Talk:Golan Heights

map in infobox

This had been edit-warred out of the article without consensus in the past, but I re-added the CIA map to the infobox. There needs to be a map of the area in the infobox. nableezy - 13:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, "no consensus" is not a valid reason to oppose a change. A section has been opened here. Please explain your revert. I have seen the archived discussion, and despite the no consensus claim now there was never any consensus to remove the map. nableezy - 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not one single policy based argument was provided in the previous discussion to remove the CIA map, to have it in the geography section instead of the infobox is a compromise. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nableezy (talk · contribs)→Firstly, when was the map you added "edit-warred out of the article"? As I remember, there was consensus to replace it with the satellite image. Secondly, there is no Wikipedia policy that says, "There needs to be a map of the area in the infobox." What there is a policy on is editing in a spirit of consensus. The map removed hasn't been replaced with a different POV map, which would just be two wrongs; rather, it has been removed because the discussion at Archive 13 raised opposition to it on the basis of its imposing a particular POV onto the infobox. That is the reason for it's removal. Since you were the one who added the map, WP:BOP is on you to defend its inclusion, and the first message above is insufficient in that regard. Do you disagree that no map is better than a potentially POV map?—Biosketch (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There was never any consensus to remove the CIA map, it doesn't have to be in the infobox, but there was never any consensus to remove it from the article. Not one single policy based argument was provided by anyone for its removal. Those who claimed the map had a "POV" in the infobox where given the option to remove the same kind of "pov" from other articles by removing that Haifa is "in Israel", I don't believe one single person removed that same kind of "POV" from the Haifa article or any other article about locations in Israel, which means that the people who wanted the CIA map removed claiming it was "pov" did not apply the exact same reasoning to other articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont accept the premise that the map is "POV". What sources dispute what the map showed, that being the area is Syrian territory occupied by Israel? That is a super-majority view and should have its place as that. The article itself says that the area is considered Syrian territory occupied by Israel. I fail to see what the "POV" is in the map saying the exact same thing. But please, read WP:BOP. That deals with verifiability. It is easily verifiable that the map you removed is supported by a reliable source, see the map's description for the link to the original. nableezy - 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs).→Like I said at Archive 13, we need to be especially sensitive vis-a-vis the infobox map. Having the map in the geography section is better, but it is not a geographical map in the pure sense of the word. It is a political map, and as such it rightly belongs in the section of the article discussing the area's political aspects. The geography section, ideally, would have a map illustrating the geographical properties of the area, which is what that section of the article discusses. It doesn't discuss how the international community recognizes Syria's claim, etc.; it discusses elevations and geological features.—Biosketch (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The CIA map also shows geography. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of argument let's suppose no sources dispute that the area is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. But then, why not paint it the same color as Israel, seeing as there is no official Syrian presence there? I'll tell you why: because both approaches are points of view, subjective interpretations. Yes, the CIA website whence the map originated is a WP:RS. However, it is a politically-motivated RS. Lonely Planet, which displays the Golan as part of Israel,[1] is also an RS, but its angle is different – it cares more about making sure its readers understand where realpolitik borders are. One could argue that's also a POV approach, and that would be just as true. The point is that where an NPOV controversy cannot be reconciled, the element that is the source of the controversy is best removed or somehow balanced. The infobox is not the place for controversy.—Biosketch (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because Syria isn't controlling it is not a reason to paint it in the same color as Israel. Lonely planet is not a RS, worldview sources are in the article showing the international community view, the CIA map follows it. The CIA map also shows that Israel occupies it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the reason you would not have it be the same color as Israel because it is not in Israel. You cannot seriously be bringing a map from a travel guide as though it means something, at least bring the maps from the National Geographic, that would give me a reason to argue. The "balance" that you speak of is included in the CIA map, it includes the fact that Israel occupies that territory, a fact that is almost undisputed. nableezy - 16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the CIA map is that it's a political map. And when the Golan Heights intersects with politics, there can be no consensus. Why insist on dragging the infobox into that mess? That's what I don't understand. The National Geographic map, incidentally, indicates that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.[2]—Biosketch (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It follows the worldview, I don't understand what you mean by " And when the Golan Heights intersects with politics, there can be no consensus." The nationalgeographic map is not following the worldview.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm all on Biosketch side on this. The map is POV because it only reflects one view when there is at least 2 major views. Nableezy the article itself says that the area is considered Syrian territory occupied by Israel by the International community! Israel (and nauru and micronesia possibly) consider this to be Israeli territory and it's De Facto Israeli territory. Implying it is Syrian is taking ones side view and thus POV, in accordance with NPOV we should remain neutral and not take any side in this conflict and consequently not listing the Golan Heights as in any country. This is why the map is POV, it only reflects one view which in this case I think would be that of the united states. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there is the view of the international community, and the view of Israel, Wikipedia policy says we should follow the worldview. And the CIA map is also presented as a CIA map. If you believe the map is pov and you want to remove it, first go through all these location's here:[3] and remove the location maps of Israel and all text in the articles saying they are located in Israel since Hamas and several countries call the area "Palestine", and after you have "removed the pov" and been "neutral" and not "taking ones side view and thus POV, in accordance with NPOV we should remain neutral and not take any side in this conflict and consequently not listing Haifa, Tel Aviv, Kiryat Shmona etc as in any country." at those articles, you can do the same at this article. Bring source that says Nauru and Micronesia considers it part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a super majority view on the status of the Golan Heights. That view is "Syrian territory occupied by Israel". Whereas Israel argues that the West Bank and Gaza are not occupied as there had not been a legal sovereign in control of those territories when Israel seized them, they make no such argument with regard to the Golan. In fact, I am not aware of Israel even disputing that the Golan is Syrian territory under Israeli occupation. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Israel does in fact dispute this. NPOV requires that all significant views be included in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. It cannot be seriously argued that the argument that the Golan is anything other than Syrian territory occupied by Israel has anywhere near the prominence of the super majority view. Minority opinions can, and should, be included, but they cannot be allowed to be given the same standing as super-majority views. nableezy - 18:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is not a supermajority view. There are 3 parties here, the 2 involved parties are Syria & Israel, and then there is the 3rd uninvolved observer which is the UN. Sure you might include Iran or Hizbullah, but these are the major "participants" in this dispute. And furthermore wikipedia has never used the UN view as a fact. For example would it be NPOV to write in the Zionism article: Zionism is a movement that supports Jewish self-determination and between the years of 1970-1990 it was a form of racism but in 1990 it stopped being racism? No, however somewhere in the article we write that the UN passed a resolution calling it racism that later was revoked. And this was the super majority view. This is hypothetical of course. Even if Golan Heigts being syrian is the super majority view it still doesn't mean we should state their view as fact only give it more attention. This isn't a case of flat earth vs round earth. Israel is not a group of conspiracy theorists, it's a sovereign country that represents 50% of this conflict & which has control of the territory in question. It's most definitely a very prominent view. I recommend reading this; NPOV: Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them

Yes there is, which is the view of the international community (not only UN) there are sources in the article currently at ref nr 1 that shows the IC view, NPOV policy also goes into details on how to handle due and undue weight and that is to follow the worldview:[4]. If you believe in what you said here above then you would have gone through this category: [5] and removed that all those location's are "in Israel", as those articles are "taking one side of the dispute", your cheery picked quote from the npov policy: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them", so go ahead and remove that all those locations are "in Israel", so we wouldn't be "engaging in the disputes". And the CIA map is presented as a CIA map, not as a fact. The Israeli view is presented in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The international community's view is expressed through the organisation that is UN, it is in any case a third party and nothing else. As I said earlier due & undue weight doesn't mean we should state the majority view as fact, it means that thew minority view shouldn't gain as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views which I'm pretty sure this article is already doing with lots of information of various un resolutions for example. Again it's clear that this is a dispute that Wikipeda should not engage in. It's not "flat earth vs round earth" it's two sovereign countries having a territorial dispute.

And your example with Israeli cities is flawed, the only dispute is with a small islamic organisation and I'm not even sure they regard for example Haifa as not being located in Israel for the moment. The others who dispute this are uninvolved countries that again I'm not sure they regard Haifa as not being Israel, they just don't have full diplomatic relations with the country. But the fact is Israel do have somewhat diplomatic relations with these countries. Furhermore Israel also controls the cities which is another import factor. But sure delicious you go ahead and remove the locations I won't object.

Then you wouldn't object with for example a mossad map as long as we say it's from mossad? No we can't have any picture from anywhere just cause we state the source. What next a map of greater Israel as long as we state it's from kach followers? Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This map does a much better job at illustrating geography by the way;[6], I say we go choose this one which reflects the disputed nature of this territory and which isn't the result of personal oppinions getting in the way of neutrality. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are different sources in the article, including votes at UN and third party International Labour Office. Due & undue weight does show that in this case we should state the vast majority view as a fact, and if you don't believe it should then you have already twice now been given the option to use the same reasoning at other articles, but you haven't. There are around 20 countries who don't recognize Israel including those who refer to the area as Palestine. Plus Hezbollah and Hamas. Hamas was elected by the Palestinians as their government. The entire area of Israel is disputed, so to claim that any place there is "in Israel", we are "taking side" in the same way as you claim this article shouldn't take the vast majority side. Well its important to show the vast majority view as that is what npov says we should do, the CIA map does that. If Mossad or Kach had any map of the area, then it wouldn't belong here as this article isn't about Mossad or Kach and to ad maps about their extreme minority opinions here we would give undue weight. The map you brought has been discussed before, its factually incorrect showing the area as part of Israel by having the western ceasefire line shown as a border and the international boundary with Israel in the same color as the most eastern ceasefire line. So it isn't really reflecting the "disputed nature of the area", but reflecting the Israeli pov. Since there isn't currently a problem with any map in the article that is the result of personal opinions getting in the way of neutrality, there is no need to do anything. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To say there is no super majority view is to stick ones head in the sand. There certainly is, and nearly every scholarly work on the topic of the status of the Golan under international law backs that up. The UN is not a party to this "dispute", and I was not using the UN's position as the super-majority view (though they are a part of that super-majority). Fipplet, can you please provide scholarly sources that dispute that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel? I am sure I can provide you 10 articles published by top notch academic presses in peer-reviewed journals on the topic of international law that say flat out that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. And that is just the first page of a JSTOR search. Imagine when I start looking in ProjectMUSE or HeinOnline, or even go to page 2 of the JSTOR search results. nableezy - 23:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, could you please provide a source for the claim that two sovereign nations dispute the status of the territory? I have looked, and I cannot actually find Israel making any such claims. nableezy - 23:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Two separate issues are being conflated into one here, which is making this discussion futile. One issue is the view of the international community vis-a-vis the status of the Golan. We agree that the international community acknowledges Israel's occupation of the area but recognizes Syria's claim to sovereignty over it. That was not the problem with Nableezy (talk · contribs)'s edit. The problem was his choice of map and the place where he chose to put it. The map itself is problematic because it does not accurately represent the view of the international community. What it represents is the view of the CIA. An NPOV map would not shrink the comment "Israeli occupied" to the point of being hardly legible while printing "Syria" in larger and bolder font than "Israel." And the infobox is not an appropriate place to promote a POV regarding the dispute; the appropriate place for that is the section on the political dispute, where the two relevant POVs can each be addressed in context.

