Talk:Golan Heights

Infobox

Right now I am very happy with how the infobox is looking :). But there are some very small issues that I would like to discuss. First of all I think we should have 1946-1967 instead of prior to 1967 since it wasn't part of the Syrian Arab republic until 1946. 1946-1967 is simply more specific. Furthermore some editors have said "Prior to 1967: Syria" implies that it isn't Syrian anymore which would be a little pov, so I suggest we write "Prior to 1967(or 1946-1967): Controlled by Syria", since no one disputes the fact that Syria stopped controlling the Golan in 1967. Also I think we should have the "Prior to 1967" below the "1967-" since I think the current situation is more important then the situation pre-1967. Which country it is in today is more relevant than the country it was in yesterday. And the "country" today is "controlled by Israel, claimed by Syria, internationally recognized as Syrian territory". Of course we should still have "prior to 1967: Syria" since otherwise you will not completely understand the situation, but it is not as relevant. Therefore I say we should put it below. It is just an idea. Fipplet (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think it makes any sense to use (1946-1967), unless you're suggesting we also tag every city in Israel as under Israeli sovereignty (Since 1948). Yazan (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the Israeli point of view that it ended being part of Syria in 1967 and started being part of Israel after 1967. "controlled" is something you say about an area that does not belong to the country. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you(Yazan) have a point, but this is not the same situation, as the Israeli cities are under Israeli sovereingty now whereas Golan is not under Syrian sovereingty now. There's no need to tag the Israeli cities with anything except Israel whereas the tag for Golan should be when Golan was Syrian. And it was 1946-1967 while Israeli cities are now.Fipplet (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"whereas the tag for Golan should be when Golan was Syrian." - This is the Israeli point of view "when", as if its not Syrian today. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry "whereas the tag for Golan should be when Golan was controlled by Syria". I am not saying it is not Syrian but I am not saying it is either. Fipplet (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fipplet, the fact is, it has been under Syrian sovereignty all the way until 1967, in various forms and under successive different regimes. Unless you mean the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic, which was in 1946 (1936 actually with the franco-syrian treaty, and before that in 1920 under the Kingdom of Syria, etc.), but I don't see why we should explicitly state this, and turn it into a point of contention. Yazan (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic of course. And according to the article itself Golan only became a part of Syria(n arab republic) in 1944. The reason is because prior to 1967 implies Syrian sovereignty before 1944(or 1936 if what you say is true) which is untrue. (I didn't know about the kingdom of Syria but it is obviously not the same as modern-day Syria. Should we bring up Kingdom of Israel as well?)Fipplet (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Syria was a shortlived one after WWI, it's quite recent, so it is relevant, because it was in relatively the same borders as modern-day syria. Nonetheless, using the phrasing (1944-1967) is quite contentious because it suggests it wasn't part of what we consider Syria now, which is not true, it's always been a part of it. And modern borders are drawn in relation to that. I would argue that palestinians dispute the sovereignty of EVERY city in Israel (which not supported by the overwhelming majority of the world, much like Israel's claim to the Golan), does that mean that we should explicitly state that it has been under Israeli sovereingty since 1948? Yazan (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox vote! Cancelled !

Put letter A or B infront of your name for which version of the infobox you support. A. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=304911794

B. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=304913374

---

Put names here:

A.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

B.--Yazan (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

B.--Fipplet (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This isnt how things are done here, or at least it isnt how things should be done. Whoever says A explain why A is better, whoever says B explain why B is better. This is not a numbers game where the greater number of people determine what goes into an article, or at least is not supposed to be like that. With sources provide reasoning for what you prefer. nableezy - 20:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What Nableezy says is true. Fipplet (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I refer you to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and I would suggest that this peculiar exercise be stopped immediately. AreaControl (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

But for the record, I think that the older version (marked "A") is probably the better of the two. We should discuss our reasons for our opinions though rather than a straight poll which is a violation of the above policy AreaControl (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

Ok, this was stupid, sorry, lets just deleted it and discuss, ok?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I would support the older version of the infobox. It looks much more tidy, the addition of the flags in the newer infobox looks somewhat cluttered, if this territory was undisputed then the flags may be appropriate but here they just look messy. The older version gives all relevant dates and looks much more professional in my view. AreaControl (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

the infobox is right now saying "Country Prior to 1967: controlled by Syria" which means it wasn't undoubtedly part of it and it also means that as of 1967 it no longer is part of Syria. This is the Israeli point of view. Then it says: "Country 1967 - current Controlled by Israel since the Six-Day War" but this has nothing to do with what country it is in now, it has to do with israeli occupation. The only legitimate version is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=304911794 I would like to hear more views. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

People, this isn't a fight between box A vs box B. There's only one infobx and there are many options how we can make it look. Between A and B there's lots of different shapes, and words. Area I like the flags but I find it confusing that there's 2 syrian flags, Supremilicious for I all care we might as well remove "Country Prior to 1967" amd only have country. That solves my confusion with the flags also. And also for all I care we might as well remove the box completely. I think it doesn't improve the article that much but causes a lot of issues. Nevertheless I will try my suggestion now. If you don't like it there's plenty of more room for discussion. Fipplet (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, personally I think it looks so good right now.Fipplet (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now it says "Country - controlled by Israel..." this is not acceptable, it implies that it is a part of the country Israel. Israeli control has nothing to do with country, if you don't come up with a real suggestion following the vast majority of world views and political organizations, im gonna revert it back. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Öhm, no it implies Israel controls the territory, and actually control has Very much to do with the country. This maybe explanes a little Sovereignty#De_jure_and_de_facto. Sovereignty requires both conrol and legal right to exercise it. What I mean is what some old man in the UN is dreaming about doesn't matter so much when you actually don't have the territory and vice verca. Fipplet (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Control has nothing to do with country, where there is a "country" section, Israel can not be in it. it is only control.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Then Syria cannot be there either since a claim on a territory not under Syrias control has nothing to do with the country. It is only a claim. Fipplet (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say "Country Syria" - it says Internationally recognized as part of Syria, claimed by Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So this version only gives you the UN view, completely against wp:due, whereas the other one gives you all viewpoints in accordance with npov and due. Im changing it back to the neutral version.Fipplet (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the UN view, this is the situation. It says in control "controlled by Israel since 1967" This is the neutral version, the one you will change to is the Israeli version. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

God you are unreasonable. Yes it is. The UN position is the UN view not any kind of fact. The actual situation is that it is controlled by Israel but claimed by Syria. Now I will not change to any Israeli version but to the neutral one giving all significant viewpoints. Fipplet (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes the actual situation is that it is controlled by Israel as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=304911794 But this has nothing to do with country. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Then tell me what has to do with the country. Fipplet (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Country has to do with Golan being part of a country, and that country is Syria, the Israeli occupation does not change this fact, the Israeli occupation is control of Syrian land, and has nothing to do with it being part of Israel, therefor the only neutral version is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=305617908 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been thoroughly disccused at the section "Syrian territory". Read it and if you do not agree please continue discuss there but until then we do not say Golan is in Syria but only describes the facts. Fipplet (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Question: what is Szczecin and Kaliningrad? So, Assad wants Golan back, up to 4th June 1967 line, unconditionally before the start of negotiations. So, he is backed by the whole world. But. The inadmissability of territorial conquest is inapplicable to Golan Heights, I hope this respected forum understands it. If not, I'll remind that it was conquered in the defensive war. And Syria was supposed to negotiate its return, not accept 3 NOs of 1967 and certainly not to start 1973 October war. The Golan Heights are disputable territory, claimed by both Syria and Israel, its definition and final status pending the negotiations and resolution by both sides. If, despite Assad's desire, Israel will convince him to accept the treaty without Golan, it will be then Israeli territory. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Some people say 67 was a defensive war, many do not. And people havent been pushing for it to say "illegally occupied" just "occupied" which I dont think you can argue against. And sources do say it is Syrian territory. But I give up. nableezy - 14:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(the 'Majority' argument does not impress me much, there were times only one man on Earth thought the world is round. and there are few who realize that Gaza is no longer occupied, even fewer understand why it is no longer occupied, but it doesn't change the fact you know). It was Syrian territory (except of course DMZ) until 1967, now it is Israeli territory, its future status will be determined by negotiations in accordance with 242, until then it is sovereign Israeli territory regardless of what political considerations say. At most, it could be said that it is 'disputable'. And whoever questions definition of 1967 war as 'defensive' - you know I usually do not make ungrounded statements. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And you eluded the truly puzzling question - what is Szczecin and Kaliningrad? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, it is not Israeli territory, not a single reliable source has been presented that says it is. It is Israeli controlled, or more accurately Israeli occupied territory. And as to your earth is round, if Wikipedia had been around at that time we would have an article on the Earth stating as a matter of fact that the Earth is flat. Remember verifiability not truth. But the sources are pretty clear here. The Golan is Syrian territory occupied by (which implies administered by and controlled by) Israel. I dont know what you are asking about Szczecin and Kaliningrad. nableezy - 18:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

sources on 67; [1], [2], [3], let me know if you want more. nableezy - 18:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

But that is a discussion for another place and time, we dont determine whether or not it is occupied territory on the basis of the war being aggressive or defensive, we let the sources do that. The sources do say that the Golan is Israeli occupied territory, not Israeli territory. nableezy - 18:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Too tired to look seriously at your sources; as a farewell gift I'll leave you with this: "Following the Knesset's approval of the law, Professor Julius Stone of Hastings College of the Law wrote: “There is no rule of international law which requires a lawful military occupant, in this situation, to wait forever before [making] control and government of the territory permanent....Many international lawyers have wondered, indeed, at the patience which led Israel to wait as long as she did.” Unfortunately, no URL. To sum it up, it is a conquered (occupied if you insist, but I prefer conquered) territory, its final status is subjected to negotiation. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The illegality of "conquering" territory in a war is one of the foundations of post-WWII international law. The only way for the Golan to become Israeli territory is for Syria to cede it to Israel. But again, I give up here, at least for the time being. nableezy - 20:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

'The illegality of "conquering"...' - Exactly! This is why the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by Jordan and Egypt before 1967 was in itself illegal, and "ceding" this territories to anyone (i.e. Palestinians) has no legal basis. 'The only way for the Golan...' - not in the case when Syria is aggressor. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to take your anti-advocacy pill again today Sceptic. You need to keep the bottle next to something that you use everyday like the kettle or the TV remote. For example, I keep my anti-sarcasm pills right next to the...damn it, they're not there. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I will bring up the flag discussion here, as this is the closest place to where it was discussed. There are two problems with including the flags in the infobox. First, as AreaControl stated, it makes the box rather cluttered. Second, and more importantly, including the flags will lead to edit wars. Some editors will insist on having the Israeli flag on top, and some editors will insist on having the Syrian flag on top, and they will revert over it - endlessly. It's better to leave them both out and just have it be a sentence describing the situation. ← George ^[talk] 16:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How about having them both on top next to each other? Fipplet (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because a flag represents a nation, and where there is "country" talking about Golan, there is no Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The flags here merely represents the nations claiming the Golan. Fipplet (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see the advantage of including both flags. If it were one country, or even a list of countries, using the flags would be fine. But the infobox isn't listing countries, it's explaining the situation in a sentence, so I don't see any value added by the flags. ← George ^[talk] 20:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

George is right on the money, the complex nature of the Golan Heights require a full explanation (as a sentance rather than a list) in the infobox therefore the flags shouldn't be there. AreaControl (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with the flags. But I can't think of a good reason to keep them. So this is fine ;) Fipplet (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Map again

Current consensus is that labeling the area as Syria is against npov. Since this map does label it as Syria it is against npov. Therefore we shouldn't use it. If there's a reason not to use the edited map I suggest we use another map or picture or nothing at all since it is more important not to break the npov rule than to have a map. Fipplet (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The last discussion on the topic, which ended over two weeks ago, came to the general consensus that it was better to not alter the map. Citing the source of the map (the CIA), and leaving it unchanged is about as neutral as anyone can get. Purposely editing a map from a reliable source - by redrawing borders, changing, or moving country labels - is inherently biased. It's the equivalent of changing a quoted excerpt from a reliable source while still representing it as a direct quotation. If you have other suggestions of maps, by all means present them here, but I also see no reason to remove a map from a highly reliable source. ← George ^[talk] 19:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the "Syrian territory" section. There the consensus is that we shouldn't label it as Syria. Now if you feel it is neutral to do so please give your reason there. But as for now this map is not neutral and therefore I feel we should remove it, edit it or replace it and try to stay neutral. Fipplet (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion in the "Syrian territory" was about labeling the area in text, not about modifying a map from a reliable source - a different discussion. I don't object to maps that don't label the Golan Heights as part of Syria, I object to the modification of a map from a reliable source in a way that fundamentally changes the meaning of the map. I'm fine with the map you've replaced the CIA map with, though other editors may disagree. ← George ^[talk] 20:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the map is from a third party reliable source. It should stay in its original form. AreaControl (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to have any problem with the map that I've replaced the CIA map with, and if you do then you haven't based your objections on anything so far. So stop the edit war and if there's something you're not happy about, discuss! My forthcoming revert is based on current consensus, see "Ghajar" and "Syrian territory", where the consensus is that labeling golan as syria is against npov thus "by syria" not "with rest of syria" etc. Fipplet (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My view is that the CIA map unaltered is NPOV and fit for purpose. The consensus view of the international community is that it is Syrian territory. That is what the map shows and that is a key piece of information that this article should present to a reader. This isn't a controversial piece of information and I see no need to handle it with kid gloves or complicate the issue by treating it as if it isn't NPOV. NPOV requires that we not give a false impression of parity. Non-compliance with WP:DUE can be produced by both the absence of information and the presence of too much information. In this case insisting on the absence of information creates a false parity and is in my view tendentious. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"No one seems to have any problem with the map that I've replaced the CIA map with" Fipplet need to stop trolling around and stop lying, me, area control and George have all tried to remove the map, Sean doesn't support it. No one has agreed to it, you forced it so please stop lying --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That was a bit harsh. I'm sure Fipplet's opinion is that his map has a higher degree of compliance with npov than the CIA map. I respectfully disagree because the CIA map simply states a fact (in the sense of it being as close to a fact as we are ever going to get in anything i.e. ~100% agreement with RS). Sean.hoyland - talk 06:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

SD you need to read my and Georges comments in their entirety. Sean I respectfully disagree with you too; this map presents the international view as a fact and not merely as a position. It is saying Golan is in Syria not that the international community thinks it is, and this is wrong since it is not in Syria, per previous discussions. Secondly if this is the international view, even though the map isn't saying so, why is this the only viewpoint stated in the map. Presenting the international view as a fact is not neutral and only giving the international view is not neutral. This is against npov. The international view is noted numerous times in the article and once in the infobox. But this map isn't noting it, it is presenting it as a fact. The other is neutral and it gives lots of information about borders and shows the situation in a more encyclopedic way. Fipplet (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

SD is right, there are many objections to your version of the map Fipplet. I strongly support the older CIA map, it is more detailed and represents the position of the international community and international law. It also more clearly labels certain political divisions and lastly it looks better! In a situation like this where there is a dispute we cannot identify the facts perfectly so we can use the international community stance as the best neutral view. The old map should stay Fipplet there is no consensus the other way. Me, George, SD and Sean.hoyland have all supported the CIA map for our own reasons and that strikes me as a consensus in favour of said map. AreaControl (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

SD is not right since I also wrote "if you do [have any objections] then you haven't based your objections on anything so far". Just wanted to point that out. Now, I think "my" map is more detailed since it provides an explanation to all lines, borders and areas, it more accurately describes the current situation by showing current and historical borders, which makes this perfect for a disputed area. It is much more detailed showing the shebaa farms, showing the 1948-49 demilitarized zones etc. Wikipedia policy is not picking a picture because it "looks good", it is also in the eye of the beholder. And most important, if this maps represent only the international community this map is against wp:npov. "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly". Using this map is the opposite of neutrality since it only presents one perspective, where there exist several, and at the same time presents it as a fact. On the other hand "my" map presents the situation fairly and describes it withouth using anyones views. Secondly George had nothing against "my" map. So so far only 2 serious editors have objected it, although Sean hasn't said anything for a while so I'm not sure. Fipplet (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think that the CIA map is better than the one you're promoting, but I won't revert your map unless I feel that theres a consensus to do so. Also, your NPOV defense isn't very strong. Nobody is saying that the Israeli perspective should not be mentioned in the article. They're saying that the Israeli perspective is a minority view, and doesn't deserve as much weight as the majority opinion. If you continue the quotation you started to the next sentence, "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight..." If you read Wikipedia's policy on undue weight, it states that "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." The view that the Golan Heights is not Syrian is a minority view. ← George ^[talk] 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Towns and villages ARE settlements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.110.105 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the map as it is now. Fipplet (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Golan heights rel89B.jpg is fine by me too. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it was Fipplet that together with his puppets forced the removal of the real map, it should be brought back since it is the real CIA map and the majority here supported it (I think). --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Either one is fine by me. Yes, sockpuppets are likely to be a recurrent problem around here. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My latest edit

I would like to add to my edit summary that "straddling the borders of Syria and Israel" is more true than "between Syria and Israel" since Golan is partly in Israel and Syria proper.Fipplet (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite a source that supports your claim that the "Golan is partly in Israel"? ← George ^[talk] 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[4] this source says Golan straddles the border of the two countries. Fipplet (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. To be clear, it's the Golan Heights region – that is, the geographic plateau – that straddles the borders... not just the disputed territory currently controlled by Israel. ← George ^[talk] 21:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but as the article says there are two meanings of the world. I don't think the disputed territory straddles the border, only the geographic plateau as you say. Fipplet (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. And the way the introduction is worded is talking about the region, so I think your wording of "straddling" is fine. Cheers. ← George ^[talk] 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

UNGA motion

Now that Fipplet has been blocked indefinitely, does anyoen object to this edit of his being reverted? This will reinsert the matereial about the motion on the "occupied Syrian Golan" where Israel was the only opponent and 161 or 171 countries (depending on which UN page you read) voted for it. Oren0 has previously commented on the lack of material substantiating our statement that the international community regard the heights as Syrian and this resolution substantiates it.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the material should be reinstated. nableezy - 14:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} the edit listed at the top of the section has apparent consensus to be reverted. Nobody has spoken up in favor of keeping the UNGA resolution out of the article. nableezy - 04:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Mountain names

Should the title & names of articles about mountains in the Golan Heights be in Arabic or Hebrew? nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Notifications have been left at WP:Israel, WP:Syria and WP:WikiProject Volcanoes. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 20:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

These are the mountains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Hills_on_the_Golan_Heights

Many of these have the hebrew names, I propose they be changed to the arabic name.

For example Givat Orcha - Tel Jukhdar or Mount Jukhdar

Mount Hermonit - Tell al-Sheikh or Mount Sheikh

Mount Bnei Rasan - Tell Bani Ghasan or Mount Bani Ghasan etc. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Those mountains have been under Israeli control for longer than they were under Arab rule. They are currently known to tourists and residents by their Hebrew name, are home to Hebrew speaking Israelis, etc. Even if, at some point, that region is transferred to Syrian rule, it is not our place to predict the future, or to disregard the reality in the Golan. okedem (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

|pol

These mountains have been Syrian for thousands of years and they havent been israeli for even half a minute. Wikipedia is not a tourist guide, so what the illegal settlers and their supporters think about a region in southwestern Syria is not the views of reality. The vast majority of the world sees it as part of Syria, it is therefore inappropriate to have hebrew names for Syrian mountains.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The country known as Syria came into existence in the 1940's, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. If you wanna talk about ancient history, I can point to Gamla, a Jewish city in the Golan, which was destroyed back in 67 AD, long before Syria existed. This was just one of the Jewish towns of the Golan, which long had a Jewish presence, and was part of kingdoms like the Hasmonean kingdom, and the earlier Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), and Kingdom of Israel (Samaria). So if you want to base your argument on history, you might have a problem. okedem (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a pressing interest for both languages. Both languages should be used. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, both names should be mentioned in the article (even in Israel, Arabic is an official language, and so Arabic names are used), and there should be redirects from names in either language to the articles. Unfortunately, for the very name of the article we are left with a simple binary choice - either Hebrew, or Arabic. okedem (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

We should accept the names used by the United Nations which recognizes the Golan Heights as part of Syria and accepts the Arabic names that Syria uses in their English language publications. See this map from the UN on page 15 where Arabic names are used.[5] I notice however that the map in the WP article from the CIA factbook uses the Hebrew names. So probably the Hebrew names should be in brackets. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not the UN, and are not subject to their decisions, which are primarily legally/politically motivated. We need to consider how common each name is, and which one is actively used. The name used by the people who actually live there is of the highest importance, even if one thinks they should live there. okedem (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Coming from the RFC and not having done much if any editing in this area. (I shall probably be shot by both sides for this opinion). I checked on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. The Ministry accepts that the Golan Heights are part of Syria which is subject to Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration. Successive Israeli governments have accepted the principal of withdrawl on the Golan Heights. This is not the same status which Israel accords to East Jerusalem (annexed to Israel) or to Judaea and Samaria (parts are under full Israeli control). My view is therefore that where the Golan Heights are being discussed in the context of law, jurisdiction and administration, the Israeli/Hebrew terminology should be used, but where the context is away from these areas, the Syrian/Arabic terminology should be primary. The naming of physical features is not primarily a matter of law, jurisdiction or administration, but of geography, and therefore I would use the Arabic names for the mountains of Golan. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If names are not about "law, jurisdiction or administration", why use Arabic names? Perhaps legally (murky term), the Golan belongs to Syria, but the people who live there are Israeli citizens, the places are maintained by Israeli agencies (like the Parks authority), visitors can come to these places only through Israel, using Hebrew names. okedem (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost half the people that live there today are Syrian citizens and the others are illegal settlers, the real native population that lived there before 1967 were exclusively Syrian.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion regarding legality, or what should be, is not the point. Wikipedia isn't a legal document, and isn't bound by UN ideas. It should simply use the common names, and the name the area's residents use is very relevant. okedem (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

These mountains are in the Golan, which is internationally recognized as part of Syria, an arabic speaking country, arabic names should be used for arab mountains belonging to an arab country. To have hebrew names about what is recognized internationally as Syrian mountains is not neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• I favour using both Arabic and Hebrew names where possible with the primary names being Arabic where a choice has to be made. I agree with Supreme. To use Israeli names as the primary names for geographical features that are in Syrian territory is highly inappropriate in my view. I'd even say that this is the kind of thing that can bring Wikipedia into disrepute. These features already had and still have internationally recognised Arabic names. Linguistically re-mapping an occupied landscape is about as far from neutral as you can get. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment The question remains, although Israel has said any return of the occupied Golan lands is subject to the peace process, very little action has been taken to achieve that. Various Israeli regimes have stated differing opinions, with Netanyahu most recently alluding to the fact that the Golan may never be returned. This isn't a simple dispute spanning a few years, but rather 40 years. Regardless of what the United Nations' opinion is (which is one opinion among many), consideration must be taken into how the land area is promoted internationally and what terms are commonly used to refer to the land and its geographic features. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 14:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a common name used internationally for these mountains? Steering clear if the political or legal ownership of the Golan Heights, which I feel doesn't have much relevence to the debate, do geological organisations and publications usually use the Hebrew or Arabic? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment (here due to RFC) - Is not the simplest answer to give the names on BOTH languages? Unless the mountains have been successfully identified with their ancient Hebrew names, I would guess that the names will often be quite close to each other. Since the Jewish presence in the region was minimal from the 1st until the 20th century, I would suggest that the Arabic name should be the primary one, but names in other languages including English and those used by the Christians of the region should also be given. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)