Misplaced Pages

Talk:Golan Heights

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Improvisealot123 (talk | contribs) at 02:44, 26 July 2010 (→This article is pro-Syrian). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:44, 26 July 2010 by Improvisealot123 (talk | contribs) (→This article is pro-Syrian)(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.
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: 30 days 
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.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
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.

Reverted non agreed edits

I have reverted some non agreed edits, This IP changed and put the Hebrew first claiming: "By wikipedia's admins decision" Now this is incorrect in two ways. 1, No Misplaced Pages admin has here decided that Hebrew should be first about this region which is internationally recognized as in Syria. 2, even if it was true, no admin has any authority to decide a thing like that. If someone whats to ad the hebrew before arabic, you must get consensus for the change first.

Concerning the Israeli settlements. Thats the international name for the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Thats what all reliable sources call them. It is also what the CIA map says. I have now changed it to "settlements" so the "Jewish" is still there but it should really be "Israeli settlements".

I have also removed some advocacy websites in the external links section. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is pro-Syrian

this article, show the Israeli settlement, as filthy thieves. in addition to that no state recognize the west strip which had been never in Syria as part of the Golan heights. this area, was more time in Israel, than Syria,due to that the main language is Hebrew,the first name should the Hebrew one. Pro-Syrian propagandists use this article, to attack Israel,and does not show the Israeli version completely,but a spot of conquerer in the history of Syria. written by a man who wants, that the both sides will be represented;84.229.240.176 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

I dont believe the words "filthy" or "thieve" are used in the article. You are correct on one point, a small strip of land east of the sea is in Israel. The 99% of the are called the Golan Heights that has been occupied by Israel has however never been in Israel. And is it is Syrian territory, the only official language of the Golan is Arabic. Because there are Israeli settlers in the Golan who use Hebrew we include the Hebrew. But, as always, thanks for sharing. nableezy - 13:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

you've never been at the Golan heights ha? first the Druzes don't speak Arabic for at least 3 generation. "the Israeli settlements" aren't dis-recognized,by any state apart from Syria and few emirates in the golf. your "settler" are the majority at the Golan heights and this is denamographic fact. you didn't wrote thieves, or filthy,but it is hinted. the fact that Syria ruled less time than Israel doesn't mention,and nor the Jewish population in the area at the roman era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.240.176 (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The article says Israel has controlled the Golan since 1967, and that Syria has controlled it from its founding till 67. And the Druze of the Golan overwhelmingly rejected Israeli citizenship and maintain they are Syrian citizens living under occupation (and they speak Arabic and French, not Hebrew). The entire world recognizes the Golan as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. I have no idea what "dis-recognize" means, but nearly every state in the world says that the settlements in the Golan violate international law and have repeatedly voiced that view (an example being numerous UNGA resolutions that pass with such numbers as 171-1, guess who is the 1, calling on Israel to cease all settlement activity in the "occupied Golan"). I am sorry if you dont like that (well, not really, amused would be more accurate than sorry), but we dont go off of what a tiny minority says. The overwhelming majority, near unanimity, of sources say this is Syrian territory held by Israel in a state of occupation. As far as Misplaced Pages goes, that is the end. And until you can explain how "filthy" or "thieves" is hinted I will refuse to pay that assertion any attention. nableezy - 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy "The article says Israel has controlled the Golan since 1967, and that Syria has controlled it from its founding till 67"

that would put the Golan under Israel control for 43 years vs 21 years for the Syrians.

since the boundaries for Syria are essentially artificial constructs formed from the debris of the ottoman empire one wonders by what factors boundaries should be recognized.

Fickle "World opinion"?? Improvisealot123 (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is pro-Israeli by not following Misplaced Pages rules npov, due weight and the entire world view and not presenting it as a region in Syria, as it is in reality. Where in the article are the Israeli settlers presented as "filthy thieves" ? This area could not have been "more time in Israel, than Syria" because it has never been in Israel and it has always been in Syria. The official language of the country this region is a part of is Arabic, so therefor Arabic first. Why would a language (Hebrew) with no affiliation with the country this region is part of be before the official language of this region? The language of the native 160 000 people who were expelled from this region is Arabic. What the immigrants from the Soviet Union that have settled in Syria speak: , can not change reality. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but do we speak about the area which is south to Syria and north to Israel? little facts: your "occupied native" is serving in idf from willing, the "non-naturalized" are going to bars in north tel-Aviv and their only connection to the Arabs,is that they both hate each other. who is the majority at the world? the Arab league?leaders who rides on camels with their national flag is not the world. USA didn't recognize it as Syrian area ever. so also, EU.the rest of the countries, don't support any side. Israel have this area from 1967,who the residents, pay taxations?to Israel. I don't which druzes you met but they don't want to come back to regime which by the way wikipedia in Arabic was blocked until last year. 43 years is bigger than Syria occupation in this area. this area was settled by Jews since the roman era, how it is a Syrian area? Malik at this time you are biased .תודה רבה

End the Occupation

This article and many others are currently under a Nableezian occupation. Nableezy express his point of view by using cheap propaganda. 36 times the words "occupation", "occupied" and "occupy" appears in this article. In most cases not in quotation marks and without mentioning that this is someone's opinion. It is clear that Nableezy tries to indoctrinate his POV to the readers not only by rational arguments, but also by repeating the mantra until it is accepted by the readers. That is called brainwashing.
Nableezy and many western editors here (maybe some are even defeatist Jews) consider the resolutions of the on the UNGA as the word of god. However the UNGA resolutions are not binding. Only the UNSC resolutions are. In that particular UNGA vote in 2008, the U.S. was abstaining. The US is a major economic and political super power. It represents some 300 million people and is responsible for 20% of the world GDP. The Israelis are in a significant minority on this issue and it doesn't mean they are wrong. The majority isn't right just for being a majority.
There is a well known good old thinking American conservative saying:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Many Americans support this, whether Franklin said it first or not.
Listen to your conscious, not to the majority.
Soon, I will make changes. Megaidler (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And soon after I will revert those changes. A number of scholarly sources make this perfectly clear point. The Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. It is not only the UN, not only the ICRC, not only the US, the EU (and each of its member states), not only the Arab Leaguem, not only almost every state on the planet that says this. And I have given a number of sources on this page and the archives (one of which is in the article now) that makes clear that the US regards the Golan as Syrian territory under Israeli occupation. UNSC resolution 497, adopted 15-0 with 0 abstentions, says "the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect". Note "occupied Syrian Golan". Finally, as the song goes, keep my name out your mouth and we can keep it the same. nableezy - 18:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
If you dispute that the Golan Heights are occupied by Israel, please bring some reliable sources that support your view and try to build consensus. Unilaterally making controversial changes to the article is a good way to get yourself blocked. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
..and on that note, I don't think Megaidler has received a discretionary sanctions notification. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There's never an uninvolved administrator around when you need one. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

if jordan would tell you that your house belong to Israel? would you listen to it? nop. who rules this area,and I'm not asking humanitarian states like hamastan or libya. if I'll murder someone, in who's court I'll be judged? the answer Israel, even not Syria will judge me84.229.240.176 (talk) the EU and America is enough for, except from the Arab league and what I wrote, no state recognize or dis-recognize it. by the way the Arab world wouldn't support anytime Israel and you can be sure about that. can we the change the name of the article to "the Syrian Golan heights propaganda"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.240.176 (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to bring to the discussion? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

the sources I know are in Hebrew,you want to have them? I don't think you can read Hebrew, but do you want that I'll try to find them in Arabic?or Turkish(I don't believe I am able to get at this language). although you have evidence that the Golan heights it's belong to Syria, year to year, the Jews along the history were more the Arab occupation in the middle east.77.126.147.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

Most of what you wrote in unintelligible. If your point is that Israel has controlled the territory for a longer period of time than the modern state of Syria, the article already says that Israel has controlled the territory since 1967. You want to make the leap that because of this that means the territory is Israeli. Sorry, but that is simply not true. Countless sources can be provided making this simple and clear point. That you do not like the fact that the Golan is Syrian territory held by Israel under occupation does not matter. If you want to voice the opinion, no matter how wrong it is, that because Israel has controlled (occupied is the word) the territory for over 40 years that it is Israeli territory you should get a blog. Misplaced Pages however will base its articles on what the sources say, and the sources say that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory. nableezy - 17:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

first let me begin,with your personal attack, that you are Illiteracy doesn't mean anything about me. now let's go on. wikipedia is an open encyclopedia,and with or because of this, it must to have both of the sides, or to be neutral, I don't care how much books you have which said that the Jews are guilty. you can also copy the protocol of Zion to here, to show your friends, how the filthy Jews robbed your land.if you won't respect obvious neutralism which wikipedia is ordered to have as an encyclopedia, you shall not be allow to edit any article, which related both Syria and Israel. this is a pro-Syrian article, it doesn't have any marks of '48, which shows that Syria, want a bigger "cake" than it had;and I'm wonder if I'm the only who is non-Muslim at this discussion, and if this article is not a stage to anti-Zionism or although anti-semitic 77.126.147.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

Again, I dont believe the article once says that "the Jews" are either "filthy" "guilty" or that they "robbed" anybody of anything. And no, you are not the only non-Muslim here. I wont be responding to any more inane accusations or unintelligible rantings. Bye. nableezy - 21:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you probably don't know how to read,and you use English-Arabic dictionary; I tried to answer you at your talking page in your language, but unfortunately you aren't friendly today.If you won't protect your opinions, at least don't change the article with no consensus. by the way I protest, about the non-neutral administration of the administers, which are obviously inclining to favor of you. 77.126.147.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

Dayan quote

There is no agreement to remove the Dayan quote. There is nothing in the article that says that "historians are very skeptical" about the reliability of his words. If you read everything in that article you can see: "They were authenticated by historians and by General Dayan's daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament" "Historians have already begun to debate whether General Dayan was giving an accurate account of the situation in 1967 or whether his version of what happened was colored by his disgrace after the 1973 Middle East war, when he was forced to resign as Defense Minister over the failure to anticipate the Arab attack." "Mr. Tal, who was then a reporter on a short-lived paper of which General Dayan was editor, said in a telephone interview that they held several conversations at the time, and it was his impression that General Dayan had been testing ideas for his memoirs, which were never completed." "He didn't intend to give a full, rounded interview said Shabati Teveth a biographer of Dayan" and at that part he spoke about the kibbutzes. Its from a reliable source and is presented not as a "truth" of what happened, but as a quote from Dayan. So there is no problem with the quote, its a very notable quote being from a defense minister which means it belongs here. And what Dayan talks about is also mentioned in other sources: Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon , and a former UN observer. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Any way this quote is too long -copyrighted- since you seem to be bent on keeping it you should summarise its content Hope&Act3! (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not a copyright issue, if it had been the quote would not have been included in its entirety in The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World by Avi Shlaim, or in the NYTimes piece or in any number of other sources. And even if this were a copyright issue, the use of the quote clearly falls in the category of fair use. nableezy - 17:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
what ever the agreement received by A. Shlaim wp is not a partner in it, so I maintain that you have to summariseHope&Act3! (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
And I maintain you are incorrect. This is a brief quotation which is acceptable on Misplaced Pages. nableezy - 20:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

May I say it? SYRIAN propaganda! do you want that I'll bring you a quote of Asad telling anti-semitic things,and says that the Jews should be in the sea and not in Palestine or the Golan heights? I think this article should not be related to the local politics; If you wrote this quote I'll write, this anti-semitic things, I don't care how much consensus you have, it ain't fair, and it ain't wikipedy.77.126.147.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

Let me get this straight. In an interview in 1976, first published in Yedioth Aharanoth in 1997, Moshe Dayan engaged in Syrian propaganda? Or is it that Avi Shlaim who included this quote in his book The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab world that engaged in Syrian propaganda. Or is it that Serge Schmemann engaged in Syrian propaganda when he included this quote in a New York Times piece? If you have sources that provide quotes relevant to the topic of the article they may be used. Otherwise they will not be. nableezy - 21:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take an expression from the bible,"Who Are you The Ruler Of The Land TO..." decide which propagandize quotes will be at the article and which won't? this is not a reliable source,the book you mention it is an opinion one. as I said, and unfortunately you probably, don't understand(because in Syria, there are only one onion, of Assad) encyclopedia have the both edges of the stick. rather you believe or you condemn it, you have to show our side, or not to show yours,equation has 2 section and so an encyclopedic article, that is the different between your Syrian propaganda and the truth. 77.126.147.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

This quote appears in a number of reliable sources and not one source denies the Dayan said this. The quote is without doubt relevant to the topic of the article. If you have other quotes published in reliable sources that are relevant to the topic they may be included. If they are either not published in reliable sources or if they are not relevant to the topic of this article they will not be included. nableezy - 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The quote was definitely too long and thus have summarized it very shortly. It is doubtful anyway, as the NYT article makes it clear that what Moshe Dayan said is at best only a small part of what actually happened. We do not want our articles to look like Syrian history books, but we want them to reflect what reliable sources say. And that is that Syria used the Golan heights to attack Israeli villages and supported border excursions by guerilla groups. Pantherskin (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Your so called "summary", where you removed the entire quote and replaced it with a twisted sentence, something that the source does not say, is not acceptable. The quote was not to long, it contains a lot of important, notable and interesting information that belongs here. There is no problem with quotes if you look at the entire article, so there is no problem with having it as a quote. You bring no sources for your claims, what Dayan talks about is also mentioned in: Robert G. Rabil (2003). Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 15-16, and is also mentioned by a former UN observer in the documentary "The Six-Day War Deceptions". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Pantherskin, where does the source say "according to independent historians were of doubtful historical accuracy"? You aren't allowed to add your opinions and you especially are not allowed to "cite" your opinions to sources that don't have them. Zero 09:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Pantherskin is misrepresenting the sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I went looking in a newspaper archive for responses from respected historians to Dayan's remarks. I found this:

Israel, for its part, also initiated many lethal attacks against Syrian troops on the Golan, although not against Syrian villages over the border, says Haifa University professor Yoav Gelber, a leading historian of Israel's early years. The "official" Israeli explanation at that time was that Syria was always the aggressor and Israel was merely defending itself with "reprisal" actions. A few years ago, however, Israeli journalist Rami Tal caused a stir by revealing that Moshe Dayan had admitted to him in an interview that Israel had frequently started the shooting to provoke the Syrians into shooting back, which Israel could then use as an excuse to conquer strategic points on their disputed border. "This is, of course, absolutely true," says Gelber. (Jerusalem Post, "Growing up with Syria on the Golan", 17 December 1999). Zero 09:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Excessive quotes are not encyclopaedic, in particular if they are not famous at all. As most history books simply ignore these claims by Moshe Dayan, and as the historians in the NYT article make it clear that the factual accuracy of Dayans statements is dubious we need to make this clear to the reader. Everything else would be a blatant violation of NPOV. If you want to ignore that Moshe Dayans quote is not accepted at all by historians, then start an RFC and get consensus for your version. Pantherskin (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This material has been in the article for some time, and as there is no consensus to remove it you should start an RFC or go to the NPOV/N if you feel it is not presented in a NPOV. Your opinion on whether or not this material is not NPOV does not allow you to continually remove well-source material. If you feel a POV is inadequately represented then add whatever information that you feel is missing. nableezy - 07:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

dead links

This action caused an international outcry including two condemnatory UN resolutions. Hope&Act3! (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

All of the domino links have been fixed, and in the future use the {{deadlink}} tag rather than delete the link and replacing it with citation needed. nableezy - 20:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, for the repair and for the tip, Hope&Act3! (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Let us be peaceful

if you want to be an Encyclopedia which worth something, you need to have both side's of the sticks. My wording was compromised and settle,OK nazaby by your comment I see your views, but with that, this is a controversial statement,it is not recognize by all the world or countries ,and it is not scientific proves. you cannot prove that is never been in Israel. you have Judea kingdom, and then Syria were yet to born, actually by the DNA examines the druzes, and the Christians Arabs has nothing in comment with your "Syrian Native". by the way if you are interested, few states have recognize that the druzes should have their own state, which not include the Golan heights.most of the "Syrian native population" you call, has yet to have any recognizability,that the druzes are the "lost native" of the Golan heights. By the way, all the Druzes who were at the Golan heights, got citizenship, few radicals refuse to have, but there is are also few radicals Christians who thinks Muhammad is a pig, so get everything to proportion. 84.228.155.248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC).

Go away. Or at the very least provide a source to back your fantastical claims. Here, I'll give you one directly refuting what you say: : the vast majority of the 18,000 Syrians, mostly Druze, that are left from the Golan's original population of 150,000, have refused to take Israeli citizenship. nableezy - 21:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If I'll bring you some evidence in Hebrew would you believe me?because actually I have, and a lot. but because I know that in the Arab world you don't learn Hebrew (which we do مزعج!) I'll bring you a historian map, which include the Golan heights under the Jewish state, and by the way, big part if not most of the regiemes' historian maps in wikipedia, are based on the maps at this site: http://worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_001ad.jpg as you can see in my exhibit, in number 2,this state rules,the Golan heights (in the notes is written that the ruler is the "Jewish state") its reliable of this site is undoubted,many of many articles in wikipedia use the maps from this lovely site, if I'm allowed to say. where are your natives?do you say that it also occupation? so how much time did Syria actually ruled this area, that it is recognized as a Syrian one, may I also ask when does it rule? the Muslim empire is THE occupation,this is not countable. Golan heights is our (talk) by the way you have no reason to block me, I have 3 times to prove myself, this is illegal move it may related to the fact, that you are haunting me because me and my brother, are Jews, and I go out against your Syrian propaganda.Golan heights is our (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC).

I refuse to call this "occupation"

as it is seen in this map: http://worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_001ad.jpg the Jewish state rules the Golan heights,(state "2" in the notes it's written, it is the "Jewish state"). I would to have any evidence that Syria, ruled for more than 50 years,this area, before you call Syria's. This site is reliable, and a lot of article in wikipedia, use it,the time for the Syrian propaganda, has passed,and if no one will give any, reliable proof that is Syrian area, I'll edit the current edition.International recognizability is not an historian proof, so also most of the states didn't tell any clear announcement of opinion about this area. In fact, most of the Muslim countries, so also didn't give any onion about that. By what I wrote I refuse to call it occupation, if that is occupation, so also Damascus. if that is occupation,so also the Falkland islands, and Egypt, which occupies the Coptics. 77.126.44.204 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC).

If you do that, you are going to get reverted. Occupation is a legal status. Drawing the conclusion from the map that the area is not occupied because it was Jewish a couple of millenia back is WP:Original Research. As for whether it is occupied or not, Misplaced Pages follows the conclusdions drawn in the overwhelming majority of relaible sources on international law. The other things you mention refer to took place before the founnding of the United Nations, the drawing up of the Geneva and Hague conventions and the creation of the International Court of Justice. Therefore international law deals with them differently. The UNSC etc. have not referred to the Falklands as occupied territory. They have with the Golan. Reliable Sources accord the pronouncements of the UNSC great importance as far as international law is concerned. They don't the pronouncements of historians.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Let begin with your mocking.In our modern world we must to have any historian evidence that our area is ours.the other sources are tendentious, this source is used by a lot of articles, and its reliableness is undoubted which you cannot say about newspapers, or the other sources you presented.According the international laws there are no different between what happened before its unification or what after, For example, the holocaust is count in the UN's recognized genocides. so If the Golan heights is occupied, so also USA,Falkland, and Canada, and it'll be ridiculous to say they are occupied.Golan heights is not occupied (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

Read the original research policy linked in my post above. You're drawing an inference from the historic situation to the present one and that is not allowed under Misplaced Pages policy. Whether or not you consider it unfair, Misplaced Pages policy is that conclusions depend on those drawn by reliable sources on the relevant matter. A map showing the situation two thousand years ago may be a reliable source for what the situation was then. It is not for the legal situation now which requires the opinions of international lawyers,not historians.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What editors think and "refuse to" is beyond irrelevant on Misplaced Pages, if anyone forgot. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

fonk you can be monk and be shushed. if you don't take the historian past, of the area, which is ridiculous by me;which right does Syria has on this area? I can say that I deserve, Libya, and you deserve Iran, which value does my claim have?nothing. If you cannot show me evidence that Syria has ruled this area more than 50 years, so how it is occupied land. I claim that that because there was an ancient kingdom, in Ethiopia,in the days of Solomon which was a Jewish one.We don't claim ourselves Ethiopia, this is ridiculous. by the way,in your sources,does a cat have more rights, than a woman?and Israel does it have recognizability by a lot of sources? now,if you in all honesty believe that, you should go to Israel article, and change it, to the occupied land of the Palestinian people, which every day billions of Palestinian dying when they are screaming "bilady bilady".if you believe, and the rest of you believe, it is one of the darkest time of history, when the conqueror, which lost 62 years ago got passioned,and refuse to go back to its homeland, which has 2 millions km^2, (sorry me but) those pigs fight for 28 thousands km^2 . Golan heights is not occupied (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

Let's end this WP:FORUM discussion perhaps? Jmlk17 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

and so it continues

Following Pantherskin being blocked for repeatedly removing the Dayan quote Jiujitsuguy has taken up the reigns, and even further violated a previous consensus on the order of the names. There was consensus on this talk page for the Arabic being placed before the Hebrew and Jiujitsuguy has repeatedly chosen to ignore that. Somebody revert this nonsense. nableezy - 16:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Show me where there's consensus for that and I'll self-revert--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Golan_Heights/Archive_4#break nableezy - 17:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Do whatever the hell you want to do Nab. I'm sick of fighting with you and life's too short.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
So after saying if shown the consensus for this you would self-revert you now will not self-revert after being shown the consensus for this? Interesting. nableezy - 17:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted as J hasn't despite saying he would. In fact I have rolled back to Nab's previous edit. The order Arabic then Hebrew should be preserved in view of the international consensus on which country the Golan belongs to. I'm agnostic on Dayan quote but WP:BRD makes it clear that discussion not a re-revert should follow the first revert therfore I am favouring the status quo ante. Habla's Jewish history is also discussed elsewhere in the article. There's therfore no need to say it is an ancient Jewish city in the national park section.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is internationally recognized as in Syria. Syrias official language is Arabic. So the regions official language is Arabic. You have changed to Hebrew without even discussing it here at the talkpage.

Same thing with the Dayan quote, there is no consensus at the talkpage to remove it, yet you without even participating at the talkpage removed it and added that "historians were of doubtful historical accuracy" when the source does not say this.

Also you added "Jewish" before Gamla, that is cherry picking from history. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We give you evidences,that the Muslims came from the Muslims occupation, and after the Zionist arrived.The Muslims are from originally Saudi Arabia. they have (soory me)more than fucking 10 millions km^2 and they are fighting for 28 km^2? this is ridiculous!Golan heights is not occupied (talk)

Do you understand that Muslim != Arab and that Muslim != Syrian? What on earth does Saudi have to do with this? And what does "Muslims came from the Muslims occupation, and after the Zionist arrived" even mean? nableezy - 23:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I must say that I worked out a compromise on this wording that everyone agreed to, and that held up for more than a year and a half. I consider that a considerable achievement.
Now that the gang is having at it again, I guess I should buy myself some popcorn. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried looking but I cant find that. As far as I can tell this is your first edit to this talk page and you have never edited the article. But, as I genuinely think you would be able to provide as close to a solution that is acceptable to most of us, I would be interested in seeing what you think would be an acceptable compromise. If it gets everybodys agreement Ill buy you that popcorn myself. nableezy - 23:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
This was all resolved by the IP as explained in his edit summary "we talked with the admins and they told us that our version is acceptable". Quite persuasive... Is it my imagination or are things getting more bizarre around here ? Sean.hoyland - talk 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, you are right. I was confused. The compromise was at Majdal Shams, and it still holds firm. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. UN
  2. UN.
Categories: