Jump to content

Talk:Golan Heights

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wolfman12405 (talk | contribs) at 10:39, 25 March 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions

Effectively annexed removal request

"territory which Israel effectively annexed in 1981"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typo in title/short description in mobile view

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

Is the name usage relevant to this article?

Wolfman12405 has added this [1] is this relevant?--SharabSalam (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It separates the remaining territories of Syria and Israel

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

The Golan being in Syria is now contested by significant elements. However regardless of who the Golan belongs to (Israel or Syria) Altenmann is correct - as the Golan is the buffer between Israel ex Golan and Syria ex Golan - the line of contact (pre and post 1967) is the Golan (in a similar fashion - the Sinai is the buffer between mainland Egypt and Israel - regardless if Israel or Egypt hold it).Icewhiz (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only contested by Israel and US politicians who are hijacked by and working for the Israel Lobby VS 99% of the rest of the world.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, even if you want to make the inane leap that because the US president tweets something that the Golan is now in Israel, it still wouldnt separate Israel and Syria. Do you understand what the English word "in" means? The material restored is a. factually incorrect as a matter of basic English, and b. unsourced, and c. already covered. nableezy - 23:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, please be less excited and read with attention. My text says "separates the remaining parts of S &I., not "separates S & I. ". Are you saying that Siria and Israel have a common border elsewhere? If yes, I stay corrrected. If no then please explain what exactly the problem with basic English is.- Altenmann >talk 01:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no border between Syria and Israel. There are several boundary lines. The former Mandate boundary between the British and French Mandates, the Green Line from 1948 that is generally taken as the current demarcation between sovereign Israeli and Syrian territory, and the Purple Line from 1967 that demarcates the Israeli occupied portion from Syria. The problem with the English is that when saying "separates the remaining parts of Syria and Israel" is that you are saying that it is not in Syria or Israel. Beyond that, just look at the prior paragraph. This is already covered, completely, just one paragraph prior to this. nableezy - 03:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no border" - huh? Did I say otherwise?- Altenmann >talk 05:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"prior paragraph" - Sorry my stupidity. Can you cite the text? I still fail to identify it. Maybe phrased differently? - Altenmann >talk 05:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"it is not in syria or israel." - sorry, disagreed, there is no such implication. Of course, in this heated conflict one side would love to seek for a second or third hidden meaning supposedly breaching their rights. Of course I can state what I mean in "politically correct" legalese, but it will probably take LOTS of words, but this section is Wikipedia, for a layman to visualize geography, not a UN declaration. When there is an armed conflict between two states and there is a demilitarized zone, it is customary to say that the DMZ "separates" the sides regardless where it belongs. Same here, without any deep political implications. - Altenmann >talk 05:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You didnt break the text, my bad. The diff view on my mobile device failed me.- Altenmann >talk 01:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

It depends on what you are talking about. The Israeli occupied portion is, depending on if you count from the Green Line or from the Mandate boundary, either 1,295 sq km or 1,150 sq km (the former from the Green Line, the latter from the Mandate boundary). The entirety of the Golan as ~1800 sq km. nableezy - 03:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
total area. Top says 1800, this section says 1860.- Altenmann >talk 05:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newly added pov text

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

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

calm yourself, your despicable words about Israel here and in your reverting of this edit shows it is u who can't handle other views and tries to impose his POV over articles. That's the Israeli part of a geographical unit that is called the "Golan heights". I hereby recommend giving this user some time out to think of his actions.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't even bother to check the link (which goes to a different article). Besides that, it does not contain the pathetic argument you report, nor does it speak of "Israeli diplomats, scholars and lobbyists". It is an opinion piece by one person that contains arguments based partly on phoney history (such as the laughable deception "the San Remo Declaration of 1920 designated the Heights as part of the British Mandate"). We don't need such low-quality nonsense in this important article. Zerotalk 09:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"pathetic"? the 9nly such thing here is your biased opinion and edit. That's the Israeli view of the dispute. Seems like you 2 can't handle that there are 2 views in a dispute. If one of them angers you, keep it to yourselves. Don't go on a tantrum rampage.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golan_Heights&oldid=889385044"