Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Pro-israeli! BIASED article! Non neutral

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The whole article is written in a pro-Israeli, non-neutral way, It says "disputed" on many places instead of occupied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.134.76 (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

bullshit. the article is biased pro-syria. of course it's disputed, and in fact it's much more israeli now than it was ever syrian. it's been israeli for 40 years. statute of limitations apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.2.68 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Syrian Villages

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I am adding information about the Syrian villages in the Golan. All the information are related to the region the article describes.

The user from this IP 128.36.157.85 thinks that what i am doing "doesn't belong in, as it does not describe the Golan, and that none of the stuff added is in the Golan but in Syria".

The information I added about the villages and towns in the region are correct and related, I think the article needs that part of the facts. I undid his undo كهيعص (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's hard to be neutral, but let's try. When you state that 169 villages were lost and destroyed it must be backed by some source. Please add references and citations. The number is sounds unreal for that small territory full of syrian mine fields. The villages in eastern part is not in the issue because the article is about Golan heigts only = Golan plateu which is under israeli control wright now. It can be described in topic of Quneitra Governorate if I understand you correctly. Shmuliko (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe me it is far harder for me to be neutral, however it is good to find someone to talk to. As for the references you are absolutely correct, I will be working on that very soon. But for the eastern part that you said “is not in the issue”, I think you are not correct (if I understand what you say), the Golan plateau is almost 1800 sq km = 1200 occupied by Israel + 600 under Syrian control. see at least what drork said on this same talk page كهيعص (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

According to a report in Hebrew by Yigal Kipnis on the Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi site [1], prior to June 1967 there were 147,613 Syrian residents and 273 locales in a territory of 1,710 sq. km. defined by Syria as the Golan Heights. 223 of these locales, and 128,000 people, were in the territory captured by Israel during the 1967 war. 28,000 people lived in Quneitra (which was handed back to Syria in 1974), and 100,000 in villages. Of the 273 locales, 19 were defined as uninhabited, and 91 were defined as mazari` ("farms", or places inhabited only during the agricultural season). Most of the pre-1967 communities were established since 1878, when the Ottoman authorities started developing the Golan Heights region, and encouraged people from the Circassian community (who emigrated from the Caucasus) to settle there. The number of displaced residents is estimated between 115,000-122,000 people. The numbers, except estimations about the displaced residents, is based on a census conducted by the Syrian authorities in 1960 (in which, BTW, they counted the Shabaa Farms and Ghajar as part of Syria) and updates published by these authorities until 1966. I am not sure about the source of the estimations about displaced residents, but I gather they are based upon Israeli researches. The Israeli official position is that these residents fled the region to save themselves from the war, or to avoid leaving under Israeli control. DrorK (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks to both of you. Please add references to the text. Shmuliko (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The text I have is in Hebrew. I placed a link above, but here it is again: [2]. This article cites various sources - Syrian, Israeli and European. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the citations (and it's mostly numbers, so not much is lost in the translation), but I'm afraid it is all in Hebrew. DrorK (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial date as Syrian territory

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

According to this section of another article, the border between the British and French mandates was agreed upon in 1923. Earlier, Syria and Palestine had been provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Neither was a state, hence no international boundary existed. Syrian sovereignty as a recognized independent state dates from the beginning of 1944 (with a French military presence into 1946). Reflecting this, the lead currently says (or did until changed), "The Golan Heights were Syrian territory from the beginning of Syrian independence in 1944 until..." Is this reasonable, or should the statement have a different wording, with a different date? Hertz1888 (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would use the date in which the the French Mandate of the Levant was officially split into the French Mandate of Syria and French Mandate of Lebanon. After all, the modern states' borders were established based on the French lines. DrorK (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this bit about the Golan Heights being Syrian territory "from 1944". Prior to being the Syrian Arab Republic, the area was a part of the French Mandate of Syria, and prior to that, part of Ottoman Syria. In essence, the region and most of modern day Syria have been a part of the same political unit as each other – political units with "Syria" in their names – since around 1515. It's slightly misleading to say that it's only been "Syrian territory" since 1944, as the term "Syrian" can also be used to describe the precursors to modern day Syria, but likewise I wouldn't say that it's been a part of Syria since 1515, so it's probably best to just leave it out. ← George^[talk] 03:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilson protest

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article states that "American President Woodrow Wilson protested British concessions in a cable to the British Cabinet". The only reference for this cable that I could find (except for other Wikipedia articles that use it) was from a political pamphlet [3] by one Meir Abelson, who is not a historian of any standing. Furthermore, he does not provide a source for his quote, which makes it impossible to confirm it and consider its context (which is particularly important given the distinct political slant of his writing). I have been unable to find this quote in the 69 volumes of Arthur S. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Unless a more reliable source is provided, I would like to remove this quote. Copies of this message are posted in other Wikipedia articles where this cable is quoted with the hope of finding more information about it.--128.139.104.49 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"are currently part of the State of Israel"

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the beginning of the article "are currently part of the State of Israel" this is pro-israeli and biased, since Syria and the whole world consider it a part of the state of Syria. --85.229.133.89 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion on this page, in this section above. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed that section, and it's a slightly different topic than the one this anonymous editor is bringing up. In the previous discussion, the editor wanted to label the region as Syrian territory, and this anonymous editor takes issue with labeling the region as "part of the State of Israel". Both are essentially right that choosing one side or the other is non-neutral. I've changed the wording to state that it is controlled by Israel, which is something I think everyone agrees on. Leave the ownership issue to the later text where it can be described in more detail. ← George^[talk] 19:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"disputed" "Jewish communities"

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

Golan is by the whole world considered a part of Syria and this is not disputed in any way. To call it "disputed" and that Syria "controlled" it for this many years next to Israeli control is making the reader believe that Israel has as much claim to the land as Syria. This is complete lie and not neutral.

The Israeli presence there is Israeli settlements, nothing else, to call them "Jewish communities" is not a Neutral Point of View because they are considered settlements by the UN and every country on earth. Just like the Israeli prescience in the Westbank is an occupation and settlements. not "Jewish communities" in the westbank or former in Gaza.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

"Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by Israelis in territory that was captured during the 1967 Six-Day War."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_497

"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"

The Neutral point of View is to call it Israeli sellements, It is not a neutral view is to call it "Jewish communities"

--85.229.133.89 (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The UN is an international political organization. It is not neutral and has no intention to be neutral. It represent the opinion of the majority of member countries. The Golan Heights is a territory disputed between two countries, and we must not take side. The West Bank is a different story - Israel does not claim sovereignty over that territory, at least not officially. DrorK (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it neutral to call the Israeli settlements there "Jewish communities" when every single country on earth considers them as settlements? What Israel claims is of no importance. The Neutral Point of View is that it belongs to Syria. To call it "jewish communities" is the Israeli point of view, and violation aganst wikipedias neutrality.

The land is not disputed, ask any country in the world it belongs to Syria and has been illegally occupied by Israel since 1967, this is what it should say. --85.229.133.89 (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the most fundamental Wikipedia policies our job here is to report. Wikipedia is not about expressing your opinion or mine or the UN's or anyone else's. Where controversies exist, Wikipedia cannot take sides, even if editors were to vote on it. WP cannot express one view or another in its own voice, but can report the existence of various points of view, with reliable sourcing. The article already does this amply and in numerous ways. No matter how much you may feel your point of view is the only reasonable one, it remains your point of view. As for the original question, settlements are also communities; it is not mandatory to call them settlements instead of communities. You are calling for this article to adopt one-sided terminology. Please read (or re-read) WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and WP:FIVE. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Then why is the Israeli version written that they are "Jewish communities" and not settlements, and why is the pro-israeli view written that it is disputed territory when the whole world sees it as Syrian land?

Even the map says "Israeli settlements" at the bottom.

