Misplaced Pages

Talk:Golan Heights: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:02, 13 November 2011 editZero0000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators41,842 edits →Map Problems← Previous edit Revision as of 07:18, 13 November 2011 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 14d) to Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 14.Next edit →
Line 23: Line 23:
}} }}


== Population ==

The article is locked, can somebody update the population figures for the Israeli-controlled area? According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics as of 2010 there are 17,600 Jewish settlers and 22,500 Arabs . According to 7.6% of the Druze in the Israeli-controlled area have Israeli citizenship, based on data from the Israel Ministry of the Interior.--] (]) 12:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

== Lead ==

Why isn't it mentioned further up in the lead that the Golan heights is Israeli territory captured by Israel after the six days war? The current administration should be mentioned in the intermediate lead, say " The Golan heights is an contested area in Israel..." and such. --] (]) 20:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:Because it isn't. Bodies with international legal powers such as the UNSC agree that it is Syrian territory occupied by Israel.--] (]) 22:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
::Then it should state that in the lead, really. --] (]) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::If we wanted to list every body that considers the GHs as occupied, the lead would be longer than the article. -] (]) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::: The article on ] states it is in Israel but not internationally recognised as such. Why can't this be used here? --] (]) 18:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::To be accurate it says "is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such" rather than "in Israel" although it amounts to the same thing. The Jerusalem article should not say that. Many editors know that and have worked very hard to either get it changed or prevent it from being changed. It's a pretty blatant ] policy violation but it's been impossible to get that article to comply with policy by saying "declared", "claimed" etc rather than stating as fact that Jerusalem, a city that includes areas outside of the green line, is "in Israel". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 19:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::: Governed might be a better choice of words? --] (]) 19:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Better than? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 02:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)</small>

== Occupied vs. Controlled ==

In the "population" part of the infobox, it says 39,900 people live in the "Israeli-occupied part", while 79,000 live in the "Syrian-controlled part". I suggest replacing "Israeli-occupied" with "Israeli-controlled". Simply put, it is highly debatable whether Israel's annexation was illegal or not . I'm simply stating that we should just state that Israel ''controls'' the Golan Heights, because it does, because it is debatable whether it is occupied or lawfully annexed under international law. The world (save for Micronesia) may not recognize it, but the dubiousness of international law on this matter and facts on the ground need to be taken into consideration). In the rest of the infobox, it already aknowledges that it is ''de-facto'' annexed by Israel and under Israeli civil administration, while internationally recognized as being part of Syria. Using "controlled" would be neutral, as it doesn't imply either sovereignty or occupation.--] <small>(])</small> 04:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:Myths and facts is so far from being a reliable source that it merits no consideration. Not even the United States, whose Congress is apparently more "pro-Israel" than the Israeli government, says the Golan is anything other than Syrian territory occupied by Israel. You are right that the rest of the infobox acknowledges that Israel has applied its laws to the territory. That is how it should be. It also should include the fact that Israel's status in the Golan is universally accepted as being that of belligerent occupant. "Neutral" in "neutral point of view" means fairly and proportionately representing all significant POVs. The super-majority, near unanimous, view that the Golan is territory occupied by Israel is certainly significant and efforts to suppress that view in favor of emphasizing an extreme minority claim is what is not "neutral". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 04:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)</small>
:And the question of the legality of the Golan Law is not "highly debatable", UNSC 497 is pretty clear on that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 04:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)</small>
: Occupied is correct, notable fringe opinions go to the fine print. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
: Neutrality does not mean false equivalence. It means following the reliable sources. A preponderance of which talk about Israeli ''occupation''. --] (]) 10:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::Even if the majority of sources refer to it as "occupied", there is still the ''de facto'' situation on the ground and in Israeli law that needs to be taken into consideration. First off, UNSC Resolution 497 is not legally binding. Only UNSC Resolutions adopted under Chapter VII, actions "with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression" are binding. See the article ]: the ''article itself'' states that it was not adopted under Chapter VII, and was therefore not an international legal obligation on Israel. But anyway, this dispute over legality is between Israel and the rest of the world. To put "occupied" is to accept the position of the world, the equivalent of putting "part of Israel" in the infobox. Putting "controlled" is neutral, as it doesn't take any side, simply stating the facts.--] <small>(])</small> 23:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::The Israeli position can be expressed in a place where it is not given undue weight. But just because Israel, and Israel alone, takes a particular position does not require us to compromise on our reliable sources when we describe the status of the relevant territory. --] (]) 23:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::All I'm saying is that Misplaced Pages should not be taking sides. This site's policy is to be neutral. Just because ] is universally accepted today as an evil, it is not appropriate to say "slavery is evil" on this site, as that is an opinion, no matter how widely accepted. This article already says that the Golan Heights is ''regarded'' as occupied territory, but to say it ''is'' is taking sides. There is no source for the statement of "occupied" in the infobox anyway, and it would not be compromising your sources elsewhere in the article, as "controlled" would not ''deny'' that it is occupied either.--] <small>(])</small> 23:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}Since this discussion repeats itself from time to time, please take a look at ]. In particular, the outcome of the discussion was that the territory is described both as "occupied" and "controlled" in reliable sources, and that one of this words shall chosen on case-by-case basis. --] (]) 23:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
== File:Golan evacuation.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion == == File:Golan evacuation.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion ==


Line 69: Line 43:
Al-Ahram Weekly is clearly not a reliable source of information. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> Al-Ahram Weekly is clearly not a reliable source of information. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Syrian Heights and ]== == Syrian Heights and ] ==


The following phrase has been inserted into the Lead, ''“also referred to as Syrian Golan or the Syrian Heights.”'' The reference for the POV edit is one 30-year old source. Per ], it doesn’t hold up. One ref to a 30-year old source is insufficient to establish a commonly used name. Moreover, I have found the following sources that refer to it as the Israeli Golan; The following phrase has been inserted into the Lead, ''“also referred to as Syrian Golan or the Syrian Heights.”'' The reference for the POV edit is one 30-year old source. Per ], it doesn’t hold up. One ref to a 30-year old source is insufficient to establish a commonly used name. Moreover, I have found the following sources that refer to it as the Israeli Golan;
Line 87: Line 61:
"Syrian Heights" was common before 1967 and doesn't need to be in the lead. "Syrian Golan" is the standard name used by the UN and other international bodies and must remain (with a more recent source). "Israeli Golan" is not a name at all but a description. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC) "Syrian Heights" was common before 1967 and doesn't need to be in the lead. "Syrian Golan" is the standard name used by the UN and other international bodies and must remain (with a more recent source). "Israeli Golan" is not a name at all but a description. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


==Map Problems== == Map Problems ==


There are currently three maps used in the article which is way too many. This one is not neutral as it shows the Golan as part of Syria. The Golan Heights have been under Israeli civilian control for 44.5 years. They have been under Syrian control for only 21. I have compiled a number of maps from reliable sources (including ] and ]) showing the Golan as belonging to neither Israel nor Syria. Please note the UPI map. The Golan remains under defacto Israeli control and it’s disputed status should be reflected on corresponding maps.--] (]) 02:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC) There are currently three maps used in the article which is way too many. This one is not neutral as it shows the Golan as part of Syria. The Golan Heights have been under Israeli civilian control for 44.5 years. They have been under Syrian control for only 21. I have compiled a number of maps from reliable sources (including ] and ]) showing the Golan as belonging to neither Israel nor Syria. Please note the UPI map. The Golan remains under defacto Israeli control and it’s disputed status should be reflected on corresponding maps.--] (]) 02:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:18, 13 November 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golan Heights article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSyria High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconVolcanoes Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWestern Asia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golan Heights article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

File:Golan evacuation.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Golan evacuation.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Misplaced Pages. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

three million tourists?

Not sure where the lead section is getting it's info from. in 2011, Israel celebrated 3.6 million tourists. certainly, 3million of them didn't visit the Golan. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2011/Tourism_to_Israel_grows_21-Sep-2011.htm Al-Ahram Weekly is clearly not a reliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.97.109 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Heights and WP:COMMONNAME

The following phrase has been inserted into the Lead, “also referred to as Syrian Golan or the Syrian Heights.” The reference for the POV edit is one 30-year old source. Per WP:COMMONNAME, it doesn’t hold up. One ref to a 30-year old source is insufficient to establish a commonly used name. Moreover, I have found the following sources that refer to it as the Israeli Golan;

If one can refer to the Golan as “Syrian Golan” on reliance on one 30-year old source, surely one can easily call it the "Israeli Golan Heights" based on a multiplicity of much more recent sources that refer to it by that name.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Syrian Heights" was common before 1967 and doesn't need to be in the lead. "Syrian Golan" is the standard name used by the UN and other international bodies and must remain (with a more recent source). "Israeli Golan" is not a name at all but a description. Zero 06:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Map Problems

There are currently three maps used in the article which is way too many. This one is not neutral as it shows the Golan as part of Syria. The Golan Heights have been under Israeli civilian control for 44.5 years. They have been under Syrian control for only 21. I have compiled a number of maps from reliable sources (including National Geographic and United Press International) showing the Golan as belonging to neither Israel nor Syria. Please note the UPI map. The Golan remains under defacto Israeli control and it’s disputed status should be reflected on corresponding maps.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Maps that don't indicate Israeli control of the area are a disservice to our readers.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
However the one JJG indicated does show Israeli control. Zero 06:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Categories: