Talk:Golan Heights

Reverted non agreed edits

I have reverted some non agreed edits, This IP changed and put the Hebrew first claiming: "By wikipedia's admins decision" Now this is incorrect in two ways. 1, No Wikipedia admin has here decided that Hebrew should be first about this region which is internationally recognized as in Syria. 2, even if it was true, no admin has any authority to decide a thing like that. If someone whats to ad the hebrew before arabic, you must get consensus for the change first.

Concerning the Israeli settlements. Thats the international name for the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Thats what all reliable sources call them. It is also what the CIA map says. I have now changed it to "settlements" so the "Jewish" is still there but it should really be "Israeli settlements".

I have also removed some advocacy websites in the external links section. [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is pro-Syrian

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont believe the words "filthy" or "thieve" are used in the article. You are correct on one point, a small strip of land east of the sea is in Israel. The 99% of the are called the Golan Heights that has been occupied by Israel has however never been in Israel. And is it is Syrian territory, the only official language of the Golan is Arabic. Because there are Israeli settlers in the Golan who use Hebrew we include the Hebrew. But, as always, thanks for sharing. nableezy - 13:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The article says Israel has controlled the Golan since 1967, and that Syria has controlled it from its founding till 67. And the Druze of the Golan overwhelmingly rejected Israeli citizenship and maintain they are Syrian citizens living under occupation (and they speak Arabic and French, not Hebrew). The entire world recognizes the Golan as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. I have no idea what "dis-recognize" means, but nearly every state in the world says that the settlements in the Golan violate international law and have repeatedly voiced that view (an example being numerous UNGA resolutions that pass with such numbers as 171-1, guess who is the 1, calling on Israel to cease all settlement activity in the "occupied Golan"). I am sorry if you dont like that (well, not really, amused would be more accurate than sorry), but we dont go off of what a tiny minority says. The overwhelming majority, near unanimity, of sources say this is Syrian territory held by Israel in a state of occupation. As far as Wikipedia goes, that is the end. And until you can explain how "filthy" or "thieves" is hinted I will refuse to pay that assertion any attention. nableezy - 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Improvisealot123, what first interested you in becoming a Wikipedia editor and editing this article ? I would like to know if you don't mind telling me. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why here, why now ? Because here and now is the only place you have made an edit using this userid. I am aware that you may have other accounts but I'm not interested in that aspect. I'm only interested in what it was that made you decide to start editng Wikipedia. I'm not questioning your motives or opinions. For example, did you read this Golan Heights article, decide that it was biased and set up an account or did you hear that the article was biased from someone or did you read something on the web, in a newspaper (Wikipedia is often criticised in the press e.g. a recent Huffington Post article about coverage of Malaysia) etc etc ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is pro-Israeli by not following Wikipedia rules npov, due weight and the entire world view and not presenting it as a region in Syria, as it is in reality. Where in the article are the Israeli settlers presented as "filthy thieves" ? This area could not have been "more time in Israel, than Syria" because it has never been in Israel and it has always been in Syria. The official language of the country this region is a part of is Arabic, so therefor Arabic first. Why would a language (Hebrew) with no affiliation with the country this region is part of be before the official language of this region? The language of the native 160 000 people who were expelled from this region is Arabic. What the immigrants from the Soviet Union that have settled in Syria speak: [2], can not change reality. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

End the Occupation

This article and many others are currently under a Nableezian occupation. Nableezy express his point of view by using cheap propaganda. 36 times the words "occupation", "occupied" and "occupy" appears in this article. In most cases not in quotation marks and without mentioning that this is someone's opinion. It is clear that Nableezy tries to indoctrinate his POV to the readers not only by rational arguments, but also by repeating the mantra until it is accepted by the readers. That is called brainwashing.
Nableezy and many western editors here (maybe some are even defeatist Jews) consider the resolutions of the on the UNGA as the word of god. However the UNGA resolutions are not binding. Only the UNSC resolutions are. In that particular UNGA vote in 2008, the U.S. was abstaining. The US is a major economic and political super power. It represents some 300 million people and is responsible for 20% of the world GDP. The Israelis are in a significant minority on this issue and it doesn't mean they are wrong. The majority isn't right just for being a majority.
There is a well known good old thinking American conservative saying:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Many Americans support this, whether Franklin said it first or not.
Listen to your conscious, not to the majority.
Soon, I will make changes. Megaidler (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for redacting this ranting personal attack together with the rants by a well-known sock-puppeteer. The tone is so hard to tell apart.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And soon after I will revert those changes. A number of scholarly sources make this perfectly clear point. The Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. It is not only the UN, not only the ICRC, not only the US, the EU (and each of its member states), not only the Arab Leaguem, not only almost every state on the planet that says this. And I have given a number of sources on this page and the archives (one of which is in the article now) that makes clear that the US regards the Golan as Syrian territory under Israeli occupation. UNSC resolution 497, adopted 15-0 with 0 abstentions, says "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". Note "occupied Syrian Golan". Finally, as the song goes, keep my name out your mouth and we can keep it the same. nableezy - 18:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you dispute that the Golan Heights are occupied by Israel, please bring some reliable sources that support your view and try to build consensus. Unilaterally making controversial changes to the article is a good way to get yourself blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

..and on that note, I don't think Megaidler has received a discretionary sanctions notification. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There's never an uninvolved administrator around when you need one. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to bring to the discussion? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of what you wrote in unintelligible. If your point is that Israel has controlled the territory for a longer period of time than the modern state of Syria, the article already says that Israel has controlled the territory since 1967. You want to make the leap that because of this that means the territory is Israeli. Sorry, but that is simply not true. Countless sources can be provided making this simple and clear point. That you do not like the fact that the Golan is Syrian territory held by Israel under occupation does not matter. If you want to voice the opinion, no matter how wrong it is, that because Israel has controlled (occupied is the word) the territory for over 40 years that it is Israeli territory you should get a blog. Wikipedia however will base its articles on what the sources say, and the sources say that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory. nableezy - 17:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I dont believe the article once says that "the Jews" are either "filthy" "guilty" or that they "robbed" anybody of anything. And no, you are not the only non-Muslim here. I wont be responding to any more inane accusations or unintelligible rantings. Bye. nableezy - 21:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dayan quote

There is no agreement to remove the Dayan quote. There is nothing in the article that says that "historians are very skeptical" about the reliability of his words. If you read everything in that article you can see: "They were authenticated by historians and by General Dayan's daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament" "Historians have already begun to debate whether General Dayan was giving an accurate account of the situation in 1967 or whether his version of what happened was colored by his disgrace after the 1973 Middle East war, when he was forced to resign as Defense Minister over the failure to anticipate the Arab attack." "Mr. Tal, who was then a reporter on a short-lived paper of which General Dayan was editor, said in a telephone interview that they held several conversations at the time, and it was his impression that General Dayan had been testing ideas for his memoirs, which were never completed." "He didn't intend to give a full, rounded interview said Shabati Teveth a biographer of Dayan" and at that part he spoke about the kibbutzes. Its from a reliable source and is presented not as a "truth" of what happened, but as a quote from Dayan. So there is no problem with the quote, its a very notable quote being from a defense minister which means it belongs here. And what Dayan talks about is also mentioned in other sources: Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon , and a former UN observer. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Any way this quote is too long -copyrighted- since you seem to be bent on keeping it you should summarise its content Hope&Act3! (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a copyright issue, if it had been the quote would not have been included in its entirety in The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World by Avi Shlaim, or in the NYTimes piece or in any number of other sources. And even if this were a copyright issue, the use of the quote clearly falls in the category of fair use. nableezy - 17:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

what ever the agreement received by A. Shlaim wp is not a partner in it, so I maintain that you have to summariseHope&Act3! (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And I maintain you are incorrect. This is a brief quotation which is acceptable on Wikipedia. nableezy - 20:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. In an interview in 1976, first published in Yedioth Aharanoth in 1997, Moshe Dayan engaged in Syrian propaganda? Or is it that Avi Shlaim who included this quote in his book The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab world that engaged in Syrian propaganda. Or is it that Serge Schmemann engaged in Syrian propaganda when he included this quote in a New York Times piece? If you have sources that provide quotes relevant to the topic of the article they may be used. Otherwise they will not be. nableezy - 21:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This quote appears in a number of reliable sources and not one source denies the Dayan said this. The quote is without doubt relevant to the topic of the article. If you have other quotes published in reliable sources that are relevant to the topic they may be included. If they are either not published in reliable sources or if they are not relevant to the topic of this article they will not be included. nableezy - 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The quote was definitely too long and thus have summarized it very shortly. It is doubtful anyway, as the NYT article makes it clear that what Moshe Dayan said is at best only a small part of what actually happened. We do not want our articles to look like Syrian history books, but we want them to reflect what reliable sources say. And that is that Syria used the Golan heights to attack Israeli villages and supported border excursions by guerilla groups. Pantherskin (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your so called "summary", where you removed the entire quote and replaced it with a twisted sentence, something that the source does not say, is not acceptable. The quote was not to long, it contains a lot of important, notable and interesting information that belongs here. There is no problem with quotes if you look at the entire article, so there is no problem with having it as a quote. You bring no sources for your claims, what Dayan talks about is also mentioned in: Robert G. Rabil (2003). Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 15-16, and is also mentioned by a former UN observer in the documentary "The Six-Day War Deceptions". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Pantherskin, where does the source say "according to independent historians were of doubtful historical accuracy"? You aren't allowed to add your opinions and you especially are not allowed to "cite" your opinions to sources that don't have them. Zero^talk 09:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Pantherskin is misrepresenting the sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I went looking in a newspaper archive for responses from respected historians to Dayan's remarks. I found this:

Israel, for its part, also initiated many lethal attacks against Syrian troops on the Golan, although not against Syrian villages over the border, says Haifa University professor Yoav Gelber, a leading historian of Israel's early years. The "official" Israeli explanation at that time was that Syria was always the aggressor and Israel was merely defending itself with "reprisal" actions. A few years ago, however, Israeli journalist Rami Tal caused a stir by revealing that Moshe Dayan had admitted to him in an interview that Israel had frequently started the shooting to provoke the Syrians into shooting back, which Israel could then use as an excuse to conquer strategic points on their disputed border. "This is, of course, absolutely true," says Gelber. (Jerusalem Post, "Growing up with Syria on the Golan", 17 December 1999). Zero^talk 09:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessive quotes are not encyclopaedic, in particular if they are not famous at all. As most history books simply ignore these claims by Moshe Dayan, and as the historians in the NYT article make it clear that the factual accuracy of Dayans statements is dubious we need to make this clear to the reader. Everything else would be a blatant violation of NPOV. If you want to ignore that Moshe Dayans quote is not accepted at all by historians, then start an RFC and get consensus for your version. Pantherskin (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This material has been in the article for some time, and as there is no consensus to remove it you should start an RFC or go to the NPOV/N if you feel it is not presented in a NPOV. Your opinion on whether or not this material is not NPOV does not allow you to continually remove well-source material. If you feel a POV is inadequately represented then add whatever information that you feel is missing. nableezy - 07:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

dead links

This action caused an international outcry including two condemnatory UN resolutions. Hope&Act3! (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

All of the domino links have been fixed, and in the future use the {{deadlink}} tag rather than delete the link and replacing it with citation needed. nableezy - 20:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for the repair and for the tip, Hope&Act3! (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Let us be peaceful

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Go away. Or at the very least provide a source to back your fantastical claims. Here, I'll give you one directly refuting what you say: [3]: the vast majority of the 18,000 Syrians, mostly Druze, that are left from the Golan's original population of 150,000, have refused to take Israeli citizenship. nableezy - 21:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to call this "occupation"

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you do that, you are going to get reverted. Occupation is a legal status. Drawing the conclusion from the map that the area is not occupied because it was Jewish a couple of millenia back is WP:Original Research. As for whether it is occupied or not, Wikipedia follows the conclusdions drawn in the overwhelming majority of relaible sources on international law. The other things you mention refer to took place before the founnding of the United Nations, the drawing up of the Geneva and Hague conventions and the creation of the International Court of Justice. Therefore international law deals with them differently. The UNSC etc. have not referred to the Falklands as occupied territory. They have with the Golan. Reliable Sources accord the pronouncements of the UNSC great importance as far as international law is concerned. They don't the pronouncements of historians.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

comment added 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

Read the original research policy linked in my post above. You're drawing an inference from the historic situation to the present one and that is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. Whether or not you consider it unfair, Wikipedia policy is that conclusions depend on those drawn by reliable sources on the relevant matter. A map showing the situation two thousand years ago may be a reliable source for what the situation was then. It is not for the legal situation now which requires the opinions of international lawyers,not historians.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What editors think and "refuse to" is beyond irrelevant on Wikipedia, if anyone forgot. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's end this WP:FORUM discussion perhaps? Jmlk17 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

and so it continues

Following Pantherskin being blocked for repeatedly removing the Dayan quote Jiujitsuguy has taken up the reigns, and even further violated a previous consensus on the order of the names. There was consensus on this talk page for the Arabic being placed before the Hebrew and Jiujitsuguy has repeatedly chosen to ignore that. Somebody revert this nonsense. nableezy - 16:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Show me where there's consensus for that and I'll self-revert--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Golan_Heights/Archive_4#break nableezy - 17:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do whatever the hell you want to do Nab. I'm sick of fighting with you and life's too short.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So after saying if shown the consensus for this you would self-revert you now will not self-revert after being shown the consensus for this? Interesting. nableezy - 17:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted as J hasn't despite saying he would. In fact I have rolled back to Nab's previous edit. The order Arabic then Hebrew should be preserved in view of the international consensus on which country the Golan belongs to. I'm agnostic on Dayan quote but WP:BRD makes it clear that discussion not a re-revert should follow the first revert therfore I am favouring the status quo ante. Habla's Jewish history is also discussed elsewhere in the article. There's therfore no need to say it is an ancient Jewish city in the national park section.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is internationally recognized as in Syria. Syrias official language is Arabic. So the regions official language is Arabic. You have changed to Hebrew without even discussing it here at the talkpage.

Same thing with the Dayan quote, there is no consensus at the talkpage to remove it, yet you without even participating at the talkpage removed it and added that "historians were of doubtful historical accuracy" when the source does not say this.

Also you added "Jewish" before Gamla, that is cherry picking from history. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah by Stellarkid sock redacted--Peter cohen (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand that Muslim != Arab and that Muslim != Syrian? What on earth does Saudi have to do with this? And what does "Muslims came from the Muslims occupation, and after the Zionist arrived" even mean? nableezy - 23:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I must say that I worked out a compromise on this wording that everyone agreed to, and that held up for more than a year and a half. I consider that a considerable achievement.

Now that the gang is having at it again, I guess I should buy myself some popcorn. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried looking but I cant find that. As far as I can tell this is your first edit to this talk page and you have never edited the article. But, as I genuinely think you would be able to provide as close to a solution that is acceptable to most of us, I would be interested in seeing what you think would be an acceptable compromise. If it gets everybodys agreement Ill buy you that popcorn myself. nableezy - 23:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This was all resolved by the IP as explained in his edit summary "we talked with the admins and they told us that our version is acceptable". Quite persuasive... Is it my imagination or are things getting more bizarre around here ? Sean.hoyland - talk 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, you are right. I was confused. The compromise was at Majdal Shams, and it still holds firm. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the Dayan quote. I advise anyone who wants to remove a sourced quote and replace it with false text that isn't in that source: "according to independent historians were of doubtful historical accuracy" to get consensus for the change first at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Quneitra needs compacting (and the Dayan quote)

The Quneitra section has a main article link. The subject is given far to much space here. Needs shortening. Chesdovi (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, those edits are terrible. You replaced what the sources say about Israel's destruction of that city with "ubsequently, there was a major controversy regarding the state of destruction which the town had been subjected to before the Israeli handover." Many of the edits you have made have removed or drastically reduced anything that shows Israel in anything other than the best of lights. And you have now multiple times removed the Dayyan quote. nableezy - 14:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we need all those or any of those sources here? This page is not about Quneitra. If you want to embellish the destruction wrought in that town, proceed, but make sure its not unecessarily long-winded. We also don't need the full Dayan quote. That would belong at Wikiquote. Chesdovi (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If we discuss Quneitra we should accurately reflect what the sources say. The wording you used adds ambigouity where there is none. Some of these things can certainly be reduced, but you did not simply reduced the content, you changed the content. That is my problem. The Dayyan quote has been the subject of much discussion and edit-warring. Continuing to remove it without consensus (and without even a hint of participation in the above discussion) is not exactly helping things here. nableezy - 16:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We are allowed, if not obliged, to sum up sources in our own words. In fact, most of the time that is the only way we are able to present a NPOV. There is no discussion to be had about a quote which takes up so much space. It was ludicously placed and had to be shortened in a way a feel I have done well. Chesdovi (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been discussions above about the quote, and there is no consensus to remove it. Your "shortening it" where you removed valuable information and twisted it is not acceptable and has no consensus at talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You are basically giving everybody else the middle finger by asserting that your view that the quote takes too much space and was ludicrously placed is the only acceptable one, a view that you say requires no discussion. I think you know it does not work that way. That quote has been in the article for a long time, repeatedly removing it is not wise. And you did not address the POV issues with your supposed "compacting" of the section on Quneitra. nableezy - 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a long quote should not be included in the text in its current format. Using a block quotation is more proper. Am still not convinced that the quotation in its original format belongs. This is not an essay. Points/quotes need to be summed up briefly for an encylopeadic entry. Regarding Quneitra: We are allowed, if not obliged, to sum up sources in our own words. In fact, most of the time that is the only way we are able to present a NPOV. Chesdovi (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, show me the consensus at this talkpage to remove the quote. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There is NO consensus to keep the Dayan quote. I suggested as a compromise to summarize it, and many agree with me, or discard it as the fringe opinion of a lone individual guessing outside of his professional field and as such irrelevant. I also intended to tackle the very long Quneitra section since it belongs to its proper article -well done-, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope&Act3! (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats not how its works, as it is now there is no consensus to remove the quote as can be seen from the discussions here about it. So if you or anyone else want to remove it, it is you who have to get the consensus to remove it. Could you also please explain to me how an Israeli defense minister is: "fringe opinion of a lone individual guessing outside of his professional field" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The person making the change needs to achieve consensus for it. Removing long standing text requires consensus. nableezy - 15:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the need for concensus here. An overlooked error has been rectified. Such long quotes are out of place. I have summed it up quite well, discarding the irrelevant bits. The section now makes much easier reading. Chesdovi (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well consensus is indeed needed to remove it. As I'm sure you are aware of, people at this talkpage have objected to the removal of it. And these people actually bring sources to the discussion and talk about the sources and not just join an edit war to remove what they personally don't like. What you call "error", I don't not see it as an error. I see it as an extremely important quote, everything in it is important. Now I maybe could have accepted a summary, but when I saw how information in the quote was removed and the information was twisted into something completely different, this is not acceptable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with you that it’s important. But why not have a few more 300 word quotes on the subject from other angles? We will end up with a page full of quotations. The quote was inline and was not blockquoted as required.
• Part of the quote exists on the page where it should be. We do not need a thorough presentation of the lead up to the 67 war in an article not about the war itself, but about territory captured in it. We don't need to repeat overlong quotes again and again.
• The quote is only indirectly related to the heights. The provocations were made to assert Israeli rights in the DMZ which were not considered part of the Syrian Heights. Syria did not view the DMZ as its territory. The area of the Israeli incursions was not on the elevated land, known as the heights.
• Do we really need bits like "'the Syrians are bastards, you have to get them, and this is the right time,' and other such talk, but that is not policy, You don't strike at the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you." How does this enhance the understanding of the prelude to war? Every war starts because one side feels threatened. Is Mr Dayan's every word a holy utterance that needs to be recorded?
• How is the following summary of the 300 word quote "twisted" and "something completely different"?!?

"Around 80% of the clashes started when Israeli tractors proceeded to plow in the demilitarized area. They would advance further into the zone until the Syrians would start to shoot. The Israelis would then retaliate using artillery and the air force. He added that although the agricultural kibbutzim felt vulnerable from the Syrians soldiers who fired at them, the delegation that came to persuade Eshkol to take the heights was mainly interested in the heights' fertile land."

• I would much prefer if people would occupy themselves with contributing to all areas of the article and not just kick up a fuss when extensive political quotes are removed, or the word “presence” is used instead of occupation. The Ancient history section needs more verification and other sections are needed, e.g. Transportation, Agriculture, etc.

Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the entire article there are almost now quotes at all, and the few ones are extremely short, so there is no problem with quotes in the article. Moshe Dayan is not a nobody, a quote from him is very notable. If a blockquote is needed then it can be put in a blockquote, this is no problem. You have repeated population numbers in this article alone 4-5 times. To exclude a quote here just because it partially exists in another article is ridiculous. Its of course relevant here because the Six day war changed a lot, it led to Israeli occupation of Syria and the situation today is because of the six day war. So its directly relevant. How you have "summarized" the quote is incorrect. For example, the source says that "More then 80%" and also we went from the sources: "where it wasn't possible to do anything" to "clashes started when Israeli tractors proceeded to plow in the demilitarized area." and the sources provoked retaliation from Syria went from: "and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot." to your version that its Israel retaliating: "They would advance further into the zone until the Syrians would start to shoot. The Israelis would then retaliate using artillery and the air force." This is only one example of problems with your "summary". Another is that Dayan said that Syria was no threat, this is also a huge thing, the entire quote shows a Syria that isn't a danger to Israel and Israel provoking Syria, this is not in your "summary".

Also I found some cherry picking from the The Washington report source right before the quote, it also contains: "Instead of negotiating for peace, Israel declared sovereignty over the demilitarized zone. To carry this out, it violated the prohibitions on having military forces and fortifications in the zone by disguising soldiers as police. It also aggressively developed the area, draining water from Arab farms, leveling Arab villages, driving out residents, building roads and transplanting trees in in order to move the frontier eastward to the old Palestine border. Israel refused to let the protests of the UN observers stand in the way. Swedish General Carl von Horn, of the UN peacekeeping forces, observed that "gradually, beneath the glowering eyes of the Syrians, who held the high ground overlooking Zion, the area had become a network of Israeli canals and irrigation channels edging up against and always encroaching on Arab-owned property." This policy continued well into the 1950s. Most of the 2,000 Arabs living in the zone had been forced out by 1956. Many moved to the sloping land below the Golan Heights. In response to the expulsion of Arabs from the zone, the otherwise helpless Syrian forces on the Heights began firing on Israelis, particularly when, each year, their tractors plowed further into the demilitarized zone. General von Horn was convinced the instances of firing would not have occurred without the specific Israeli provocations." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you noted that “This is only one example of problems with your "summary”, for I would like to first point out one of the glaring omissions from your synopsis: the large amount of “suffering” of the Israeli civilians because of the Syrians soldiers who fired at them, but we will leave that for the moment. I am also keen to know why the removal of Hafez Assad’s quote (reproduced here for your convenience) went unchallenged. "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." However, regarding the Dayan quote:

• You insist on stating “More than 80%”. First he says “at least”, then “more than”, then “about”. Is this really a sticking point? We could eliminate the problem by using the whole quote: “After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent.” But is that really necessary? Does it really make a difference? He says himself: "let's talk about 80 percent.”

• What difference does it make that they were sent to plow in “area where it wasn't possible to do anything”. Would the Syrains not have minded if it was fertile land? This point is emphasising the extent of the Israeli provocation, so we can impress this, as I have already suggested.

• The same with “would advance further into the zone until the Syrians would start to shoot”. You want to impress the extent of the intent of the provocation by stating the fact that they “knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot”. We can add that too. We do not however need “If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.” That is contained in my version: “would advance further into the zone until the Syrians would start to shoot”.

• Whether Syria was a threat or not is of no consequence. It is all very well in hindsight to say they were not a threat, but at the time Syria had declared its intentions of entering into a “battle of annihilation” and had began a massive shelling of Israeli towns. Again, we need not be so particular here as only a short summary of the war is needed in this article. We are not going to reproduce the whole section about the Golan Heights contained in the Six Day War page here.

• The Washington Report is, while making a fascinating read, a highly partisan source which needs to be used with caution. None of the material you have reproduced was included beforehand. It is an opinionated piece by a liberal professor with an anti-Israel agenda.

If we are going to have quotes, let’s have some which deal directly with the subject matter at hand. The Golan. 80% of the Dayan quote is to do with the pre-67 skirmishes. (Thanks for adding the Venus of Berekhat Ram and Kursi.) Chesdovi (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said we should leave out the "Israeli suffering" from the quote. It was there when I added it, I never removed it. Also interesting that you removed the quote saying it was to long [4] while for some reason not touching the other part of the quote after from the kibbutz leader. The plowing part "where it wasn't possible to do anything" makes a difference because its shows what their intent was, to provoke. No, the "If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot." is not in your version, the original quote shows the provoking, and if Syrians wasn't provoked, Israel would provoke even more until in the the end... This is nonexistent in your version: "would advance further into the zone until the Syrians would start to shoot" And the "retaliation" that you flipped around that I mentioned above. This quote deals directly with the subject matter at hand - Golan. This quote shows what led to the occupation of it, expulsion of its people, demolition of 150 villages. I asked you before to show me the consensus to remove the quote, and you still have not shown me it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed to remove an illegal quote occupying too much space:

• "Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information."
• "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."
• "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information." (400 quoted words from a 500-page book were ruled to be infringement and you have quoted 300 words from one article.)
• "Editors are advised to exercise good judgment and to remain mindful of the fact that while brief excerpts are permitted by policy, extensive quotations are forbidden."
• A quote should not be used "where it presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. It can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."
• ”Many direct quotations can be minimised in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text.“
• ”A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. “
• ”Consider minimising the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both.”

Take a look at: WP:QUOTE. Chesdovi (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE is an essay that clearly says that it is "not a Wikipedia policy or guideline", so you cannot cite the contents as rules. In fact I agree with most of what is on that page, but I don't agree it eliminates this quotation you don't like. There is no chance whatever that it violates copyright laws. Zero^talk 10:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the quote, but the way it was presented was incorrect. The WP:QUOTE lead explicitly states: "This page sets out guidelines for such use in Wikipedia articles," (an apparant contradiction?) And the material is copyrighted. Chesdovi (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, that quote was not originally published by the NYTimes. That quote was from an interview conducted in 1976 and first published by Yedioth Aharanoth in 1997. The quote appears in a large number of sources as you can see here, or here, or here and in many journal articles (which I unfortunately cannot link to as they need a subscription to access). The NYTimes piece is indeed copyrighted, but NYTimes does not own the copyright on that quote. The quote, even if copyrighted by the original publisher, would qualify under fair-use. Indeed that is how it shows up in so many places. nableezy - 16:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dayan's recollection is confusing. He says: "Of course they wanted the Syrians to get out of their face. They suffered a lot because of the Syrians. Look, as I said before, they were sitting in the kibbutzim and they worked the land and had kids and lived there and wanted to live there. The Syrians across from them were soldiers who fired at them, and of course they didn't like it." Well, if they didn’t like it, why did they continue to provoke them or attempt to stop those intent on doing so?! Also, it unclear from his words what exactly they gained from these actions. Why did they provoke them? Becasue they were borded? That remains a mystery. Anyway I have reworded the paragraph to include emphasis as discussed above:

"Around 80% of the clashes in the years leading up to the 1967 war started when Israeli tractors proceeded to intentionally plow uncultivable fields in the demilitarized area. In order to provoke the Syrians, they would advance further into the zone until Syrian soldiers positioned along the overlooking hills would start shooting. The Israelis would then retaliate using artillery and the air force. He added that although the inhabitants of the agricultural kibbutzim felt vulnerable and suffered greatly from the Syrian soldiers who fired at them, the delegation that came to persuade Eshkol to take the heights was mainly interested in their fertile land."

From Chesdovi (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Those who entered the DMZ was not individual people: "We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther". Your "summary" is not following the source and is therefor not acceptable. You still have not shown me the consensus to remove it. Please re ad the entire quote. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is "we"? To re-add the entire quote is out of the question. Chesdovi (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hasmonean map

This map:[5] is not based on a real source. (Original text : eigen werk) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

History

Its land on earth. The earth is millions of years old, so of course its history stretches back further then biblical times. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No. The Earth only looks millions of years old. In truth, All-h made it 5770 years ago. Chesdovi (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Demarcated

The area is still demarcated as Syria in maps, UN, internationally recognized borders etc. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been an incredible amount of pov pushing here

These last two days there has been an incredible amount of pov pushing, twisting the facts, cherry picking and removal of texts from the article by Chesdovi. I don't even know where to begin because the changes are so massive. I ask you to please revert everything you did and then bring up the changes you want to make here for discussion first. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, the main changes I made are:

1. Clearing up Attractions and historical sites.
2. Removing 99% of the material about Quneitra.
3. Adding a Demographics section.
4. Moving The Druze section to Demographics.
5. I have put the area involved into proportion by adding: "...0.65% of Syria's total landmass and amounts to nearly 6% of the area under Israel..."
6. Changing the following para.

"Between 80,000 and 109,000 Druze, Arabs and Circassians fled or were driven out during the Six-Day War. For security reasons, Israel has not allowed them to return. Israeli settlement in the Golan began soon after the war. Kibbutz Merom Golan was founded in July 1967. By 1970 there were 12 Jewish settlements and in 2004, there were 34, populated by around 18,000 people."

to

"During the war between 80,000 and 131,000 Syrian Arabs, Druze and Circassians fled or were driven from the heights and around 7,000 remained in the Israeli-controlled territory. Israel has not allowed former residents to return citing security reasons. Israeli settlement in the Golan began soon after the war. Merom Golan was founded in July 1967 and by 1970 there were 12 settlements." Chesdovi (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when are Druze not considered Arabs? That's an Israeli peculiarity, not universal. FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when were the Druze and Circassians in Syria not Syrians? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the source, such a distinction isn't even made, and Druze aren't mentioned by name at all. So Chesdovi, please try to actually cite the sources you're using instead of just making stuff up. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I am working mostly with original material at present (see the top version) and am not checking sources; but thanks for clarifying that point. It may be worth noting the ethno-religious makeup of the exiles elsewhere. Chesdovi (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I re added two sources supporting that the name "Syrian Heights" have been used, there is no reason to remove them. I removed "An attack by Syria" in the lead, we can re ad the "attack by Syria" when we ad that the 1967 war was an "attack by Israel." I removed the "Shifting rule" in middle ages, The entire History section consists of "Shifting rules", so there is no reason to point this out at the middle ages. I changed "Mandate for Palestine" to "Mandates" as this region was part of the French mandate of Syria so there is no reason to put the most irrelevant mandate in the name, while excluding the mandate it was a part of.

I re added the quotes from the UN observer as its a very notable person. I have also added three other sources that have published information about the comments of the UN observer. In these sources he has now been identified as Jan Mühren and the clip is from a Dutch current affairs program "Nova" that was shown on 4 June 2007.

You rearanged the names and put the the Hebrew before Arabic, in the first sentence of the article and in the infobox, first vertically,[6] then horizontally [7] This region is internationally recognized as in Syria. Syria official language is arabic. You can not put another language before or in the same position as the official language of the region. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, why did you remove the quotes from the UN observer? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

They were sensational and from an unreliable source which is probably copyrighted. I know Zero will tell me essays don't count, but they do. Chesdovi (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a quote, so its no CopyVio, you have added several quotes these last days while removing those I ad. How were those four sources unreliable? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I just can't take any of the criticism seriously when part of it is based on what name comes first. In regards to the video, if it is copyrighted material it is contributory infringement and cannot be linked to through that page. You can cite episode without a link but then you still need to address if the comments were given undue weight and overly sensational. Cptnono (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It is a copyright concern. We cannot link to a video on a website that is violating someones copyright.Cptnono (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the sources I had added contained a transcript. And since all of us here have seen the video and know what he say we can ad the quote without the video link. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, however reliable the transcript/video looks, (where on earth is the "Mannopam Gate"?), we have to remember that a self-published website is not deemed a RS per WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:NEWSBLOG and anyone can create or manipulate a video clip/transcript and upload without external editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. Both the Atlantic Free Press & DeepJournal websites fall under these categories. Chesdovi (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Annexation"

I propose to remove the annexation box which is full of unnecesary meaningless clutter and replace it with "Although the law in effect annexed the territory to Israel, it was not formally annexed." Chesdovi (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Proceed to remove together with POV and FACTUAL tags. Chesdovi (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1967 population

• According to the The Arab Centre for Human Rights in the Golan Heights: NGO Report and The Middle East and North Africa 2004 (pg. 604), the original population was 147,613 (1966). 131,000 were expelled to inside Syria and 7,000 remained. (What happened to 9,613 people?)
• The Damascus Centre for Human Rights Study, says that Israel expelled 130,000 Golan inhabitants. [8]
• A letter to the GA from the USSR estimated that according to Syrian there were 115,000 people living on the Golan before the war. (This included included 17,000 Palestinian refugees. 6,000 remained.)
• Israel estimates the original population was around 90,000.
• I propose to use the termination based on an article published in Haaretz: "According to most estimates, in 1967, the population of the entire area conquered by Israel there ranged from 130,000-145,000. The data are based on the census and a calculation of natural growth."

Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Chesdovi, regarding this edit to the lead and specifically "The continued Israeli presence in the Golan Heights remains highly contested but is recognised by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the UN charter on a self-defence basis." I have a couple of questions. I can't see page 265 in google or amazon. What does it say ? Which states are being referred to for example ? Secondly, you are adding this to the lead but it isn't in the article body as far as I can tell. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article so this needs to be in the article before it can be considered for the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mention any state in particular:

"Whether or not Israel’s action in extending it law to the Golan Heights is interpreted as amounting to an act of annexation, it is clear that its conquest of the Golan Heights has not given rise to recognised rights of sovereignty. UN resolutions on the question have all reaffirmed that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible; and Israel’s legitimate security concerns have not been regarded by any state (except Israel) as furnishing an exception to the applicability of this principle. The continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights is recognised by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the UN Charter, on a self-defence basis. Israel, on this view, would be entitled to exact as a condition of withdrawal from the territory the imposition of security measures of an indefinite character…..But the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory which it occupies, or to act beyond the strict bounds laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention, has been universally rejected by the international community-no less by the United States than by any other state." Korman, Sharon. The right of conquest: the acquisition of territory by force in international law and practice, pg. 265.

Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just had finished typing out the text. But the text in the article is a slight misrepresentation of the source. It says that the occupation itself is recognized as consistent with the UN Charter, but not anything beyond that. By the subtle change of "occupation" to "presence" we distort the meaning of the source. The source makes clear that Israeli actions such as the Golan Law that violate the 4th GC and the laws of belligerent occupation are not recognized as valid and indeed have been "universally rejected by the international community". nableezy - 16:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I beat you to it! The sentence I added:

"The continued Israeli presence in the Golan Heights remains highly contested but is recognised by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the UN charter on a self-defence basis. However, the international community rejects the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory."

That the territory is viewed as "occupied" is already mentioned twice in the lead. (The last bit specifically mentions "belligerent occupant".) I cannot reproduce the original quote in its entirety, and using the word "presence" is quite appropriate, bearing in mind Israel's view on the matter and that we are to present a NPOV. Chesdovi (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

But the issue is that the view is that Israel may occupy the territory under the UN Charter. When you write the "Israeli presence" you go much further than that. It implies that the current situation is acceptable according to "many states" and each of those states has emphatically rejected the current situation as being inconsistent with international law, including the UN Charter. Israel's "presence" goes beyond what the laws of belligerent occupation allow. The sentence implies that the Israeli settlements in the Golan are consistent with the Charter, they are not. The sentence also implies the imposition of Israeli civil law over the Golan is consistent with international law, it is not. If we are going to include such a sentence we need to accurately reflect the source. You write tghat we need to "bear in mind Israel's view on the matter", fine, but you are writing a sentence on the international community's view on the matter, not Israel's (and I have yet to see a source where Israel actually disputes that the Golan is occupied territory). I would write it as follows: "While the international community has accepted that Israel's occupation of the territory as being consistent with the UN Charter as falling within the right to self-defense, it has also repeatedly affirmed that Israel's rights to the territory are governed by the law of belligerent occupation and that any actions that Israel has made outside of those bounds are invalid." or something along those lines. nableezy - 17:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I will think about/work on this tomorrow. Regards. Chesdovi (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel's "presence" may not be valid, but your point is. I suggest replacing it with "control", (Military occupation: "...control and authority..."). Chesdovi (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I may be all right with that, but I have to think about it. nableezy - 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

By all means. Chesdovi (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

All right, I am fine with it so long as we include the line you added yesterday, "However, the international community rejects the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory." But, the link in belligerent occupant should be to military occupation, not Israeli-occupied territories. See WP:EASTEREGG. nableezy - 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, in the current status section you added, you highlight only one line from 242. Another relevant line is "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". nableezy - 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I also want to add cite from 497, or any of the other ones. Chesdovi (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, the lead does not once mention that the international community nearly unanimously agrees that the Golan is Syrian territory held under occupation by Israel. It did specifically say that in the past. Could you find a way to reintroduce such a sentence? nableezy - 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, do you plan on making these changes? nableezy - 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

JVL and CAMERA (& Rothschild's estate)

Chesdovi, please removing everything you added from these two unreliable sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Before I added info from CAMERA, I checked this and noted in the summary section that User:PalestineRemembered stated that CAMERA "is a source that should only be used with great care". Chesdovi (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The RSN case you link to shows that Camera is only considered reliable by a few of the more notorious POV-pushers. Zero^talk 08:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And where has it been determined that CAMERA is unreliable by NPOV editors? Chesdovi (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliability has to be established, not unestablished. Anyway it is quite obviously a political advocacy organization and as such cannot be used as a source of fact any more than any other political advocacy organization. In this case it doesn't matter, because you cited it in relation to a place that lies 10-12 km outside the Golan Heights. The fact that CAMERA doesn't mention that inconvenient fact is a fine example of why it can't be trusted. Zero^talk 13:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Rothschild's stolen land may lie 15km away from the political boundary of the Golan, but as stated in the Geography seciton (uncited) "To the east and at lower elevation, the plateau merges into the Hauran plain of Syria; the limits are not clearly defined, although Wadi Ruqqad and Nahr Allan are sometimes considered geographically". Also note that a third of the Golan Heights is occupied by Israel, 1,200km2. The other third, 600km2, lies within Syria. By viewing this map, one visually estimate that the other third includes the area which straddles Wadi al-Allan, the area in question. Chesdovi (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If we use CAMERA, we might as well use al-Manar. CAMERA is notoriously biased, and were behind the recrution of Wikipedians for Zionist propaganda purposes a while back. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

FunkMonk, not the same at all, CAMERA is a notorious unreliable source that have engaged in deception at Wikipedia. No one has ever proven anything published by Marsad to be false. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The cite from CAMERA can easily be replaced. What needs to be determined is whether mention of Rothschild's estate can be made here. Chesdovi (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have found the following sources:

• "In 1894 the French-Jewish banker Baron Edmond de Rothschild bought a large tract of land for Jewish settlement in the Golan.” Encyclopædia Britannica
  
• "In the end, Rothschild’s only major land purchase east of the Jordan was in the Golan, to the north of the Yarmouk river. The Golan site was too distant from other Jewish colonies and by 1914 its isolated settlers withdrew.” Frontiers of the State in the Late Ottoman Empire: Transjordan, 1850-1921
  
• "In 1892…Rothschild bought the holdings of these 3 groups. He ended up owning a large amount of land in several villages in the Golan by special order of Istanbul.” Records of dispossession: Palestinian refugee property and the Arab-Israeli
  
• "This future prospect underlay the decision to purchase a large tract of 80,000 dunam in the Golan (1891) and the efforts to begin concentrating land holdigns in the Lower Galilee, undertaken by the Baron’s chief official..” The claim of dispossession: Jewish land-settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948
  

Should I re-add the material? Chesdovi (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Golan page states: "The boundaries of the province today are Mount Hermon to the north, Jordan and the Sea of Galilee to the west, the Yarmouk River to the south, and the Allan River to the east". This view is taken from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Rothschild's villages straddled both sides of this river, e.g.: Naffa (22,000 dunams), so I will add words to this effect. Chesdovi (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is quite easy to check for yourself that the Rothschild estate which the paragraph refers to is outside the region which 99.9% of sources call the Golan Heights today. The boundaries you quote from Golan describe the position of an ancient province in terms of modern features and is quite irrelevant. You don't seem to have any source that takes the Golan Heights to the Allan River. Zero^talk 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the boundaries given by the ISBE do in fact serve as a boundary assessment of today’s current Golan plateau. Although the Golan article refers to an ancient city, it states that the city had given its name to a larger area and that this country must have corresponded roughly with the modern Jaulān. When it describes the “current status”, it cannot be referring to the ancient district of Gaulanitis, as he further notes that the ancient town of Golan may have been located in Sahm el-Jaulān which actually lies east of Nahr al-Allan, so the ancient the boundaries must once have extended beyond the Nahr al-Allan, eastward, as far as the upper course of the Yarmuk, but the author unambiguously limits the eastern borders of the Golan's "current status" to the “Nahr al-Allan to the east.” Chesdovi (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The name "Golan Heights"

Although the name "Golan" is ancient, I am unable to find any definite usage of "Golan Heights" prior to 1967. Can anyone else find one? Zero^talk 09:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume what you want to define what this page should cover - just the political entity created in 1967 or the geographical location, which would include areas over the '67 line. Currently it covers both, but as you correctly state, today the “Golan Heights” usually refers only to the territory Israel controls. The article does mention that Israel controls 2/3 of the Golan Heights, although this is uncited. I have found an 1829 reference to "Golan Heights, Syria" (The Encyclopedia Americana International Edition, pg. 330.) Other early books refer to the "Syrian Heights" (Lands of the Moslem, (1851), pg. 341 and The trees and plants mentioned in the Bible, (1895), pg. 57) A Hebrew book from 1927 refers to Ramat Hagolan (הארץ: ספר לידיעת ארץ ישראל, pg. 75) while others refer to the "Golan Plateau". (A day in Capernaum, (1892), pg. 113.) I still have not found sources which give the precise geograhical boundaries of this area. Chesdovi (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't trust the year shown by Google Books as it is very often wrong (one of my main peeves about it). The Encyclopedia Americana you found is a 1970 edition even though it has "1829" written beside it; try searching for "1970" to see the copyright page. The other examples don't work as "heights" or "plateau" are in lowercase and so are descriptions rather than names. (In at least one of them, "Syrian heights" is clearly referring to the mountains rather than the plateau.) My Hebrew is primitive, but I suspect that example is also not clearly using "ramat Golan" as a name but is using a description analogous to "Golan plateau"--please correct me if I'm wrong. So my question remains open. On the other hand we don't have an article on the Golan region except this one so I am not completely opposed to covering a larger area. My main concern is that we carefully follow the sources in regard to use of names, and at the moment we have no source using "Golan Heights" for more than what Israel controls. Zero^talk 12:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This source states: "The Golan Heights is divided into three areas consisting of a Syrian-controlled area, an Israeli-controlled area, and a buffer zone—the Area of Separation (AOS)—monitored by the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)." Chesdovi (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

al Jābiyah of the Ghassanids is referred to as being “on the Golan Heights”. This area is well inside Syrian territory. Chesdovi (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Eastern border of the Jawlan (Golan)

Regarding the Golan’s eastern boundaries, I have found two extremes:

• Nahr al-Rukkad, which is approx. along the ’67 ceasefire line: Its eastern boundary as “defined approximately by the valley of the Rukkad River”. Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel (Patai, 1971)
• The Haj Road, much further east, past Nahr al-Allan: “The province (The plateau of the Jawlan) is bounded … on the East by the Haj Road”. A handbook for travellers in Syria and Palestine, (Murray, 1868) and “The eastern border (of ancient Gaulonitis) can only be determined by the modern boundary of the Jawlan, namely the Haj Road, which separates it from the Hawran. The Journal of sacred literature (Kitto, 1854). Chesdovi (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This Hebrew map writes "Golan" on a rather small region, but doesn't show boundaries. Zero^talk 13:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This one shows the word "Golan" diagonally across 3 tributaries, the middle one being al-Allan. Chesdovi (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Areas of dispute

