This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zero0000 (talk | contribs) at 06:02, 13 November 2011 (→Map Problems). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:02, 13 November 2011 by Zero0000 (talk | contribs) (→Map Problems)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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:
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.
|
 | 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 banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | 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. |
| 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. |
|
| 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 |
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 this Hebrew-language article 7.6% of the Druze in the Israeli-controlled area have Israeli citizenship, based on data from the Israel Ministry of the Interior.--84.108.213.97 (talk) 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. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 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.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Then it should state that in the lead, really. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 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. -asad (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- The article on Jerusalem states it is in Israel but not internationally recognised as such. Why can't this be used here? --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 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 WP:NPOV 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". Sean.hoyland - talk 19:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Governed might be a better choice of words? --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Better than? nableezy - 02:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Governed might be a better choice of words? --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 19:28, 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 WP:NPOV 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". Sean.hoyland - talk 19:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- The article on Jerusalem states it is in Israel but not internationally recognised as such. Why can't this be used here? --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- If we wanted to list every body that considers the GHs as occupied, the lead would be longer than the article. -asad (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Then it should state that in the lead, really. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
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 (see here). 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.--RM (Be my friend) 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". nableezy - 04:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- And the question of the legality of the Golan Law is not "highly debatable", UNSC 497 is pretty clear on that. nableezy - 04:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Occupied is correct, notable fringe opinions go to the fine print. Zero 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. --Mkativerata (talk) 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 United Nations Security Council Resolution 497: 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.--RM (Be my friend) 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. --Mkativerata (talk) 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 slavery 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.--RM (Be my friend) 23:47, 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. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:34, 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 United Nations Security Council Resolution 497: 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.--RM (Be my friend) 23:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Since this discussion repeats itself from time to time, please take a look at its previous instance. 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. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
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
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.
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)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- High-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Syria articles
- High-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- Start-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
- All WikiProject Volcanoes pages
- B-Class Western Asia articles
- High-importance Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Western Asia articles