Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Arabic name

Whoever wrote the Arabic translation in the intro for Haḍbat al-Ǧūlān really needs some basic Arabic lessons. It should be, هضبت ألغُلن —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.133.109 (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the Arabic name, not a "translation", and I'm restoring it.--Doron 16:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You would probably know better than I, but the transliterated name "Haḍbat al-Ǧūlān" does not match the Arabic rendering of the name; the Arabic read as "Hadbah al-Juwlan" presently. I won't mess up the article but either the script or transliteration is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.133.109 (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Arabic name is correct as it is right now, that's for sure. As for the transliteration, a subject of which I know less, what I do know is that there are different standards, and according to some of them, at least, ج is written as Ǧ (see Romanization of Arabic). The ة at the end of هضبة is a ta' marbuta, not a ha, and is thus written (and pronounced) as T.--Doron 21:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Arabic name is هضبة الجولان or مرتفعات الجولان. The pronounciation in IPA is a(l)-(d)ʒuːlaːn or a(l)-(d)ʒawlaːn. Egyptians would say al-guːlaːn. DrorK (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

Is there any reason why this isn't in the article? -lalabox --210.56.71.193 (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC) the demographics should include only legetimate residents, not those temporarily living in illegal jew settlements Hamas4life (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lede and geography re-write

I have performed a re-organization and re-write of the lede paras, based largely on the existing writing as well as adding considerable factual data regarding geography and geology (my profession). These additions highlight the strategic importance of the Golan Heights, which was previously down-played, and therefore not NPOV. It also includes the removal of much repeated material. I could add more, but for now, I believe it is adequate. Comments? Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Strategic importance

As far as I know, Israel has "always" considered the area to be of vital importance for the security of their country from Syrian attack, which is why they have never been prepared to give it back.

Now I read this article in a German online magazine about how Olmert apparently tries to use negotiations about it with Syria as a red herring to divert from the controversy in Israel around his personal conduct or policies or whatever, which mentions not only that apparently he has already offered the Syrians to give it back but also that "Israel's senior citizens consider it vital for Israel's security".

Is this just because the Young are foolish or has the area somehow lost its strategic importance, maybe because of the Israeli nuclear arsenal? --Cancun771 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire (1517-1917) Golan - Syria

A very important fact that during the Ottoman Empire (1517-1917), the Golan was considered a part of the Syrian (Southern) district of their empire. This is not mentioned and should be implanted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwedishArab (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't any district in the Ottoman Empire called Syria. There was a the district of Damascus which was divided into subdistricts. It is true that the Golan Heights were not part of the subdistrict of Jerusalem, but the whole region was considered part of the district if Damascus. DrorK (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Referred to by media as Syrian territory?

Re this edit by AreaControl with edit summary "rv anon attempts to whitewash article": this edit restores " ...but is usually still described as "part of Syria" or "Syrian territory" by the media..." and gives a BBC article as a reference. I read the reference and did not see either a statement that the Golan heights are Syrian territory, nor a statement that the media usually describe it as Syrian territory. The reference doesn't seem to contain the phrases "part of Syria" or "Syrian territory", either. Therefore the statement restored appears to me to be unverified. Also, a statement about what the media usually describe it as might need to specify the media more specifically, e.g. what country's media. I suggest deleting that part of the sentence, leaving the whole sentence as just "The area has remained under Israeli occupation since then."; this seems to me an accurate reflection of the BBC article, which describes the status of the territory as "Israeli-occupied"; unless someone finds other sources. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria". First line, in bold. Thanks AreaControl (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I missed the obvious. I'm sorry. Nevertheless, that's just one article calling it that. I did a web search and found a number of news articles mentioning the Golan heights, and (unless I missed it there too!) I didn't see any saying it was in Syria; one talked of someone crossing into the Golan heights from Syria, which seems to me to imply the opposite. So, in my opinion, we can say that it's been referred to by a news source as being in Syria, but not (unless we have other sources) that it's usually referred to by the media as Syrian territory. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, only 1200 sq km of the Golan Heights are currently under Israeli control, while it is a common convention to describe the this plateau as stretching over 1800 sq km. Therefor, geographically speaking, third of the plateau is within Syria anyway. I don't know, though, if that's what the BBC report meant. DrorK (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but it seemed to refer to the whole area. --AreaControl (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted "but is usually still described as "part of Syria" or "Syrian territory" by the media". The words that had appeared in quotation marks in the article don't appear in the source given in the footnote. Please don't put these words in in quotation marks unless you supply a source from which they're a quote. To me, describing something as "in Syria" might have different connotations from saying it's "Syrian territory". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise. Although I consider the Golan to be Syrian territory I would never try to make Wikipedia biased. The simple fact is that my grasp of English language technicalities is not perfect and to my understanding "in country X" and "part of the territory of country X" meant the same thing. I trust your language skills to be more advanced than mine as (presumably) a native. Sorry AreaControl (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's quite all right. Some native English speakers may disagree with me! But when there's disagreement, it's good to use the same words as in the source; and certainly if there are quotation marks, then the words must be exactly the same as in the source. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To explain: to me, "territory" means land in the context of ownership or control of the land. Saying something is "in Syria" may mean the same thing, or as far as I know it might be possible that they're using "Syria" as a vague geographical term, just to explain where something is rather than who has rights to it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(<<outdent) I like this wording: "The geographic area lies within, or borders, the countries of Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan." [1] I agree with Hertz1888 that it's "carefully-crafted" and balanced. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Syrian Golan Heights

The UN officially call this land the Syrian Golan heights[2], [3]

The UN documents and resolutions do not imply that the status of this land as a Syrian territory is questioned or disputed. They frankly say it is SYRIAN land (full stop)

I'm surprised that this page endorses the Israeli POV of the situation vs. the UN clearly defined status.HD1986 (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The UN maps officially say that the Republic of China doesn't exist. So what? Does it mean it does not exist? The UN opinion is respected but it has no greater value than other respected opinions. DrorK (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are not supposed to endorse particular POVs; see WP:NPOV. What words on this page seem to you to be endorsing a particular POV, HD1986?

I think this article uses "Golan Heights" because that's the term that's most often used in the reliable sources, for example the media. However, this article should not assert or imply that "Golan Heights" is the (only) correct term. This article should not endorse one POV about who has sovereignty over the land. However, this article should describe all the significant POVs.

I suggest adding "or Syrian Golan Heights" to the first sentence. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The term Syrian Golan Heights is used ONLY by people or organizations that wish to emphasize the view that the Golan should be handed back to Syria. Ordinary people from both sides of this conflict use the simple term Golan. It is true that prior to 1967 the term "The Syrian Plateau" was very common in Israel when referring to the Golan Heights (back then, the name "Golan" was considered somewhat flowery), but the use of this term died out quite quickly, and today it is no longer used by Israelis. DrorK (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on a web search: Time magazine uses "The Syrian plateau" in 1996 [4] but it looks to me as if they're using it as a descriptive phrase rather than a name. A book uses it in 1995, apparently as a name. arab news calls it "Golan heights" and seems to me to use "Syrian plateau" as a descriptive phrase. A book in 2004 (The Time of the Burning Sun By Michael Bernet) seems to me to be using it as a name. So apparently there are sources using "Syrian plateau" as a name, including relatively recently.

I suggest adding "Syrian Golan Heights or Syrian plateau" to the first sentence. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, had the term "Syrian plateau" been used in these sources as a name, it would have been written "Syrian Plateau". Furthermore, in Bernet's book this term is mentioned in the context of the 1967 war, and as I mentioned above, back then, it was indeed a common name in Hebrew for this place. There are hardly any Israelis who use this term today, and I didn't see it in Arabic either, except in a political context (and then it is usually called "the Occupied Syrian Golan"). Finally, these evidences are enough for a footnote, not for the leading paragraph. The overwhelming majority of sources mention the name "Golan", and this information is quite enough of for the leading paragraph. DrorK (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point that "plateau" isn't capitalized, DrorK. What about the phrase "Syrian Golan Heights", used by the UN? Should it be in the first sentence, or added as a footnote, or is it best to leave things as they are, where "Syrian Golan Heights" appears in the article within a quote of the UN? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If we say "Syrian Golan Heights" a couple of weeks will pass and someone will arrive demanding that we include the word "Israeli" as well. Let it lie if only to preserve a decent article from Political Correctness. AreaControl (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to make things clear - Hebrew, Arabic and English speakers refer to this area by the same name (with minor phonological differences). Any adjectival addition is politically motivated. It's not like American Samoa, which is called that way in order to distinguish it from Samoa (or previously Western Samoa), and it's not like British Columbia, in which the adjective "British" is part of the name (saying the Canadian province of "Columbia" means nothing. It is the Canadian province of "British Columbia"). In our case saying Golan or Julan is quite enough. The UN say "occupied Syrian Golan" (BTW, I checked - the word "occupied" is not capitalized, and "Syrian" should be capitalized anyway) because it wants to make a political statement. The UN is international, but it is also a political organization with political agenda. DrorK (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we really discussing whether the Golan is Syrian or not? please!

The first sentence must say that the Golan heights lie in SYRIA. What Israelis or pro-Israel think on such issues is worth NOTHING, absoloutly nothing ... I believe that most normal people on this planet recognize the UN and its laws, and so should Wikipedia ... Am I wrong or what? HD1986 (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that you have admitted your bias, your ability to edit objectively and collaboratively is very much in question. Perhaps it is time for you to read (or re-read) WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you recognize the UN and internationa law or not? Do you consider the UN to be biased? HD1986 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh God! Hertz1888 means this Theodor Herzl?! and I'm the biased!

You have no right to be in charge here. HD1986 (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No relation to Herzl, but what if I were. Your bias really is showing. And I'm not "in charge" here. Wikipedia is not about my views or yours. We are editing an encyclopedia, and a cornerstone of WP policy is reliable sourcing, nowhere more so than on controversial statements. In the present matter, the wording you are attempting to replace describes the geographic location of the region. The political dimensions are also treated in the introduction; it strongly and repeatedly emphasizes—and sources—the disputed nature, Syrian viewpoint, international condemnation, etc. The wording you see was arrived at after previous discussions and compromises. I believe it displays a healthy balance and should be left undisturbed. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you consider the UN-defined international borders and the international laws a form of "bias," then it is clear that YOU are the one who has a big bias problem not me.

The Golan Heights entry in Encarta is written by a Jewsih man, yet he says in the first line "Golan Heights, region in southwestern Syria, occupied by Israel since 1967. Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved."

ALL world countries, including the US and without a single exception, consider the Golan a Syrian territory. I don't understand on what ground this fact is being "discussed" on Wikipedia?!

Actually, the only territory in the region that I'm aware of being disputed is Israel itself, which much of its current territory is considered an occupied land in international law and UN resoloutions. There are over 30 countires that don't recognize the state of Israel all together. What is disputed is not the Golan but is actually, Israel. Sorry for having to say that.HD1986 (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

HD1986, you said "To Hertz, I believe that most normal people recognize the UN-recognized international borders as the only legitimate borders. Wikipedia shouldn't advocate extreme anti-international law views." Do you really mean that Israel recognizes the Golan Heights as being in Syria? Please don't revert repeatedly, but discuss. The Wikipedia article must not assert one side of a dispute. It must not state that the Golan Heights are in Syria, and it must not state that the Golan Heights are not in Syria. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

HD1986: what don't you like about the current version? It seems to me that it doesn't say that the Golan Heights are in Syria and it doesn't say that the Golan Heights are not in Syria. It's ambiguous: "The geographic area lies within, or borders, the countries of Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan." What's wrong with that? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The article conveys a false impression that the status of the Golan as a Syrian occupied territory is not clear or debated. Israel is the only "country" in the world that is debating the status of the Golan. When you introduce a geographic area in an encyclopedia, you have to say clearly in which country it lies, your personl POV does not matter, and again it is worth nothing ... There is no legitimate bases for having this discussion, it is just clear bias. I ask again for the 2nd or 3rd time ... do you people recognize international law and the UN-recognized international borders or not?? HD1986 (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish we could focus on the article as a whole. A lot of time has been spent debating the name and location (I have been involved once). The problem is we now have people blasting the UN as "biased", accusing each other of various religious affiliations and even debating what each other's usernames might mean. What on earth is wrong with "Golan Heights", qualified later in the intro with "occupied by Israel". AreaControl (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The UN is biased because it needs to be biased. As I said it is an international organization, but it makes political decisions, and takes political actions. That's what it meant to do. Then again, we cannot use it as a model for neutral terminology. DrorK (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, my apologies for jumping the gun there. AreaControl (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Golan is NOT A TERRITORIAL DISPUTE