--85.229.133.89 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The terms "community" and "disputed" do not imply any opinion about the political or legal status of the territory or the communities. It simply refers to the fact that these communities exist, and that there is a dispute. Words like "settlement" and "occupation" imply support for the Syrian claim to this territory, which is exactly what we try to avoid (and equally important - not to imply support for the Israeli claim either). DrorK (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How about "Israeli communities" instead of jewish? --85.229.133.89 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but then again people might think these are communities of Israeli Arabs. Actually, I now see more clearly the problem you pointed to. I wouldn't reject "Israeli communities" or "new Israeli Jewish communities". BTW, as far as Israel is concerned, since 1981, the pre-1967 communities in the Golan Heights are 100% Israeli communities. You'd find them listed in the books of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and their leaders have direct access to the Israeli authorities. This is not the case for the West Bank. In the West Bank, only post-1967 Israeli communities (i.e. the settlements) are considered Israeli. All the rest are subject to the special semi-military administration. DrorK (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a bit of the information from the infobox that seemed overly detailed and controversial. I don't see any reason to include who controls the land or has a legal claim to it in the "settlement type" field, because that's meant for a simple label, like "city", "town", "village", etc., so I've cut it down to simply "disputed territory". The "subdivision name" field also had some issues. It was written "Controlled by Syria 1944-67 (23 years) then by Israel since 1967. Annexed by Israel in 1981 (in the 24th year of Israeli administration)." I don't see any reason to include both the years and spans of time. I also don't think that the annexation should be mentioned, since it's only currently recognized by Israel and Micronesia. I've changed this to the much simpler "Syrian territory captured by Israel in the Six-Day War (1967); current status disputed." This just says that it was Syrian before 1967, and Israel captured it in 1967 (leaving it up to the reader to decide if they think such actions were legal), and noting that there is some dispute on the issue currently. ← George^[talk] 11:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you George. Better now (still not perfect) Please keep a close eye on this article, the Israelis are destroying it all the time.--85.229.133.89 (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The annexation changed the status quo in the territory and the status of its residents. Until 1981 all communities and residents of the Golan Heights were subject to military regime, and although this regime was relatively lax in this territory, it was very easy to impose curfews, limits on access to Israel or to certain regions within the territory etc. Since 1981 the territory is incorporated into the Israeli administration like any other part of Israel. Residents are considered "permanent residents" in Israel, which means they are treated like Israeli citizens, save voting to the parliament and holding an IL passport. If they apply for Israeli citizenship, they are considered as if fulfilled most requirements. The leaders of the pre-1967 communities have direct access to the Israeli civilian authorities since 1987. The Ministry of Defense may no longer limit access to or from the territory unless declaring a state of emergency for a limited time. These are just a few examples on how the situation changed in 1981. DrorK (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This territory falls legally within the Internationally recognized boundaries of Syria (see: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html and http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/syria.pdf). It was seized by Israel through war in 1967. If there's any truth or credibility to Wikipedia, then International Law must be respected and not the law of Israel; Israel is the only country in the world that refuses to delineate its own borders. The Golan Heights, however, fall within Syria and for Wikipedia to simply identify it as "Disputed Territory" is untrue and is illegal. (98.194.124.102 (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

Since some editors do not seem to comprehend the difference between their closely-held personal beliefs and the neutral terminology required on Wikipedia, I urge them to read or re-read my 26 May post, above. Also relevant are DrorK's posts of 29 May. It is time to get off the soapbox and stop edit warring. "The whole world knows it" is not a reliable source. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding: A pro-Israeli view would be to say that the Golan Heights are undisputed Israeli territory. "Occupied" is pro-Syrian. Neither is a NPOV statement. Calling them disputed indicates that differing views exist. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by 93.96.32.102 and Urban469 is not personal beliefs by them. It is the official version and the truth. To call it a disputed area, like it says now, is pro-israeli. The area is 100% Syrian territory under illegal Israeli occupation. The Israelis living there are illegal settlers on 100% Syrian soil. This is not Pro-Syrian, this is the truth, nothing more, nothing less. I tried to change the article to the truth before but the Israeli lobby is to strong on wkipedia, so now it is like the non neutral Israeli version. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide some third party, reliable resources that specifically state that the Golan Heights is not and will never be part of Israel. If it is currently controlled by Israel, be it by illegal occupation or whatnot, then it is defacto part of Israel. You cannot change what it is by saying its not. --Nsaum75 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

::A variation of this debate is currently going on on the Druze talk page. --Nsaum75 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Neutrality of this Article is Disputed

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

A while back I remember that it said at the top of the article "The Neutrality of this Article is Disputed" This is now removed. I think it should be brought back because the whole article is written in a pro-israeli way and I and many others question the neutrality of this article. Also notice that about half of all references are from Israeli newspapers. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is what the lead section of the article states and references: In 1981, Israel annexed the area by applying its "laws, jurisdiction and administration" to the region with the passage of the Golan Heights Law, a move internationally condemned^[1] and unrecognized,^[2] and labeled "inadmissible" by the UN Security Council.^[3] Since then it has been governed as part of Israel’s North District, while Syria maintains that the Golan Heights are within its Quneitra Governorate. UN Resolution 242 considers the area part of the Israeli-occupied territories. Syria has never stopped demanding that the land be returned, and in 2006, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on Israel to end its occupation of the Golan, while declaring all the legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel in the Golan null and void.^[4] (See Current status below).

I really do not think this is written in a pro-Israeli manner, or that we should keep unnecesarily repeating judgmental terms that imply that we at Wikipedia are passing judgment on these issues ourselves. Leave it to the sources and let readers make up their own minds. Viewfinder (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Its the whole article I'm referring to. The article is not referring to the area as an area in southwestern Syria under illegal Israeli occupation. It is calling the area "disputed" making the reader believe that the ownership of it is not clear. It is calling the illegal Israeli settlements there "Jewish communities" It is referring to the east of the 1974 ceasefire line as "Syrian portion" making the reader believe that the rest is not Syrian. The article also try's to show some historical Jewish connection through a map of the Hasmonean Kingdom, but no map of Aram-Damascus (example of historical Syrian connection). A huge part of the references are from Israeli newspapers and other Israeli sources. If you still want to keep the article like it is now you should at least bring back that banner that used to be on the top of the article showing that the neutrality of this article is disputed --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed means that Israel may control the land forever, and therefore it is part of Israel, but other countries lay claim to it. Occupied means that it is only temporarily under their control but owned by another nation. Since no one can forsee the future and know how long it will be under Israeli control, and since there is no consensus on the status of the land, then it should be referred to as disputed. Furthermore, judgemental terms like "occupied" are not supportive to article building.

That said, maybe you should ask for a request for consensus amongst editors in regards to the terminology that should be used in this article. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nsaum75, 'occupied' simply means the land is controlled by a country which is not its legal owner. International law is very clear - as is the international consensus (including the US) - that this is Syrian territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.32.102 (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I ask that you open a RfC. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole world, except for Israel, accepts the status of the Golan Heights as 'Israeli Occupied Syrian Territory'. Any change to 'Disputed' is simply imposing an Israeli point of view, and is not consistent with a neutral understanding of the nature of the Golan Heights. As such, I have changed references of Disputed to Occupied, and included an explanation on the article page that Israel has annexed this land, and does not recognise the territory as occupied. I think this is the only way the edit war can be ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.32.102 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to warn admins, moderators and everyone else, that user 93.96.32.102, might be an attempt to fool people and get me banned from wikipedia. He is trying to make it look like I have created a double account. He is using some words that I have used. I am not this guy, I do not support this guy and I do not support changing this article until an agreement has been reached on the talk page. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the sensetive nature of this discussion, please open a RfC on this issue, so that it may be fully discussed amongst editors. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Terminology in regards to the Golan Heights

Latest comment: 14 years ago144 comments33 people in discussion

In response to this request, I'm going to close this RfC and try to offer some guidance based on what I have read below and WP:NPOV. Most people here seem to be under the assumption that the terms "occupied" and "disputed" are mutually exclusive. I don't see why this is the case. In my opinion, both terms are accurate to some degree and claiming either as a statement of fact is an NPOV violation. Let's stick to the facts.

The Golan Heights is a territory currently administered by Israel and claimed by both Israel and Syria. The United Nations (among others) refer to the territory as illegally occupied, while Israel has considered the land to be under its control since the Six Day War.

The above facts are indisputable and therefore neutral. The article should cover, with appropriate weight, the claims of "illegal occupation" as well as the claims of "dispute" (assuming each can be properly sourced). These terms should be presented as claims based on who is using the given terms, rather than as facts. It is not Wikipedia's place to call a piece of land "illegally occupied", it must only report that certain governments or entities consider it as such. Similarly, Wikipedia may not claim that Israel or Syria has any "rights" to a given piece of land, it must only report that each side claims a right to the land, and explain the history behind such claims.

Like it or not, Wikipedia simply can't make absolute claims about matters of national disagreement. All it can do it report the claims made by each relevant party, with appropriate weight, and let the readers decide. Oren0 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What terminology should be used to refer to the Golan Heights in regards to its current status. --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

~~Should the Golan Heights be referred to as a "disputed" territory or "illegally occupied" territory? --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)~~

Notices
A. Given the controversial nature of this topic, and this article's membership in both WP:Israel and WP:Syria, I have placed notice of this RfC on their respective discussion boards and asked for members input. --Nsaum75 (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

B. Editors, new and old, we need to keep in mind Wikipedia regulations regarding WP:MEAT, WP:SPA and WP:Canvass. Happy Editing! --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

-Nsaum75, you should have asked if the territory should be considered "occupied territory" instead of "illegally occupied" because you know the illegally part will not be implanted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Several terms, Illegally Occupied, Occupied and Disputed were used in previous edits to the article. The discussion of this RfC can yield many outcomes, not just those mentioned in the title, as users are able to bring up other options (and some already have). Ultimately what the RfC is attempting to do is find a consensus among a editors as to what sort of term, or variation of terms, should be used. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, this RfC strikes me as a straw man in disguise. ← George^[talk] 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

i second the request to change the wording of the rfc to say, "Should the Golan Heights be referred to as a "disputed" territory or "occupied" territory?" please relist. untwirl(talk) 04:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests noted. I have broadened it so that no specific term is given preference in the RfC title. The original text was set up in good faith. Please remember that principle when making edits and expressing opinions. --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for updating this Nsaum75. I think that these terms will lend themselves to much more meaningful, neutral discussion now. ← George^[talk] 07:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Or would an acceptable compromise be to state that the territory is considered "occupied" by the UN, but not by Israel? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.96.32.102 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Truth: ILLEGAL OCCUPATION.—The preceding unsigned comment added by Freegolan (talk) 05:59 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I say: "Syrian territory under illegal Israeli occupation" or "Syrian territory under Israeli occupation"--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

On page 6 of this source, a document which was introduced by the IP during the recent edit war, reads:

In fact, the international community recognizes the Golan Heights as a territory independent of Syria or Israel. Independent, however, does not mean sovereign in this context. Rather, it simply refers to the idea that there is currently no nation that is rightfully in control of the territory.

This might be something to take into consideration when deciding the final version of the text. --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nsaum75, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore? This is complete lies, the international community considers it Syrian, Here is real documentation: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45fa5e8e2.html