And with respect to Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs)' proposal that Haifa be considered a disputed city because Hamas and Hezbollah don't recognize Israel's sovereignty over it, that is again conflating two separate issues. In so far as the "dispute" over Haifa is between anyone, it is between Israel and the Palestinians. The body recognized by the international community as representing the Palestinians is the Palestinian Authority, and the leaders of the Palestinian Authority as recognized by the Quartet are the Fatah guys – and correct me if I'm wrong but I'm quite sure they have formally withdrawn their claim to Haifa. East Jerusalem would be an apt analogy here, but Haifa is irrelevant.—Biosketch (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it does represent the view of the international community perfectly - it shows that its part of Syria, and that Israel occupies it. As I have already said above, the map shows geography, so it can be in the geography section. The "pov" it shows is a neutral pov following WP policy, so there is no problem in that aspect. Your comments about the size of the print are frivolous, "Israel" is almost the same size, and there is no problem with having the "Syria" print a (little bit) bigger since its located in that country, when people click on the map they can clearly see "Israeli occupied". This is the way a RS has chosen to do the map. Maps are mainly for showing where a place is located, Iraq maps and Afghanistan maps don't need "United States-occupied" in huge letters on them. I wasn't talking about Fatah, I was talking about 20 countries who don't recognize Israel including those who call the area Palestine, and Hezbollah and Hamas. Hamas was elected by the Palestinians, and even the views of other countries and organizations are relevant.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, I will gladly increase the size of the words Israeli occupied if you would like. It would be my pleasure. The purpose of the map is to show where it is and what its status is at a quick glance, which is what the infobox is for. The infobox itself says what the map says, so I cant see a problem with the map saying the same thing. Finally, you are wrong on a point, that "the body recognized by the international community as representing the Palestinians is the Palestinian Authority". No, it is not. The PLO is recognized as the representative of the Palestinians, the PNA is an administrative organization created by Oslo to run, or I might say collaborate with Israel's running of, portions of the occupied territories. They are not the representative of the Palestinian people. The seat at the UN is granted to the PLO, as is the Arab League seat. But none of that really matters on an article on a place in Syria. nableezy - 13:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What the article says is that it is syrian territory according to the IC but administered by Israel and claimed by Syria, not that it is located in Syria which is in contrast to the map. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 13:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And? You want to change the text to say that its located in Syria instead of that its internationally recognized as Syrian territory? The map is following the IC view, so there is nothing wrong with it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Deliciousness I already told you once that I won't object with you editing those articles, I have no obligation to edit them myself though and I don't have the time, but I am giving you green light, go ahead buddy.Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 13:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not because I know that is a violation of npov, it was only a couple days ago you edited the Nazareth article, so you apparently have time editing articles about locations in Israel while at the same time are not "removing the pov", so unless you apply the same reasoning for those article you are editing, then you cant do it here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't edit the Nazareth article I discussed at the discussion page which I left to come here, and my time is not your bussines. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 15:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You edited the Nazareth article: [7], and you discussed at the talkpage, and you have also edited the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem articles, so you have the time to "remove the pov" at those articles if you wanted to. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy first of all extending your law over a territory is definitely a way to claim that territory, furthermore former PM olmert said that Golan is an integral part of Israel and current PM said that Golan will remain in Israel's hands. Plus there is Israeli flags everywhere in the golan. They don't have to explicitly say "we think the Golan is located in Israel" for them to claim it. It's definitely a claim. Unless you have something that would say otherwise? I know that Shimon Peres once said he wanted to return it to Syria and he considered it Syrian land but that's just one man and a president not pm. Nevertheless Israel is definitely claiming it with what I said before.

Anyway I took a look at Jstor and I don't know what you searched for but I think it's pretty clear that the majority of sources does not say that the Golan is located in Syria. They don't have to explicitly say it isn't part of syria as long as they don't say it as being part of any country. Simply put they don't engage in the dispute and neither should we. This one implies that Golan is not in Syria; students from the Golan went to study in Syria, for example u don't say 65 students from New York went to study in Usa no? [8] & [9] refrain from saying which country the Golan is located in. That's three articles already. I found that the Journal of Palestine Studies used the term Syrian Golan, but that's just one source and of dubious neutrality in this question. I'm sure you can find many sources saying "syrian golan" etc. But the fact is most sources refrain from using such labels in order to remain neutral. Furthermore NPOV doesn't require us to represent all sources equally it require us to represent all significant viewpoints presented in sources equally. The Syrian claim is one and the Israeli claim is another we do not engage in this dispute and even if there's a majority considering the Golan to be Syrian that doesn't mean we should state it as fact only give the majority view a more detailed description which this article is already doing with for example numerous un resolutions, if I'm not mistaken. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 13:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You can find some articles following the Israeli pov, but all worldview sources say its part of Syria, and the worldview is what we should follow according to npov. Here is a source saying a place in the West Bank is "in Israel":[10] this doesn't mean we should disregard the worldview. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There's obviously a dispute about this map and replacing it with another withouth the text Syria in the Golan would maybe not end it. I say we should just remove it. In that case we won't saying it is in Israel, Syria or neither, the text in the infobox stays and the whole article is still there describing the situation. That should be a fair compromise. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 13:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been one single policy based argument against the map, there really isn't a dispute about the map, so there is no reason to remove it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes there have been arguments that it is against npov. Just because you dissagree doesn't mean there isn't a dispute. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 15:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not policy based arguments. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your links dont work for me. You are requesting that we treat a minority view as the same as a super-majority view. That is not how NPOV works. nableezy - 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to be a member of an university or a library listed to acces them, why you mention them if you can't acces? But here is the short versions [11], creation of an Israeli-Syrian boundry. I didn't request that I said first of all that the majority view is to not saying the Golan is in any country. Secondly the majority view in a case like this can't be stated as fact only given a more detailed description which is the whole point of due weight. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As said above, apply the exact same reasoning you want here to other articles, then you can do it here.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can get to JSTOR just fine, but I cant access your libraries link. That is a bit too technical to explain, but Ill look at these now. This is not a "Syrian claim" and an "Israeli claim". The entire world, almost without exception, says the Golan is in Syria. These are not two equal, or even close to equal, "claims". To treat it as such is to violate "due weight", which states that each view should be given weight relative to the weight sources give them. A super-majority view deserves, in fact is required to have, greater weight attached to it. But your links about a PM making some statement about the Golan staying in Israel was not what I was looking for. Is there a source for Israel actually arguing that the Golan is not Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation? nableezy - 14:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok then this where the titles; War and Settlement Change: The Golan Heights and the Jordan Rift, 1967-77; Climbing down the Golan Heights: Advantage to Syria; Education, Control and Resistance in the Golan Heights. Again a majority of sources refrain from "saying the golan is in Syria" thus it is not the world view. Unless you're talking about the UN which we already discussed and it is an uninvolved 3rd party. Also due weight says each view should be given the amount of detailed description relative to the weight of sources nothing about using the majority view as fact.

If you're saying the area is an integral part of Israel I'm pretty sure that means it's not syrian territory. And it's not really required either since there is no source for Israel actually arguing that Tel Aviv is not Italian territory either. It's not the same but point is you don't have to argue it isn't part of another country just to claim it as part of your country. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 15:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This has already been replied to above that you ignored and you are now beginning the same conversation, just because you can find articles that doesn't say that its Syrian, doesn't mean we can disregard the IC view, I showed you a RS above that said a place n the West Bank is "in Israel". And its not only the UN, its the vast majority of all countries, a reliable source calls it "international community". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong wikipedia never uses the IC view as fact. And it isn't it's a uninvolved 3rd party view.Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it is a view not a fact. Ask Jim Wales. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the IC, it is a fact.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The IC view maybe is that it is a fact. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There are statements made by politicians in public, then there are arguments made by the state. Those are not the same thing. Where are you getting that a majority of sources "refrain from 'saying the golan is in Syria' and thus it is not a world view"? Which sources would those be? nableezy - 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, would you object to a map similar to the one here? nableezy - 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The source for that map says the golan heights is in Israel even: The town is perched on the slopes of the majestic Mount Herman - or Jabal Sheikh to Arabs - straddling the Israeli-Syrian border

I know but as I said about Tel Aviv; you don't have to argue it isn't part of another country just to claim it as part of your country. For example the three I showed you and sent their name so you can look it up on Jstore. Here's another from Reuters saying the Golan heights is between Israel and Syria [12]Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This has already been replied to above that you have ignored. Here is a source saying a place in the West Bank is "in Israel":[13] this doesn't mean we should cherry pick it and disregard the worldview. The BBCs GH article says: "The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria" [14], but it doesn't matter, its enough that all worldview sources say its in Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't look below I showed at least 6 sources that speaks against you.Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And not a single of them a worldview source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What's a worldview source? If it's the un again it should be noted but not stated as fact, uninvolved 3rd party viewpoint. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The international community, vast majority of all countries. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are three from Reuters were they say it is Israeli occupied: [15], [16], [17]. The Golan does not exist in some mystical neverland where it is not in any state. nableezy - 16:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't occupied, the article itself says it is occupied as well: Two-thirds of the land was captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War and has since been occupied. That is not the question, if you can find a map where it says Israel to the west Syria to the east(not straddling the Golan heights and not any borders or colours implying ownership) and then Golan (Israeli occupied) then I would find that completely acceptable even better than my suggestion (which was the same but withouth Israeli occupied) since it reflects the situation more accurately. Your second argument is flawed, there is a dispute over which state the Golan belong to and we should list both viewpoints. We're not living in a neverland just because there are international disputes with different viewpoints. If it is that important to you to list it in a state list it in Israel then. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The map you are suggesting would not be accurate or neutral as it wouldn't show a part internationally recognized as part of Syria as being in Syria. Your arguments about the "dispute" here has been replied to several times above. You are not editing other articles based on the same arguments you are using here.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your BBC source says, several times, that the Golan is occupied by Israel. When it uses "border" it is referring to the ceasefire line that separates the Israeli-occupied portion of the Golan from the rest of Syria. You cant really pretend to believe that the BBC says the Golan is in Israel, can you? At least 10 sources from the BBC can be provided that make clear that they acknowledge the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. nableezy - 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No it shows the Golan as not being part of any country which is the NPOV. How I edit other articles is completely irrelevant. As far as I know there's no policy on wikipedia which says you have to discuss at the Haifa discussion to be allowed to discuss at the Golan heights discussion.Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No its not, as it gives the extreme minority view the same weight as vast majority, in direct violation of npov. How you edit other articles are directly relevant as you are not applying the same reasoning at other articles as you want to do here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that about BBC for example your map is from there so the BBC is pretty clear case, nevertheless they still said the Israeli-syrian border is at mount hermon (no mention of ceasefireline). Now this is obviously not enough for saying it should be in Israel and that's not what I'm arguing for either but this is what was said in the BBC once, it's obviously a disputed situation. [18] another BBC which implies Israeli-occupied Golan is not part of Syria. So not even BBC themselves are sure. Never mind about the BBC here's more sources [19], [20]. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Has been replied to above and you have ignored, you are cherry picking articles only representing themselves. Worldview sources [21][22] shows its internationally recognized as part of Syria, that's what matters. And the CIA map is presented as from the CIA.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The UN is not fact not on wikipedia. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources above are not the UN organizations view, one is a third part source speaking about the international community view, the other a UN vote where countries have voted, therefor representing countries.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's neverthless an uninvolved 3rd part view, keyword is view. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Really it's time to end this discussions a plethora of sources refrain from using the Golan heights as located in Syria, Im sure there are also sources who dissagree but then we shouldn't take side in that dispute either! If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. There are two prominient viewpoints and in accordance with NPOV we should not engage in disputes. I already offered 3 alternatives; remove the map, use this map [23] or use a the aforementioned map or similar and add Israeli occupied/annexed (whatever you find more preferable), I hope one of these compromises could be acceptable to you. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is like the fourth time you are ignoring the arguments above, you bring cherry picked articles that doesn't say its part of Syria, ignoring them that say it is and ignoring all worldview sources says it is, NPOV: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. " "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." ,[24]. You have repeatedly given the option to apply the same reasoning that you claim is "npov" and "engaging in disputes" at other articles that you want to do here, and you haven't, so you cant do it here either. The three "alternatives" you are suggesting are not compromises, 1. there is no policy based reason to remove the map, 2. the relief map has been replied to above which you ignored, 3. has also been replied to above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't ignored them I acknowledged them but they are not better than my sources and what you just posted I've said all along. And as far as Im aware of nableezy didn't answer to my alternative. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is sure, see here or a large number of other articles. So is the US, the EU, the UN, the ICRC, every major human rights organization I can think of, countless scholars in international law, nearly every member state of the UN, and an abundance of other sources. This is going to be settled by the best sources, not seeing who can google faster (though if it comes to that I can do that too. See for example The Economist: tthe Israeli-occupied part of Syria's Golan Heights, or another from the Economist: so long as Israel remains in occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights, TIME: Israel's occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights). nableezy - 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

According to TIME itself the golan heights is disputed territory between four countries, and one mention of Syrian Golan Heights isn't better than one mention of mount hermon straddling the border. Point is a plethora of sources refrain from labeling the territory as Syrian and some like Times and Reuters say it is disputed and between the countries, some do label it as Syrian territory but again we shouldn't take sides. And also again the view of uninvolved 3rd parties is not fact but of course should be noted in the article. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[25]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've said this many times "As I said earlier due & undue weight doesn't mean we should state the majority view as fact, it means that thew minority view shouldn't gain as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views which I'm pretty sure this article is already doing with lots of information of various un resolutions for example". Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you really believed it: "You have repeatedly given the option to apply the same reasoning that you claim is "npov" and "engaging in disputes" at other articles that you want to do here, and you haven't, so you cant do it here either." [26] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't edit any other articles for the moment which this reasoning can be applied to. It's furthermore very irrelevant for this article. Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You joined Wikipedia in 2007, four years later and you haven't applied the same reasoning at other articles that you now want here. And again, the map is presented as a CIA map. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy (talk · contribs), [that map would not be appropriate for the infobox because it is not NPOV; the infobox map should be NPOV. It would be fine as part of the section in the article elaborating on the political POVs in the dispute, though. Also, to make a constructive suggestion, here is a map that would be great for the geography section, though I can't vouch for its reliability or anything: [27]. If someone knows of a similar map that's usable and published by an RS, it would be better than the one currently in the Geography section.—Biosketch (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but now I dont understand your position at all. Maybe I imagined this, but I was under the impression that you viewed the CIA map as non "NPOV" because it had Israel the same color as the other countries that surround the Golan and the words "Israeli occupied" were too small which made it seem as though Israel has no status at all. This map has neither of those issues. Exactly what would the map have to show for you to say it is "NPOV"? nableezy - 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A more careful review of Archive 13 would have clarified your confusion. An NPOV map would illustrate the location of the Golan in the world without committing itself to either of the two prominent POVs – that the Golan is in Israel or Syria. One way to do this was elaborated on in Archive 13: paint Israel one color, Syria another, and fill the Golan with diagonal stripes of alternating colors. Another way could be to use the map you are suggesting, but move the "Syria" label to the right so it doesn't overlap with the GH.—Biosketch (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are in oxymoron, a npov map can not show Golans location in the world without showing it as in Syria. The map you are suggesting would put Israel in the same position as Syria for a location internationally recognized as in Syria, thus violating npov. We don't put Palestine in the same position as Israel for location's internationally recognized as in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All right, now I see the problem. Let's see if we cant move forward. If you would indulge me, Id like to ask a few questions, but one at a time. Is there a super-majority view, near unanimous, on the political status of the Golan among competent parties (that being other sovereign states, the UN, and the ICRC)? nableezy - 21:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

View on legality has nothing to do with lines of control. The territory should simply have dashes around it while neither Israel or Syria should have prominence in the map. This makes sure that Wikipedia is not viewed on taking a side in the conflict. It also makes it clear enough without adding tons of notes to the infobox. Keep in mind that the infobox is supposed to be a quick glance thing and not a place to overly expand on disputes or promote a disputed (several variables and significant enough to not be "fringe") POV. This should be an easy fix and anything less shows that the editing process here is flawed.Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In articles about locations in Israel, which you have edited, Israel always have the prominence, why don't you ever edit them so that we don't take side in the conflict Israel against Palestine? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about legality? Whose side would Wikipedia be taking by labeling a part of Syria occupied by Israel as Syrian territory occupied by Israel? If, as you say, the infobox is supposed to be a "quick glance", shouldn't somebody who quickly glances be able to see what country the Golan is in? nableezy - 03:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Legality is the problem. I assume you have read my previous arguments (the area functions as part of Israel with enforced laws, border patrol, Israeli business, a decent share of residents claiming to be in Israeli, and so on and so on). This is viewed as illegal by many legal scholars and most of the international community. However, we cannot take sides on it and should leave it ambiguous in the infobox so that the prose can clearly lay out the multiple variables. The area of contention should have dashed lines where Sryia claims a border and Israel claims a border. A line of control is often used in atlases and this would be similar. Presenting the area as part of Syria causes confusion to the reader since it does not function as part of the nation. Presenting it as part of Israel is confusing to the reader since it might be legally incorrect. Are you trying to present the legal reality (those arguing against you are certainly trying to present the on the ground reality) or are you trying to use Wikipedia to establish validity? If it is the former I totally get it but have to point out the other side of the coin. If it is the later than I cannot comment on it.

But please feel free to ignore the question altogether and consider that adding two lines of dashes at separate ends of the are would be an easy solution.Cptnono (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are using legality in a way that I am not. Nobody has tried to say that Israel's occupation of the Golan is itself illegal (though the imposition of Israeli law is illegal). Military occupation is not "illegal". Everything that you say about the "functions as part of Israel" is covered by "Israeli occupied". Israel controls the territory, there is no dispute about that. That control, however, is called "occupation". That has nothing to do with legality, nothing at all. nableezy - 13:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The map is not in the infobox, and the map is presented as from the CIA. We take side at articles about places in Israel which you have no problem with. The CIA map also shows that Israel occupies it, so there's no confusion. The map you are suggesting would put Israel in the same position as Syria for a location internationally recognized as in Syria, thus violating npov. We don't put Palestine in the same position as Israel for location's internationally recognized as in Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), there is no contradiction at all. We do not say that Majdal Shams is in Syria, for that would be condoning a POV. As an editor who has been active on that page, I presume you understand why that is the consensus. There is no reason to treat the Golan Heights any differently. It is a disputed region, and to say that it is "in Syria" or "in Israel" is to favor one POV over another. It is also incorrect to say that "a npov map can not show Golans location in the world without showing it as in Syria." That comment suggests that not taking a side is equivalent to embracing an Israeli POV. But the Israeli POV is that the GH is in Israel, so there is no equivalence.—Biosketch (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Majdal Shams article has large problems including pov. I don't believe that article has consensus for how it is. Its an article I have wanted to correct for a long time, but never got around to it. We take sides at articles about places in Israel which you have no problem with. But the CIA map is now not in the infobox and it is presented as from the CIA, so I believe you should accept it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), "Is there a super-majority view, near unanimous, on the political status of the Golan among competent parties (that being other sovereign states, the UN, and the ICRC)?" That is a vital question, which I don't have a conclusive answer to. You'll notice that the text in the infobox does not accurately reflect the quoted sources in the refs. The consensus among the refs is that the Golan is Israeli-occupied territory. Only two of the seven refs, however, explicitly call the Golan "Syrian." Our infobox says, "Internationally recognised as Syrian territory occupied by Israel." That would seem to be a minority view at least among the sources cited. Frapper also raised the point that recognizing Syria's claim to sovereignty is not the same as saying the land is in Syria. This is perhaps the reason so few RSes actually say the Golan is in Syria.—Biosketch (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There is the international community view. The text in the infobox does accurately reflect the sources, one is a third party source saying: "The international community maintains that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and without international legal effect." , one is a UN vote 161-1 for the "occupied Syrian Golan". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, are you serious? You think that the majority view is that the territory is "Israeli occupied" but not "Syrian"? Wow. Im sorry, but I have no idea who Frapper is, could you clarify? It is going to take me a minute to to wipe the disbelief of seeing your answer from eyes, but Ill bring sources that explain this a bit better. Thousands of reliable sources say the Golan is Syrian territory, some of which are quoted or linked on this page. There is no paucity of sources that make this point crystal clear. nableezy - 13:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, you say thatOnly two of the seven refs, however, explicitly call the Golan "Syrian." And from this you argue that it is a "minority view among the sources cited" that the Golan is Syrian territory. Two of the remaining 5 references are for the US position. One of those references is to the CIA world factbook, where it discusses the Golan in the entry on Syria. If you really dispute that the US considers the Golan to be Syrian territory, please see for example the map here, or this State Department briefing to Congress which says In particular, the Syrian Golan Heights territory, which Israel has occupied since 1967, has been one of the most intractable issues in the Arab-Israeli dispute. That crosses two of those sources that you believe make it a minority opinion that the Golan is Syrian off. The other source is the ICRC. See for example this, which is about Syrian residents of the Golan having ties with "the rest of Syria". Or see, for example this map from the ICRC. Or the ICRC annual report on Syria which focuses mostly on the Golan. The last source also says Syrian Golan, I do not know how you counted 3 of 5 not saying such. But each of the organizations listed clearly says the Golan is Syrian territory. Do you still dispute that? nableezy - 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), if no one voices objection to an edit, then it is, with some exceptions, the equivalent of saying it has consensus until someone else comes along and says otherwise. And if you say you have not been able to get around to editing Majdal Shams for so long, your frustration over my and other editors' lack of involvement at hundreds of other articles where you expect us to be involved is puzzling to say the least. Each of us edits Wikipedia as a function of his or her subjective priorities. Most of the articles I've edited aren't even in the I/P domain, so there should be nothing surprising about me or User:Fipplet or anyone else not editing the articles you demand that we edit. Concluding that we don't have a problem with what's there just because we've never edited those articles is absurd.—Biosketch (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't voice objection to an edit doesn't mean that they accept it or that there is consensus for it. Not really the same thing, the changes I would think I should do at Majdal Shams I do at other articles when I edit them, but the changes Fipplet wants to do here, he hasn't done at other articles which he has edited many of for 4 years. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree there isn't complete overlap, but still: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus" (WP:CONS). SD, for the record, would you say that Qatzrin is a village/settlement in Syria?—Biosketch (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe sometimes, but in some cases it doesn't. Kazrin is an Israeli settlement in Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. And would you consider that to be your personal opinion and/or a verifiable consensus shared by an overwhelming majority of the international community?—Biosketch (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not my personal opinion, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are generally called Israeli settlements, and the international community regards the GH as in Syria as shown with sources above, so = Israeli settlement in Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy (talk · contribs), please keep your dramatizations out of the Discussion page. Your question as to the sincerity of my comments was out of line, and I am not interested in hearing about which parts of your body you rub pursuant to reading my messages. There are seven bullets corresponding to citation no. 1 in the infobox. My observation was based on the quotes provided in the References section of the article where, indeed, the first source explicitly refers to the Golan as Syrian ("the occupied Syrian Golan"); sources 2 through 5 do not; source six does; and source seven does. For whatever reason I had counted two out seven; now I acknowledge there are three out of seven that explicitly call the Golan "Syrian." Arithmetically, that is still three sevenths, i.e. a minority. As to "Frapper," what I meant to say was Fipplet (talk · contribs). He made an important point that just because the international community may acknowledge that Israel occupies the Golan does not necessarily mean they recognize Syria's claim to it. Hopefully my position is clearer to you now, and any further questions you have I'll be happy to address, provided they're confined to content and not to anything else.—Biosketch (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The: The situation of workers of the occupied Arab territories source and the UN vote sources, shows the international community view, it doesn't matter if the other say its occupied because it doesn't contradict the worldview that its Syrian in the other sources. Well, in this case, the international community does say its Syrian, not only that its occupied. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Two of those other references are about the US government position. Given we have had this discussion about a US government produced map that places, in very large letters, the word Syria on a map of the Golan, I cannot believe that you feel that their position is that the Golan is not in Syria. No matter though, I have provided several other sources that make that clear. I also provided an additional reference for the ICRC. If you like, I'll replace the US references with the one provided here that makes the point. Do you still dispute the point? nableezy - 16:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, where did I say that I feel that the position of the U.S. government is that the Golan is not in Syria? Please show me where I said that.—Biosketch (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Two of the references you use to say that the apparent majority view is that the Golan is not Syrian territory were references from the US government. But as we agree that the US does say the Golan is in Syria, there is not much of a point to continuing in this line of discussion. Do you agree that each of the following considers the Golan as Syrian territory occupied by Israel: the UN and its various bodies, the EU, the US, the Russia, China, and a near unanimity of the member states of the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the ICRC? Who exactly does not say the Golan is in Syria? nableezy - 17:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm seeing where the confusion is originating from. Calling the Golan "Syrian" and saying it is "in Syria" are two different things. We use the adjective Israeli to modify the word settlement, but that does not necessarily mean the settlement is in Israel. In order to use a map that suggests the Golan is in Syria (e.g. the CIA map), it is necessary to establish that the consensus among the overwhelming majority of the parties to the dispute and/or among independent third-party sources is that the Golan is in Syria. This is the crux of the problem. There appear to be parties insisting that the Golan should be ceded to Syria, but that would imply that they concede it is not currently part of Syria.—Biosketch (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Who says it is not in Syria? I can find sources, but you need to tell me who it is you think disputes this fact. nableezy - 18:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is in Syria, then it cannot be returned to Syria. Last time I checked, Syria wanted it back, which means they don't currently have it. Same with Taiwan. - BorisG (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Who says that the Golan is not in Syria? The US clearly does, as does the UN, the EU, the ICRC, and countless other sources. Who says it is not? I really am beginning to get annoyed with these unsubstantiated opinions from random people on the internet when I ask for sources. nableezy - 18:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should the onus be on me? An editor tried to add a map to the infobox, and I subsequently removed it arguing that it was POV. The burden should be on the editor trying to add the map to establish that it reflects a consensus wherein there's near-unanimous agreement that the Golan is in Syria. There are sources in the infobox that do not recognize the absorption of the Golan into the State of Israel, but that does not mean they view it as being in Syria. I understand that this can be considered a subtle difference and sympathize with you for becoming annoyed, but you still must provide sources that establish unequivocally that the Golan Heights are in Syria.—Biosketch (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already discussed the infobox and the citations in there. Let me repeat, two of those sources that you say do not support the view that the Golan is in Syria are from the US. One of them is discussing the Golan in the Syria section of the CIA World Factbook. I have given you several sources that make clear the US view that the Golan is in Syria. But yet you continue to give this line that the sources dont support it. Fine, in about 10 seconds they will. nableezy - 19:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that that is done, could you please tell me who it is that you think says the Golan is not Syrian territory? I am willing to provide the sources, but I do not know who it is that you think disputes this fact. The US? The UN or any of its bodies? The ICRC? The EU? Which of these, or anybody/thing else, would you like more sources for? nableezy - 19:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that what is done? I see that you edited the article. Where are the sources establishing that there is a consensus that the Golan Heights are in or are a part of Syria? It was explained above that calling the Golan "Syrian" and saying it is "in Syria" are two different things. Can I ask that you duplicate here only those refs that clearly state that the Golan is in Syria with accompanying quotations? Thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not different things, and that is a ludicrous assertion you are making. Saying a territory is Syrian is saying it is in Syria. Syrian territory occupied by Israel. That is what the Golan is and that is what the sources say. This word playing notwithstanding, do you accept that each of the organizations listed above consider the Golan to be Syrian territory held by Israel under military occupation? nableezy - 19:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

They can certainly be construed as different, and the distinction here is a crucial one: the same editors that would argue that "Syrian territory" means in Syria would likely not argue that "Israeli settlement" means in Israel. Even if my answer to your question were yes, it would still be necessary to cite sources that explicitly identify the Golan as being in Syria. Simply calling the Golan Syrian is too ambiguous for the CIA map to be considered NPOV.—Biosketch (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The area being "Syrian" and it being "Syria" is the same thing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The analogy fails as ""Israeli settlement" is a noun phrase that means a locality established by Israel in the occupied territories, not a settlement, in the generic sense of the term, of Israel. Saying something is "Syrian territory" is not in any way analogous to saying "Israeli settlement". "Syrian territory" has a clear meaning. But I can even give sources that say "southwestern Syria". For example, this for the US. Here is a map from the UN showing the Golan in Syria (compare to the map of Israel where it shows it outside of Israel). These word playing games serve no purpose except to filibuster. "Syrian territory" has a well defined meaning; it is not open to the type of games being seen here. nableezy - 20:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is crucial a difference between insisting on solid sources that meet policy requirements and filibustering. Calling the former the latter is distorting the reality of what is happening here. Remember that you inserted a POV map into the infobox with no attempt at all to furnish an explanation for it on the Discussion page, despite the fact that not a fortnight before there was a discussion between about a dozen editors on why that map was unsuitable for the infobox. If an editor's patience is so thin that he cannot engage in a BRD interaction for three days without recourse to accusations of insincere editing, then Wikipedia is not the proper forum for him as he is only inviting more frustration on his part.

The proposed CIA map labeled the Golan Heights as part of Syria. Unless it can be conclusively established that that map reflects the consensus of the overwhelming majority of observers, policy-makers and parties to the Golan Heights dispute, it is not an appropriate map for the infobox, because the infobox is not articulating the claim that the Golan Heights are a part of Syria. What the infobox says is that the Golan Heights are "Internationally recognised as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Currently under Israeli civil administration. Claimed by Syria." The international community, then, recognizes two things a-la the infobox: that Syria's claim to the territory is valid and that Israel is its occupier at the present time. Does that mean the international community conceives of the Golan Heights as being currently a part of the Syrian Republic? The answer is that it could mean that, but there is no assurance that that is the correct interpretation. "Internationally recognised as Syrian territory occupied by Israel" can just as well mean that, ideally, the Golan Heights would be part of the Syrian Republic, but owing to Israel's occupation of it they cannot be said to be so at this time. The two interpretation are equally sound, wherefore the burden of proof is still on the editor who wishes to illustrate one interpretation but not the other via a map. As far as the CIA map itself goes, although it does not say so in words, it is espousing the claim that the Republic of Syria includes the Golan Heights, Israel's occupation of it notwithstanding. Until someone comes along and provides evidence to the contrary, it can be said with confidence that the official policy of the United States is that the Golan Heights are a part of Syria. You also linked to another document that says essentially the same thing. So we have one country that explicitly says the Golan Heights are in Syria. But that we already knew from the map, so it isn't anything new and has really just reverted the argument back to square one – that the view of the United States is not grounds for using a CIA map in the infobox for which there is no consensus. Which brings us to the United Nations maps ([28] and [29]). Those maps have a message at the bottom cautioning the reader against construing them as official United Nations policy, which makes them invalid for our purposes. So at the end of the day – or three days, rather – the conclusion we reach is that the only source for the claim that the Golan Heights are in Syria today is the United States. One wonders, Are there countries or prominent independent third-party sources that explicitly say the Golan is actually in Israel? If the answer to that question turned out to be Yes, well then it would be futile to try to establish a consensus that the Golan Heights are in Syria, for clearly no such consensus exists in the real world. Well, as it turns out, aside from Israel itself, which has on numerous occasions repeated its claim that the Golan Heights are an integral part of the State of Israel, The New York Times – arguably the most important source of information in the world – has actually called the Golan Heights "formally...part of Israel" [30]. Similarly, National Geographic, perhaps the world's most esteemed publication on world geography, not only invoked the expression "Israel's Golan Heights"[31], but in an official map from the year 2000[32] actually extended Israel's border to encompass the Golan Heights and printed the label "ISRAEL" so as to stretch across them. These examples are of course not being brought here to argue that a map showing the Golan Heights as part of Israel should be displayed in the infobox. Rather, they reinforce the conclusion already reached in previous discussions that there is no consensus for showing the Golan Heights as part of Syria today.—Biosketch (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In the previous discussion and this, no policy based arguments were provided showing that the map was pov. And the map is not in the infobox now, but even if it was there wouldn't be any problem. You have already been shown worldview sources that say its part of Syria. Again: "Syrian" is the same thing "Syria". Yes the CIA map says its part of Syria, and that Israel occupies it, in accordance with npov. A couple of UN maps with disclaimers doesn't change the fact what the IC view is. There are several sources shown that says that the IC view is that GH is in Syria. There are news article that follow the Israeli pov that Golan is part of Israel, several are published in reliable sources, but they only represent their own authors. Here is a reliable source (National Geographic) article that says that a place in the West Bank is "in Israel", [33] but it isn't in Israel. So we cant cherry pick articles that only represent the pov of the authors and disregard other sources, and in this case no worldview sources has been provided saying its not in Syria, only that it is, the consensus is therefore that there is no problem with a map saying it is in Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Making an argument that makes a mockery of the policies of the website, such as saying "Syrian territory" is not equivalent to "territory in Syria", is filibustering. The fact is that this map had been in the article for years, and was removed without policy backing it up by a set of editors who had attempted to edit-war it out of the article in the past. You are twisting clear words into something other than what they are. You bring a 30 year old source discussing the Golan law, a law that the UN ruled null and void. And you use this to say "the most important source of information in the world" says the Golan is part of Israel? The National Geographic has a maps policy which says they aim to show "a de facto point of view". That is, because Israel has illegally applied its law to the Golan, in the National Geographic Map Policy Committee's view, the Golan de facto functions as part of Israel. The article makes this point already, however a "de facto point of view" for a legal boundary is not a "neutral point of view". If you would like sources from what is "arguably the most important source of information in the world", here is one from the AP: "Plateau at southwestern corner of Syria." And here is a source from the NYTimes, in which it says Israel explains why it did not withdraw from the Shebaa Farms as part of its withdrawal from Lebanon: [34]: "Israel and the United Nations say the land belongs to Syria and is part of the Golan Heights that has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 war." But news sources are not the best sources, not even close, and the NYTimes is certainly not "the most important source of information in the world". Neither the National Geographic or the NYTimes is a competent party to determine international borders. The world, almost without exception, considers the 1949 armistice line to be the international border between Israel and Syria, at least until an agreement between those two countries makes a different one. I am not annoyed of "BRD", I am annoyed of the disingenuous arguments, such as saying "Syrian territory" means something other than "territory in Syria". That is what is annoying, these arguments that have no merit being used to filibuster the inclusion of what the entire world acknowledges as a fact. nableezy - 13:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Buddy, it's time to move on. If there were unanimity among the RSes that the Golan Heights were in Syria, it would not be such a difficult task finding sources that explicitly say so. 1. The only sources yet provided that say so explicitly are the CIA and the Associated Press. 2. Two exceedingly reliable sources have been provided that explicitly say the Golan Heights are a part of the State of Israel. (Here is another that distinguishes between Quneitra as "the Syrian side of the Golan Heights" and the rest of the territory.) 3. I did not try to add a POV map that says the Golan Heights are in X country; it was you who tried to do that. 4. An NPOV map would not commit itself to showing the Golan Heights as being in either country, and until such a map is proposed for the infobox it is best left without a map. 5. Please explain why you moved sources out of the infobox in this edit. 6. I have changed the text in the lead from "the international community rejects Israeli claims to the territory and regards it as part of Syria" to now read "the international community rejects Israeli claims to the territory and regards it as Syrian territory," based on the sources provided. Nableezy (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) will not object to the change as they consider the two sentences equivalent; however, my insistence is that the language of the article reflect the language of the sources used in order to preserve their ambiguity.

And please stop accusing me of filibustering. Did you read WP:FILIBUSTERS? "Rather than making a string of silent edits to articles, Filibusters will do the exact opposite: They will make edits, possibly bold and usually contentious, to a single article. Once they are reverted, they will write a 10-page essay on the talkpage." You made the bold edit, I reverted you, now you are filibustering.—Biosketch (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I use filibuster in the way that it is used in the US Senate, so no I have never read WP:FIL... . There are meanings to words outside of Wikipeda. Why did I remove references in the infobox? That isnt exactly an accurate statement. I split the references that say occupied with those that say occupied Syrian. I also added another reference that says in Syria. You above were saying you felt that a majority, then changed to 40%, of the references in the infobox did not support it. So I made the references in the box support it. I stopped trying to understand you when you again repeat the mantra that a map that fits the view of nearly every country in the world, the UN, the ICRC, ... is a "POV map". Ill get real sources, not a 1981 NYTimes piece, just need a bit of time. nableezy - 15:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Not really, UN vote and another third party source has been provided above showing the worldview that its Syria. 2. Already replied to above, which you ignored. 3. Nableezy did not ad any pov map, he added a neutral map following thew worldview. 4. A npov map would follow the worldview, so there wouldn't be any problems with having a map showing it as part of Syria in the infobox, but the map isn't even in the infobox. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Consult the definition of POV at WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts"; "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts"; "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." The map is by no stretch of the imagination NPOV. It is the opinion of the CIA, seriously contested by numerous reliable sources, and it does not accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. And the reason the map isn't in the infobox is because I removed it from there. I take it you don't contest my removal, but Nableezy (talk · contribs) continues to.—Biosketch (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For the same reasons as why we say state as a fact that Haifa is in Israel at that article and not as an opinion, we state that this area is part of Syria in this article. Read Npov on how to handle Due and undue weight. The CIA map represents the opinion of the international community as shown with sources above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think to say "seriously contested" is to inaccurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views which is something everyone is seeking to avoid. It's contested, yes, like pretty much everything is contested, including things that are "seriously" regarded as facts by serious sources, but I still remain unconvinced by arguments that the CIA map or one very much like that does not fully comply with NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

How do you reconcile NPOV with the fact that reliable sources such as the NYT, CNN and National Geographic dispute the CIA's representation of the Golan Heights as part of Syria. Those are three prominent RSes. On what basis are they being disregarded? Furthermore, think of NPOV as a scale, if it helps. On the scale of NPOV, which is a better map – one that represents as fact that the Golan Heights are a part of Syria or one that does not commit itself to saying that the Golan Heights are in country X or country Y?—Biosketch (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As said above, these articles only represent their authors pov. Here is a source saying a place in the West Bank is "in Israel":[35] this doesn't mean we should disregard the worldview. All worldview sources say GH in Syria, no worldview sources dispute this or say its in Israel. Here is a map at Syrian parliament website saying the area to the southwest is Palestine: [36], based on your argument: "On the scale of NPOV, which is better – to say that Haifa, Tel Aviv etc are in Israel as a fact or to not commit ourselves to saying that they are in neither "Israel" or "Palestine" ?" In the case of the CIA map its presented as from the CIA and not as a fact. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs)→Please consult WP:3PARTY: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is independent of the subject being covered" (emphasis in the original). Are there independent third-party sources for saying Haifa and Tel Aviv are in Palestine and not Israel? No. Are there independent third-party sources for saying the Golan Heights aren't in Syria? Yes siree Bob.—Biosketch (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats an essay, read the npov policy again. The Syrian government is a reliable source for the views of the Syrian government, its a significant pov, and other significant povs like it can be found for several other countries and organizations.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like AgadaUrbanit removed the map claiming "rv, clearly no consensus for this map, see talk", but there hasn't been any policy based arguments against the map, and biosektch who is objecting to it is objecting to it being in the infobox, which the map wasn't located. This means that Agadas removal of the map and edit summary for its removal is inconsistent with anything that has occured here at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The policy based argument is that a vast majority or worldview POV is not the same as NPOV. Arguably, there is a significant minority position (of Israel and its supporters worldwide) that disagrees with the majority POV. Yes it is a minority position, but I don't think we can consider it fringe, if only because Israel's position on this issue is kind of disproportionally important. In addition, but importantly, many sources (some mentioned above) reflect the de facto situation, which is that the Golan is currently de facto part of Israel. Many Israelis live in the Golan, spend holidays on the Golan, there is a bus connection, etc. etc. Do they spend holidays in Syria? Have bus connection between Israel and Syria? This may be seriously confusing for less informed readers. I agree with some people that the best map would be the one that takes no position on the issue. The article should reflect the balance of views on the issue, but since it is impractical for the map to reflect this balance, it should, ideally, not be taking any POV at all. Doesn't this make sense? - BorisG (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well thats not a policy based argument, thats you saying something in contradiction to the npov policy. Npov say that we should follow the worldview, and the map does that, so the map is npov. The map says that Israel occupies it, no one has said that Israeli settlers aren't living there or that there isn't a buss connection. By having the map, people can see that Israel controls it and that Israeli settlements are there per that the map shows these things. Your believe that a map should take no position on the issue is not in accordance with npov or in your own editing of Wikipedia, because if you really believed that "the best map" would take no position, how come when you for example edited the Ajami and Giv'at Shmuel articles you didnt remove the "pov" that they are located in Israel which is taking a position against a large minority? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My view is that the map we use in the infobox should look like this, not literally of course, although we could just use that map as a very rough approximation of where the Golan Heights are on the planet and save a lot of time. It doesn't need to take a position on anything but the actual position of the Golan Heights as an independent, standalone, spatial object on the surface of the planet. For a map that shows the political status and geography of the Golan according to the mandatory policies of this project, which are immune to bus routes, outlier samples in reliable-source-space, and the kind of due weight distortions that can occur from not seeing the NPOV mountain because a POV hair is blocking the view, the CIA map is fine. If an uninformed reader who looks at the map comes away with the knowledge that the Golan Heights is Israeli occupied Syrian territory, I think we will have done our job according to the policies of the project. If they look at a map and come away unsure about the political status in some sense, think that the Golan Heights is part of the State of Israel rather than part of the Israeli occupied territories, we will have failed to adequately inform them. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with this. Let's say on the map that it is Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, rather than SYRIA across it.BorisG (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The map does say that, "Syria" on it means its Syrian, and it says Israel occupies it, (though not since 1967 which is not needed.) This is the way a reliable source has done the map, and its presented as from the CIA. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can interpret what is in the map in this way, but a lay person totally unfamiliar with the situation can be confused. How one is supposed to understand that Syria written across reflects the legal position of the international community and not the de facto situation on the ground? Of course, they can get a better idea by reading the article, but it would be better to write the entire sentence the way Sean and I wrote it. I agree 1967 is unnecessary (but would be helpful). - BorisG (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The map shows the area highlighted and ceasefire lines which clearly shows the reader a difference in the area from the rest of Syria, and it has "Israeli occupied" on it, so people can see that Israel controls it. That Israel occupies it is also in the infobox. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy (talk · contribs) has asked for additional time to produce sources that will compellingly demonstrate that there is a consensus for showing the Golan Heights as part of Syria. I expect him to fail in that regard, but there's no reason to deny him the opportunity. For the record, though, I endorse Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs)'s proposal above as a way to resolve our dispute regarding the infobox map.—Biosketch (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources for that that is the view of the international community has already been provided and they are sufficient. Regarding the infobox, Seans suggestion is bad because Western Sahara is not internationally recognized as part of any country, so Morocco can be shown without WS within its borders and it would be neutral. This is not the same case here, if Golan was shown in the same way as Western Sahara, then Syria would have false boundaries as it wouldn't included part of what is internationally recognized as part of its nation, which would both be violation of npov and inaccurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an article about Syria. - BorisG (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct, but its about a geographical location internationally recognized as in Syria, so to have a map of this location in the same way as the Western Sahara map, would be a false and inaccurate map that would show false borders for Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends how you do it. For instance, if in the CIA map, Syria were written slightly to the east of the demilitarised zone, it would not shift the boundary, but would rather not take a posiiton on whether the Golan is 'in Syria. The boundary would still be where its position is recognised by the UN. As I said, no objection to saying that it is Syrian territory occupied by Israel... Look, the positions are clear. Let's see if any neutral editors can help resove this. - BorisG (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case it would be difficult to see that its part of Syria. This is the way a reliable source have done the map. Why would we have map in the infobox that doesn't take position? Previously when you said that to not take position would be the "best map", I asked you why you didn't edit other articles in the same way, and you didn't reply. If in the same CIA map we replace "Israel", with "Israel or Palestine", we would not take position about that area either, would you want that? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, this is a ridiculous analogy and you know this. Haifa and Giv'at Shmuel are not under de facto Palestinian control. The situation is not remotely similar. Besides I am not proposing to write Syria/Israel. I am not proposing to write disputed territory. I am proposing to write Syrian territory occupied by Israel, a position Israel rejects. This is crystal clear. But apparently not clear enough for you. - BorisG (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the area isn't under de facto Palestinian control, there are many countries and organizations who call the area Palestine, so there is a dispute. So unless you start complaining about that the CIA map says "Israel" and start editing articles in that area by removing that they are "in Israel" so not to "take a position", then you are not supporting your own argument here. Its not clear what you are talking about now, the map that should be in the infobox or the map for the geography and politics that is elsewhere in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I tried to establish some balance, but I have learned that with you it is not possible. I have no more time for this. Clearly, compromise is not something you are interested in. Cheers and good luck with your approach. - BorisG (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Frommers tourist guide

Frommers tourist guide is not a RS for what happened under the period of Israeli control. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not?Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a tourist guide and not a high quality source for this kind of information. Notice for example that it says "the period of Israeli control in the Golan has been marked by economic development, prosperity, and relatively tranquil relations between the Druze and the Israeli settlers."... but not one single word about the 100,000 Syrians many of them expelled from the area and their villages demolished. This also took place during the period of Israeli control. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

SDW section

The part of the interview were Dayan said the delegation "were thinking about the heights' land" is not even in the article, so there is no need to have the response of it by the kibbutz leader. Also since the lengthy Dayan quote was edit warred out of the article, there is no reason to have a lengthy Golda Meir quote in the same section instead, it can be re added when we re ad the Dayan quote. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

map in geography section

“ No consensus means no map. ” — User:Sean.hoyland (paraphrase), [37]

—AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked to explain my revert on the article. My explanation is that "no consensus", the reason given in Agada's edit summary, is not a valid reason to remove the map. nableezy - 15:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem everybody could make a mistake. This was discussed, you could look up in the archives, as I remember from the top of my head the map is biased, i.e. violating WP:NPOV policy. Bottom line consensus was reached and the map was removed. I personally don't mind this map, but I feel it is inappropriate for geography section, since while it is also kind of geographic map, mainly it is a political one. And yeah sure, GH is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Still, prior discussions exist. And while WP:BRD is not a policy, it makes life easier. So what did we have here:

• Bold edit
• Revert
• Revert

It sounds wrong. Would you mind to self-revert and to restore the image removed by the bold edit? I have missed geographic image removal initially, it might be unfortunate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agada, Your comments above are not in accordance with anything that has ever happened at the talkpage. You say: "as I remember from the top of my head the map is biased, i.e. violating WP:NPOV policy. Bottom line consensus was reached and the map was removed."... but the map is not biased as no evidence of such has been provided by anyone, and the map is not violating npov as no evidence has been provided by anyone that it does, and no consensus was reached to remove this neutral map from the geography section. So you are just saying things that has never happened. The map is both geographical and political so it could be in either the "Geography" or "Current status" section, but I believe it should be in the Geography section as a map showing the area should be high up in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are also misrepresenting Seans comments by quoting him here as you are making it look like he has said that there is no consensus for the map and that Sean doesn't support it, but there is no evidence that there is no consensus for the map in the geography section and if you had seen Seans comments above, you would have seen that Sean infact supports the CIA map.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And if you care so much about "BRD", this is the original recent "bold edit" [38] where a CIA map was replaced with a fake one. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk)

You're probably right, SD, the map in the infobox should be Northern Cyprus style, and the geography section already has an image, which is unfortunate, from MOS:IMAGE point of view. I'd appreciate the restoration of status quo before the bold edit was done, for WP:BRD sake. It would be interesting to hear User:Nableezy thoughts if that would be possible. I'm going to sleep, Good night AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont see anything in MOS:Image saying two images cant be in one section, if thats really a problem, the Umm Qais Galilee-Golan panorama.jpg can be removed. So are you saying that you are going to restore the CIA map to the infobox for BRDs sake? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

BRD is an essay. You have to have reasons to remove content, including maps, and no consensus is not a reason. You cannot simply use BRD as a tool to filibuster content. That is what you are doing and that is unacceptable. nableezy - 13:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

External image
Golan geography

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), in general, leaving aside issues of copyright for the moment, would you have a problem displaying this map in the "Geography" section?—Biosketch (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes for several reasons, it doesn't show any settlements, villages, DMZ, UNDOF lines, roads, all of this is part of geography. Lebanons border with the rest of Syria right after the Israeli occupied portion is missing. Furthermore the small difference between border and ceasefire lines wouldn't make the reader understand what they are and therefor put the rest of Syria in the same position as Israel to the area. Golans border with Lebanon is the same as Golans ceasefire line with the rest of Syria and this is not accurate and confusing.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The elements you mention as being "part of geography" – settlements, villages, DMZ, UNDOF lines, roads – are actually not part of geography in the strict sense. If they were, they would be mentioned in the article's "Geography" section. MOS:IMAGES policy stipulates that "Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate." The map linked to above is not comprehensive – it does not illustrate every feature of the Golan, as indeed no map can – but it does a profoundly better job highlighting the features elaborated on in the "Geography" section than the current CIA map does. There is no policy-based reason to prefer the CIA map over the PASSIA one (unless PASSIA is an unreliable source), but in fact there are policy-based reasons to prefer the PASSIA map over the CIA one for the Geography section.—Biosketch (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed those things are part of geography, the things I mentioned above are npov violations and inaccuracy problems. There is also no need to discuss a map that we don't have access to. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Those things may be part of geography in a very broad sense, but there is still MOS:IMAGES that says clearly, "Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate." None of what you mentioned – settlements, villages, DMZ, UNDOF lines, roads – is in our article's "Geography" section, ergo there is no policy-based reason to prefer the CIA map over the PASSIA one. How is the PASSIA map an NPOV violation and in what respects do you feel it to be inaccurate?—Biosketch (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The image also shows streams, Sea of Galilee, Jordan river, Hermon, hills, ridges, Yarmuk river, Raqqad river, this information is in the geography section. As I said, it could be moved to to the current status section, but it could also stay in the geo section, but I believe it should be high up in the article. As I said, there is no need to discuss a map we have no access to as that is a waste of time, but there is policy based reasons and inaccuracy's as I mentioned them above at 15:50, 12 May 2011. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a decent chance I'll be able to persuade the people at PASSIA to sign the OTRS ticket for the map. Now's just not the best timing to approach them. I'd still like to know what in your opinion makes their map inaccurate and POV, though. Remember, it's not a political map – it's not meant to represent every detail of the Golan Heights' political situation. Its focus is geographic – elevation and water, primarily, like our Geography section.—Biosketch (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should not ignore my comments as you have repeatedly done, I have already said what is pov and inaccurate about the map above [39] and in regards to geography, the CIA map is better in that aspect as it better points out what is what in regards to many geographical features and also shows many geographical features that the Passia map does not include.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The PASSIA map is completely neutral. It does not say whether the Golan is in Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan or, perhaps, an independent state, or the narture of its boundaries. But SD does not want a neutral map, even if it is in the geography section. I tried to understand the sentence Golans border with Lebanon is the same as Golans ceasefire line with the rest of Syria until I realised that he means not that they are the same, but that they are shown by the same symbol. No one says of course that these are international borders. But not good enough. Oh well. - BorisG (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As already pointed out before, your definition of what "neutral" is in this context is not in accordance with your own edits at other articles, so you don't really believe in what you yourself are saying. Of course I want a neutral map, that's why I don't want the non neutral and factually incorrect PASSIA map. And there is already a neutral map that is better in all aspects in the geography section. In the PASSIA map, the line for the international boundary between Jordan-Syria, Israel-Syria and Lebanon-Israel is different from the Israeli occupied Golan-Lebanon boundary, that line is instead the same as the ceasefire line between the Israeli occupied Golan and the rest of Syria and therefor is presenting the line as something different from the other national boundary lines, this is factually incorrect and confusing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), I respectfully ask that you stop arguing that the CIA map is neutral or that it represents consensus. It has been demonstrated to you already that exceedingly reliable news sources do not agree with that map's portrayal of the Golan Heights as part of Syria. Nableezy (talk · contribs) was supposed to produce sources here establishing that the Golan Heights are part of Syria, but he is figuratively speaking incapacitated – and pending the expiration of his sanctions, the evidence presented from The New York Times, CNN and National Geographic stands unchallenged. And see section below for even more evidence. Virtually every news source that reported on yesterday's events near Majdal Shams flat out rejected the POV espoused by the CIA map that the Golan Heights are a part of Syria. For all but the Tehran Times[40], Syria ends where the Israel-occupied Golan Heights begin, and the border between the two countries is the line separating their respective armies.—Biosketch (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

<- The map was removed. I restored it simply because Gilabrand's aggressive drive by style of editing and unwillingness to join discussions is unacceptable. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What was wrong with this map ? I forget. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It puts Israel in the same position as Syria to the area, therefor violates npov. It doesn't show that Israel occupies it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please retract your comment about my editing. I am a veteran editor who has spent more than five years upgrading thousands of articles (including this one) while people like you and your buddies spend endless hours arguing ad nauseum and contributing nothing but hot air. My "drive by" editing has already improved this mess of an article immeasurably. I have copyedited poor phrasing, added sources, removed falsified photos and images that add nothing. What have you done apart from leaving bullying remarks about others?--Geewhiz (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Geewhiz, your edits at this article has been troubling and inconsistent with your comments. You removed a map and called it "incorrect" although no evidence has been provided by anyone that it is incorrect including yourself. You removed a photo of Syrians leaving the area based on your own original research "Arab women did not wear pants in 1967" and "It is a photo of Indian women and children, as indicated by their dress and facial features." and then you say that the photo does not come with source or photographic information when it does. You removed that the area is in southwestern Syria when it is. You changed the mandates section to "British" when the area was part of the French, the term "occupied" is the term used by the international community, you changed it to "control", you changed the headline to present ceasefire lines as borders, which is inaccurate.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The WSJ source you added is also incorrect,[41] it says Israeli troops opened fire on protesters on the country's borders with Syria which is not correct. As the area the soldiers opened fire on is not on Israels border, but on the ceasefire line between the Israeli-occupied portion of Golan and the rest of Syria. The area is internationally not recognized as part of Israel, but of Syria. The source is therefor following an Israeli pov disregarding the international view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, what is going to happen is that I will continue to check edits you and others make to articles on my watchlist and if see any more aggressive drive by editing that reverts while discussions are ongoing such as your removal of the map here, your reverts that ignored the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#West_Jerusalem, unhelpful comments like this that make editing here so very difficult and failure to engage in ongoing discussions I will file an AE report. Gilabrand, please, it's time to stop the nonsense in this topic area. Please don't make it worse. What have I done ? Perhaps you can help me with Todros Geller, Saul Raskin, Doris Zinkeisen, Royal Robertson for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, stalk me. I have nothing to hide. I stand behind my edits and I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a productive manner while you bully others and fill talk pages to the point where they are unreadable. --Geewhiz (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Or you could simply agree to participate in consensus building (an unavoidable part of the editing process), not make contentious edits that ignore ongoing discussions, not act as if you can reliably identify a productive edit every time and try not to insult other editors. I think that would be better for everyone and the topic in general. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The only issue I had with the map was that it was misidentified in the article as being the CIA's map of the region. It isn't the CIA's map, it is a modification of the CIA map. Other editors took issue with the modifications that were made to the map itself, though I didn't have a problem with those. ← George ^talk 07:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is wrong that the map puts Israel in the same position as Syria. The label "Syria" on the map is about 30% larger than the label "Israel." Scoff if you want, but people do notice these things, and there's no reason to display "Syria" in a larger font than "Israel." An ideally NPOV map is the one I proposed and the one Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) described by analogy to Western Sahara. They do not engage in the dispute by assigning the Golan Heights to either party in the dispute; rather, they avoids taking sides by leaving the territory blank.—Biosketch (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like same size to me, but it doesn't matter, as the location of the name and drawing of the lines is what mostly matters, and in this regard it puts Israel in the same position and as also pointed out, the lines are also inaccurate. Ideally npov is not what you proposed as it puts Israel in the same position for a place internationally recognized as part of Syria. Sean also supported the CIA map to show geography and politics, but wanted another map for the infobox, the map is not in the infobox but in the geo section. As already pointed out before, what you claim is neutral by not "engaging in disputes" by not following the international view and instead give minority position the same weight is not in accordance with your own editing of other articles or wikipedia policy npov. In this case the map is presented as a CIA map, it shows geography and politics, even if you added another geography map or a map to the infobox, the CIA map would still have a place in the article to show the politics. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Golan Heights not in Syria

• Al Jazeera[42]

Meanwhile, Syrian state television reported that Israeli forces killed four Syrian citizens who had been taking part in an anti-Israeli rally on the Syrian side of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights border on Sunday.

Israeli army radio said earlier that dozens were wounded when Palestinian refugees from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights border were shot for trying to break through the frontier fence.

• Al Jazeera[43]

Deaths at Syria-Lebanon-Israel borders

Three killed as thousands flee violent crackdown in Syrian town, while four others shot and killed near Israeli border.

• USA Today[44]

Mobilized by calls on Facebook, thousands of Arab protesters marched on Israel's borders with Syria, Lebanon and Gaza on Sunday in an unprecedented wave of demonstrations, sparking clashes that left at least 15 people dead in an annual Palestinian mourning ritual marking the anniversary of Israel's birth.

In a surprising turn of events, hundreds of Palestinians and supporters poured across the Syrian frontier and staged riots, drawing Israeli accusations that Damascus, and its ally Iran, orchestrated the unrest to shift attention from an uprising back home. It was a rare incursion from the usually tightly controlled Syrian side and could upset the delicate balance between the two longtime foes.

• Miami Herald[45]

Violence erupted along three of Israel's land borders Sunday, as Palestinian protesters attempted to enter Israeli territory.

More than a dozen people were killed when Israeli military forces opened fire on demonstrators who crossed into Israel.

Along the Syrian border, thousands of protesters stormed the fence and hundreds burst through, pelting Israeli soldiers with stones.

• Washington Post (Associated Press)[46]

Israeli troops clash with Arab protesters along three hostile borders — Syria, Lebanon and Gaza — leaving 16 people dead and dozens more wounded in an unprecedented wave of demonstrations marking a Palestinian day of mourning for their defeat at Israel’s hands in 1948. Along Israel’s border with Syria, thousands storm the fence and hundreds burst through, pelting soldiers with stones, Soldiers open fire, and dozens were wounded and four were reported killed.

• BBC[47]

The 15 May challenges to Israel on its borders with Lebanon and Syria, within the fragmented West Bank and on the Gaza frontier, undoubtedly embodied the same kind of risk-taking, confrontational people-power ethos that has fired the revolts in many parts of the Arab world.

There is clearly another dimension to the unprecedented eruptions on Israel's borders with Lebanon and Syria, in which a number of protesters are reported to have been shot dead and many others wounded.

• Voice of America[48]

In the north, Israeli soldiers fired on Palestinians who breached a fence separating the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights and Syria.

• Christian Science Monitor[49]

But deadly clashes Sunday with Arab demonstrators who challenged Israeli forces at the Lebanese, Syrian, Gazan, and West Bank borders showed it may be difficult for Israel to remain above the fray.

• Guardian[50]

Protests have erupted in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as well as on the borders with Syria and Lebanon

Between four and 10 people were reportedly killed in or near the village of Majdal Shams, close to the Israeli-Syrian border.

• CBS[51]

Today's demonstrations - what activists called "Nakba" (Arabic for "catastrophe") - produced clashes at Israel's borders with Lebanon, Syria and the Gaza Strip. At least 12 people were killed.

• MSNBC (Reuters)[52]

Protests at Israel's borders with Syria and Lebanon also cast the spotlight on a diaspora marginalized in Palestinian politics since Yasser Arafat moved from exile to the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip two decades ago.

• The Telegraph[53]

Israel was accused of shooting dead at least 13 Palestinian refugees trying to breach its frontiers from Syria, Lebanon and Gaza on Sunday, after a Facebook campaign to storm the borders.

Israeli soldiers killed at least two protesters and wounded 15 more after dozens cut their way through the fenced ceasefire line separating Syria from the occupied Golan Heights, seized by Israel during the Six Day War of 1967.

• The New York Times[54]

Israel Clashes With Protesters on Four Borders

Israel’s borders erupted in deadly clashes on Sunday as thousands of Palestinians — marching from Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank — confronted Israeli troops to mark the anniversary of Israel’s creation.

• The Wall Street Journal[55]

Israeli soldiers opened fire on demonstrators attempting to cross the border into Israel from Lebanon, Syria and the Gaza Strip on Sunday, as unprecedented protests erupted across the region on the anniversary of the creation of Israel, which Palestinians call the Nakba, or "catastrophe."—Biosketch (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picked sources by authors who use terminology that only represent themselves, see here: BBC: "The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria", Guardian: "Israel, which still occupies Syria's Golan Heights from the 1967 war.", Landmine monitor report:"The Golan, in southwest Syria, is divided into three areas": Journal of Palestine Studies "The Golan Heights-most of the Qunaytra province and parts of the Dera'a province of southwest Syria" UN:"Golan Heights/Quneitra area in southwest Syria", Encyclopedia of world geography:"The GOLAN HEIGHTS are a mountain plateau area in southwestern Syria overlooking the Sea of Galilee. Israel currently occupies the area.", Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East & North Africa: D-K: "The Golan Heights region is a hilly plateau with a predominately rocky terrain located in southwestern Syria." Foreign policy of the United States: "Syria's demand that Israel withdraw unconditionally from the Golan Heights, a 450-square mile portion of southwestern Syria" Academic American encyclopedia:"The Golan Heights is a barren, hilly plateau in southwestern Syria occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War."

Nothing you brought supersedes the international view sources that has been provided before:[56][57]

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources I listed are all reliable per WP:RS. The assertion that they've been cherry-picked is absurd: they were at the top of Google News yesterday following the events in the Majdal Shams area. Were I in the business of picking cherries, I would have listed Haaretz or Arutz Sheva. I was careful to list only sources recognized for their neutrality and credibility. For the same reason, I've undone the revert ([58]) that restored "in southwestern Syria" to the Geography section as it is now clear that such a claim does not meet the neutrality demands of WP:NPOV – namely, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them."—Biosketch (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously per the sources I added above they are cherry picked, and non of them supersedes the international view sources which is what matters here. You also claimed I violated the 1rr which I didn't do. You also claim that the edit violates npov which it doesn't do as it follows the international view. Per the fact that you are claiming my edit engages in the dispute when I am following the international view, and as I have pointed out before, that you yourself edit other articles about disputed places in the disputed area of Israel/Palestine without saying anything about them articles engaging in the dispute (when they are), then you don't really believe in what you yourself are saying here.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to intervene - this logic is a bit strange. When Supreme Deliciousness bring sources, including Arab and Palestinian ones, they are strong evidence. When Biosketch brings sources, they are "cherry picked" (that's quite a lot of cherries, BTW). There is another false logic here: If a source says "from Syria to the Golan Heights" (namely that the Golan is not in Syria) then it must be an editorial error, when it says "the Golan in Syria" then it must be the correct text. This is not relying on sources, this is manipulating sources. 212.143.221.156 (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why editors keep going in circles on this issue. The Golan Heights is controlled by Israel (the de facto status). The international community considers it Syrian territory (the de jure status). Biosketch's sources are describing the recent events in terms of the de facto status, while SD's sources are describing the area in terms of its de jure status. The two are separate and independent. The sources aren't contradicting each other, they're just two sides of the same coin. Biosketch has shown that the Golan Heights is de facto Israeli, and SD has show that the Golan Heights is de jure Syrian. The article should simply reflect both of those things. ← George ^talk 18:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo

This photo [59] now has a dead link as a source, but previously it linked to the same website with the text: "syrian families evacuating golan heights after israeli occupation during arab israeli war" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's still here. Gilabrand nominated it for speedy deletion, writing that it shows Indians. I've removed the speedy deletion tag, and asked them why they think it shows Indians. ← George ^talk 07:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The photo is misidentified. It was not taken in the Golan Heights. It does not show Arab villagers evacuating. It is a photo of Indian women and children, as indicated by their dress and facial features. This photo comes with no source or photographic information. It should not be used in this article.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats not up to you to decide, source says its Syrian families evacuating the Golan Heights during the 1967 War. The first women and her child certainly doesn't look like Indians, those in the back look darker but there is no way to identify them as non Syrians, there are many different kinds of people in Syria, its not up to you to decide who is not a Syrian.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be misidentified, but we need a better reason than racial and ethnic stereotyping. The license plate on the car doesn't match license plates from India (which were white on black in 1967, not black on white as in the photo). ← George ^talk 07:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, it doesn't look like a Syrian license plate to me either. But I'm having a much harder time finding information on Syrian plates than on the Indian ones, so I'm not completely sure.

Question to editors that want to keep this image: While I don't agree with Gilabrand that the picture shows Indians, is there any reason to keep this image? I mean, it doesn't show people running for their lives, being shot at. It could be titled "Family heading out for a picnic" and the image would be equally meaningless. My understanding is that there was some mass exodus that took place. I don't think this image does a good job of representing that. Therefore, I propose removing it from the article, not because it is an inaccurate or misidentified image, but simply because it doesn't add much value to the article. Thoughts? ← George ^talk 08:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Since over 100 000 Syrians lived there and many left and were expelled, the image is good in representing that important occurrence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with the first half of your sentence SD, I think the image in question does a terrible job of representing the event. When I see the image I don't think "Wow, so that's what it looks like to be kicked out of you home", I think "What am I supposed to be looking at a picture of?" Really the image does a disservice to the thousands of people expelled. ← George ^talk 18:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerning this photo: [60], there is nothing in its information that says that the image has anything to do with the Israeli-Syrian conflict, they might have been in the shelter because of attacks from Jordan or the West Bank or Lebanon, we don't know this.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know where Kibutz Dan is? It's located in the most northeastern point of Israel's 1949 lines, so Jordan is out of the question. Lebanon did not take part of the war, so that rules it out as well. Who else can it be except Syria? TFighterPilot (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how it would be "out of the question" for attacks from Jordan or the West Bank on Kibbutz Dan. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It can also be from Mars. It's certainly more likely than it being from Jordan or the WB, which are over 60km away from Dan, in contest to Syria which was less than 1km away from it and had high ground. The people evacuating in the other picture could just as well be some family going for a picnic. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how Jordan and the West Bank being 60 km away from Dan wouldn't mean that attacks couldn't have come from there. Why not? Concerning the other picture it says in the source: "Syrian families evacuating the Golan Heights during the 1967 War", so it has nothing to do with a picnic.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No. It's definately a Syrian bunker. Just look at the baby on the top-left. In fact none of them are sporting typically Jewish features. And just look at that wooly hat. Looks like it's from taliban land. Chesdovi (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I don't follow. ← George ^talk 18:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a joke. Point being that SD is grasping at straws here. TFighterPilot (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, so hard to tell who is joking and isn't. Gilabrand dislikes one photo because he thinks it shows Indians based on "their dress and facial features", yet Chesdovi is joking that the people in the other image are Syrian because "none of them are sporting typically Jewish features". Can we please just leave the stereotyping out guys? It's confusing, and it's impossible to convince those who disagree that the sources are wrong and the images are fake based on what someones face looks like.

I still think we should remove the image of fleeing Syrians, simply because it isn't a good representation of an exodus of tens of thousands of people. I think there's something to be said for balancing the Israeli viewpoint (the children in the bunker) with a Syrian viewpoint, and the current image does that to some extent, but I'm just not sure that the current image is the best at doing that. ← George ^talk 23:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Israeli settlements?

As we have seen above, there are numerous sources that refer alternatively to the area as Syrian and Israeli. However, the Jewish communities in the area are referred to as Israeli settlements in their respective articles. Although the Golan Heights is treated internationally as occupied territory, it is de facto a part of Israel, since Israeli law and jurisdiction and military control apply there. International law on the subject is debatable as well. The original League of Nations mandate for Palestine envisioned the Golan Heights as part of the Jewish state, but the British ceded it to the French Mandate of Syria in an action that itself violated international law. Whether Israel was abiding by law in annexing the area after taking it from Syria, I don't know, but as far as I know, the UN Security Council Resolution condemning it was non-binding, since only Resolutions dealing with "peace and security" are binding.

In East Jerusalem, Jewish neighborhoods are not referred to as "Israeli settlements" in the beginning of the introduction, but as Israeli neighborhoods, and then it is mentioned that they are considered settlements under international law. Unlike the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, the West Bank is under military authority, so the settlements there can freely be called settlements, as they are not even considered a part of Israel by Israel itself. Remember, even though international law is highly debatable on these subjects, the facts on the ground are a different story.

I therefore propose that all articles on Israeli communities in the Golan Heights be referred to as kibbutzim, moshavim, villages, towns, etc in the beginning of the introductions. Then, the intro can go on to say that it is considered an Israeli settlement on occupied territory by the international community. This is the same policy that applies to East Jerusalem, because official annexation and civilian rule as opposed to military authority is very different.--RM (Be my friend) 23:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the neighborhoods in EJ are neighborhoods of course, since they're not independent entities. The word "settlement" is just a general word to describe any sort of municipal entity. As long as the word "illegal" doesn't precede it, I see no problem using it. The Hebrew word for settlement is Yishuv and a settler is Mityashev, both have positive connotations. What you call in English illegal settlement are called in Hebrew "Hitnahlut". So unless you wish to be specific, the word "settlement" is perfectly acceptable. TFighterPilot (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)