Talk:Golan Heights: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:57, 3 June 2024 editCoppertwig (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,236 edits →Scope?: Reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:11, 3 June 2024 edit undoCoppertwig (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,236 edits →Scope?: further replyNext edit →
Line 127:		Line 127:
	::::Just some food for thought. ] (]) 23:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)		::::Just some food for thought. ] (]) 23:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for your comment. It seems to me that the versions I've suggested do not state the minority point of view and state only undisputed facts, so they seem to me in line with NPOV and still preferable. However, I now seem to be more firmly outnumbered, so in case anyone is in a hurry to start editing I'll reiterate that I'm not strongly opposed to any of the versions. <span style="color:Green; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>] (]) 00:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)		:::::Thanks for your comment. It seems to me that the versions I've suggested do not state the minority point of view and state only undisputed facts, so they seem to me in line with NPOV and still preferable. However, I now seem to be more firmly outnumbered, so in case anyone is in a hurry to start editing I'll reiterate that I'm not strongly opposed to any of the versions. <span style="color:Green; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>] (]) 00:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Although: check the RS's. Of the RS's mentioned above, Britannica does not say that it's in Syria, (and seems to me to imply that it isn't), while BBC does (sorry I missed that earlier). To claim that the view that it's not in Syria is a tiny-minority view, you'd need a lot more RS's greatly outnumbering the Britannica one. A country's vote at the UN is not a source. <span style="color:Red; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>] (]) 01:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

	== Gamla Nature Reserve ==		== Gamla Nature Reserve ==

Revision as of 01:11, 3 June 2024

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

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.
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!

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Golan Heights, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

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 sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Please 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.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 14, 2017, December 14, 2021, and December 14, 2022.

This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel High‑importance

This 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

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Syria High‑importance

	This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Volcanoes Low‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Western Asia High‑importance

	Asia portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Misplaced Pages requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Misplaced Pages requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Semi-protected edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the intro please add that the Golan Heights is located in the Levant region of Western Asia. 2600:100C:A20A:17AF:D9D8:6C3F:C4CF:9590 (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Already done Andumé (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical errors

Could someone please correct the following grammatical/spelling errors:

Etymology section, 3rd paragraph: "and it an Arabized version" should be "and it is an Arabized version".

Caption on image: "A mnefield warning sign in the Golan" should be "A minefield warning sign in the Golan".

Byzantine period subsection, 2nd paragraph: "were influenced by the synagogues of the Galilee but had its own distinctive characteristics" should be "were influenced by the synagogues of the Galilee but had their own distinctive characteristics".

Early Jewish settlement subsection, 1st paragraph: "but by the mid-1890s most was owned and cultivated" should be "but by the mid-1890s most were owned and cultivated".

Border incidents after 1948 subsection, 2nd paragraph: "established a de facto presence on and control of eastern shore of the lake." should be "established a de facto presence on and control of the eastern shore of the lake."

Cheers Yup (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Done Thanks for reporting these. Zero 06:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

On the other hand, expressing pro-Syrian ~~rhetoric,~~ The Economist

On the other hand, expressing pro-Syrian viewpoints, The Economist

Why it should be changed: As it is written, it is not neutral since the word "rhetoric" has mostly negative connotations.

References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

2601:245:C100:5E5C:3978:8B2F:26A6:7870 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

References

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rhetoric#:~:text=When%20people%20listened%20eagerly%20to,just%20a%20lot%20of%20rhetoric.%22

Note: Apart from the loaded word "rhetoric", the sentence (On the other hand, expressing pro-Syrian rhetoric, The Economist found, represents the Golan Druzes' view...) doesn't make much sense and needs to be changed. M.Bitton (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Done I've cleaned up this sentence as well. Sagflaps (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Scope?

What is the scope of this article? The territory occupied by Israel in 1967, or a more general geographic area that possibly extends to non-occupied parts of Syria and Lebanon? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Googling "Golan Heights" shows that most sources identify it as a geopolitical entity, i.e. Syrian and occupied by Israel since 1967, and not as primarily a geographic region. Editing accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

, , , Makeandtoss (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@האופה: Please provide RS for your reasoning and participate in the talk page discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@האופה: Assuming good faith and pinging one more time. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Both. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I support this edit restoring an earlier and more neutral lead. As I remember from discussions on this talk page years ago: the political status of the region is complex and cannot be summarized in a brief sentence. Therefore the political status is given, but not in the first sentence, where there isn't room to put the complexities. Trying to fit in a bit of the political status into the first sentence tends to create a sentence perceived as biassed by some people and is therefore avoided. This is a longstanding solution for this page to reduce editwarring. There was a much earlier version of the first sentence years ago that somehow managed to describe it in terms of the countries around it without actually stating (or implying) its own political status in that sentence. Whoever came up with that version was a genius. Please discuss on talk page before changing controversial parts of the article such as the first sentence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It isn't all that complex, Syrian territory occupied by Israel, effectively annexed by Israel but that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the international community. See Status of the Golan Heights. nableezy - 14:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Still probably too much to fit all that into the first sentence. Someone would come along, think the sentence is awkward, shorten it, and the editwarring would start up again. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t feel like the potential for future disruption means we shouldn’t strive for an accurate and comprehensive article or lead. nableezy - 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

We can have an accurate and comprehensive article without feeling we have to stuff a lot of information into the first sentence. That said, I notice that the first sentence of Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, "The Golan Heights are a rocky plateau in the Levant region of Western Asia that was captured by Israel from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War.", seems to be reasonably short, mentions both geography and political information, seems neutral to me (by not mentioning whether it's occupied or annexed; that can be discussed in later sentences) and seems at a quick glance at the page history to have been staying unchanged in the article for some time. So it might be a candidate for a first sentence of this article. Feel free to suggest other alternatives. What do you see as being inaccurate or un-comprehensive? What do you think needs to change, why, and what specific wording would you suggest? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m fine with that but it also needs to include occupied by Israel in the following sentence, or say and has been occupied by Israel since in that same sentence. nableezy - 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The next sentences could detail the history of the place HaOfa (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The history would go after the current status, which is Israeli occcupied. nableezy - 19:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this phrasing. Thanks, @Coppertwig, for striving to balance the content. HaOfa (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not, place is occupied, it's a defining feature. Selfstudier (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This phrasing is not based on any RS. There has been no responses to the RS cited above that define Golan Heights as explicitly and factually Syrian occupied by Israel since 1967. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep it as it is, the first sentence just saying that it's a region in the Levant. I think everyone agrees that that's true. Being occupied is not, in my opinion, a defining feature; I suppose it was the Golan Heights before it was occupied, and will still be the Golan Heights if/when it stops being occupied in the future. Makeandtoss, the article already includes a quote "...the occupied Syrian Golan Heights...", so no need to change anything. Also, I looked at the first RS you listed and it has subtitle "region, Middle East" and first sentence "Golan Heights, hilly area overlooking the upper Jordan River valley on the west" so it seems our focus first on simply being a region, then on geology, then finally geopolitics mirrors at least this RS, so no need to change anything in the first place. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Golan Heights profile from the BBC. They clearly think its occupation is a defining feature. Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It absolutely is a defining feature, in fact as a geopolitical entity it is the defining feature, and I hazard to guess you will find an overwhelming majority of sources discussing the Golan since 1967 to focus on that feature. This is like saying that Israel should be introduced as "a region near the Mediterranean Sea". nableezy - 18:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, the source you gave has first sentence "The Golan Heights is a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, about 60km (40 miles) south-west of Damascus and covers about 1,000 sq km." No politics in their first sentence either. The politics is important; that doesn't mean it has to show up in the first sentence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Their first sentence is a big map showing the occupied area. We have one too but its kind of tiny and you can barely make out the word occupied. Not that great for a defining feature.

I also don't much like our first sentence "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a region in the Levant. The region defined as the Golan Heights" with "Golan Heights" and "region" twice, looks artificial, probably the result of some past disagreement over wording.

Then it puts "as a geological and biogeographical region" first rather than "As a geopolitical region, it refers to a region (sic)" (all it needs to say is "geopolitically, it is a part of Syria") which follows. Those two could be switched around, methinks, along with dropping a few "region"s.

I'll work on that and see what I come up with. Selfstudier (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be more something like this:

The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a region in the Levant, geopolitically part of Syria and occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967. Illegally annexed by Israel in 1981, the area includes the western two-thirds of the Golan and part of Mount Hermon and which the international community continues to consider as occupied. Geologically and biogeographically, it is a basaltic plateau bordered by the Yarmouk River in the south, the Sea of Galilee and Hula Valley in the west, the Anti-Lebanon with Mount Hermon in the north and Wadi Raqqad in the east. Selfstudier (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Will just cite my prior phrasing here for comparison: "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a hilly region in southwest Syria. Most of the region has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War, and subject to a de facto Israeli annexation in 1981. Geologically,..."

In RS GH is used as a geopolitical definition rather than geographic, thus I would be more inclined to a "region in southwest Syria". Not sure if mention of occupation should be in the opening sentence. Also two-thirds could be replaced with most. Otherwise, I could also support this. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not only geopolitically part of Syria, but also historically. I also don't like the current first sentence "is a region in the Levant". It is non neutral as it gives weight to the minority pov that it isn't part of Syria. We would not say that the Gallile is in the Levant instead of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, latest version:

The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is that part of Syria occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967. Illegally annexed by Israel in 1981 but which the international community continues to consider as occupied, the area includes the western two-thirds of the Golan and part of Mount Hermon. It is a basaltic plateau bordered by the Yarmouk River in the south, the Sea of Galilee and Hula Valley in the west, the Anti-Lebanon with Mount Hermon in the north and Wadi Raqqad in the east. Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If I understand things correctly, the Golan Heights is two-thirds occupied by Israel and the remaining third is still in Syria's hands? If so, then the opening sentence has to reflect that as well; the challenge is how to keep that as concise as possible. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It does say the occupied area is two thirds? Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the opening sentence which sets the scope of article defines it as only being the occupied part: "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is that part of Syria occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

How about:

The Syrian Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, was partly occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967. Illegally annexed by Israel in 1981 but which the international community continues to consider as occupied, the area includes the western two-thirds of the Golan and part of Mount Hermon. It is a basaltic plateau bordered by the Yarmouk River in the south, the Sea of Galilee and Hula Valley in the west, the Anti-Lebanon with Mount Hermon in the north and Wadi Raqqad in the east. Selfstudier (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it would work if the scope of the article is about the occupied part rather than the whole region. I would lean in to the whole region that was partly occupied; rather than the partly occupied region. I base my argument on the fact that the region is fully geopolitically Syrian according to int. law. Which do you think the scope should be? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I am intending the scope to be the whole thing. It says it was partly occupied but describes the whole. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean but the focus of the opening sentence is on "partly occupied", implying the article is about the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights rather than the Golan Heights as a whole.

How about mixing our two versions: "The Syrian Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a hilly region in southwest Syria, which was mostly occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967."? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

(Replying) Another possible first sentence might be "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a hilly region of geopolitical significance in the Middle East."

I'm not strongly opposed to any of the wordings. My main concern is to get a wording that won't lead to editwarring. I suppose we have to state or imply at least the general part of the world it's in, to help the reader, but I'm opposed to mentioning in the first sentence that it's Syrian territory as not everyone agrees on that and it would invite editwarring, though I take the point that it's difficult to avoid mentioning it without seeming non-neutral. It can be mentioned in a later sentence, where there's more room to describe the whole situation.

I'm also questioning the wording "illegally annexed": I think it's more neutral and factual to state that Israel passed a law to annex it and the UN General Assembly near-unanimously voted to oppose that; and that more neutral wording is too long to fit within the first sentence. International law is complex and not all countries have agreed to all international laws. Do a strong majority of the RS's use the phrasing "illegally annexed"? I suppose according to Israeli law it's legally annexed, so it doesn't sound neutral to me.

While I think we shouldn't mention in the first sentence that it's Syrian, if we do, I think it should be in a context like "Syrian territory that was captured in the six-day war", which sounds more neutral as it was undisputed territory at that time (i.e. just before the war). Alternatively, we could say something ambiguous like "The Golan Heights is a hilly region at the southwest end of Syria." Or a very short first sentence: "The Golan Heights is a hilly region. Recognized near-unanimously by the UN as part of Syria, ..." Or possibly one sentence: "The Golan Heights is a hilly region recognized near-unanimously by the UN as part of Syria." However, please get a good consensus on the talk page before putting any of these in. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Your concern is valid, but we can simply insert a note saying this is the established consensus on the talk page, and if any user wants to challenge that, they would be forced to do it here rather than edit war. Not to also mention the ECR restriction, and page protection option. As you are not opposed to any of the wordings, I think this is a good solution that takes these concerns in consideration, so now we can proceed with the previously agreed upon version discussed with Selfstudier. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not say I did not oppose any of the versions. I've raised objections to the version Selfstudier proposed, and I've suggested a few options which attempt to address both Selfstudier's concerns and mine; I haven't seen opposition to those options. If objections are raised to those, I could suggest more. So no, please don't put in that version at least not yet. By the way, Selfstudier (I think) said the word region appears too many times; I agree; I think some words could be deleted in the first few sentences of the current version with little or no change to the meaning.

Some other options for the first sentence: "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a hilly region largely considered by the international community to remain part of Syria." Or, varying the pattern: "After the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel began a military occupation of about two-thirds of a hilly part of Syria known as the Golan Heights or simply the Golan; these terms are also applied to the part occupied." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Or we might be able to say this: "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a hilly region recognized by a unanimous UN Security Council resolution as remaining part of Syria." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Reading this, I think we can gain insight from the way internationally recognized Ukrainian territories are described in articles related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Compare, for example, the lede and infobox of Majdal Shams with Mariupol. Mariupol's lede states: "Mariupol is a city in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine." Perhaps articles relating to the Golan Heights should take inspiration from this and start referring to the Golan Heights as internationally recognized Syrian territory in WP:WIKIVOICE. In fact, if you read the Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts article, the infobox (disclosure: I wrote it) states that 143 UN member states recognize those oblasts as Ukrainian territory. In contrast, from what I understand, literally every UN member with the exceptions of the United States and Israel (191 UN member states) recognize the Golan Heights as Syrian territory. This article, and others related to the Golan Heights, should be written to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to the WP:FRINGE positions of the US and Israel, in the same way that undue weight should not be given to the Russian position regarding Ukrainian territory.

Just some food for thought. JasonMacker (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It seems to me that the versions I've suggested do not state the minority point of view and state only undisputed facts, so they seem to me in line with NPOV and still preferable. However, I now seem to be more firmly outnumbered, so in case anyone is in a hurry to start editing I'll reiterate that I'm not strongly opposed to any of the versions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Although: check the RS's. Of the RS's mentioned above, Britannica does not say that it's in Syria, (and seems to me to imply that it isn't), while BBC does (sorry I missed that earlier). To claim that the view that it's not in Syria is a tiny-minority view, you'd need a lot more RS's greatly outnumbering the Britannica one. A country's vote at the UN is not a source. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Gamla Nature Reserve

Under Landmarks, below the pictures of Gamla Nature Reserve, I think it’s important to mention that the pictures are featuring the winter views of the region (during the winter). From April to November it has a very different look to it. it’s getting dry and yellow. דולב חולב (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we really have to be very precise about the date of a picture?

I mean, you can see the date it was created by clicking on the picture.PAper GOL (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s important to distinguish the very different views from the winter to the long summers. דולב חולב (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I know it’s important for the locals.

they’re always talking about how different are the views in this area and in Israel between summer and winter. דולב חולב (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The files seem to have been created in April, if I'm interpreting the data correctly. They look more green than yellow to me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to leave off the date, or to put the month and year the photo was taken in parentheses at the end of the caption, or there may be other alternatives. I'm not sure whether there are guidelines about this. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: