Talk:Golan Heights

Etymology and Geography

Those two sections are pretty good and informative. However Etymology is unreferenced. Geography has only boundary with Jordan and Israel's water supply referenced, using common knowledge for the rest. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"One thousand one facts everyone should know about Israel" is an unreliable source. It is authored by Mitchell Geoffrey Bard who is the director of the Jewish Virtual Library [1] His book repeats the myth that "Golan was part of Palestine mandate", it talks about "Syrian snipers "and "artillery attacks" up to 1967 while not mentioning the provocations. I have replaced the text with text from a better source. Also, why was only one part from Byzantine history mentioned in the etymology section? It was presented as if the region was only part of "Palaestina Secunda" and "Trans Jordan Holy land" ? This source show Gaulanitis was annexed to Roman Syria. This source shows at points where Susita-Hippos was part of Syria Palaestina while Baniyas was part of Phoenicia Prima, which itself was part of Syria Secunda: [2]. Why only mention one instance from Byzantine history and put it in the etymology section presenting it in a clearly inaccurate and non neutral manner? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

SD, I love both new Moshe Sharon and E. A. Myers sources you have added to Etymology, keep up the good work. I also glad to see there is no contradiction between Bard and Myers about etymological questions. Aramaic roots are important. Maybe we should expand, per Myers about period when Golan was separate administrative unit. I have doubts though about UN as etymological authority, looks irrelevant linguistically. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

How is "occupied Syrian Golan" not part of its etymology? Its a part of the historical development of its linguistic form, representing terminology supported by the international community. I looked at the source for "Arab cartographers of the period referred to the area as jabal..." the source did not contain it. The text you added about Byzantine periods is incorrect in several different ways, it is not presenting the entire picture of entire Byzantine rule, and what does it have to do with etymology? And why did you re ad the source from Mitchell Geoffrey Bard when I showed above that its unreliable? [3] The source doesn't even support the text you added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting ;) Golan is part of SYRIAN Arab Republic. This is why we have Arabic first. This is edit where page number was added and this is UN rational. Etymology is not about politics it is about roots. Hope it helps, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And the pages does not support the texts you added. Etymology: "The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning" [4]. "occupied Syrian Golan" is a "historical development of a linguistic form" and: "and changes in form and meaning". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have problems accessing the Irfan Shahîd book, page 87? Nice etymology definition ref, I agree with it. I still maintain that UN is not etymological authority but that is just "my vote". Maybe other editors would like to express their opinion.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see the footnote. "One thousand one facts everyone should know about Israel" does not say anyhitng about lenght or dimension of the area. The text in the article didn't say that it was "etymological authority", it was specifically presented as terminology used by UN resolutions and organs. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've found the Mitchell Bard, never heard of him before. Where are you going with it? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, can you explain what Byzantine periods, Perea and Bashan incorporated into Batanea has to do with etymology/toponomy? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Now you have problem with multiple reliables sources? Did you see the book about toponomy, discussing Golan Height and commenting on Perea? Try to read provided sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing of it has anything to do with etymology or toponomy, and I asked you twice for an explanation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

SD, sorry I have work, wife, kids, sport activities all that comes first before Wikipedia on my TODO list. Don't feel ignored if I lag with my answer, I might be just too busy with the "real world". However the answer was given number of times. I don't mind repeating myself. According to sources provided, for instance Irfan Shahîd book, Byzantine period is important since it was time when Golan was separate administrative unit. We talk about it also in other sections of the article, like History. Meaning also in Byzantine time they might also have separate article for Golan Heights, like we have now. I'm not a big expert on toponomy, but my impression of the provided sources consider the period important. 07:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again you did not address how the text you added had anything to do with etymology or toponomy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

According to sources provided, for instance Irfan Shahîd book, Byzantine period is important for toponomy since it was time when Golan was separate administrative unit. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What page in that book says Byzantine period is important for toponomy? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

SD, did you try to access the provided refs and read them, before removing them? The sources talk about Golan's toponomy in context of Ghassanids, Arab Christians kingdom, part of Byzantine empire. Their capital was on the Golan and named Jabiyah. The book says was the first time Golan became separately administrative unit, which is notable. Enjoy reading. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If the sources talks about toponomy in the context of Ghassanids, Arab Christians kingdom, part of Byzantine empire, then how come nothing of the text you added had anything to do with toponomy in those regards?. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Because we talk about it in Ancient history verbosely. I guess in Etymology and toponomy, though those topics are kind of historical, it is better to concentrate on roots and place names. I especially like Perea (Holy Land), since:

• it is mentioned by sources in toponomy context
• the topic is notable by Wikipedia
• reader who is curious and decides to follow would see Gauliantis on the map

I think wikilinks are cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The text in the ancient history section is the same as the text you added to the etymology and toponomy section, why does this same text have to be twice in the article? Specially considering that you were concerned about the length of the article that you removed one sentence:[5] What sources talks about all of this that you added here [6] in toponomy context to the Golan Heights? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, you said above that the UN is not etymological authority and I explained that the text in the article didn't say that it was "etymological authority", but that it was specifically presented as terminology used by UN resolutions and organs, so why do you keep on deleting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supreme Deliciousness (talk • contribs) 10:40, 9 October 2010

I guess now we have two additional discussions here and here. SD, Please see etymology and toponomy definitions. And I know those are not reliable sources, just Wikipedia ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Respond to this: [7], or you don't revert it one more time. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I already did, but I don't mind repeating myself. Scholars have found that toponyms provide valuable insight into the historical geography of a particular region. It would be interesting to see a WP:RS making connection between UN political definition and the science of toponomy. And btw we talk about current status also in the lede and in the body verbosely. I hope we have no additional question about Byzantine period. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not put together this conversation I started here related to UN with the other conversation about Byzantine as they are two separate subjects. What source says that toponomy is only about insight into the historical geography of a particular region? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is worth using Outdent template. I guess we're discussing the article generally, at this stage. My concern is that this article would not become unreadable pile of sources, and would remain readable, dispute its huge length. I have serious concerns that some readers would not be able to finish the article and might fall asleep in the middle. Generally everything is interconnected. Do you have comments regarding style? I'd like to hear about it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Length has been discussed before, its half the size of what the biggest size should be, and the text you removed was one sentence, if you want to remove text based on that the article is to long and fix the length by removing one sentence, then start a new conversation about that, and then after agreement, you can remove the text in question. What source says that toponomy is only about insight into the historical geography of a particular region? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed we're jumping from issue to issue in this and other discussions. This is my understanding of etymology and toponomy, I reviewed your sources, those are irrelevant to this particular section. Do you want to discuss additional sources? Maybe other editors would like to comment. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You said, "Scholars have found that toponyms provide valuable insight into the historical geography of a particular region.", can you show the source that says that this is the only thing that toponomy is? Here is a source that says about etymology: "The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning", so how is "occupied Syrian Golan" not part of this when its a "historical development of a linguistic form" that happened after the occupation: "changes in form and meaning", that was presented as used by the united nations? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh great Shai Hulud ;) I already explain number of times, above. Do you want to bring some sources with tie occupation with toponomy? I'd be glad to discuss. Maybe other editors would like to comment. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You have never explained what source says: "Scholars have found that toponyms provide valuable insight into the historical geography of a particular region.", and I have shown you twice this source expalining etymology: [8], you first response was that your personal believe was that "UN is not etymological authority", and then I explained to you that the text in the article didn't say that it was "etymological authority", it was specifically presented as terminology used by UN resolutions and organs. You then linked to two Wikipedia articles, neither of those support exclusion of "Occupied Syrian Golan". You have not shown me one single source that contradicts this etymology source [9]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already told you, I agree with AvJudith H. Anderson. We note about modern Golan Heights, per EdgarSMarshall: The name Golan Heights was not used before the 19th century CE, though connecting "occupied" adj to toponomy might be challenging. Don't you want to hear what other editors would like to add? After all Wiki is about collaboration. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not connecting "occupied" to toponomy, I'm connecting a name used by the United Nations, presented as a name used by the United Nations to etymology, per what etymology is. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite this topic is certainly of tl;dr type, I read it. Twice. And still I don't get it. So, can we please have a brief summary of the positions or even the proposed content, if it's not too much to ask? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here it is, I believe: 1: Administrative divisions within the Byzantine era has nothing to do with etymology or toponomy and should be removed from that section. The text in question is already in the ancient history section and does not need to be repeated in the irrelevant etymology and topology section. 2. The name used by the United Nations was presented as a name used by the United Nations and it should be in the etymology section as it is a historical development of a name and its meaning has changed since it was occupied, this is relevant for etymology, see this dictionary:[10]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Great. Let me make sure I get it right:

1. from the etymological point of view we need to cover the development of the word "Golan" over the history (including UN definition, disputed).
2. from the toponymical point of view, we need to list the names of the place over the history (not including larger areas, disputed).

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

First is right I think, second not really since the text Agada added has nothing to do with names of Golan. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, may be I wasn't clear enough. I'm not asking who added or removed what, I'm trying to find a guideline to resolve this dispute. If you disagree with (2), please define, as general as possible, what needs to be covered from the toponymical perspective. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you asked for if that was the dispute. Yes, I agree with both those two points of yours. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Now if Agada can agree on this too, may be we can work something out. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a bit vague but both (1) & (2) appear like a decent basis for discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. Let's deal with (1) first. The etymology of the word "Golan" definitely includes the historical names ("Jawlān", "Gablān", etc.). Does it include the names currently used by intl. and government papers, and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElComandanteChe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It includes the name of the United Nations because this is the worlds biggest international organ and the name it uses should be mentioned as a name used by the UN. Dictionary says about etymology: "The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning". The name of the region was for the UN transformed to the "occupied Syrian Golan", dictionary says: "historical development of a linguistic form", the name was born as a result of the occupation: dictionary says: "changes in form and meaning", this is relevant. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I can see here some valid points, but some weak points too. Agada? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, UN is the biggest international organ. If we include UN view we might include also Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel (Golan district or whatever they call it) and also other major international players like China. However occupied is adjective, like beautiful or nice, linguistically it is not part of name, rather a description. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. So the positions are:

• SD: UN is unique, thus notable; "occupied Syrian Golan" is the name per UN.
• AU: NPOV requires more versions by other notable authorities; "occupied" is not a part of the stable linguistic form.

I'll try to figure out the way to consensus and reply tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'd suggest reading this to Agada. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I guess my last reply wasn't clear enough: I can see strong and weak points in Agada's position too. Please let me sum my thoughts and then we will discuss them later. Hope I will be able to help. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I did my best analyzing the arguments. The summary contains a consensus proposal and it's implications. If the sides can accept it, we can move on to toponymy.

1. Inclusion of neologism in etymological perspective is possible, given a good reason. Notability is a good reason, so compromise and consensus.

2. Occupied Syrian Golan is a lexical form, no matter the syntactic role of its components. My dictionary says that lexical form is

A meaningful unit of language, such as an affix, a word, a phrase, or a sentence

3. Occupied Syrian Golan is a widely used form, says Google (query).

4. Laying occupied Syrian Golan as the primary term used by UN requires secondary RS. Also, I wasn't able to verify it on my own by searching Google books:

Term	Author	Results	Query
occupied Syrian Golan	United Nations	1,440	query
occupied Syrian Golan Heights	United Nations	125	query
Golan Heights	United Nations	1,870	query

"Golan Heights", excluding "occupied Syrian Golan Heights" was found 1745 times, and "occupied Syrian Golan" - 1440 times.

5. UN terminology is important, and can be included. So the terminology used by other important involved bodies, like Arab League, superpowers, Syria, Israel.

Summary:

• Given a secondary RS (WP:NEO doesn't apply here, but gives an idea of sourcing neologisms), occupied Syrian Golan can be included, but then other terms will find their way into this section.
• I believe that in this case the section will stabilize on something like this (which, being properly sourced, is pretty cool, if you ask me).

  Today the area is called occupied Syrian Golan and Golan Heights by UN, Syrian Heights in Syria and by Arab League, Golan Heights in US, Golan Heights and Golan in Israel, Golan by Israeli settlers and Jablan by local Druze population

• Another option is no neologisms in etymological review.

If this is acceptable, SD and AU have to agree on a single point: are neologisms in or out. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ElComandanteChe, the last link of yours where you state that "Golan Heights" has 1870 hits used by the UN is incorrect, if you look at the texts you can see that it says: "occupied Syrian" or "Syrian" infront of the "Golan Heights". Where is the source that says that Syria and the Arab league calls it "Syrian heights" ? The arabic name is Jawlan and its in the etymology section. "Golan" and "Golan Heights" are already in the etymology section and is used by many, not only the United States, Israel and its settlers. Do you have any sources for any of these suggestions you brought up of who uses what name? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. Let me address it separately.

1. The purpose of the provided links is to show that other terms are used too, and that in order to to avoid WP:OR we need a secondary WP:RS stating that occupied Syrian Golan is the default UN term.
2. Regarding the search result numbers, please read the line just below the table.
3. The quotation in the summary is my wild guess of how the article will more or less look like, if neologisms are accepted, not a content proposal.

All right? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your "quotation in the summary" because all the names used by those countries (except china) are already in the etymology section, and to mention for example what US, Jordan, Lebanon, China "calls it" is completely irrelevant, so they will never be added. Who calls it "Golan" or "GH" is irrelevant because these are the most common names, that would be like we mention the hundreds of countries that call "falafel" by that name in its article. We can change the wording of the sentence to: "United Nations organs and resolutions have also referred to the area by the names: "occupied Syrian Golan", "occupied Syrian Golan Heights" and "The Syrian Golan". This is not original research. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

SD, I'd like the participants of this discussion to answer this question: are notable sourced neologisms can be added to this section?. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What source says new names can not be in the section? And how are the words neologisms?, "occupied Syrian Golan Heights" has been used for a long time, UNSC 497 29 years ago: [11]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

SD, if my analysis, starting from the words "I did my best" is not satisfactory, please provide one of your own, addressing all the points I missed or you disagree with, in a single reply. I have no intension of being dragged into the content dispute instead of helping to resolve it. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So far no source has been provided that names in a lexical, neologism or in description form cant be a name. My reply to your "quotation in the summary" about "other terms that will find their way into the section" was:[12]. Is there something that I havent replied to? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We have sometimes referred to as the Syrian Heights in the first sentence of this article. We also talk about occupation and political status generally in the lede. Those are important issues so the prominence appears appropriate to me. Agree with SD, neologism classification, while common scene also could be applied here, is still at this point, an original research, we would need secondary reliable sources first saying so. Likewise, UN is very important primary source, still for etymology questions, we would need secondary source reflecting on UN in toponymy context. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

How is this original research?: "United Nations organs and resolutions have also referred to the area by: "occupied Syrian Golan", "occupied Syrian Golan Heights" and "The Syrian Golan". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

AU, do you agree with my analysis? If not, what have I missed or misanalysed?

SD, regarding your points:

• I agree, name can be in any form, even a pictogram :)
• Inclusion of other terms, believe me or not, will happen. I don't know what they will be, how relevant they will be, but people will add something under the banner of NPOV. And the first neologism (or "new name", if you wish) added to the article will set the notability and sourcing standard for future additions.

My feeling is that it's the "best deal" you may get on this, given the arguments you and AU have presented. Be realistic.

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

ElComandanteChe, Arabic, Hebrew and all ancient names are in the article now, having the names used by the worlds biggest organ, which also has soldiers and observers on the land is relevant. I don't believe people will ad the name people use in China or the Ukraine or other irrelevant names if we ad the UN name. But, if it happens we can deal with the problem if and when it happens, ok? are we in agreement? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

SD, We need to cite Arabic, Hebrew and all ancient names since we need to be neutral and also because Wiki is encyclopedia. There is concern about occupation, but it does not belong to this specific section. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your post did not address anything of the discussion. How is presenting the names used by the UN as from the UN not neutral? And how is it non encyclopedic? I have now lost count on how many different reasons you have shifted to for not having the quote, first it was "UN is not etymological authority", then it was "Scholars have found that toponyms provide valuable insight into the historical geography of a particular region." then it was "adjective", then it was "original research" and now its "not neutral" and "Wiki is encyclopedia" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

SD, every additional term to be discussed separately, that's right and it's how it works. AU, could you please expand your opinion, instead of stonewalling arguments? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

ElComandanteChe, so can we ad the UN names and if someone wants to ad other, we can discuss that when it happens, Ok? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Generally I have doubts about etymological notability of legal terminology used by any specific organization, without disputing the importance of UN particularly. In addition it is not the primary term used by UN, which is GH. In any case Google statistics analysis is an original research and not an appropriate reason for inclusion. Making any conclusion in this field, considering its political implications, might be a violation of neutrality. The etymological notability is not obvious considering common knowledge. So in order to include this term, a secondary source ( authority in linguistic field ) noting this significance is required. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with this?: "United Nations organs and resolutions have also referred to the area by the names: "occupied Syrian Golan", "occupied Syrian Golan Heights" and "The Syrian Golan" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

SD, we talk openly and verbosely about current political status. I am feeling though that occupied is not part of etymology. I have no problem with referred as Syrian Golan/Syrian Heights per WP:CK, but we have this also in the first article sentence. We also do not want the other side to go and push for "Israeli district" kind of phrasing. Let's just put it to rest like tis. Does it sound fair? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

SD, I'm not taking sides in this dispute, it's you and AU are the ones that have to agree on something. Also, I'll replay on AU points later. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see Agada's point. Given the fact that the term occupied Syrain Golan refers the currently unresolved political and military conflict, it's neutrality can easily be questioned. As such, it's inclusion requires a better reasoning then "the second frequent term in UN books per Google". So far so good, NPOV+OR+RS is bulletproof. There are 3 ways out of this: 1) don't include, 2) balance with something else that will make "NPOV knights" happy (usually it works), 3) find a source supporting the idea that this is a notable part of etymological development of the name of the region. Sounds good? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

How come its neutrality can easily be questioned? is it non neutral to say that "United Nations organs and resolutions have also referred to the area by the names..." ? is there some source that say that they do not call the area by these names? I never supported inclusion based on "the second frequent term in UN books per Google", a Google search means nothing as I showed above, you misrepresented the Google search as the "Golan Heights" had "Syrian" or "Syrian occupied" before the quote search, and I don't think you went through every single hit and looked at what source says what. There is not gonna be any consensus about this, for several reasons. Lets close it as no consensus for removing the UN name from the etymology section. ElComandanteChe, you want to go through the administrative divisions of the Byzantine era in the etymology and toponymy section? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least we tried. Yeah, let's do the Byzantine stuff. My view here is simple: list all political entities that contained the GH over the history, or list none. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would political entities that contained the GH be in the etymology and toponymy section? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Preferably not at all. Agada? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We are two who agree that it shouldn't be in the etymology and toponymy section, that's the majority, I didn't understand what Agada was talking about before about this subject and he hasn't objected now to its removal. Agada explain your position. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following, could you clarify which specific change you two would like to make. 10x. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We want to remove Byzantine divisions that contained the GH from the etymology and toponymy section. Explain your position about this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, SD, I like both Gaulanitis (Greek: Γαυλανῖτις) and Jabal. I can not support removal of cited material, per I don't like it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No one has said that they don't like Byzantine divisions, I have said it has nothing to do with etymology and toponymy and you have not proven that it does. Is your "I like it" sufficient to keep it in the etymology and toponymy section? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've argued verbosely why Byzantine period is important according to the provided sources above in this long discussion. We even had (1) (2) (3) points. Did you disagree with those? I'm not sure how we're back to Byzantine topic again or why it should be excluded from Etymology and toponymy section. I still maintain that the provided rationale is valid. See for instance Irfan Shahîd book used as ref. I'm going to shut up now and let other editors to express their opinion, since I'm not convincing you, anyway. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The very same sentence is repeated in the history section. Also, I don't really see how the information about GH inclusion in larger administrative divisions add to the etymology/toponymy perspective. Please elaborate --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point Che, I did not notice it before, we definitely do not want repetitions as readability goes. Greek/Byzantine period is usually discussed in context of Golan toponym. It is easy to verify, see this source] for instance. Just search for "golan toponym". So I guess fair reflection of Byzantine period is due, according to sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, we are done: [13]! That's the true spirit of respect and cooperation, and I'm expecting everyone here to keep it in their future contributions :P --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

1RR Probation Reminder

Just a reminder, this article is still under 1RR probation which means editors only get one revert per 24 hours and are required to explain reversions. It's at the top of this page and it's in the edit notice for the page, please adhere to it. --WGFinley (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Martis II makes a bunch of highly-POV reversions without explaining them on the talk page. Nableezy reverts without a talk page explanation reversions which have been made without a talk page explanation, returning the article to its previous state. Nableezy gets a 24 hour block. Martis II appears not to have been sanctioned. Is that sensible or fair?     ←   ZScarpia   11:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC) [redacted: 15:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)]

Wgfinleys block was totally unjustified, the edits in question has been discussed many times before, and I'm sure nableezy was part of those discussions. And then Martis II didn't receive a block. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Martis did not violate the 1RR restrictions on this page, the rules are here, they are hard and fast on this article and they appear whenever you edit this page. You are required to explain reversions on this talk page, no exceptions. Nobody gets special treatment here and no, I do not look at the content of the edits being done or undone lest I get roped in to being called "involved" by one of the partisan factions editing this page. This partisan back and forth on this article needs to come to an end and if you don't follow the sanctions on the article you are going to be blocked or you will be banned from the article and, if need be, the topic. --WGFinley (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If you believe a user has violated the restriction you should at least give them enough time to defend themselves before you impose the block, and Martis did violate the restriction as he made a revert without discussing it at the talkpage. Martis removal of "Israeli settlements", "Israeli-occupied area" and "Israeli occupied part" in the map caption are reverts:[14]-[15] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Martis didn't explain his change on the talk page as required, the reason given for sanctioning Nableezy. To clarify what I was saying above, I wasn't claiming that Martis broke the 1RR rule on the article. He made a number of reversions, but, of course, they were contiguous and so only count as one reversion as far as the rules are concerned.     ←   ZScarpia   23:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever yall, who cares. Just make sure to say on the talk page when you revert some ridiculous nonsense. nableezy - 23:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm being blind (which is quite possible - maybe I missed something when I looked at Martis's contribution history and the version history of this talk page), Wgfinley isn't living up to his no exceptions promise. I have no wish to see anyone sanctioned and think that it would have been better to have posted a reminder before exercising a firm hand. On the other hand, it would be nice to see some semblance of consistency.     ←   ZScarpia   23:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the line "I do not look at the content of the edits being done or undone" is much more troubling than any lack of consistency. But Ill say one nice thing before going in to that. I thing WG's view is that the edit made by this supposedly new editor was not a revert. That is why that editor did not have to explain the edit. The problem is that this view is likely connected to the problematic line about not looking at the content. This is the same nonsense routinely pushed by a number of seemingly "new" accounts or IP addresses. The word "occupied" is routinely removed from the article. As is the word "settlement". These removals are little more than vandalism as many of them intentionally introduce factual errors (the ones that just remove the word occupied, leaving the wording as "the Israeli portion of the Golan"). With WG not looking at the content of the edits he allows edits that may not technically be "reverts" but are certainly "vandalism" or approach that level to be treated as not as "bad" as reverts of those edits. It is almost as if ignorance is treated as a virtue. I for one would much rather have a partisan but informed admin deal with these topics than an ignorant but supposedly "neutral" one do so. But I would like WG to please comment on whether or not reversions of vandalism count as a "revert" under this 1RR and whether or not the edits I reverted qualify as "vandalism". nableezy - 19:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Book in the Etymology section

There's a picture of a book in the Etymology section labelled "Eleventh century book in Syriac Serto". What does this book have to do with the Golan Heights? I tend to think it should be removed, but I'll wait to see if anyone has a reason to keep it. ← George ^talk 03:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The picture has nothing to do with Etymology of the Golan Heights. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. I don't see how it's related to that section, or this article in general. ← George ^talk 17:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The only connection was Aramaic, I will not protest removal. 10x for review, George. Your only weapons are the ordinary ones - the Sword of Reversion, the Shield of Neutrality and the Helmet of References. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Golan Heights (Israeli sub-district)

Hi, just alerting editors of this page that a new editor has created the page Golan Heights (Israeli sub-district) which appears partially duplicate some of the material on this page. I've noticed that they've adjusted links in other pages such as Demographics of Israel to redirect to the new page rather than this one. As these articles are often delicately balanced, it may be worth some experienced editors reviewing the changes that have been made. Regards Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It is both a POV fork and an article created by a banned user. nableezy - 17:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"Territorial claims" section

This entire section really needs a rewrite, its not even a dispute. But I have removed the claim that France got "primarily in exchange for French concessions in the oil rich areas of Iraq", this is identified as being false in History and Myths: Revisiting Two Zionist Myths by Adam garfinkle. Palestine got lands in Syria and Lebanon (including the entire sea of Galilee) for the triangle. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)