"Deeply concerned that the Syrian Golan, occupied since 1967, has been under continued Israeli military occupation, Recalling Security Council resolution 497 (1981) of 17 December 1981, Recalling also its previous relevant resolutions, the most recent of which was resolution 60/108 of 8 December 2005, Having considered the report of the Secretary-General submitted in pursuance of resolution 60/108,2 Recalling its previous relevant resolutions in which, inter alia, it called upon Israel to put an end to its occupation of the Arab territories, Reaffirming once more the illegality of the decision of 14 December 1981 taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the occupied Syrian Golan, which has resulted in the effective annexation of that territory, Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, Reaffirming also the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,3 to the occupied Syrian Golan, Bearing in mind Security Council resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967," --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What is not in dispute is that the UN considers the Golan to be illegally occupied. Therefore we state and cite the UN position. What I am against is that we unnecessarily repeat the word occupation, implying that we at Wikipedia agree with the UN POV. We are neutral. Viewfinder (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And there are several countries that considers the land between the dead sea and the Mediterranean to be the Nation of Palestine, yet Wikipedia has an article about the State of Israel. How is this neutral to the Arabs? Where do you want to draw the line? This is a part of Syria that is under foreign occupation. There is no dispute. It is Syrian land. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's "occupied"--that's undisputed and NPOV. It's called "illegal" by the UN, but that is itself a POV: it should be represented in the article, but not stated as fact. The niceties of legality and illegality in international relations aare beyond Wikipedia's ability to arbitrate, so we should stick to what is undisputed, and represent all disputed POVs equitably per WP:YESPOV. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So "Syrian territory occupied by Israel" should be the right thing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Having uploaded that panorama from Umm Qais, and seen it become a subject of the recent edit war, I feel maybe I should weigh in here even though this is normally well outside what I do.

To reply to the above, I am not entirely comfortable with "occupied", since that suggests direct military control (see our own article, which says as much right in the lede), which isn't the case anymore. It would probably be best to say that the Golan is "administered by Israel" (Didn't someone higher up suggest that as well?)

There are some other issues we should resolve here too: We need to clear up the context in which "annexation" can be used. AFAICT, the Golan Heights Law doesn't annex the Golan to Israel's sovereign territory in the same way that the Jerusalem Law annexed East Jerusalem to Israel. Yes, as a practical everyday matter the Golan is indistinguishable from anywhere inside the Green Line: similar road signs, shekel as the main unit of currency, etc. But given that Israeli governments have, at various times, made noises about giving it up if the Syrians do enough to guarantee that it won't be used to shell the Galilee by them or anyone else (after the Six-Day War, 1999 and more recently by Olmert), it does not seem like Israel unequivocally means this to be a permanent situation (there is certainly a segment of popular opinion in Israel that does, as the article sort of notes). I don't call it an annexation when you show some willingness to give the territory up.

I see some point to SD's complaints. The lede should state right off the bat that the area was under Syrian control until 1967 (some research on the extent that was accepted by the rest of the world would be nice), with inhabitants who mostly considered themselves Syrian (it seems to me ... again, some research and reliable sources on this would be nice). As it is someone with no familiarity with the situation could be forgiven for thinking it was some uninhabited no man's land until then. You only get that after the two bullet points. But it's critical to understanding Syria's position that the land is illegally occupied.

I also see that the edit warring (and let's remember, this article is under ArbCom restrictions) focuses on the use of "disputed" or "illegally occupied" in that blue band in the infobox. I submit that we can use the much better geobox version, which doesn't have that little banner, and the issue might be less sore.

There are some other issues with the article, if anyone wants to address them:

Too many pictures: Yes, I just put one in. But this is in danger of becoming an overstuffed photo album. There are probably more pictures of some things than necessary (lots of landscapes and panoramas; I know it's a beautiful region (I'd like to visit it someday) but Wikipedia is not Flickr), some pictures that are not where they should be (It would be nice not to have to constantly scroll upward when reading descriptions of the three borders to the map which actually shows them) and some pictures that should be in the article but lack any supporting text.

Incomplete: One of those pictures is the bumper sticker, which seems to be looking for text that would shore up its FUR. What have Israelis felt, over time, about giving up or not giving up the Golan? What are their motivations? To what extent are "the people with the Golan" for security reasons, religious reasons, or just not wanting to give up their favorite mountain recreational area? Has anyone prominent in Israeli politics proposed a more unilateral withdrawal? I ask myself that reading the article, and I don't see much except an account of the recent overtures, something Netanyahu said to the contrary (and has anyone ever asked him what he'd think of withdrawing from the Golan if Israel's security could be guaranteed in the process? Someone has to have asked him for the record). Also, again I see a point SD has. We need some better sourcing for Syria's pre-Israel claim to the land. That map he's talking about might be worth creating and adding.

That whole paragraph speculating about why Syria is trying to have its cake and eat it too over Shebaa Farms either gets sourced properly or it gets cut.

Quneitra made to the Main Page as a featured article. So could this ... there's a lot here, if we can stabilize things. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not acceptable to say it was under Syrian "control" until 1967. Imagine if someone said Damascus is under Syrian control, it makes the reader believe the area is not undoubtedly Syrian. It makes the reader believe Syrian forces was on someone elses land. And before 1967 all of the residents in Golan was Syrians. The newly arrived Israeli settlers there are Israeli settlers and nothing else. Not "Jewish communities" I say "Syrian territory occupied by Israel" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, "control" is probably the wrong word in that context. While we can use "disputed" in the legal sense because the border between Israel and Syria was never established prior to 1967 (and still isn't, for that matter), can we say "part of Syria" before then? Did anyone dispute Syria's claims to the region (as opposed to the location of the border) prior to the Six-Day War?

As for residency, the article does state that there were some attempts to establish Jewish settlements there in the early 20th century, prior to 1948, but they don't seem to have stuck. So it's not entirely true that all residents before 1967 were Syrian. Perhaps you can say that at the time of the war, they were, if there's a good source for that.

It is not Wikipedia's job to make the reader believe the area is "undoubtedly" Syrian. Certainly Syria has a claim to the Golan, and a strong one, otherwise Israel would have occupied the entire country. We can cite and quote the UNGA resolution (maybe we need a Positions on the Golan Heights article, similar to the one for Jerusalem). But they're only one actor in the peace process. What do the other Arab countries say? (especially Egypt and Jordan, since they've concluded peace treaties, and Lebanon, because of the Shebaa Farms? What's the US position? The EU's? Russia's? We need to report these all and let the reader decide whether they believe Israel's presence there violates international law or not. Daniel Case (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of "Jewish communities" a more precise term would be "Jewish settlement"; Most of the settlers are religious Israelis, not secular. And settlement implies that it is a recent development and possibly not permanent, whereas "community" gives the impression that it is firmly established.

When debating this topic, we should all keep in mind that prior to 1946/1948 the modern states of Syria and Israel didn't exist. The lands were part of the French and British mandates...and before that, most of the entire Levant was part of the Ottoman Empire. --Nsaum75 (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reminder, before the mandates, Golan was part of the Damascus Vilayet (Syrian) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be the Damascas vilayet of Turkish-occupied Syria, n'est-ce pas? The fact is that the Golan was Syrian territory for less time than it has been Israeli territory. Borders have moved a lot in this region.Historicist (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr "Historiacist" needs some history lessons, it has never been Israeli territory for 1 second even. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, the Vilayet of Damascus within the Ottoman Empire. Wasn't the vilayet also called Al-Sham in Arabic?? --Nsaum75 (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's relevant in any way to the current status of the Golan Heights. The British and French did not divide Turkish territory based on what Vilaya they were in. Moreover, part of the Golan Heights was briefly in the British Mandata of Palestine but ceded to France later. Neither Israel nor Syria existed at the time. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment—there is already a broad consensus to use "disputed territories" for all territories captured by Israel in 1967 and not returned to the Arabs. The territory is de facto administered by Israel, and has about the same amount of Jewish and Druze residents. On the other hand, Syria claims that it is illegally-occupied Syrian territory. The United Nations is POV, although I haven't seen any official statement by them about the legality of the occupation. Under the Geneva Conventions, the territory was captured during a defensive war, and therefore the occupation is legal. The Golan Heights Law, however, is probably illegal under the conventions, as is construction of Jewish settlements. Make of that what you will, but the fact is, there is no clear agreement on the final status of the heights, and therefore the territory is disputed by definition. Any other label would cater to the POV of one of the sides. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with User:Ynhockey.

The Jewish residents of Golan must be classified as settlers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement "Israeli settlements are communities inhabited by Israelis in territory that was captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, which is partially under Israeli military administration[1] and partially under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, and in the Golan Heights, which are under Israeli civilian administration."