Any attempt to make it look like that is a form of falsification. The UN, international law, and every single country in the world (except the disputed country of Israel) recognize the Golan as a SYRIAN OCCUPIED TERRITORY. This is the legal status of the Golan as recognized internationally. The "territorial dispute" status does NOT apply. The article shouldn't give a FALSE presentation of the situation. HD1986 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The UN and most countries do not recognize Taiwn (officially, Republic of China) as an independent state, and consider it a province of the PRC. Does it mean we should write about Taiwan as if it were part of PRC? The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognized only by Turkey. Any other country or international organization consider it part of the Republic of Cyprus. Should we write about that Republic as "the occupied Cypriot north"? Argentina claims the Falkland Islands. The UN rejects this claim and ignores it. Should we avoid mentioning the Argentinian claim or define it as "abnormal" because the UN doesn't accept it? I can give some more examples, but I wouldn't like this post to be too long. Currently and practically there is no occupation in the Golan Heights - there is a normal civilian Israeli administration there (unlike the West Bank, which is under military regime). Syria keeps claiming the territory, and its claim is supported by the UN and many countries (though the 242 and 338 SC resolution demands that Syria recognize Israel before settling the Golan issue). This is the situation, and this is how it should be described. DrorK (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Golan is not a breakaway province unrecognized by the UN, the Golan is UNANIMOUSLY recognized as a Syrian occupied territory worldwide. Golanis (and I mean the local Golanis not the Russian, Polish, Chinese ... ones) identify themselves as Syrian citizens under foreign occupation. The comparisons up there are not only invalid but are also ridiculous.HD1986 (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there are no Russians, Polish or Chinese living in the Golan Heights. There are Israelis (mostly Jews) and non-Israelis, of which some still identify themselves as Syrians, some identify themselves as Druze and a few even accepted Israeli citizenship. I am not arguing with you that there is a dispute over the territory. I am arguing with your conviction that the territory is Syrian. In practice it is not. If you want to get there, you'd better buy a flight ticket to Tel Aviv, not to Damascus. I can give you more examples of territories in similar situation: would you call Western Sahara an independent state? In practice it is Moroccan controlled, like it or not. Would you adopt the Moroccan view about Ceuta and Melilla? Would you adopt the Syrian view about the Gulf of İskenderun? I don't see why we should treat the Golan differently. Is it because Israel is involved? DrorK (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry HD, introducing politics into this article is not an option. Stop reverting! DrorK (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Biased article?

The current Golan Heights article is a product of "consensus" between Jewish extremists (Zionists) who don't even recognize the UN and consider it to be "biased" (as stated literally by themselves) and between supposedly neutral editors whose neutrality is disputed by many Arab users of Wikipedia.

Thus, the article in its current version represents very much the Israeli view of the Golan Heights (i.e. a disputed territory held by Israel and claimed by Syria) but it is much different from the Arab and the worldwide official view (a Syrian territory occupied by Israel). The Arab view is endorsed by the UN and all world countries except Israel. The Israeli view is endorsed only by Israel and the current Wikipedia article.HD1986 (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would state which words in the article appear to you to need to be changed. Suggested new wording, and citations to support your arguments would also be helpful. Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already tried to make one very little, but sufficient, change, which is to change the first line to: "The Golan Heights (Arabic: الجولان‎ al-Jawlān, Hebrew: הגולן‎ ha-Golan) is a strategic plateau and mountainous region at the southern end of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains in southwestern Syria."

This is similar to the Encarta entry: "Golan Heights, region in southwestern Syria, occupied by Israel since 1967." Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The UN, US, EU, Russia, China, ... Liechtenstein, etc. all regard the Golan Heights as Syrian territory occupied by Israel; unless the article states these two words, it will be misleading, and the biased article section should be brought back to the top. HD1986 (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the Israeli point of view probably doesn't agree with that, and given the relevance of Israel to this topic I don't think it would make sense to discount the Israeli point of view as a tiny minority that can be left out of the article. So, I don't think the article can state as fact that the Golan Heights are "in Syria". However, if you or someone can find reliable sources to support what you're saying, the article might be able to say something along the lines of "Such-and-such countries recognize the Golan Heights as being in Syria". Various problems might be avoided by finding a quote like that, summarizing positions of many countries. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually much of the bias lies in sentences like: "The Golan Heights remain disputed by Israel, with an ongoing Syrian claim for the land to be returned." The wording is very provocative, and is, in fact, a form of deliberate falsification (i.e. lying). Syria is not disputing the Golan Heights with Israel nor is claiming it to be returned.HD1986 (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The phrases "remain disputed" and "ongoing Syrian claim" were added by me and are intended to make the article more neutral (i.e less towards the Israeli POV) hence my use of the word returned. This article is not intentionally pro-Israel nor for the most part is it accidentally pro-Israel AreaControl (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Alla ya3teek l3afye ... When you say something is "disputed" and someone is "claiming" it sounds like its status is unclear and one of the parties is maintaining without proof that he has the right in it. One might think when reads this that this is just another territorial dispute like the dispute over Alexandretta between Syria and Turkey.

With a "claim," you go to a courtroom, but with a "demand" you go directly to the police station because you already have a clear sentence and you just need law to be enforced. HD1986 (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay let's be genuine for a moment. The occupation of the Golan Heights is an atrocity, it is monstrous and anyone who maintains otherwise is probably an American conservative or an advocate of Israeli foreign policy. But HD1986, you can't actually write an article on that principle because people will object! The territory is disputed purely because Israel disputes it, with two disagreeing parties one has a dispute. What would you have us say? Please, what would you write in the lead paragraph? We are doing our best, encyclopaedias do not endorse a particular view. AreaControl (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already changed that sentence to a better one. HD1986 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently the Golan Heights are part of Israel. You can rejoice it, you can mourn it, you can wish it changed, you can wish it stayed this way. The very fact on the ground is that this territory is administered as part of Israel, despite continuous Syrian claims that it should control this territory. The Golan Heights is one of many disputed territories in the world. The case for all of them is simple - what's the status quo and what are the facts on the ground. There are no atrocities whatsoever happening in the Golan Heights. In fact it's been one of the calmest regions in the world since 1974. Now, if you want to make this article a piece of Syrian propaganda, you'll be violating the very essence of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. The kind of source that tells you what is actually the case, and not what certain people wish for or advocate for. BTW, Syria claims that the Hatay Province of Turkey is a Syrian occupied land. Should we describe it as such in order to appease Syrian emotions? The United Nations claim that the Republic of China doesn't exist. Should we overlook the existence of the Taiwanese government in order to align with the UN resolutions? The Kuril Islands were taken by Russian forces from Japan at the end of WW2, and Japan still claims them from Russia. Should we describe them as Japanese islands in order to appease Japanese national feelings? DrorK (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

One other thing - if you think the BBC style book is going to become the Wikipedia style book, you are wrong, and I say it with all due respect to the BBC (despite the fact they haven't replied any of my e-mails about awful factual errors I found in their Middle East reports). DrorK (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we describe Northern Sri Lanka as territory of Tamil Eelam because the LTTE administers it? AreaControl (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry HD, introducing politics into this article is not an option. Stop reverting! DrorK (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actualy my only change was that I changed "disputed" to "held by Israel" which is less biased and describes half the reality. (The full realty would be "occupied by Israel.") I also expressed the Syrian current position in a way closer to what the Syrians are really saying, which is the business of the Syrians and not of anybody's else. Taking these changes as an excuse to cause disturbance is pathetic. You shouldn' try to solve your insecurity issues here. Why don't you go finish your business with the UN and BBC first and then come back? HD1986 (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is not a single UN paper that does not call this land the "occupied Syrian Golan" [5] [6] This is the official status of the territory ... occupied Syrian Golan HD1986 (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

HD1986, you made this change which changes it to "The Golan Heights remain held by Israel, with an ongoing Syrian demand for the land to be returned as it is still Syrian territory under international law." Please provide a reliable source for the statement about international law. I suspect that the international law statement may need to be made more specific: the UN? particular treaties or conventions? Just saying "international law" sounds rather vague to me. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You have seen all these links and you still can't think of anything specific when you hear "international law"? ... Fine, see these links [7] [8] HD1986 (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the links, HD1986, particularly the first one. I've changed the wording about international law to be more specific. Also, as the paragraph already says "The area has remained under Israeli occupation since then", I've removed "The Golan Heights remain held by Israel" as unnecessary repetition. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting article that was published in an Israeli newspaper in 1997 [9]. For anybody who is interested in the Golan, the man quoted in the article, Moshe Dayan, was the one who occupied the Golan in 1967. HD1986 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That page should be implanted in the the article showing how the Israelis stole the Golan. That it wasn't from Syrian aggression but Israeli greed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.151.228 (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this political debate and start concentrating on the facts! You can bring dozens of unreliable sources making all kind of delirious claims. I think HD proved in his own words that he is not interested in improving the article, but to make it a political statement, and I think he should stop editing this article. I am all in favor of bringing new useful facts or improving the article's phrasing, but this is not what HD tries to do, not to mention turning this talk page into a political debate. DrorK (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I regard the present introduction (at the moment this was written) as the most fair and sensible version ever, thanks in large measure to the work of DrorK. I hope there will be a strong consensus to leave the intro. alone and get on with other improvements - minus the politics.

It is time, belatedly, to set the record straight. I never blasted the U.N. as biased, as I was accused of doing (much as the U.N. may deserve it), after which that false reading was picked up and repeated. Anyone who cares to go back and read carefully will see that the bias I was reacting to was the offensive anti-Israeli attitude openly displayed by "our friend" HD, whose later comments only confirmed such bigotry. Anyone who tries for objective, balanced editing (and I believe that applies to most here) must be part of a conspiracy involving "Jewish extremists (Zionists)"; a Jewish-sounding username obviously explains any contradiction or disagreement. I fail to see how any editor with such clear anti-Israel animus (ill will) can legitimately edit any article involving Israel with any objectivity.

It really is time to clear the air and try to edit only in a constructive, collaborative spirit, without letting "us vs. them" polarization constantly pull the text back and forth. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you say. Anyone who reads the UN general assembly's last resolution in 2006 [10] will feel that it is very harshly-worded against Israel. In fact, most UN resolutions are harsh with refrence to Israel. But guess what, these anti-Israel resolutions by the UN represent the international community's POV, and most people would be very interested to know how the UN and the international community regard the issue of the Golan more than how Israelis do. You cannnot remove this information from the article and replace it with Israeli POV. Anyone who reads the UN resolution [11] and cpmpares it to the current wiki article will find how extremely bised is the current article toward Israel and that it completely sympathizes with Israel, the occupying power. This article needs rewriting from scratch to get closer the internationl, neuteral, POV expressed in this link [12].

Even if you concluded that I'm anti-Jew, you have to admit that my anti-Jewism is supported by UN docments. HD1986 (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Drork, if you want to rewrite the introduction, make sure that you don't touch the the sourced sentences that refer, in a softly-worded way, to the UN resolutions' content. HD1986 (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Borders Syria?

In the article it says: "borders, the countries of Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan." How can it border Syria when it is an integral part of it? It should instead say: "Golan is the region of southwestern Syria" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.151.135 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the whole sentence, it says, "The geographic area lies within, or borders, the countries of Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan." If it lies within Syria, then this sentence is true as far as Syria is concerned, because the word "or" is there. This is a carefully-crafted NPOV sentence which can be agreed on by people with various POVs. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It says "lies within, or borders"... then Syria should be mentioned first in the sentence after that since it lies within Syria and it borders occupied Palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.151.135 (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you, Coppertwig. I will take credit [13] for that ‘carefully crafted’ NPOV edit, despite what some people [14] may say. You may also note [15] that my edits to the lede, Etymology, Geography and Economy have largely stood the editorial test of time. I take pride in that NPOV fact, and will let the sticks and stones fly elsewhere. Like everyone, I have my biases, but that is very different than striving for an NPOV presentation on Wikipedia.

Having said that, however, the Swedish anon85 has a valid (but minor) point, with which I agree. Since Israel is virtually alone in their POV of the Golan; a more neutral POV (say, UNGA or UNSC) would tend toward placing Syria first. Even the official US govt POV, not well known for neutrality in this particular arena, is that the Golan is occupied and illegally annexed Syrian land. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, CasualObserver48, for that carefully-crafted sentence. I can't even take credit for first calling it "carefully-crafted"; it was Hertz1888 who called it that. So, are you suggesting changing the order of Syria and Israel, making the sentence " The geographic area lies within, or borders, the countries of Syria, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan."? That sounds logical to me. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I would also appreciate if you made the edit (w/ a ref to talkpage), when discussion is finished. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"American President Woodrow Wilson protested British concessions in a cable to the British Cabinet."

?? I can not find any source for this?

I think its made up and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.134.27 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ancient history

It should be implanted in the article that Joshua and the Israeli tribes had invaded Bashan and fought wars against the Amorite King Og, thats how the ancient hebrew presence started.

Now it just says that there were two Israeli tribes without explaining how they got there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.134.27 (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that we would use a reliable source for this (not the Bible). Many scholars believe that the Hewbrews started off as ordinary Canaanites and that there was no Exodus, no invasion. dougweller (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The map

The image map named (Golan heights rel89B.jpg) used to show the map of Golan heights is not accurate and needs to be amended.

• It implies that the Golan Heights area is the yellow part. And that is not correct at all, that part is the part occupied by “Israel”.
• It is not showing the real eastern boundary of the Golan Heights in any line.
• On the eastern boarder of Golan the map shows two lines none of which is the geographical or the administrative line of The Golan heights. Line A and B are the disengagement lines as mentioned in the second map. And there is no line that shows the eastern boundary of Golan Heights.
• I Suggest an additional line should be added to show the line of “Wadi a Raqqad” at which the Golan Heights ends and Hauran plain starts.
• If the map would use a color, if any, to identify the area of Golan Heights the color should go beyond those two lines to include the land until “Wadi a Raqqad”. كهيعص (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The borders currently used in this map are political or military borders which reflect several agreements signed fist by the British mandate over Palestine and the French mandate over the Levant, then by the State of Israel and the Republic of Syria. There is the 1923 Anglo-French international border, the 1949 Israeli-Syrian ceasefire and demilitarized zones' lines and the 1974 Israeli-Syrian disengagement lines between these two countries' armies. If I understand you correctly you suggest we add internal Syrian administrative borders. I don't think these borders are so relevant to the average user of the English Wikipedia. DrorK (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The current map gives a an untrue and false information of (at least) the eastern boundaries of the Plateau. Now, this is not an article about the occupied part of the Golan Heights, nor the Golan heights as seen by "Israelis".

To make my point clear I say: There are many villages which are Syrian, under current Syrian control and are in the Golan Heights, but, according to the map shown in the article, are not considered within the Golan Heights borders.

I believe we should add those villages to the article and the map, draw a line along the Raqqad vally (not any administrative line) as an eastren boundary to Golan Heights, with deleting or expanding the yellow color to reach the Raqqad Valley. كهيعص (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have a point, even though the natural eastern borders of the Golan are not too clear (the western border is very clear - it is where you "fall down" to the Hula Valley/Sea of Galilee), and the southern slopes of Mt. Hermon, which are politically related the the Golan Heights, are not part of it geographically. Anyway, it is accepted that the disputed area controlled by Israel makes up 2/3 of the entire geographical region. You could add an additional geographical map, and I don't see why the villages situated in the part bordering the Horan region won't be mentioned. DrorK (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)