Talk:Golan Heights

Arabic name

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

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

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

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

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

Demographics

Is there any reason why this isn't in the article? -lalabox --210.56.71.193 (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lede and geography re-write

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

Strategic importance

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

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

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

Ottoman Empire (1517-1917) Golan - Syria

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

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

Referred to by media as Syrian territory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syrian Golan Heights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Golan is NOT A TERRITORIAL DISPUTE

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

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

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

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

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

Biased article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Borders Syria?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

?? I can not find any source for this?

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

Ancient history

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

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

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

The map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro-israeli! BIASED article! Non neutral

The whole article is written in a pro-Israeli, non-neutral way, It says "disputed" on many places instead of occupied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.134.76 (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

bullshit. the article is biased pro-syria. of course it's disputed, and in fact it's much more israeli now than it was ever syrian. it's been israeli for 40 years. statute of limitations apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.2.68 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Syrian Villages

I am adding information about the Syrian villages in the Golan. All the information are related to the region the article describes.

The user from this IP 128.36.157.85 thinks that what i am doing "doesn't belong in, as it does not describe the Golan, and that none of the stuff added is in the Golan but in Syria".

The information I added about the villages and towns in the region are correct and related, I think the article needs that part of the facts. I undid his undo كهيعص (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's hard to be neutral, but let's try. When you state that 169 villages were lost and destroyed it must be backed by some source. Please add references and citations. The number is sounds unreal for that small territory full of syrian mine fields. The villages in eastern part is not in the issue because the article is about Golan heigts only = Golan plateu which is under israeli control wright now. It can be described in topic of Quneitra Governorate if I understand you correctly. Shmuliko (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe me it is far harder for me to be neutral, however it is good to find someone to talk to. As for the references you are absolutely correct, I will be working on that very soon. But for the eastern part that you said “is not in the issue”, I think you are not correct (if I understand what you say), the Golan plateau is almost 1800 sq km = 1200 occupied by Israel + 600 under Syrian control. see at least what drork said on this same talk page كهيعص (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

According to a report in Hebrew by Yigal Kipnis on the Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi site [16], prior to June 1967 there were 147,613 Syrian residents and 273 locales in a territory of 1,710 sq. km. defined by Syria as the Golan Heights. 223 of these locales, and 128,000 people, were in the territory captured by Israel during the 1967 war. 28,000 people lived in Quneitra (which was handed back to Syria in 1974), and 100,000 in villages. Of the 273 locales, 19 were defined as uninhabited, and 91 were defined as mazari` ("farms", or places inhabited only during the agricultural season). Most of the pre-1967 communities were established since 1878, when the Ottoman authorities started developing the Golan Heights region, and encouraged people from the Circassian community (who emigrated from the Caucasus) to settle there. The number of displaced residents is estimated between 115,000-122,000 people. The numbers, except estimations about the displaced residents, is based on a census conducted by the Syrian authorities in 1960 (in which, BTW, they counted the Shabaa Farms and Ghajar as part of Syria) and updates published by these authorities until 1966. I am not sure about the source of the estimations about displaced residents, but I gather they are based upon Israeli researches. The Israeli official position is that these residents fled the region to save themselves from the war, or to avoid leaving under Israeli control. DrorK (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks to both of you. Please add references to the text. Shmuliko (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The text I have is in Hebrew. I placed a link above, but here it is again: [17]. This article cites various sources - Syrian, Israeli and European. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the citations (and it's mostly numbers, so not much is lost in the translation), but I'm afraid it is all in Hebrew. DrorK (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial date as Syrian territory

According to this section of another article, the border between the British and French mandates was agreed upon in 1923. Earlier, Syria and Palestine had been provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Neither was a state, hence no international boundary existed. Syrian sovereignty as a recognized independent state dates from the beginning of 1944 (with a French military presence into 1946). Reflecting this, the lead currently says (or did until changed), "The Golan Heights were Syrian territory from the beginning of Syrian independence in 1944 until..." Is this reasonable, or should the statement have a different wording, with a different date? Hertz1888 (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would use the date in which the the French Mandate of the Levant was officially split into the French Mandate of Syria and French Mandate of Lebanon. After all, the modern states' borders were established based on the French lines. DrorK (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this bit about the Golan Heights being Syrian territory "from 1944". Prior to being the Syrian Arab Republic, the area was a part of the French Mandate of Syria, and prior to that, part of Ottoman Syria. In essence, the region and most of modern day Syria have been a part of the same political unit as each other – political units with "Syria" in their names – since around 1515. It's slightly misleading to say that it's only been "Syrian territory" since 1944, as the term "Syrian" can also be used to describe the precursors to modern day Syria, but likewise I wouldn't say that it's been a part of Syria since 1515, so it's probably best to just leave it out. ← George ^[talk] 03:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See Also!!

I suggest taking the first line:

See also: Borders of Israel

into the see also section, why is it supposed to be on the top? Previously I added below it:

See also: Israeli occupied territories

which I thought is more related, but I think an IP user deleted it, does anybody have a suggestion? كهيعص (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilson protest

The article states that "American President Woodrow Wilson protested British concessions in a cable to the British Cabinet". The only reference for this cable that I could find (except for other Wikipedia articles that use it) was from a political pamphlet [18] by one Meir Abelson, who is not a historian of any standing. Furthermore, he does not provide a source for his quote, which makes it impossible to confirm it and consider its context (which is particularly important given the distinct political slant of his writing). I have been unable to find this quote in the 69 volumes of Arthur S. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Unless a more reliable source is provided, I would like to remove this quote. Copies of this message are posted in other Wikipedia articles where this cable is quoted with the hope of finding more information about it.--128.139.104.49 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"are currently part of the State of Israel"

In the beginning of the article "are currently part of the State of Israel" this is pro-israeli and biased, since Syria and the whole world consider it a part of the state of Syria. --85.229.133.89 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion on this page, in this section above. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed that section, and it's a slightly different topic than the one this anonymous editor is bringing up. In the previous discussion, the editor wanted to label the region as Syrian territory, and this anonymous editor takes issue with labeling the region as "part of the State of Israel". Both are essentially right that choosing one side or the other is non-neutral. I've changed the wording to state that it is controlled by Israel, which is something I think everyone agrees on. Leave the ownership issue to the later text where it can be described in more detail. ← George ^[talk] 19:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"disputed" "Jewish communities"

Golan is by the whole world considered a part of Syria and this is not disputed in any way. To call it "disputed" and that Syria "controlled" it for this many years next to Israeli control is making the reader believe that Israel has as much claim to the land as Syria. This is complete lie and not neutral.

The Israeli presence there is Israeli settlements, nothing else, to call them "Jewish communities" is not a Neutral Point of View because they are considered settlements by the UN and every country on earth. Just like the Israeli prescience in the Westbank is an occupation and settlements. not "Jewish communities" in the westbank or former in Gaza.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

"Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by Israelis in territory that was captured during the 1967 Six-Day War."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_497

"the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect"

The Neutral point of View is to call it Israeli sellements, It is not a neutral view is to call it "Jewish communities"

--85.229.133.89 (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The UN is an international political organization. It is not neutral and has no intention to be neutral. It represent the opinion of the majority of member countries. The Golan Heights is a territory disputed between two countries, and we must not take side. The West Bank is a different story - Israel does not claim sovereignty over that territory, at least not officially. DrorK (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it neutral to call the Israeli settlements there "Jewish communities" when every single country on earth considers them as settlements? What Israel claims is of no importance. The Neutral Point of View is that it belongs to Syria. To call it "jewish communities" is the Israeli point of view, and violation aganst wikipedias neutrality.

The land is not disputed, ask any country in the world it belongs to Syria and has been illegally occupied by Israel since 1967, this is what it should say. --85.229.133.89 (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the most fundamental Wikipedia policies our job here is to report. Wikipedia is not about expressing your opinion or mine or the UN's or anyone else's. Where controversies exist, Wikipedia cannot take sides, even if editors were to vote on it. WP cannot express one view or another in its own voice, but can report the existence of various points of view, with reliable sourcing. The article already does this amply and in numerous ways. No matter how much you may feel your point of view is the only reasonable one, it remains your point of view. As for the original question, settlements are also communities; it is not mandatory to call them settlements instead of communities. You are calling for this article to adopt one-sided terminology. Please read (or re-read) WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and WP:FIVE. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Then why is the Israeli version written that they are "Jewish communities" and not settlements, and why is the pro-israeli view written that it is disputed territory when the whole world sees it as Syrian land?

Even the map says "Israeli settlements" at the bottom.

--85.229.133.89 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The terms "community" and "disputed" do not imply any opinion about the political or legal status of the territory or the communities. It simply refers to the fact that these communities exist, and that there is a dispute. Words like "settlement" and "occupation" imply support for the Syrian claim to this territory, which is exactly what we try to avoid (and equally important - not to imply support for the Israeli claim either). DrorK (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How about "Israeli communities" instead of jewish? --85.229.133.89 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but then again people might think these are communities of Israeli Arabs. Actually, I now see more clearly the problem you pointed to. I wouldn't reject "Israeli communities" or "new Israeli Jewish communities". BTW, as far as Israel is concerned, since 1981, the pre-1967 communities in the Golan Heights are 100% Israeli communities. You'd find them listed in the books of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and their leaders have direct access to the Israeli authorities. This is not the case for the West Bank. In the West Bank, only post-1967 Israeli communities (i.e. the settlements) are considered Israeli. All the rest are subject to the special semi-military administration. DrorK (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a bit of the information from the infobox that seemed overly detailed and controversial. I don't see any reason to include who controls the land or has a legal claim to it in the "settlement type" field, because that's meant for a simple label, like "city", "town", "village", etc., so I've cut it down to simply "disputed territory". The "subdivision name" field also had some issues. It was written "Controlled by Syria 1944-67 (23 years) then by Israel since 1967. Annexed by Israel in 1981 (in the 24th year of Israeli administration)." I don't see any reason to include both the years and spans of time. I also don't think that the annexation should be mentioned, since it's only currently recognized by Israel and Micronesia. I've changed this to the much simpler "Syrian territory captured by Israel in the Six-Day War (1967); current status disputed." This just says that it was Syrian before 1967, and Israel captured it in 1967 (leaving it up to the reader to decide if they think such actions were legal), and noting that there is some dispute on the issue currently. ← George ^[talk] 11:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you George. Better now (still not perfect) Please keep a close eye on this article, the Israelis are destroying it all the time.--85.229.133.89 (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The annexation changed the status quo in the territory and the status of its residents. Until 1981 all communities and residents of the Golan Heights were subject to military regime, and although this regime was relatively lax in this territory, it was very easy to impose curfews, limits on access to Israel or to certain regions within the territory etc. Since 1981 the territory is incorporated into the Israeli administration like any other part of Israel. Residents are considered "permanent residents" in Israel, which means they are treated like Israeli citizens, save voting to the parliament and holding an IL passport. If they apply for Israeli citizenship, they are considered as if fulfilled most requirements. The leaders of the pre-1967 communities have direct access to the Israeli civilian authorities since 1987. The Ministry of Defense may no longer limit access to or from the territory unless declaring a state of emergency for a limited time. These are just a few examples on how the situation changed in 1981. DrorK (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This territory falls legally within the Internationally recognized boundaries of Syria (see: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html and http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/syria.pdf). It was seized by Israel through war in 1967. If there's any truth or credibility to Wikipedia, then International Law must be respected and not the law of Israel; Israel is the only country in the world that refuses to delineate its own borders. The Golan Heights, however, fall within Syria and for Wikipedia to simply identify it as "Disputed Territory" is untrue and is illegal. (98.194.124.102 (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

Since some editors do not seem to comprehend the difference between their closely-held personal beliefs and the neutral terminology required on Wikipedia, I urge them to read or re-read my 26 May post, above. Also relevant are DrorK's posts of 29 May. It is time to get off the soapbox and stop edit warring. "The whole world knows it" is not a reliable source. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding: A pro-Israeli view would be to say that the Golan Heights are undisputed Israeli territory. "Occupied" is pro-Syrian. Neither is a NPOV statement. Calling them disputed indicates that differing views exist. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by 93.96.32.102 and Urban469 is not personal beliefs by them. It is the official version and the truth. To call it a disputed area, like it says now, is pro-israeli. The area is 100% Syrian territory under illegal Israeli occupation. The Israelis living there are illegal settlers on 100% Syrian soil. This is not Pro-Syrian, this is the truth, nothing more, nothing less. I tried to change the article to the truth before but the Israeli lobby is to strong on wkipedia, so now it is like the non neutral Israeli version. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide some third party, reliable resources that specifically state that the Golan Heights is not and will never be part of Israel. If it is currently controlled by Israel, be it by illegal occupation or whatnot, then it is defacto part of Israel. You cannot change what it is by saying its not. --Nsaum75 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

::A variation of this debate is currently going on on the Druze talk page. --Nsaum75 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Neutrality of this Article is Disputed

A while back I remember that it said at the top of the article "The Neutrality of this Article is Disputed" This is now removed. I think it should be brought back because the whole article is written in a pro-israeli way and I and many others question the neutrality of this article. Also notice that about half of all references are from Israeli newspapers. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is what the lead section of the article states and references: In 1981, Israel annexed the area by applying its "laws, jurisdiction and administration" to the region with the passage of the Golan Heights Law, a move internationally condemned and unrecognized, and labeled "inadmissible" by the UN Security Council. Since then it has been governed as part of Israel’s North District, while Syria maintains that the Golan Heights are within its Quneitra Governorate. UN Resolution 242 considers the area part of the Israeli-occupied territories. Syria has never stopped demanding that the land be returned, and in 2006, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on Israel to end its occupation of the Golan, while declaring all the legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel in the Golan null and void. (See Current status below).

I really do not think this is written in a pro-Israeli manner, or that we should keep unnecesarily repeating judgmental terms that imply that we at Wikipedia are passing judgment on these issues ourselves. Leave it to the sources and let readers make up their own minds. Viewfinder (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Its the whole article I'm referring to. The article is not referring to the area as an area in southwestern Syria under illegal Israeli occupation. It is calling the area "disputed" making the reader believe that the ownership of it is not clear. It is calling the illegal Israeli settlements there "Jewish communities" It is referring to the east of the 1974 ceasefire line as "Syrian portion" making the reader believe that the rest is not Syrian. The article also try's to show some historical Jewish connection through a map of the Hasmonean Kingdom, but no map of Aram-Damascus (example of historical Syrian connection). A huge part of the references are from Israeli newspapers and other Israeli sources. If you still want to keep the article like it is now you should at least bring back that banner that used to be on the top of the article showing that the neutrality of this article is disputed --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed means that Israel may control the land forever, and therefore it is part of Israel, but other countries lay claim to it. Occupied means that it is only temporarily under their control but owned by another nation. Since no one can forsee the future and know how long it will be under Israeli control, and since there is no consensus on the status of the land, then it should be referred to as disputed. Furthermore, judgemental terms like "occupied" are not supportive to article building.

That said, maybe you should ask for a request for consensus amongst editors in regards to the terminology that should be used in this article. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nsaum75, 'occupied' simply means the land is controlled by a country which is not its legal owner. International law is very clear - as is the international consensus (including the US) - that this is Syrian territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.32.102 (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I ask that you open a RfC. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole world, except for Israel, accepts the status of the Golan Heights as 'Israeli Occupied Syrian Territory'. Any change to 'Disputed' is simply imposing an Israeli point of view, and is not consistent with a neutral understanding of the nature of the Golan Heights. As such, I have changed references of Disputed to Occupied, and included an explanation on the article page that Israel has annexed this land, and does not recognise the territory as occupied. I think this is the only way the edit war can be ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.32.102 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to warn admins, moderators and everyone else, that user 93.96.32.102, might be an attempt to fool people and get me banned from wikipedia. He is trying to make it look like I have created a double account. He is using some words that I have used. I am not this guy, I do not support this guy and I do not support changing this article until an agreement has been reached on the talk page. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the sensetive nature of this discussion, please open a RfC on this issue, so that it may be fully discussed amongst editors. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Terminology in regards to the Golan Heights

Should the Golan Heights be referred to as a "disputed" territory or "illegally occupied" territory? --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::Notices

Given the controversial nature of this topic, and this article's membership in both WP:Israel and WP:Syria, I have placed notice of this RfC on their respective discussion boards and asked for members input. --Nsaum75 (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

-Nsaum75, you should have asked if the territory should be considered "occupied territory" instead of "illegally occupied" because you know the illegally part will not be implanted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Several terms, Illegally Occupied, Occupied and Disputed were used in previous edits to the article. The discussion of this RfC can yield many outcomes, not just those mentioned in the title, as users are able to bring up other options (and some already have). Ultimately what the RfC is attempting to do is find a consensus among a editors as to what sort of term, or variation of terms, should be used. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, this RfC strikes me as a straw man in disguise. ← George ^[talk] 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

i second the request to change the wording of the rfc to say, "Should the Golan Heights be referred to as a "disputed" territory or "occupied" territory?" please relist. untwirl(talk) 04:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Or would an acceptable compromise be to state that the territory is considered "occupied" by the UN, but not by Israel? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.96.32.102 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Truth: ILLEGAL OCCUPATION.—The preceding unsigned comment added by Freegolan (talk) 05:59 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I say: "Syrian territory under illegal Israeli occupation" or "Syrian territory under Israeli occupation"--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

On page 6 of this source, a document which was introduced by the IP during the recent edit war, reads:

In fact, the international community recognizes the Golan Heights as a territory independent of Syria or Israel. Independent, however, does not mean sovereign in this context. Rather, it simply refers to the idea that there is currently no nation that is rightfully in control of the territory.

This might be something to take into consideration when deciding the final version of the text. --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nsaum75, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore? This is complete lies, the international community considers it Syrian, Here is real documentation: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45fa5e8e2.html

"Deeply concerned that the Syrian Golan, occupied since 1967, has been under continued Israeli military occupation, Recalling Security Council resolution 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981, Recalling also its previous relevant resolutions, the most recent of which was resolution 60/108 of 8 December 2005, Having considered the report of the Secretary-General submitted in pursuance of resolution 60/108,2 Recalling its previous relevant resolutions in which, inter alia, it called upon Israel to put an end to its occupation of the Arab territories, Reaffirming once more the illegality of the decision of 14 December 1981 taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan, which has resulted in the effective annexation of that territory, Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, Reaffirming also the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,3 to the occupied Syrian Golan, Bearing in mind Security Council resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967," --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What is not in dispute is that the UN considers the Golan to be illegally occupied. Therefore we state and cite the UN position. What I am against is that we unnecessarily repeat the word occupation, implying that we at Wikipedia agree with the UN POV. We are neutral. Viewfinder (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And there are several countries that considers the land between the dead sea and the Mediterranean to be the Nation of Palestine, yet Wikipedia has an article about the State of Israel. How is this neutral to the Arabs? Where do you want to draw the line? This is a part of Syria that is under foreign occupation. There is no dispute. It is Syrian land. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's "occupied"--that's undisputed and NPOV. It's called "illegal" by the UN, but that is itself a POV: it should be represented in the article, but not stated as fact. The niceties of legality and illegality in international relations aare beyond Wikipedia's ability to arbitrate, so we should stick to what is undisputed, and represent all disputed POVs equitably per WP:YESPOV. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So "Syrian territory occupied by Israel" should be the right thing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Having uploaded that panorama from Umm Qais, and seen it become a subject of the recent edit war, I feel maybe I should weigh in here even though this is normally well outside what I do.

To reply to the above, I am not entirely comfortable with "occupied", since that suggests direct military control (see our own article, which says as much right in the lede), which isn't the case anymore. It would probably be best to say that the Golan is "administered by Israel" (Didn't someone higher up suggest that as well?)

There are some other issues we should resolve here too: We need to clear up the context in which "annexation" can be used. AFAICT, the Golan Heights Law doesn't annex the Golan to Israel's sovereign territory in the same way that the Jerusalem Law annexed East Jerusalem to Israel. Yes, as a practical everyday matter the Golan is indistinguishable from anywhere inside the Green Line: similar road signs, shekel as the main unit of currency, etc. But given that Israeli governments have, at various times, made noises about giving it up if the Syrians do enough to guarantee that it won't be used to shell the Galilee by them or anyone else (after the Six-Day War, 1999 and more recently by Olmert), it does not seem like Israel unequivocally means this to be a permanent situation (there is certainly a segment of popular opinion in Israel that does, as the article sort of notes). I don't call it an annexation when you show some willingness to give the territory up.

I see some point to SD's complaints. The lede should state right off the bat that the area was under Syrian control until 1967 (some research on the extent that was accepted by the rest of the world would be nice), with inhabitants who mostly considered themselves Syrian (it seems to me ... again, some research and reliable sources on this would be nice). As it is someone with no familiarity with the situation could be forgiven for thinking it was some uninhabited no man's land until then. You only get that after the two bullet points. But it's critical to understanding Syria's position that the land is illegally occupied.

I also see that the edit warring (and let's remember, this article is under ArbCom restrictions) focuses on the use of "disputed" or "illegally occupied" in that blue band in the infobox. I submit that we can use the much better geobox version, which doesn't have that little banner, and the issue might be less sore.

There are some other issues with the article, if anyone wants to address them:

• Too many pictures: Yes, I just put one in. But this is in danger of becoming an overstuffed photo album. There are probably more pictures of some things than necessary (lots of landscapes and panoramas; I know it's a beautiful region (I'd like to visit it someday) but Wikipedia is not Flickr), some pictures that are not where they should be (It would be nice not to have to constantly scroll upward when reading descriptions of the three borders to the map which actually shows them) and some pictures that should be in the article but lack any supporting text.

• Incomplete: One of those pictures is the bumper sticker, which seems to be looking for text that would shore up its FUR. What have Israelis felt, over time, about giving up or not giving up the Golan? What are their motivations? To what extent are "the people with the Golan" for security reasons, religious reasons, or just not wanting to give up their favorite mountain recreational area? Has anyone prominent in Israeli politics proposed a more unilateral withdrawal? I ask myself that reading the article, and I don't see much except an account of the recent overtures, something Netanyahu said to the contrary (and has anyone ever asked him what he'd think of withdrawing from the Golan if Israel's security could be guaranteed in the process? Someone has to have asked him for the record). Also, again I see a point SD has. We need some better sourcing for Syria's pre-Israel claim to the land. That map he's talking about might be worth creating and adding.

• That whole paragraph speculating about why Syria is trying to have its cake and eat it too over Shebaa Farms either gets sourced properly or it gets cut.

Quneitra made to the Main Page as a featured article. So could this ... there's a lot here, if we can stabilize things. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not acceptable to say it was under Syrian "control" until 1967. Imagine if someone said Damascus is under Syrian control, it makes the reader believe the area is not undoubtedly Syrian. It makes the reader believe Syrian forces was on someone elses land. And before 1967 all of the residents in Golan was Syrians. The newly arrived Israeli settlers there are Israeli settlers and nothing else. Not "Jewish communities" I say "Syrian territory occupied by Israel" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, "control" is probably the wrong word in that context. While we can use "disputed" in the legal sense because the border between Israel and Syria was never established prior to 1967 (and still isn't, for that matter), can we say "part of Syria" before then? Did anyone dispute Syria's claims to the region (as opposed to the location of the border) prior to the Six-Day War?

As for residency, the article does state that there were some attempts to establish Jewish settlements there in the early 20th century, prior to 1948, but they don't seem to have stuck. So it's not entirely true that all residents before 1967 were Syrian. Perhaps you can say that at the time of the war, they were, if there's a good source for that.

It is not Wikipedia's job to make the reader believe the area is "undoubtedly" Syrian. Certainly Syria has a claim to the Golan, and a strong one, otherwise Israel would have occupied the entire country. We can cite and quote the UNGA resolution (maybe we need a Positions on the Golan Heights article, similar to the one for Jerusalem). But they're only one actor in the peace process. What do the other Arab countries say? (especially Egypt and Jordan, since they've concluded peace treaties, and Lebanon, because of the Shebaa Farms? What's the US position? The EU's? Russia's? We need to report these all and let the reader decide whether they believe Israel's presence there violates international law or not. Daniel Case (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of "Jewish communities" a more precise term would be "Jewish settlement"; Most of the settlers are religious Israelis, not secular. And settlement implies that it is a recent development and possibly not permanent, whereas "community" gives the impression that it is firmly established.

When debating this topic, we should all keep in mind that prior to 1946/1948 the modern states of Syria and Israel didn't exist. The lands were part of the French and British mandates...and before that, most of the entire Levant was part of the Ottoman Empire. --Nsaum75 (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reminder, before the mandates, Golan was part of the Damascus Vilayet (Syrian) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be the Damascas vilayet of Turkish-occupied Syria, n'est-ce pas? The fact is that the Golan was Syrian territory for less time than it has been Israeli territory. Borders have moved a lot in this region.Historicist (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr "Historiacist" needs some history lessons, it has never been Israeli territory for 1 second even. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, the Vilayet of Damascus within the Ottoman Empire. Wasn't the vilayet also called Al-Sham in Arabic?? --Nsaum75 (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's relevant in any way to the current status of the Golan Heights. The British and French did not divide Turkish territory based on what Vilaya they were in. Moreover, part of the Golan Heights was briefly in the British Mandata of Palestine but ceded to France later. Neither Israel nor Syria existed at the time. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment—there is already a broad consensus to use "disputed territories" for all territories captured by Israel in 1967 and not returned to the Arabs. The territory is de facto administered by Israel, and has about the same amount of Jewish and Druze residents. On the other hand, Syria claims that it is illegally-occupied Syrian territory. The United Nations is POV, although I haven't seen any official statement by them about the legality of the occupation. Under the Geneva Conventions, the territory was captured during a defensive war, and therefore the occupation is legal. The Golan Heights Law, however, is probably illegal under the conventions, as is construction of Jewish settlements. Make of that what you will, but the fact is, there is no clear agreement on the final status of the heights, and therefore the territory is disputed by definition. Any other label would cater to the POV of one of the sides. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with User:Ynhockey.

The Jewish residents of Golan must be classified as settlers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement "Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by Israelis in territory that was captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, which is partially under Israeli military administration[1] and partially under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, and in the Golan Heights, which are under Israeli civilian administration."

It was not captured during a defensive war, Israel started the six-day war.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to RFC Stick with "disputed." "Occupied" implies nonpermanence and thus carries a POV connotation in this rather delicate situation. Ray^Talk 15:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Another Reply to RFC I agree with RayAYang. "Disputed" is neutral and accurate. --GHcool (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have two comments:

1. As far as the UN is concerned, the Golan Heights is legally occupied. The UN Security Council stated the terms under which this territory should return to Syria in its resolution no. 242 and no. 338, namely recognition of Syria in Israel and bilateral agreement on secure borders between the countries. So far, Syria doesn't recognize Israel. As a comparison, you can consider Egypt's move in November 1977 - Egypt recognized Israel, and complied with the SC resolutions. Consequently, negotiations about secure borders started, and eventually the Sinai peninsula returned to Egypt.
2. The UN is a political organization, and so it should be. Some of its reports may be regarded as NPOV, but its resolutions are political and reflect a certain POV. The actual situation in the Golan Heights is not a situation of occupation. All pre-1967 residents received an Israeli permanent resident status, which allows them to move freely within the Israeli borders and their are entitled to services like any other resident of Israel. They cannot vote in the general elections or bear an Israeli passport, because they are not citizens, but they can apply for citizenship if they want to. In comparison, the Palestinians in the West Bank, even those under direct Israeli control, do not enjoy freedom of movement into Israel proper or inside Israel, and they are not entitled to services like Israeli residents. DrorK (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction, the vast majority of the Golani residents before the 1967 war was thrown out by the Israeli occupation forces and till this day have not been allowed to return to their lands. Only the minority that stayed was given permanent resident status. The Palestinians in east Jerusalem are in the same situation, permanent resident status, they can not vote but they can move freely in what you call "Israel proper"--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to RFC I would favor "occupied" over "disputed" over "illegally occupied". I think the vast majority of the world considers the area to be occupied land (legally or illegally). Just because it is POV does not mean the term can't be used, as I think the view that it's not occupied land is held by a very small minority of the world (making it an issue of undue weight). This is only for the infobox; the details of who considers it what should be discussed in much more detail in the body of the article. Using "illegally occupied" seems like going over the line to me - the vast majority of the world might agree that the area is "occupied", but I don't think that the vast majority of the world would agree that the area is "illegally occupied". I'm also okay with the term "disputed". I don't think it's the correct term to use, but it's probably neutral enough to avoid edit wars. ← George ^[talk] 19:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to RFC I think the appropriate comparison is to the Western Sahara, where the Wikipedia page reads: "The Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front independence movement (and government of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or SADR) dispute control of the territory." The Golan has been controlled by Israel for going on half a century. There is no Syrian population living there (There are Druze) so it is not exactly "occupied." Disputed is more accurate.Historicist (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was actually looking for corollaries to this situation as well, but I don't think that the Western Sahara matches. The Western Sahara was a Spanish province that Spain chose to abandon. After they left, the bordering nations fought amongst each other – not with Spain – over who should control it. This is quite a different scenario than the Golan Heights, which was part of Syria for many years (prior to the establishment of Israel in fact), and which Israel later came to control through military conflict. I'm not sure what you mean by "There is no Syrian population living there", as the article itself states that 90% of the Druze in the Golan Heights are Syrian. Druze is a religion, not a nationality. ← George ^[talk] 22:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It was an unprovoked war of conquest motivated by greed (Morocco floats its budget on mineral production in the Western Sahara) and carried out against the will of the localp population who were largely driven out of the territory. Illegal occupation of the Western Sahara by Morocco is the legal status. Historicist (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of parallels, none, of course, perfect. You can look at Gibraltar, Alsace , Tibet, and many other disputed cases without finding the word "occupation' on Wikipedia. Occupied territories lists some disputes in which one side or the other uses the term.Historicist (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to RFC "Disputed" and "occupied" do not contradict each other and have two different meanings. "Disputed" means that the territory is claimed by more than one party, while "occupied" means (or implies) that the territory is under the control of a party that does not have sovereignty over it. Both terms may apply, with caution. First, it is not clear whether Israel claims the Golan Heights, as it has not officially annexed it despite having control over it and administrating it for more than four decades, so I wouldn't say "disputed sovereignty", as the article currently says; still I think it can be regarded as "disputed", even if Israel's position is somewhat vague. Second, the term "occupied" may carry legal implications which are not so trivial. It's hard to find consensus when it comes to international law, as it is not clear to what extent it is binding, or even what it is exactly (hence "illegally occupied" is even more shaky). My suggestion is to say it is disputed, and that it is "considered by ... to be occupied territory".--Doron (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The modern nation of Syria was founded in 1946, with the Golan Heights as part of its soverign territory. Prior to this time the whole Levant was parts of different mandates, kingdoms and empires. Modern Syria controlled the Golan Heights until the 1967 war, a period of about 21 years. Since that date, the land area has been controlled by Israel, a period of about 42 years. Therefore the land has been administered by the modern Israeli nation about twice as long as its was administered by the modern Syrian nation. --Nsaum75 (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Syria didn't begin with the mandates, Syrian Golan stretches back many thousands of years, but if you only want to talk about after the mandates ok, Since the mandates ended until today, Golan is still a part of Syria. When the mandates ended until today, It has not been Israeli for 1 second even, and it doesn't matter really if the newly arrived European and Ethiopian settlers are illegally administration it today. It is still Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that the Golan Heights has been part of an area named 'Syria' for nearly 500 years. Whether it be the modern Syrian Arab Republic (1946–present), or the French Mandate of Syria (1920–1946), or Ottoman Syria (1516–1918), a district in the Ottoman Empire. I don't think that stating that the Golan Heights has been 'Syrian' territory for 500 years is too far off, as the area has been part of various political units named Syria for nearly that long. ← George ^[talk] 00:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that the area has been referred to as Syria for hundreds of years, but this dispute is between the modern state of Syria and the modern state of Israel. Not the mandates, not the kingdoms and not the empires. Using the logic of saying its been part of a Syrian-named nation for over 500 years, then you could say that if the Modern Syrian nation wished, it could say Israel, Lebanon, the palestinian territories and parts of Turkey are "occupied Syria".

The territory was under Syrian control for 21 years. It has been under Israeli control for 42 years. I suppose we could refer to Syria as "Arab-occupied Byzantium," it does still have Aramaic-speaking Christian villages, after all. And by some lights San Antonio is part of "American-occupied Mexico." Yes, Virginia, there is a Chicano national liberation movement. But history marches on and the word "occupied" begins to look archaic, or a little too aggressively political for an encyclopedia. Disputed is probably the best we can do. Historicist (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should consider it Syrian territory for 500 years, just that these arguments that it's been Israeli longer than it's been Syrian are full of holes, and I'm not sure what the point is with regards to it being 'disputed' versus 'occupied'. At some point, the international community (including Mexico) recognized the borders of the United States, and Texas became a recognized part of the United States - not just an occupied territory. Now, it's entirely possible that one day the international community (possibly including Syria) will recognize the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, just as Mexico did Texas. However, that hasn't happened yet, and whether or not a land is occupied has nothing to do with some statute of limitations on how long the occupying force has controlled the land. It has to do with who claims the land, and who recognizes those claims. ← George ^[talk] 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)