). In short - Israeli law applies in its entirity and there is no difference under internal Israeli law and adminstration.Icewhiz (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Uh you know you cant say in Wikipedias voice that Golan Heights were transferred to Israel's sovereignty. None of your comment had anything to do with that. nableezy - 19:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no stake in any of this. As an outside observer wanting to learn about an area of which I have no emotional connection, I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic.
Yes, it's quite clear that Israel treats the Golan Heights like any other territory (more-or-less). That's not the point and doesn't really address the issue. EFFECTIVELY, it is part of Israel, yes.
But unlike the Northern District proper, this subdistrict is indeed a disputed territory, regardless of how it's currently administered or who "owns" it. I don't really care who owns it or who believes what, just that facts should be presented. Section 3.8 seems to try to brush over all that, contradicting other parts of said article.
Personally, I don't give a damn who/what/how the Golan Heights are administered. I just want the facts. As far as I can tell, Golan Heights is for all intents and purposes a part of Israel. The Israelis see it this way. But the territory is in dispute, still claimed by Syria. The international community also has some objections. Regardless of how you feel, to abruptly claim the 'territory was transferred to Israel' is incorrect and sloppy writing, especially considering the paragraph beforehand.
Are you the author of this section itself?
71.226.227.121 (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ive corrected the issues and added sources to the previously wholly unsourced subsection. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. nableezy - 19:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the name usage relevant to this article?

Wolfman12405 has added this [16] is this relevant?--SharabSalam (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, it's derived from the name "Golan". The Golan Heights, if it wasn't clear. I don't think there is any doubt about that one nor about the short paragraph with Academic citation I have added further into the article.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Wolfman12405 I am talking about the name usage which I have reverted and removed it and you reverted my edit. Is it relevant? and could you put sources for it? thanks. SharabSalam (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
So source, so no inclusion. Here is a serious 1992 source that says that the Jewish family names Golan, Golani, Golany come from the Polish word goly. I'm sure that other theories can be found, because the origin of most family names is conjectural. That's probably also true for the Arabic name al-Jawlani even though it literally indicates someone from Jawlan. I'm sure there are people with personal name Golan chosen on account of the place, but that is trivia. Zerotalk 01:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to Israeli Jews who are not only of Polish Jewish ancestry who Hebraized their surnames to "Golan". Also, Golan is a common first name among Israelis.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Please provide sources, also the source that Zero gave says that the surname is from polish origin. That dose not mean that Golani(The polish surname) is applied to only Jews from Poland, I have seen many people who have Irish surnames and are citizens of America and as Zero said it is trivia because a lot of people who were living in the Golan heights adopted the surname Al-Jawlani which could be translated into Galoni in English also there is Golani Family in Pakistan. I think it is an information that is not important to the article and dose not improve the article subject.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Ever looked at Golan (disambiguation)?, many of the Israeli Jews who use the surname Golan are Oriental Jews.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
That means they were living in Golan heights or is that a tribal surname? Is Golani a tribal surname? Al–Jawlani/Al-Julani is a very common surname among Muslim Syrians who lived in the Golan heights. As far as I know there were many Jews in Muslim countries such as Syria so Syrian Jews might did the same as Syrian Muslims and took surnames from the places they were living in. Also you need to provide reliable source. In any case this is trivia.––SharabSalam (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

[*]Delete: It’s either trivia or a source of the original name for the territory, I see no reference for the latter. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It separates the remaining territories of Syria and Israel

@Altenmann: can you please explain how I broke the text and how my edit summary is not about the deletion? Your unsourced change, in which a factual error is introduced that the Golan separates Israel and Syria, is covered without the factual error in the immediately preceding paragraph. The Golan does not separate Israel and Syria, the Golan is in Syria. Please explain your edit, the reversion, and why this inaccurate material, which contradicts the material already sourced and in the article, needs to be covered in two consecutive paragraphs. nableezy - 18:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The Golan being in Syria is now contested by significant elements. However regardless of who the Golan belongs to (Israel or Syria) Altenmann is correct - as the Golan is the buffer between Israel ex Golan and Syria ex Golan - the line of contact (pre and post 1967) is the Golan (in a similar fashion - the Sinai is the buffer between mainland Egypt and Israel - regardless if Israel or Egypt hold it).Icewhiz (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Only contested by Israel and US politicians who are hijacked by and working for the Israel Lobby VS 99% of the rest of the world.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, even if you want to make the inane leap that because the US president tweets something that the Golan is now in Israel, it still wouldnt separate Israel and Syria. Do you understand what the English word "in" means? The material restored is a. factually incorrect as a matter of basic English, and b. unsourced, and c. already covered. nableezy - 23:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Nableezy, please be less excited and read with attention. My text says "separates the remaining parts of S &I., not "separates S & I. ". Are you saying that Siria and Israel have a common border elsewhere? If yes, I stay corrrected. If no then please explain what exactly the problem with basic English is.- Altenmann >talk 01:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no border between Syria and Israel. There are several boundary lines. The former Mandate boundary between the British and French Mandates, the Green Line from 1948 that is generally taken as the current demarcation between sovereign Israeli and Syrian territory, and the Purple Line from 1967 that demarcates the Israeli occupied portion from Syria. The problem with the English is that when saying "separates the remaining parts of Syria and Israel" is that you are saying that it is not in Syria or Israel. Beyond that, just look at the prior paragraph. This is already covered, completely, just one paragraph prior to this. nableezy - 03:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
"there is no border" - huh? Did I say otherwise?- Altenmann >talk 05:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
"prior paragraph" - Sorry my stupidity. Can you cite the text? I still fail to identify it. Maybe phrased differently? - Altenmann >talk 05:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
"it is not in syria or israel." - sorry, disagreed, there is no such implication. Of course, in this heated conflict one side would love to seek for a second or third hidden meaning supposedly breaching their rights. Of course I can state what I mean in "politically correct" legalese, but it will probably take LOTS of words, but this section is Wikipedia, for a layman to visualize geography, not a UN declaration. When there is an armed conflict between two states and there is a demilitarized zone, it is customary to say that the DMZ "separates" the sides regardless where it belongs. Same here, without any deep political implications. - Altenmann >talk 05:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the DMZ separates the Israeli occupied portion and the rest of Syria. But that is not what you put in the article. What you wrote is The area is hilly and elevated, overlooking the Jordan Rift Valley which contains the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River, and is itself dominated by the 2,814 metres (9,232 ft) tall Mount Hermon. The plateau has an average altitude of 1,000 metres (3,300 ft). It separates the remaining territories of Syria and Israel. That is all of the Golan separates "the remaining territories" of Syria and Israel. Now my understanding of that sentence is that there are three territories discussed here. The Golan, Syria, and Israel. And you are writing that the Golan separates the two latter ones. That is not correct. Beyond that, WP:BRD would suggest that you not seek to enforce your change by re-reverting. Im going to again remove this new addition (when allowed by the 1rr) and ask that WP:ONUS be followed. nableezy - 13:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S. You didnt break the text, my bad. The diff view on my mobile device failed me.- Altenmann >talk 01:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way what is the correct area? The top infobox and the discussed section differ.- Altenmann >talk 01:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It depends on what you are talking about. The Israeli occupied portion is, depending on if you count from the Green Line or from the Mandate boundary, either 1,295 sq km or 1,150 sq km (the former from the Green Line, the latter from the Mandate boundary). The entirety of the Golan as ~1800 sq km. nableezy - 03:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
total area. Top says 1800, this section says 1860.- Altenmann >talk 05:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Again, depends on if you count from the edge of the lake or if you count from the Mandate boundary. None of these things are settled until there is some border treaty between the two countries. nableezy - 13:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Typo in title/short description in mobile view

Hi, this page currently has a typo in the 'short description' in the mobile view. It currently reads: "Place in Internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel" - note the beginning: "Place in Internationally ..." What was meant here? perhaps "place in the Levant internationally..."? that would fix the syntactical/capitalization problems. I personally think that, in addition, the attempted description is too long and unnecessarily detailed for this purpose, and that the English description in the Wikidata record is more appropriate: "region in the Levant." Although my account is 'extended confirmed' I found that I was unable to make a correction to the short description. Thank you! Lutzv (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I fixed this! -- Daviddwd (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Palestine Mandate date

In the section on Territorial Claims, it reads:

One of the aspects of the dispute involves the existence prior to 1967 of three different lines separating Syria from the area that between 1948 and 1967 was referred to as Mandatory Palestine.

As the British Mandate for Palestine terminated in 1948, I assume the author meant to write "the area that, prior to 1948, was referred to as Mandatory Palestine". Yoweiner (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Newly added pov text

The text added here is completely false and non neutral: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&type=revision&diff=889305673&oldid=889286732

It is claiming there is an "Israeli part of the Golan Heights" and "Golan Heights had been part of Israel" i.e. (part of Israel today). --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

calm yourself, your despicable words about Israel here and in your reverting of this edit shows it is u who can't handle other views and tries to impose his POV over articles. That's the Israeli part of a geographical unit that is called the "Golan heights". I hereby recommend giving this user some time out to think of his actions.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You didn't even bother to check the link (which goes to a different article). Besides that, it does not contain the pathetic argument you report, nor does it speak of "Israeli diplomats, scholars and lobbyists". It is an opinion piece by one person that contains arguments based partly on phoney history (such as the laughable deception "the San Remo Declaration of 1920 designated the Heights as part of the British Mandate"). We don't need such low-quality nonsense in this important article. Zerotalk 09:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
"pathetic"? the only such thing here is your biased opinion and edit. That's the Israeli view of the dispute. Seems like you 2 can't handle that there are 2 views in a dispute. If one of them angers you, keep it to yourselves. Don't go on a tantrum rampage.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
So you even put back the incorrect url! You are begging for a topic ban. Zerotalk 11:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Unlike u, I don't beg to anyone or for anything. :|) --Wolfman12405 (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Wolfman12405 has been blocked indefinitely. Zerotalk 12:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of that block, it strikes me that the text that Wolfman12405 added is not particularly contentious, albeit with an incorrect url: Israeli diplomats, scholars and lobbyists had voiced their view that Syria had long lost any claims for the Golan Heights since it only had it under their sovereign control for 21 years (starting in 1946) while the Israeli part of the Golan Heights had been part of Israel for much longer than that (52 years by 2019).[1]

  1. ^ Inbar, Efraim (September 2011), "Israeli Control of the Golan Heights: High Strategic and Moral Ground for Israel" (PDF), Mideast Security and Policy Studies, vol. 90, Ramat Gan, Israel: The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, ISSN 0793-1042, retrieved March 25, 2019

I'm struggling to see what the problem is as it essentially describes the Israeli government's position. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it perhaps the wording? "the Israeli part of the Golan Heights had been part of Israel"? How about "the land had been under Israeli control" Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Efraim Inbar is a notable scholar. Per Israel (and Inbar) the Golan is part of Israel - therefore saying that Israel says the Golan is part of Israel is not a problem (seems the US agrees as well). Definitely an analysis from a notable scholar we could include. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
A notable scholar would have a blue link. Like say Yoram Dinstein. nableezy - 17:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Saying, in Wikipedia's voice, "the Israeli part of the Golan" (and that part is in Wikipedia's voice) violates NPOV. That is an extreme minority position. Saying in Wikipedia's voice that the Golan has been a part of Israel is again a no-no. And, by the way, Israeli scholars also say the Golan is not in Israel. Saying that Israeli scholars hold one view is kind of silly to be honest. If you want to include the Israeli governments view (which if I am not mistaken is already included at some depth in the article) then just attribute it to Israel. Or attribute it to this one person. But regardless of that, the claim that there is an Israeli part of the Golan or that it has been a part of Israel for any period of time cannot be made in Wikipedia's voice. nableezy - 15:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"extreme minority position"? Why countries with 25% of world-wide GDP recognize Israeli soverignity. Even those who do no recognize Israel sovereignty recognize there is an Israel side and a Syrian side of the cease fire line .... And all that being said - we're not saying in our voice "the Israeli part of the Golan", but rather we're saying in an attribute fashion that a notable scholar (whom we should name) - "According to Efraim Inbar .... the Israeli part of the Golan ...". When we attribute a position, we use the terminology of those we attribute to. 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs)
Yes, GDP, that official way of measuring positions. nableezy - 17:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Effraim Inbar would appear to be a leading Israeli scholar on this issue. In his text he states:
In 1981, Israel extended its law to the Golan Heights, which meant a de facto annexation. Nowadays, this region is populated by just over 20,000 Jews, spread throughout 32 settlements, and 20,000 Druze concentrated in the north. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the political entity that has had the longest possession of the Golan Heights is the state of Israel. Moreover, Israeli public opinion regards the Golan Heights as an integral part of the Jewish state. Most Israelis have consistently viewed the Golan Heights as a non-negotiable property and a large majority of the Israeli public strongly opposes any withdrawal from this area.
Do you know of other leading Israeli scholars who we could use for balance? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, Yoram Dinstein in Dinstein, Yoram (2019). The International Law of Belligerent Occupation. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-49797-8. Retrieved 2019-03-25. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

In June 1967, Israel also occupied from Syria the Golan Heights. More than fifty years later, there is still not treaty of peace between Israel and Syria. ... As long as the state of war between Israel and Syria is not ended, the Golan Heights remain under Israeli belligerent occupation. ... Although the Law does not employ the word annexation, there are those who consider the Heights annexed as a consequence of it. Others (including the present writer) disagree with that approach. But, even if the annexationist interpretation of the Israeli domestic legislation is correct, this would have no impact on the status of the Golan Heights from the standpoint of international law. In Resolution 497 (1981), the Security Council determined that 'the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan heights is null and void and without international legal effect'.

The point I was trying to make is attributing one view to "Israeli scholars" does not make sense as "Israeli scholars" hold a huge range of views on this and pretty much any other topic about the occupation. If we want to attribute something to a specific scholar fine. If we want to attribute it to the Israeli government fine. If we want to attribute it to a specific poll of the Israeli public fine. But taking one persons view and saying it applies to all others in that realm is what is not fine. nableezy - 17:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
That's cool we can put something together that is more balanced. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Just weighing in here; I've changed the wording to:

Israeli diplomats, scholars and lobbyists had voiced their view that Syria had long lost any claims for the Golan Heights since it only had it under their sovereign control for 21 years (starting in 1946) while the Israeli-controlled part of the Golan Heights had been part of Israel for much longer than that (52 years by 2019).

Here I've added -controlled, so "the Israeli-controlled part". In my view, the fact that the word "had been part" is clearly only reflecting their opinions as Israeli diplomats, scholars and lobbyists. I am also open to discussing that. -- Daviddwd (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but this text is not going in without a consensus. Here is your version:
"Israeli diplomats, scholars and lobbyists had voiced their view that Syria had long lost any claims for the Golan Heights since it only had it under their sovereign control for 21 years (starting in 1946) while the Israeli-controlled part of the Golan Heights had been part of Israel for much longer than that (52 years by 2019)."[17]
Problems: (1) The source nowhere mentions "diplomats, scholars and lobbyists". (2) Where in the source does it make an argument based on longevity of control? (It has to make the argument, not just provide data for us to make the argument.) (3) Where in the source does it argue that sovereignty is a function of longevity anyway? Actually it doesn't rely on that argument at all. (4) The claim "part of Israel" is 100% unacceptable. (5) As for the reliability of the source, note that the late unqualified extremist fanatic Howard Grief is cited for the "facts" on which the historical arguments are based. In particular, the author buys Grief's blatant lie that the Golan was included in the Mandate of Palestine by the San Remo conference. Like many of Grief's claims, it never happened. Zerotalk 06:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The entire section is not following the sources or historical events and is still claiming that the area is "part of Israel". So it must be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The sentence as it stands is not only POV (rather obviously so) it is also untrue that it was "part of Israel". Despite recent developments, the position of UNSC members other than the US and reaffirmed at today's meeting of the UNSC is that the area is occupied and that Israel continues in noncompliance with a unanimously passed (including the USA) UNSC decision.Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

march 2019 the usa and spain declare golan a part of israel

When the usa declared it will now see golan as part of israel as hawaii is part of the usa.. spain too has decided that golan is part of israel. If one ocuntry attacks another the defender has the duty to take land from the attacker for peace afterwards.Israel was attacked and took this land as a buffer.. spain now agrees with the usa on this issue.. Spain also has melia and ceuta from morrocco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.210.109 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, Spain has not recognized the Israeli claim. Spain confirmed this the day before yesterday (along with a parade of other countries since). Please provide a source for your statement.Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Effectively annexed?

The Israeli position, regarding the Golan, left a very small sliver of ambiguity in the 1981 Golan Heights Law. The law legally describes an annexation, but does not use the word. Most of the international community viewed this, at the time, as an annexation (and condemned it in United Nations Security Council Resolution 497). Israeli PM Begin said at the time - "You use the word 'annexation.' I do not use it". Now - some subsequent sources from 1980-1990s-early 2000s continue to use effectively annexed. I would posit, however, that Israel has subsequently clarified its position. Specifically - in the 2016 cabinet meeting held on the Golan Heights - TOI 2016, announcement 2016. Both the US (in the presidential declaration) and Israel (in its response/thanks) did not use "effectively annexed" in 2019 - but rather referred to an annexation or Israeli sovereignty. Looking at independent reporting - e.g. BBC 2019 - "Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981" or DW - "The Golan was Syrian territory until 1967, when Israel occupied it in the Six-Day War and later annexed it. The 1981 annexation was not recognized internationally" - no effectively in the rest of the article. Hence, I suggest we drop effectively here as well. Israel, in the past (as in many policy areas), left a very small ambiguity here - however subsequent Israeli declarations (2016, 2019) have removed this ambiguity, and current sources do not seem to favor "effectively" (and some of those that do use this - may be copying from us....). Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=ueDO1dJyjrUC&pg=PA265 leaves it open and then essentially says it is irrelevant whether it is annexed or not (although obviously the changed US position is not dealt with).Selfstudier (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Well obviously if you state it is illegal - it is of no consequence either way. The source you are citing is from 1996 (with a 2003 reprint, which probably didn't update content). Back then there was more of an ambiguity (and Korman himself doesn't make a determination either way) - but the Israeli declaration of 2016 (+2019 Israeli/US comments/declarations) - would seem to me to have eliminated or minimized the small ambiguity to begin with. Icewhiz (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Quite. As the source says, post 497, the US vetoed Chapter VII action against Israel on the grounds that it did not agree that the application of Israeli law to the Golan was an annexation.Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, Im not sure why you pretend that effectively is not easily sourced, even after Trumps announcement. Eg NYTimes (Though Israel effectively annexed the Golan Heights in 1981), Politico (Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria during the Six-Day War in 1967, and effectively annexed the territory in 1981). This trope about current sources, as though only sources from the last week count, beyond being nonsense, is just wrong. nableezy - 15:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It is part of Israel, those are the facts on the ground. Just because the Syrians had it they don't anymore. Wikipedia should recognize who is there and who is not.173.48.197.65 (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

While you are entitled to your opinion, Wikipedia requires appropriate sources.Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

weight on the us position

There seems to be a bit of over-excitement here. Currently, the US position on Israel legally holding the Golan as part of its territory is in the first paragraph, again in the third, and then in the infobox. This is entirely too much weight to be given to something that we have zero ability to judge its impact as it literally happened yesterday. WP:RECENTISM and WP:WEIGHT require us not to overemphasize the days news. I think it should be removed from the infobox and the first paragraph and included as a single sentence in the paragraph on the current status (the third). I also dont think we should have a section on the US position. It should be included in a section on international positions, including the EU, the other permanent members of the UNSC, and any other notable positions by international actors. nableezy - 06:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you need to start a new talk page section just to repeat your almost excact same talking points? I'll reply only to your new point, in which I happen to agree with you: the US position section should be merged with an International positions section per WP:WEIGHT (even though it actually existed long before the US recognition). M . M 06:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
As countries, totaling some 25% of the world GDP, recognize Israeli sovereignty - we should clearly update our article. I'll further note that while know some countries (e.g. the EU, Russia, Arab sates [19]) are opposed to the US move, we do not know the position of every other country. Thus we can not say that "only the US" recognizes this. The article, as presently construed, is a severe WP:NPOV violation as "occupied" is clearly contested.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Its a different topic? And the sources are what say only the US. Eg AP: The U.S. is the first country to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan, which the rest of the international community regards as Israeli-occupied. This new talking point on GDP is certainly very interesting, but I dont exactly understand the significance of it. nableezy - 06:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
GDP is of course entirely irrelevant and that gambit should be ignored. Zerotalk 07:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Defense budgets might be a better proxy for weight in international affairs - in which case we're at 37%+. (Should we do nuclear warheads? That's 45%+ on the US alone) Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Both are irrelevant to the weight of a position of one country. Besides, The US has unstable positions and unstable poitics. As a wise man said once ( a deal with the US isn't even worth the ink) I suggest we wait more time until either more countries reject the Trump decision or a country or more welcome Trump decision. Until now this is only the US position.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There is to much focus on the US in this article. The conflict is between Syria and Israel and the US view is of very little significance, so why does the US have its one section for example? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Following this logic (that we should mainly reflect Israeli and Syrian positions), we should (per Syria's GDP of 60 billion and Israel's GDP of 350 billion) assign a weight of 14.6% to the notion it is occupied and 85.4% to the notion it is Israeli. We should also take into account actual control on the ground when weighting the Syrian irredentist claim to territory it last controlled over half a century ago. Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
What we take in to account is what the sources say. Guess what? None of them say a thing about GDP. They do however say that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. You know what that means? We do too. nableezy - 15:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Huh, you want to take your absurd hypothesis that GDP is relevant and draw absurd conclusions from it? Zerotalk 11:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
lol I seriously do not get where this is coming from. Its as if repeating the mantra of 25% of GDP makes it matter. nableezy - 14:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Since this article is indeed on the Golan Heights (thousands of years of history, human settlement, geology, conflict, human settlement, etc. etc.) - I trimmed the section on the US position - which we should summarize here, but shouldn't be covering every minute detail and response.Icewhiz (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Having the US point of view in the infobox is highly unnecessary. Wikiemirati (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree it should be removed. nableezy - 17:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Only if "Internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel" is removed as well - as with US recognition, this is no longer correct in this formulation - There is partial recognition for the Syrian claim, and partial for the Israeli. Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
No, that remains accurate. There are two states that say anything other than Syrian territory occupied by Israel. The entirety of the rest of the international community continues to say that it remains Syrian territory occupied by Israel. The UN Secretary General affirmed that nothing has changed in the status of the Golan. The sources continue to say occupied by Israel. Including the US position in the infobox is undue weight. nableezy - 18:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
In addition the current US position is inconsistent since the USA previously signed up to an unanimous UNSC decision. I leave it to the reader to determine the legal position there.Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, I understand your point. Would adding a footnote indicating the US position solve the issue? Unless a significant amount of countries decide that the Golan Heights are part of Israel, "Internationally", which by dictionary definition means in, between, or among many different nations remains valid. The United States, although a world superpower, does not dictate if an area is internationally recognized or not just as most of the world does not recognize Taiwan as part of China (even though China says so) Wikiemirati (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I changed it to a note in the infobox, and added to it that the US is the first to call it Israeli territory and that the rest of the international community considers it Syrian territory. nableezy - 00:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Footnoting, after the refs, is not sufficient as the text does not properly reflect the current status. We don't have to as wordy as before - but perhaps "Internationally recognized (except US) as Syrian territory occupied by Israel" ? Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
It is pretty much how Jerusalem handles it. The current status is still internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. One country, along with Israel, disputes that. That does not negate the wide international recognition. nableezy - 15:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

They actually do recognise it as part of China, on the contrary they don't recognise Taiwan, though many of them do unofficially have relations with the country non recognise it as a sovereign state. IMO the issue is the fact that although the Golan (in contrast to the West bank) is under Israeli civilian rule in a similar fashion that Crimea is under Russian civilian rule it is nevertheless classified as being under military occupation. Guy355 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. nableezy - 00:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
It does seem that the US position is being overemphasized somewhat. The section 5 "United States government's stance on the territorial dispute" isn't really worth a whole section to itself and probably ought simply to be a subsection of 4 "Territorial claims" and then there ought to be a further subsection "Position of other countries..." or some such.Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
US position doesn't need any separate section at all as it is insignificant. It can be incorporated in the main text or a new separate "International views" section.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Or that. The whole thing is recent and usually less attention is given then. Reactions to the altered US position are only just coming in, for example, the official EU statement just this morning https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/03/27/declaration-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-eu-on-the-golan-heights/ Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
In fact the first two bits of that section relate to any peace treaty between the parties so that ought to go in the sections covering that topic (perhaps as a note since it has all been superseded in any case). The last bit is simply a reflection of what has anyway been added into the lead re the altered US position.Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
In the 3,000 or so years of recorded history on the Golan Heights (Gaulonitis in Greek), the territory has exchanged hands many times. What is important here is to mention its current possessor (authority), its status in the eyes of the respective nations, and for us to try and keep the tone of debate on these divisive issues with composure and due calmness, in addition to maintaining a neutral stance. History has a way of being impartial to onlookers. The earth abides forever, but we who are mortal will eventually pass-on into the other world.Davidbena (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Territorial status

I just added an NPOV tag to this article due to its recent edit war (in which I was uninvolved). Thus, I think it's appropriate to start a discussion here about the territorial status of the Golan Heights. I belive "disputed" is more accurate than "occupied" now that the United States has officially recognized Israeli sovereignty. Accordingly, phrases such as "Israeli-occupied" should be replaced with "Israeli-controlled". For example, the Crimea article does not mention a Russian "occupation". M . M 17:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

What? Because the US president tweeted something we should ignore the overwhelming majority of sources on this? Or nearly every other state on the planet? Thats interesting. nableezy - 17:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
He signed an executive order, which happens to be how official foreign policy is conducted in the US. Again, these changes would be totally consistent with the Russia/Crimea status. M . M 18:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
That is one state. As far as I know there is no UNSC resolution on Crimea being occupied territory. If it has the same weight in sources for being occupied as the Golan does then that article should be corrected. In this article however, the vast majority of reliable sources say that the Golan is occupied territory. If one state now joins Israel in disputing that then that can be, and is, included. It does not however make it so that the overwhelming majority position among both states and sources is no longer the overwhelming majority position among states and sources. nableezy - 18:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I belive an identical discussion was held on Talk:Israel (see the FAQ note at the top of the talk page) after the 2017 US recognition of Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital, which resulted in it being changed from "not internationally recognized" to "limited recognition". The US is not merely "one state", but the world's sole superpower. M . M 18:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Given the change in international recognition, it is no longer neutral for us to use "occupied" in an unattributed manner as this status is widely disputed.Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense, there has been one state change its view. That has been responded to pretty widely (eg the EU, Russia, China, the Arab League ...) by others saying nothing has changed regarding the status of the Golan. There is a UNSC Resolution that explicitly says the Golan remains occupied Syrian territory. Nothing has changed on that. nableezy - 18:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You mean like the United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 says that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? M . M 18:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and notice how the Jerusalem article does not say it is the capital of Israel. And the Israel article does not say, as a matter of fact, that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. We both know the following to be true. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources and states and international organizations all say that the Golan is Israeli-occupied. Yes, the US endorsed a war crime. The consequences of that I have no idea of yet (and neither does anybody else). If reliable sources start to no longer state, as a fact, that the Golan is occupied territory then our article should follow that. That has not happened (and how could it, this order was issued today). WP:WEIGHT specifies that if a view is held by the vast majority of reliable sources then Wikipedia should give that view the same weight. That is what counts here, not personal opinions on the consequences of an American proclamation. nableezy - 18:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've made it clear earlier that international law doesn't interest me the slightest - I only care about the non-aggression principle, which Israel didn't violate in this case. However, I'm happy that you brought up WP:WEIGHT, as I do care about that. I never said that the Golan should be described here as Israeli territory. I said that it shouldn't be described as "occupied", just as Crimea isn't described as such, and just as Jerusalem is no longer described as being "not internationally recognized" as Israel's capital. M . M 18:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

What interests you is not relevant. Sources describe the Golan as Israeli occupied, then so too do we. And, FYI, occupation is an international law topic. nableezy - 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not widely disputed. Only by Israel and US politicians who are working for the Israeli Lobby.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPTALK please. The US recognized this - not individual politicians. Just as we do not state Tibet is occupied in our voice, we should not state this for the Golan.Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources overwhelmingly say that the Golan Heights are Syrian territory occupied by Israel. If that changes as a result of the US then we can change the article. nableezy - 18:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The vast majority of the International community say its occupied and not part of Israel. We must reflect the worldview and not a small minority. The US has also been lobbied by the Israeli lobby to recognize the Israeli claims (I can show you many sources if you want), so its basically only the Israeli view and US politicians that are hijacked by Israel. A minority of the world does not recognize Israel, should we refrain from describing Israel as a real country? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Pre-2019 sources are out of date and do not reflect recent changes. The motivation of the US's announcement matters little. As it is disputed we can at most say "according to parts of the international community the Golan is occupied". We can not say this in our voice.Icewhiz (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Ha! We can indeed, as the vast majority of sources say that it is in fact occupied territory. nableezy - 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
In that case, at the Israel article, as it is disputed we can at most say "according to parts of the international community "Israel" is a country in Western Asia"... We can not say this in our voice. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

And if you really want a reliable source post Trumps announcement, here. See how it continues to refer to the Golan as occupied territory? nableezy - 20:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The BBC is British state media. Their raison d'être is to push the positions of the British government (especially in the topic of foreign policy). How excactly is that "reliable"? M . M 20:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Amusingly, the BBC, who can usually be counted upon to avoid using the word occupied in a headline were moved nevertheless to do so https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47697717 Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
If you would like to challenge the reliability of the BBC, by all means please proceed to WP:RS/N. nableezy - 21:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, AP:

President Donald Trump’s move to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights turns the tables on decades of U.S. diplomacy and international law and threatens to further inflame regional tensions.

It is unlikely, though, to have much impact on the actual status of the territory, where Israel acts with full military control despite the lack of international recognition for its annexation 38 years ago.

nableezy - 21:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

AP is a bit better than BBC, but not much. It's essentially the Wikipedia of random journalists (anyone can post articles there). Here we have fresh articles from the New York Times [20], Global News [21], and Euronews [22] all saying "disputed". M . M 21:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You can challenge AP's reliability too while you are at it. Lets just say you are mistaken on their publishing standards. Global News also says occupied. As does Euronews, as does Reuters, and so too does the NYTimes. These all are after Trump's tweet, though granted not all after the EO, but that is a bit too soon to judge seeing as it just happened today. The NYTimes has long alternated between using disputed and occupied, often in the same article. We'll see in the future if this ends up having an impact on what sources say. But to claim that it already has is a. foolish as the tweet just happened in the last week and the EO today, and b. not borne out by the facts. nableezy - 22:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nableezy: I added President Trump's official declaration as a source.
@VwM.Mwv: I'm with you. I say we should change it to "disputed" and "controlled by Israel", while mentioning in a few places that most of the world says it is occupied. -- Daviddwd (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
So your view is that we should remove what you say what most of the world says and instead put in Israeli talking points? Also, thats a primary source. We cover the US position at great depth, more than we should to be honest. It has a dedicated section. However, despite todays proclamation, the US is not the only voice in the matter, and it remains a super-majority position that the Golan remains occupied Syrian territory. WP:WEIGHT is clear on this point, we dont minimize super-majority positions. nableezy - 23:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I concede to your point on WP:WEIGHT. I would like to see more discussion that it is in dispute explicitly, but I haven't and don't plan to make these edits without broad agreement. For now I'm only going to try to improve neutral phrasing, minor formatting and things like grammar. -- Daviddwd (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
No longer a super majority position. Icewhiz (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
You have literally no evidence for that. Just a personal feeling. nableezy - 06:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok? NY Times: while referring to the Golan says but which under international law is considered occupied territory. QED. nableezy - 06:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with the current infobox version stating Internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel
    The US recognized as part of Israel     so long as every mention of "Israeli-occupied" throughout the article is replaced with "Israeli-controlled". (Also, I'd like to change the above to "Recognized as part of Israel by the US" because of grammar, but that's not really a big deal.) M . M 05:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not. nableezy - 06:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
It is only the view of Israel and US that its not occupied. We can not follow a very small minority and disregard the vast majority of the international community. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"As far as I know there is no UNSC resolution on Crimea being occupied territory"

Yea wonder why, probably because Russia is a member of the security council and would veto any attempt to declare it occupied territory (although it can be inaccurate to call it occupied in the first place because of the reason I mention further down). Also, it's quite misleading to call it an occupation, as "occupation" is by definition related to military rule, and in the Golan Heights unlike in Judea and Samaria/West Bank the Golan is annexed and the civilians there have full civil rights (with the ability to get Israeli citizenship which most refuse) and are subject not to the IDF but to the Israeli police. You could say that the annexation is unrecognised but that's a different matterGuy355 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That isnt how any of this works. Whether or not the residents are subject not to the IDF but to the Israeli police has absolutely nothing to do with this. The Golan is considered occupied territory because a. it is outside of Israel's sovereign territory, and b. Israel exercises effective military control over it. But even that misses the point for our purposes. The Golan is occupied territory because that is what reliable sources say it is. nableezy - 23:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Both your a and b points can apply to Russian rule over the Crimean peninsula (as for the residents in both cases it's not just them being subject to civilian rather than military rule, in the Golan as in Crimea the citizens have been offered all the civil rights of the ruling state, citizenship too except most Druze refuse to accept it due to loyalties to Syria). As for "reliable sources" it is due to the powers that unfortunately seem to have one standard for most of the world and another standard for Israel which has been the case for decades, and as a result most so called reliable sources reflect this policy. Therefore I think this is quite the poor excuse to hide behind this explanation, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck and not a chicken. Guy355 (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. nableezy - 00:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yea fine, doesn't change the matter at hand, just another inaccuracy on Wikipedia, got plenty of those already. Guy355 (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

So....have we resolved this now? I believe that we can dispense with the NPOV tag, can we not?Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Terms like "disputed" or "Israeli-controlled" for the Golan Heights are better terms than "Israeli-occupied," just as many of the editors here, such as User:VwM.Mwv and User:Daviddwd and User:Icewhiz, have evinced. It maintains neutrality, without caving-in to bias.Davidbena (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The word "Occupied" by itself contains no bias, IS neutral (it is not "better" or "worse" than an alternative) and it is simply a word, that has a straightforward definition (see for example Military occupation) and is used by the vast majority of sources and has been so used for many a year. This argument has been had in the past and the result is always the same. Any editor is perfectly free to add properly sourced material to the article and the fact will be that some large proportion of the sources that will be added against the use of the word occupation will emanate from the same place that is actually engaged in the occupation and that is most certainly a bias. I suppose some will also come now from the US, though even there the vast majority of informed opinion will be using the word occupation simply because that accurately describes the situation. In relation to the Golan, it is also the position (re)expressed in recent days by almost every country in the world (other than Israel and the USA of course). The UK, for example, is typical and unequivocal:

"“The UK views the Golan Heights as territory occupied by Israel. Annexation of territory by force is prohibited under international law, including the U.N. Charter,” a British Foreign Office spokesman said in a statement.

“We did not recognize Israel’s annexation in 1981 and have no plans to change our position.”"

So unless you intend to source evidence that the UN, the EU (all 28) and a lengthy parade of other countries are guilty of bias, then I think this whole argument has not a leg to stand on.Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Maintaining "Neutrality" is a Wikipedia policy, and is not contingent upon the whims and fancies of the UN. When there is a larger body of Arab-States in the UN who oppose the existence of the one and singular state of Israel, any referendum on Israel and her policies becomes automatically a "mitch match." --- Davidbena (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, there's your personal opinion about the UN being biased, how about the non Arab EU 28? China, Russia, Japan? They biased as well? You simply have not made any case that this article is POV.Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I wrote elsewhere: In the 3,000 or so years of recorded history on the Golan Heights (Gaulonitis in Greek), the territory has exchanged hands many times. What is important here is to mention its current possessor (authority), its status in the eyes of the respective nations, and for us to try and keep the tone of debate on these divisive issues with composure and due calmness, in addition to maintaining a neutral stance. History has a way of being impartial to onlookers. The earth abides forever, but we who are mortal will eventually pass-on into the other world.Davidbena (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of NPOV/Balanced Template

This template requires (among other things)

"....should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public."

The stated reason for the tag is the use of the word occupied (and derivatives) (used in a large number of Wikpedia articles, related and unrelated) makes the article POV. A simple search in Wikipedia will reveal that this argument is brought up time and time again with the exact same result, occupation stays and people may add in secondary sources in support of minority positions if they wish.

It is completely clear that the overwhelming preponderance of high quality independent reliable secondary sources make use of the word occupied, which by itself is entirely neutral and well defined in law.

The template should be removed. Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You may think they're neutral, but as I've already explained in my edit summary, about half of the editors on this talk page disagree with you. But don't worry, my main article will be finished soon, and then we can link to it and remove the NPOV tag. M . M 18:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
That you have not finished writing some article is certainly not a reason for maintaining this template. Nor does it matter how many editors agree or disagree with the use of the word occupation, it simply matters whether appropriate sources use it and the overwhelming majority do.Selfstudier (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
As the international position on the Golan has recently changed, significant countries consider the Golan Israeli, and sources auch as the NYT use other terms (e.g. disputed), saying occupied in our voice is no longer acceptable. We should, of course, say which countries view the Golan in which way - but we should avoid making such stmts in our own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Which sources say the "international position" has changed? Was there a change in the Security Council resolutions or pronouncements by any other international body? Jonathunder (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to the US position, not to a UNSC resolution. The international position is a sum of its parts. Sources for the change in the US position abound.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
We're all aware of the recent pronouncements, via Twitter, by Trump on the subject, to help his friend Netanyahu win an election. Do you have sources saying the "international position" has changed? Jonathunder (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Not twitter anymore - official US proclamation [24] and policy (e.g. maps [25]). Per financial times - this "The decision reversed decades of US policy and the overwhelming international position ...[26]. Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Why can't you edit wikipedia neutrally rather than always trying to push for the Israeli governments point of view? Of 19 (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Neither the NYT nor current US policy are determining factors as regards this template. All that matters is that there is a preponderance of appropriate sources using the word occupation (and or derivatives of it) to describe the situation and this is the case. Because the Laws of Occupation, Hague and Geneva have not been amended in any way that I am aware of. Should editors wish to insert suitably referenced materials about the US position they are perfectly free to do that in just the same way as the Israeli position has been included as a minority view on other pages.Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The international view is that its Syrian, occupied and not Israeli. Trumps gesture to the Israeli lobby doesn't change this. The Israeli/US position is a fringe minority view, and we have this fringe minority view included and properly attributed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I started a sub-article Status of the Golan Heights as I think VwM.Mwv is right on one part, that this should be covered in depth in its own article. nableezy - 23:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

One could examine the article East Jerusalem as the nearest approximation (ie an illegal annexation of occupied territory and a US position distinct from that of almost everyone else). That article makes use of the word "occupied" 3 times in the opening sentence of the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Bad example - the US did not recognize East Jerusalem as Israeli - or to be precise, the US position on Jerusalem does not make clear which parts ofJerusalem it recognizes as Israeli.Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I never claimed that it had, only that it had a position distinct from almost everyone else. I am referring still to the misuse of the template added to this article based on the use of the word occupation. Do you have a better example, I couldn't think of one off the top of my head?Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The US also is far from alone on Jerusalem (e.g. Russia agrees) - but no state has taken a definitive support for Israeli EJ AFAIK. Better examples (both annexed, many states opposed) would be Western Sahara (where we use disputed) and Crimea (we use controlled).Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, had a look at the Crimea one and can't find the word "controlled" anywhere on the page, I can find the word "annexation" only (unprefixed) and the WS one says in the opening of the lead that it is partially controlled and partially occupied as well as disputed.Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Russia agrees? Russia recognizes West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. East Jerusalem as Palestine's. nableezy - 16:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Off topic, but that is not in conflict with the present US position (which did not define boundaries for its recognition in Jerusalem - the current US position on EJ is unspecified AFAICT).Icewhiz (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Population

Can we add the population to the infobox? The numbers from the Statistical Abstract of Israel were removed on the grounds that "these numbers are only for the Israeli-occupied part, there are tens of thousands living in the Syrian controlled part". In that case, can we find a source for the population of the Syrian-controlled part? Then we could include the populations of both parts in the infobox (similarly to how we are handling the area). Tim Smith (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, though to avoid SYNTH we should avoid adding the two numbers ourselves and state one for the Israeli side and one for the Syrian side. The Israeli CBS is fairly reliable. Sources for the Syrian side are much more sketchy, in particular with the recent civil war. Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Wrong about SYNTH, see WP:CALC. However two numbers (with or without a total) would be more informative than one. Zerotalk 01:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
If we can't find a source for the Syrian-controlled part, let's at least include the population of the Israeli-occupied part (designated as such), since we do have a source for that. Tim Smith (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Druze labeled as Arabs in the infobox

Well, this is disputed, as Druze are a separate ethnoreligious community. They usually eschew a separate identity from Arab mainstream population. Defining Druze as Arabs is similar to defining Israeli Mizrahi and North African Jews as Arab Jews - if so, then one can count both Druze and Mizrahi Jews in the Golan as Arabs - this will make most of the Golan population as "Arab". But that clearly is problematic.GreyShark (dibra) 12:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

What you are talking about are Druze in Israel. This article is about Druze in Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a long history of Druze affirmations of being Arab, and, since the foundation of the state of Israel, not being Arabs. Identity is labile historically. Druze identity as non-Arabs is a keen interest for Israel, which has striven to fragment them from the wider Arab community, with which they otherwise shared many common cultural and linguistic traditions. I think the sensible thing would be to remove 'Arab' from the infobox, and make no other specification.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a complicated issue - in Syria Druze have played a huge role in Syrian Arab nationalist movement, but in Israel this has been exactly the other way around (Druze allied with the Jews upon establishment of the State and received a Status Aparte from Muslim and Christian Arabs). In Lebanon it is complicated - because Lebanese are largely considering themselves Lebanese and then their sectarian affiliation - Shia, Sunni, Maronite Christian, Orthodox Christian, Melkite Christian, Druze (perhaps only Lebanese Kurds and Armenians and until 1970s also Jews are true ethnic groups with no Lebanese ethno-national affiliation).GreyShark (dibra) 18:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the issue is best handled by taking out the ethnicity and replacing it with nationality. That way one has parity between Israelis and Druze, defining the latter in terms of their nationality, Syrian.Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Reliable statistics for Syrian nationality holders in the Golan are unavailable. Many of the Druze on the Golan hold Israeli nationality, not Syrian. Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Many more refused Israeli citizenship and retain Syrian citizenship. And unlike you, Ill source my statement. Also notice how it calls them Arabs. nableezy - 14:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
One does not conflict with the other (I said many, not most) - certainly most Druze, to date, have rejected Israeli citizenship - yet there still are quite a few who have accepted Israeli citizenship. If you want to precise - 12 percent - per this source. Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, and? You said many hold Israeli citizenship, presumably to justify the argument that they are not Arab (how that follows from citizenship is left as an exercise for the reader). However many more hold Syrian citizenship. That was left unsaid in your comment. I simply tried to correct the misimpression that a casual reader may have from the original comment. But, again, notice how the source calls them Arab? nableezy - 18:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I was responding directly to Nishidani's suggestion we use Syrian, which would be inaccurate. Do please read the thread you are responding to.Icewhiz (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
This is silly. If 12% then 12% have Israeli nationality, the rest, not being stateless, would be Syrian.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I did respond lol. I said many more "retain Syrian citizenship". Please do read the responses instead of imagining an argument you would prefer to argue against. nableezy - 03:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Druze are not an ethnic group they are ethnoreligious group who claim ethnicity based on religion but they are from different ethnicities like Jews are also from different ethnicities (e.g Yemeni Jews from Himyari Arab origin). The Druze had an Arab prince (Fakhr Adin II) who was from the Maan family which established the Mount Lebanon Emirate. So logically I don't think Druze contradict Arabs.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Also this source (and there are other sources) gives the number of Druze in Golan heights it also says : "The Druze are an Arab minority who practice an offshoot of Islam and whose adherents in Syria have long been loyal to its ruling Assad family." So you can see that Arab doesn't contradict Druze.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Israeli settlers labeled as "Jews" in infobox

Concerning this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&type=revision&diff=893441538&oldid=893437792

These settlers presence in the Golan Heights is regarded as illegal by the international community and they are newly arrived to the area. By calling them just "Jews" in the infobox next to "Arabs" you are putting the Israeli settlers in the same position as the native inhabitants of the region, as if their status is the same. They are also called settlers by media: Reuters: [27] BBC: [28] CNN: [29] Fox News: [30] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

International opinion has been changing in recent years. Furthermore, as the information here is drawn from the Israeli CBS (which makes an ethnic breakdown - Jews and Arabs in a sub-panel of statistics), and the Israeli CBS doesn't differentiate between "settlers" and "non-settlers" - who may be Arab or Jewish - there are WP:V issues in renaming just the Jews as "settlers". Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
That first sentence is just the latest in a long string of statements made that are a. lacking any evidence, and b. completely untrue. nableezy - 12:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, What do you mean by "International opinion has been changing in recent years." ? So far only US politicians controlled by the Israel Lobby have supported Israeli claims. The extreme vast majority of the international community view them as illegal Israeli settlers. By just saying "Jews" next to "Arabs" you are whitewashing and normalizing the situation. The Israeli CBS will of course not refer to them as Israeli settlers for obvious reasons so there is no reason for us to reprint the inaccurate terminology they use. Other mainstream media sources linked above say they are Israeli settlers, these sources can be added to the infobox. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Bring sources that give a population for Israeli settlers. Then you can list the number of Israeli settlers. nableezy - 13:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The official US position has changed. I'm not quite sure how you define "settlers" here, however some Jews in the CBS stats (e.g. Jews still retaining Syrian citizenship or Golan Druze who converted to Judaism) may not be "settlers" and some of the Arabs in CBS stats may be "settlers" - as Jewish and Arab citizens are able to move (and reside) freely inside Israel (the Golan being annexed... Beyond Muslim and Christian Arabs moving about, you also have the Galilee Druze community moving and maintaining relations (including marriage) with the Golan Druze community - so making assumption even on the Druze settlements in the Golan is difficult in relation to "Israeli settlers"). Furthermore, depending on your definition of "Israeli", some of the Arabs in the CBS stats for the Golan may be residents of Israel and not citizens - there is a wide variety of residents, however I'll throw just one possible curveball your way here - an Arab permanent resident from (originally) East Jerusalem (again - able to move and live freely throughout Israel) living in the Golan and counted as Arab per the CBS - how would you classify that? Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
We would classify it as reliable sources classify it. SD, if you want to say x number of Israeli settlers you need a source saying that. The current source cited, the Israeli census bureau, does not do that. Get another source and then you can adjust the article. nableezy - 15:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Sharabsalam, i understand you are inclined into this thought, but it is rather amusing - Golan has historically had Canaanite/Israelite demographics in Bronze and Iron Ages and then Jewish and Iturean population in Classic era into early Middle Ages (until about 749). During Middle Ages, it has been quite sparsely populated, probably including Arab Bedouins, Druze and Crusaders coming and going. It has been since populated by the Druze, Circassians and some Alawites and Jews in the Ottoman era.GreyShark (dibra) 12:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
That's unrelated to the discussion and Jews is not ethnicity. There are European Jews, Arab Jews etc. It's not similar to Israelites which could be an ethnicity that includes many religious groups like Jews, Muslims , Christians etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the point being made by many commentators (and I would include myself) is that any of the population there now that is there as a result of the Israeli occupation (this is what I think is meant here by "settlers") is there illegally under International Law and there needs to be a way of addressing this, assuming satisfactory sources can be found.Selfstudier (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I mean yes the Golan heights are still considered part of Syria and Lebanon by the international community but the definition of settler is someone who has moved to another place. Icewhiz says that the majority were born there so that makes them native (although not indigenous). Similar to White people in South Africa we don't call them settlers now(do we?) but since this seems to be puzzling because unlike South Africa which is not considered as an occupied territory, Golan heights are considered as an occupied territory soo I think the best solution is to use the term that is mostly used in reliable sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you think Jews are not related with Israelites?GreyShark (dibra) 18:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
That depends on what you means by (a)'related' and 'related with' ('related with' is problematical to my, admittedly, British-Anglophone ear), and (b) by 'Jews' surely?Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 01:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: The BBC source you added says "20,000 Jewish settlers" and "20,000 Druze". Not only are these statistics outdated (20,000 is a number from the early 2000s), but your phrasing - "Israeli settlers" and "Arabs" - is self-contradictory (there are thousands of Arabs who are also Israeli citizens). Please self-revert. M . M 23:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The BBC source is from March 2019. Are there any Arab Israeli settlers in the Golan? nableezy - 00:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It was partially updated in 2019; the source itself, along with those statistics, are from ca 2010. And yes, there are thousands of Arabs in the Golan who hold Israeli citizenship. That's why you need to specify Jewish; even the source you added does so. Also, I don't understand why you didn't add "20,000" to the "Arab" sector as well, if you think your own source is so reliable. M . M 01:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure, Ill add 20k- to the Arab part. nableezy - 02:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nableezy: That's good, but you still didn't fix the most important part. This paraphrasing is blatant racism - a Druze Israeli who's born in the Golan is described as an "Arab", while a Jewish Israeli who's born there is described as an "Israeli settler" (yes, many of them were born there as the immigration to the Golan has decreased in recent decades). Both sources specify "Jewish", and so must we. As for the third source (I have no idea who added it), it's Turkish state propaganda and certainly doesn't qualify for WP:reliable sources. Also, if you insist on keeping the "20k" number, the "Total" sector should include "40k". M . M 09:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The Arabs living there with Israeli citizenship are ethnic Syrians who have accepted Israeli citizenship. They haven't "settled" there illegally during the Israeli occupation that began in 1967, they are native. The Israeli Jews are all settlers who settled there illegally after the Israeli occupation in 1967, they are called "settlers" by media: Reuters: [31] BBC: [32] CNN: [33] Fox News: [34]. The only "state propaganda" source used in the section is the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics that is not referring to the Israeli settlers as "settlers", in an attempt to normalize and whitewash their presence there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess I could accept the term "Jewish settlers" (even though it's rather illogical for Jews who were born in the Golan). "Israeli" is, as previously noted, self-contradictory as it either ignores or double-counts the Druze with Israeli citizenship. I also want to note that all the sources you linked to use the terms "Jews" and "Druze" / "Arabs" (some also including "Alawites"), not "Israelis". M . M 12:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
All of the sources use "settler", your personal opinion of what is "illogical" is of no relevance. Reuters uses "Israeli settler". "Settler" is an important word that describes their presence there, that's why all media use it. BBC uses Syrians for the Arabs. "Israeli" describes their nationality, which is different from the majority of the Syrians/Arabs. I could accept "Israeli Jewish Settlers" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer to entirely avoid usage of the term "Israeli". But if you do write "Israeli Jewish settlers", you must also add "(including Israeli Druze)" to the "Arab" section. M . M 12:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any source that says among the settlers of the Golan there are Arabs? If not then the division of settlers and Arabs is fine and needs no further explanation for either. nableezy - 17:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: "Anadolu Agency (Turkish: Anadolu Ajansı, abbreviated AA) is an international news agency headquartered in Ankara, Turkey.[1] The agency is state-run.[2][3]" The unreliability of Turkish media, especially the state-run, is so prominent that it's even featured in the lead of the Turkey Wikipedia article: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of the AKP has enacted measures to increase the influence of Islam, and undermine Kemalist policies and freedom of the press.[29][30] Besides, we already have two other sources for the current population stats - there's no need for the "250,000 incoming settlers" propaganda. Please self-revert. M . M 14:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Please point out exactly what text in the AA source that is propaganda. The only state run propaganda I see in the section is the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics source. It is not referring to the settlers as settlers, in an attempt to normalize and legitimize their presence in the land they are occupying, in clear contradiction to international law and international world view. Now THAT is the state run propaganda that needs to be removed from the section.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

US soldiers in Golan Heights Defense Zone?

I have encountered someone online who claims to be a US Army captain serving in the "Golan Heights Defense Zone". I don't get any Google finds on this phrase, and the claim seems dubious otherwise. There doesn't seem to be anything about US soldiers in the Golan Heights in the article. Should there be? In other words, are there any US soldiers in the Golan Heights? This is probably a stupid question and if so I apologize for presenting it, but the person says he's serving in the US Army there and so I'm asking about this. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Roy McCoy:. See United Nations Disengagement Observer Force - however the US hasn't been a part of this usually - they are in the demilitarized buffer zone. In addition, it is possible that a small number of US personnel are present (no overt units AFAIK) in the Israeli Golan. In Jordan (the southern side of the Golan) - there is (or was) a large US special-ops presence in the context of the Syrian civil war and Free Syrian Army. The Muwaffaq Salti Air Base (not Golan, but northern Jordan) has seen a greatly expanded US presence - e.g. see here coverage in 2019. Possible there were, or are, some US personnel (undeclared) on the Syrian side. Much of the special ops stuff is unpublished (or unacknowledged by the US) - so nomenclature isn't all that established AFAIK. Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Icewhiz. –Roy McCoy (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The Road Map to Nowhere

I noticed that the publisher seemed erroneous for this source by Yitschak Ben Gad and corrected it but I also added a tag. If the source is not considered reliable perhaps that the statements can be attributed. I will leave it as-is, but thought I'd notify other editors to have a look. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I could confirm that Balfour Books is still an imprint of New Leaf Publishing Group here, about which there is an ongoing reliable sources noticeboard discussion. —PaleoNeonate – 02:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Duplicated content

The second paragraph starting with "The earliest evidence of human habitation on the Golan dates" has duplicated text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.85.67 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

fixed, thank you. nableezy - 18:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Sykes-Picot agreement

The Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916 is not mentioned in this article. Map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MPK1-426_Sykes_Picot_Agreement_Map_signed_8_May_1916.jpg

The Golan Heights is in area A together with the majority of today's Syria, how is the best way to incorporate this into the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

[1] [2]

  1. ^ Fabrice Balanche (22 May 2017). Atlas of the Near East: State Formation and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1918-2010. BRILL. pp. 114–. ISBN 978-90-04-34518-8.
  2. ^ Gideon Biger; Gideon (Tel Aviv University Biger, Israel) (2004). The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840-1947. Psychology Press. pp. 228–. ISBN 978-0-7146-5654-0.

I think those 2 refs have most of the info you want, I would fit it into the beginning of the French and British mandates section.Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

"Israel lost 115 men, with another 306 wounded. An estimated 2,500 Syrians were killed, with another 5,000 wounded" should be replaced with "115 Israelis were killed, with another 306 wounded. An estimated 2,500 Syrians were killed, with another 5,000 wounded"

In a war involving two parts, if one side lost men, the other side also lost men. Not one side lost and the other side is killed. In Wikipedia, there should not be any political preferences. The above statement is mostly talking from the perspective of Israel, which is unacceptable. 96.236.145.40 (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

done, thanks. nableezy - 15:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Error on page

I do not have enough edits on my account yet to be able to fix this error on this article. The article says that the European Union has 28 member states and that is no longer true. Since Britain left, there are now only 27 member states. The mouseover popup for European union notes this and it's particularly jarring on this page which now lists the wrong number. Another editor will need to fix it. Steelbeard88 (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

duplicate content in "Israeli settlement " section

Almost the entirety of the first paragraph of the Israeli settlement section is repeated information. As this page is protected I'm unable to change it. I propose deleting the majority of the first paragraph of that section. Its very well stated previously that Israel is violating UN law by occupying the Golan heights sothis redundancy adds nothing. Bearz42 (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

To add to my original post, I believe the article should start with the already written sentence "The continued Israeli control of the Golan Heights remains highly contested and is still regarded as belligerent occupation by most countries." Bearz42 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Period of last vulcanic activity

In the article it says there is still active vulcanism in the region, correctly labelled as dubious. According to this article https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00445-013-0712-7 vulcanism has stopped there some 100.000 years ago. Can't correct it myself, but perhaps anybody with enough status can correct it, using this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codiv (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Codiv: This is not my specialty, but I'm not sure that source is sufficient. It seems to only concern a particular location over a particular time period. Please disagree if that's not correct. Zerotalk 02:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zero: You can be totally right, I do not have acces to the original article, so I only have the summary to go on. However, the present Wikipedea article states that activities have gone on until recent, but if I look at areal photo's I see absolutely nothing that looks like recent, vulcanic activity, unlike the connected area's in Syria and Saudi-Arabia. So this amount of time since last eruption seems much more likely than the recent statement I was triggered by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codiv (talk • contribs) 18:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Codiv: If you send me mail I will send you the article. Meanwhile I think "continuing to this day" is unbelievable and was cited to a travel guide so I removed it. It would be nice to have a better source with a summary of the volcanic history. Zerotalk 04:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Was Golan ever part of Palestine?

Korman' "Right of Conquest" says in a footnote on page 260:[35] "Although originally forming part of British-mandated Palestine, in 1923 the Golan Heights were ceded by Britain to French-mandated Syria (see Ya'akov Meron, 'The Golan Heights 1918-1967', in Meir Shamgar (ed.), Military Govern­ ment in the Territories Administered by Israel 1967-1980: The Legal Aspects, i (Jeru­ salem: Hebrew University, 1982), 85)."

I don't think this is correct, per the detail at Paulet–Newcombe Agreement. What do others think? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Garfinkle, Adam (1998). "History and Peace: Revisiting two Zionist myths"[36] Israel Affairs. Routledge, 135–146, shows clearly that the claim is not based on real history and more of a repeated error, or as Garfinkle calls it a "Zionist myth". You can see the 1920 line in this map: [37]. The majority of the Golan Heights within the French mandate for Syria including Syria connected to half the Sea of Galilee. So how do we go from this fact to the claim that the same line had GH as part of Palestine? I have the entire Garfinkle file, I can send it to you if you want. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
That map was drawn by user Doron (one of the best editors ever in the I/P area, whom I sorely miss) with help from me in tracing the 1920 agreement on a contemporary map and finding a British archival document with a pencil line drawn on exactly the same map. I've seen the correct line since then on printed maps but also some incorrect maps that show a bulging line where the agreement specifies a straight section. No maps, however, show more than a minority fraction of the Golan Heights on the Palestinian side. We should also remember that the 1920 agreement never intended to provide more than an interim rough border and a boundary commission to decide on a precise border. The northern part was under French control until approximately 1924. Zerotalk 06:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Zero and Supreme. That all sounds right. In particular Zero’s penultimate sentence is what I was thinking too – Korman’s “originally forming part of British-mandated Palestine” makes little sense alone, as there were no “original boundaries”. They were negotiated over three years and that was that. I assume she meant “originally forming part of the Zionist proposal for British-mandated Palestine”. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
My library has the book in which Meron's article appears. It isn't clear what language it is in but I'll take a look next week. Zerotalk 07:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Onceinawhile Supreme Deliciousness I have Meron's article. It only says that the 1920 agreement put the "northeastern part" of the GH in Palestine. The article is a lawyer's brief on why Israel should keep the GH and, in keeping with the genre, no tendentious non sequitur is off-limits. It starts with an argument that the UK and France were not entitled to adjust the 1920 agreement and goes downhill from there. Zerotalk 12:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Aha. Quality stuff then… Looks like they are bad at geography as well as history… The northeastern part! Onceinawhile (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Gulp, I have to plead guilty on that one. It says northwestern not northeastern. Zerotalk 00:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Aha! Ok that makes more sense, and is consistent with your map. From Biger p.147: Here the report mentions the major modification that was made in 1923, because the 1920 agreement dictated the setting of an international boundary through the lands of Emir El-Fa’ur. Palestine lost any foothold in the Golan Heights as a result of this change, and its boundary was moved to the west, almost following the Jordan river. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Schumacher Ostjordanlandes A2
CIA map of the Israel occupied Golan Heights and vicinity, October 1994 (cropped)
And from the 1920 agreement: …the Wadi Massadyie. It will then follow the course of this river upstream, and then the Wadi Jeraba to its source. From that point it will reach the track from El Kuneitra to Banias at the point marked Skek, thence it will follow the said track, which will remain in the territory under the French mandate as far as Banias. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I have found some historical discussion on this: Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 11#Areas of dispute. @Zero0000: you mentioned you had the map the British used. Which one do you think that was? I have been looking at Schumacher. I cannot find Skek on modern maps – I am guessing coordinates (33.16, 35.72)? And the two wadis are perhaps today known as Meshushim River and the Jilabun? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I have just found another map from the CIA (see right). It shows all the depopulated Syria villages – should be added to this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll send you the two maps that I mentioned. The course is clear except that Wadi Jeraba forks a few times and which fork to take is unspecified. (It matters only a little bit.) However the archival map shows the boundary following the most straight-ahead fork so we used that. Zerotalk 08:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I now believe the remains of Skek are at 33.173, 35.734. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Schumacher's map has Wadi Jeraba with the spelling Wadi Dscheraba. That means his name for Wadi Masadiye is Wadi es Safa. You can trace Wadi Dscheraba up to Der es Saras. Then the boundary went to Skek, which is also on Schumacher's map. Zerotalk 08:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. I imagine other maps at the time followed Schumacher, as his was (I believe) the only detailed survey that had then been carried out.
One question on your boundary map. The 1920 agreement says: From [the source of Wadi Jeraba] it will reach… Skek I believe you interpreted “it will reach” (in the French version “elle atteindra”) as a straight line – I can’t see what else it could mean, but are you certain that this is the correct meaning?
What I actually think is that there was no intention to specify a precise path, otherwise one would have been given. It was left for the boundary commission. The Banias-Mediterranean part of the boundary was even more vaguely specified. We drew a straight line because that's what the British map has. Incidentally, I have a far higher res version of the CIA map and will upload it. Zerotalk 09:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Separately, it puts an onus on “where exactly was the source of the Wadi Jeraba”. It isn’t clear to me on the maps, and river sources can be disputed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Until further information comes up, the British map is best source for the British intention. Zerotalk 09:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Aha, ok. I didn't realize that that was drawn by the British - so that is Hardinge's line? It seems that the wadi source as they defined it is in the vicinity of today's Israeli settlement Kidmat Tzvi. Which would make sense given the Israeli strategy to build settlements at high points. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I assume it is the British interpretation of the 1920 convention, of which Hardinge was the British signatory. It would be interesting to see if the French interpretation was the same. I predict it is the same, because the two parties probably played together with maps and colored pencils before writing the text. Zerotalk 11:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

short description

First, this article says explicitly that Since the Six-Day War of 1967, the western two-thirds of the Golan Heights has been occupied and administered by Israel and in the infobox it says Internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. This is by consensus, and making us have the same argument over the short description is tendentious. This is already a settled issue here, and if you want to change the super-majority view to the Israeli POV of "disputed territories" you should not be doing so by edit-warring. Dunutubble, kindly self-revert your contested change. nableezy - 14:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

First off, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Keep in mind I said your edit was in good faith.
Second, I would imagine that the Israeli POV would be that the Golan Heights is Israeli territory. Saying that this territory is Syrian would likewise be the Syrian POV. Neither of these are in anyways necessarily wrong; just two differing viewpoints. According to WP:NPOV, we need to take both these viewpoints into account. That's why I tried to help that - it is well established that Syria and Israel do not agree on who it belongs to.
Third, I apologize if any of my actions seemed harsh. I didn't intend to make it appear that I was trying to push forward a particular viewpoint (rather, I was trying the opposite). I'm sorry if my edits made the situation feel stressful. Dunutubble (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
What personal attack have I made here? And no, that is not what NPOV says. NPOV says we give proportional weight to viewpoints. The view that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel is a supermajority view in reliable sources. Your edit gave equal weight to views that sources treat as distinctly unequal. That is not NPOV. NPOV requires we give supermajority views, eg the Earth is round, the Golan is Syrian territory, considerably more weight than minority ones. It is not the Syrian POV that the Golan is Syrian territory, it is the view of nearly every competent party on the planet. nableezy - 15:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights is implicit. The US position is peculiar, I really want to say farcical, since they are signed up to the relevant UNSC resolution in direct contradiction to their individual position. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
It was more Trump's position than the US position, I suppose. It is not always possible to apply logic here. It says "cannot be legally annexed under international law." I had thought ALL annexations are ultimately illegal. But maybe there are different definitions of annexation. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:2848:B1C1:1A07:6638 (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Lede

The fact that the Syrian Golan Heights are currently occupied by Israel gives zero excuses to highlight minor Jewish history in the lede. The lede is a summary of an article, and if we are going to mention some random king named "Og", then we might as well mention the eventful centuries of the Roman, Byzantine and Islamic eras. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Scope of article

In my opinion, this article should either be repurposed to focus on exclusively the Israeli-occupied Syrian territory, or a new article named "Golan Heights (region)" be created where it could be presented as this undefined region in the Levant. I support the former option, the current situation is unacceptable. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2023

I would like to fix this, there are certain things on this page which I think are outdated. Please let me help? Liran23414578 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Cannolis (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

First sentence

or simply the Golan, is a region in the Levant

Two questions. (1) Why "a region" and not "a disputed region"? If it weren't a disputed border region, it would be far less well-known and the subject of far less controversy. In English-speaking countries, many more people know its name than the names of adjacent regions to the east or west. (2) "Levant" sounds a little archaic. Why not "Middle East"?

123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with this. Interestingly Western Sahara says disputed but Crimea does not. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The Crimea is a well-defined natural geographic area (a peninsula with a narrow isthmus), so someone might be interested in it as a natural area, while the Golan and Western Sahara are artificial entities. If humans hadn't created current boundaries (whether by agreement or military cease-fire lines), there wouldn't be an obvious reason for articles about places with these boundaries. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the intro please add that the Golan Heights is located in the Levant region of Western Asia. 2600:100C:A20A:17AF:D9D8:6C3F:C4CF:9590 (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Andumé (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical errors

Could someone please correct the following grammatical/spelling errors:

Etymology section, 3rd paragraph: "and it an Arabized version" should be "and it is an Arabized version".

Caption on image: "A mnefield warning sign in the Golan" should be "A minefield warning sign in the Golan".

Byzantine period subsection, 2nd paragraph: "were influenced by the synagogues of the Galilee but had its own distinctive characteristics" should be "were influenced by the synagogues of the Galilee but had their own distinctive characteristics".

Early Jewish settlement subsection, 1st paragraph: "but by the mid-1890s most was owned and cultivated" should be "but by the mid-1890s most were owned and cultivated".

Border incidents after 1948 subsection, 2nd paragraph: "established a de facto presence on and control of eastern shore of the lake." should be "established a de facto presence on and control of the eastern shore of the lake."

Cheers Yup (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for reporting these. Zerotalk 06:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
−
On the other hand, expressing pro-Syrian rhetoric, The Economist
+
On the other hand, expressing pro-Syrian viewpoints, The Economist
  • Why it should be changed: As it is written, it is not neutral since the word "rhetoric" has mostly negative connotations.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1]

2601:245:C100:5E5C:3978:8B2F:26A6:7870 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rhetoric#:~:text=When%20people%20listened%20eagerly%20to,just%20a%20lot%20of%20rhetoric.%22
 Note: Apart from the loaded word "rhetoric", the sentence (On the other hand, expressing pro-Syrian rhetoric, The Economist found, represents the Golan Druzes' view...) doesn't make much sense and needs to be changed. M.Bitton (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 Done I've cleaned up this sentence as well. Sagflaps (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Gamla Nature Reserve

Under Landmarks, below the pictures of Gamla Nature Reserve, I think it’s important to mention that the pictures are featuring the winter views of the region (during the winter). From April to November it has a very different look to it. it’s getting dry and yellow. דולב חולב (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we really have to be very precise about the date of a picture?
I mean, you can see the date it was created by clicking on the picture.PAper GOL (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I think it’s important to distinguish the very different views from the winter to the long summers. דולב חולב (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I know it’s important for the locals.
they’re always talking about how different are the views in this area and in Israel between summer and winter. דולב חולב (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The files seem to have been created in April, if I'm interpreting the data correctly. They look more green than yellow to me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to me to leave off the date, or to put the month and year the photo was taken in parentheses at the end of the caption, or there may be other alternatives. I'm not sure whether there are guidelines about this. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golan_Heights/Archive_15&oldid=1232379508"