Chesdovi, you write that part of the Golan was part of the British Palestine Mandate which was to become the Jewish national home. I think we all know this isnt exactly true. The entire Mandate was never planned to be "the Jewish national home", "the Jewish national home" was to be established in the British Mandate, not replace the British Mandate. The sentence reads as though the intention was to create a Jewish national home on all the territory of the mandate and the UN Partition Plan shows this to be a fallacious statement. You also write that the territory was "unjustly" ceded to the French Mandate. How was it "unjust" (the cited source says no such thing)? nableezy - 17:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would the supporters claim the previous boundary line if they agreed it was later superceded? They claim the 1923 agreement was unjust, not the Brits. Some go as far as saying Britain had no right to cede the Golan to the French. Chesdovi (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"unjustly ceded" is in the narrative voice. The complete sentence is The region was unjustly ceded in 1923 to the French Mandate in Syria, primarily in exchange for French concessions in the oil rich areas of Iraq. The source provided supports all of the sentence except for "unjustly". If there is a source saying that those claiming the Golan as rightfully Israeli territory claim this action was "unjust" add that source and reword the sentence so that "unjust" is given as the view of those people. Something like The region was ceded, unjustly according to XYZ, in 1923 to the French Mandate in Syria, primarily in exchange for French concessions in the oil rich areas of Iraq. Also, since I have your attention here, there are unresolved issues in #Lead. Please take a look. nableezy - 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Chesdovi (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Nableezy is conceding too much. Howard Grief's book is a complete load of bollocks, he is the worst kind of extremist. Britain did not concede the Golan because it never had it. At the end of WWI it was all under French control and only a small sliver was tentatively given to Britain in the 1920 agreement (see below). Zero^talk 10:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

During these last weeks, how much text has Chesdovi added to the article that isn't following the sources? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope it wasn't over 80%. Chesdovi (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see the map on the page that shows the 1920 and 1923 boundaries. It is simply not true that the Golan was ever part of the British domain. Only a small fraction was. The adjustments made in 1922-4 actually enlarged Palestine (due to major changes on the Lebanese border) and the changes in the Golan area were largely in response to Zionist pressure (getting control of the whole of Kinneret and the main water sources was far more important than a bit of farming land). I'm far away from home at the moment but this is something I can bring excellent sources on. The "claim" made by some activists to the Golan on the grounds of what happened in 1920-4 is similar to the claim for all of Jordan. It is mostly based on historical mythology. To say that Quneitra was ever in the British Mandate is just rubbish. We shouldn't be giving space to the flat earth society. Zero^talk 10:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis mentions the "western Golan Heights and Quneitra triangle": here, and another book "the northern Golan, technically British territory": [9]. But Adam Garfinkle writes:

"The loss of a fraction of the Golan was more than compensated by securing all of Lake Tiberias and important tracts of land in the Yarmuk Triangle and north and northeast of it. As Moshe Brawer, an expert on Israel's borders put it: 'From the perspective of the possibilities of exploiting the Jordan and the Yarmuk for the needs of Eretz Israel, without having to depend on the goodwill agreement of the French, the Newcombe-Paulet line' was from any respect very important for the good of Eretz Israel'. Most important in this regard, according to the 1923 boundary, Syria is not a riparian to the Sea of Galilee; under the 1920 boundaries, it certainly is. And clearly, too, this is one reason why independent Syria has never accepted the change. Now, let us revisit the 'Golan-is-Israeli' arguments in this light. First, the tentative map agreed to in December 1920 included in Palestine part of, but by no means most of, the present day Golan Heights. How did it go? From Banias, the included area swung south and then east towards but not including, Quneitra and then southwest to Wadi Hawa, and following the wadi into Lake Tiberias. In other words, it excluded all of Mt. Hermon, present day Neve Ativ, Keshet, Ein Zivan, Ramat Magshimim, Gamla, even Katzrin. It also excluded almost all of the line of extinct volcanos - that are said by some to compose the essential strategic value of the Golan to Israel. Thus, the current argument that the Golan was part of Palestine misses most of its own strategic point..."

But After seeing a variant map showing the 1920 line swinging further eastwards than our one, including the fact that Garfinkle avoids mentioning Merom HaGolan from his list, I would update our map with a version that puts the 1920 boundary as being around 20% of the current Israeli-held section. Chesdovi (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The 1920 boundary on "our map" was carefully traced from the original British map that was published by Toye (see the image page for the citation). On the original map (send me email if you want a scan of it) the boundary can be seen to precisely follow the verbal description that appears in the 1920 treaty. That is not true of the version you found. The treaty says "On the west, the frontier will pass from Semakh across the Lake of Tiberias to the mouth of 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 theFrench mandate as far as Banias." The original map has a straight line from the source of Wadi Jeraba to Skek (which is the east-most point on our map), whereas the one you found misses the water courses by quite a bit, has a strange bulge out towards Quneitra, and leaves Skek far outside the British domain. The north-east part is well south of where the track from Skek to Banias was. It is clearly a rough approximation made without benefit of the original map. I'm not too surprised since it is quite hard to follow the verbal description on a modern map. On the map used by the British, it is easy to follow. Incidentally the area of the Golan portion is barely any different, since the extra amount enclosed by that bulge is offset by the inaccuracy of the watercourses and a large area omitted around Skek. Zero^talk 13:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I cant see all the pages in this book but I have managed to find this: "In exchange for this part of the Golan Heights, which would remain in Syria, Palestine would receive all of the Sea of Galilee (as mentioned before, the lake was supposed to be split according to the 1920 agreement) together with the...." [10] There is a lot of more details in this book how the Zionist movement pressured the French and British for land and water in Syria and Lebanon. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dayan quotes

How is it exactly that a quote that had been in this article for a year has been removed for POV reasons (and replaced by an inaccurate summary by a user that has consistently misrepresented sources in a wide range of articles) but we now have, as the very first quote in the section, a different Dayan quote? Please explain to me like I am a five year old, why is a quote from Dayan about the nature of the border skirmishes not acceptable but one about the kibbutzes "suffering greatly" is acceptable? Besides the obvious reason of which POV is bolsters which shouldnt be a factor in this. I say shouldnt instead of not because I am quite certain that the only reason that one quote was removed and another highlighted is POV. nableezy - 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazing what has happened here, Chesdovi without consensus repeatedly removes the quote, which is about that Israel provoked Syria. And then he cherry picks that 1% of the quote he personally likes and puts it in huge quotations so everyone can see, really changes and misrepresents the meaning of that interview. Why hasn't this guy been notified about ARBPIA yet? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It is really quite outrageous. Chesdovi, you are heading at full speed to a topic ban and it will be entirely your fault. Zero^talk 13:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)