It was not captured during a defensive war, Israel started the six-day war.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RFC Stick with "disputed." "Occupied" implies nonpermanence and thus carries a POV connotation in this rather delicate situation. Ray^Talk 15:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Another Reply to RFC I agree with RayAYang. "Disputed" is neutral and accurate. --GHcool (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have two comments:

As far as the UN is concerned, the Golan Heights is legally occupied. The UN Security Council stated the terms under which this territory should return to Syria in its resolution no. 242 and no. 338, namely recognition of Syria in Israel and bilateral agreement on secure borders between the countries. So far, Syria doesn't recognize Israel. As a comparison, you can consider Egypt's move in November 1977 - Egypt recognized Israel, and complied with the SC resolutions. Consequently, negotiations about secure borders started, and eventually the Sinai peninsula returned to Egypt.
The UN is a political organization, and so it should be. Some of its reports may be regarded as NPOV, but its resolutions are political and reflect a certain POV. The actual situation in the Golan Heights is not a situation of occupation. All pre-1967 residents received an Israeli permanent resident status, which allows them to move freely within the Israeli borders and their are entitled to services like any other resident of Israel. They cannot vote in the general elections or bear an Israeli passport, because they are not citizens, but they can apply for citizenship if they want to. In comparison, the Palestinians in the West Bank, even those under direct Israeli control, do not enjoy freedom of movement into Israel proper or inside Israel, and they are not entitled to services like Israeli residents. DrorK (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction, the vast majority of the Golani residents before the 1967 war was thrown out by the Israeli occupation forces and till this day have not been allowed to return to their lands. Only the minority that stayed was given permanent resident status. The Palestinians in east Jerusalem are in the same situation, permanent resident status, they can not vote but they can move freely in what you call "Israel proper"--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You cite the Syrian position, you are not bringing facts. There is no accurate information whether pre-1967 residents of the Golan Heights fled or were forced to leave. The town of Quneitra, for example, was ruined during the war, so it is hardly surprising that its residents left. In 1974 it was handed back to Syria, but the Syrian government didn't allow its residents to return and rebuild the town. Most of the pre-1967 residents who stayed in the Israeli-controlled area refused a full Israeli citizenship. The residents of Ghajar excepted full Israeli citizenship, having been neglected by both Syria and Lebanon. So, as you can see, the situation is more complicated than what the Syrian government claims. DrorK (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RFC I would favor "occupied" over "disputed" over "illegally occupied". I think the vast majority of the world considers the area to be occupied land (legally or illegally). Just because it is POV does not mean the term can't be used, as I think the view that it's not occupied land is held by a very small minority of the world (making it an issue of undue weight). This is only for the infobox; the details of who considers it what should be discussed in much more detail in the body of the article. Using "illegally occupied" seems like going over the line to me - the vast majority of the world might agree that the area is "occupied", but I don't think that the vast majority of the world would agree that the area is "illegally occupied". I'm also okay with the term "disputed". I don't think it's the correct term to use, but it's probably neutral enough to avoid edit wars. ← George^[talk] 19:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RFC I think the appropriate comparison is to the Western Sahara, where the Wikipedia page reads: "The Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front independence movement (and government of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or SADR) dispute control of the territory." The Golan has been controlled by Israel for going on half a century. There is no Syrian population living there (There are Druze) so it is not exactly "occupied." Disputed is more accurate.Historicist (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was actually looking for corollaries to this situation as well, but I don't think that the Western Sahara matches. The Western Sahara was a Spanish province that Spain chose to abandon. After they left, the bordering nations fought amongst each other – not with Spain – over who should control it. This is quite a different scenario than the Golan Heights, which was part of Syria for many years (prior to the establishment of Israel in fact), and which Israel later came to control through military conflict. I'm not sure what you mean by "There is no Syrian population living there", as the article itself states that 90% of the Druze in the Golan Heights are Syrian. Druze is a religion, not a nationality. ← George^[talk] 22:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It was an unprovoked war of conquest motivated by greed (Morocco floats its budget on mineral production in the Western Sahara) and carried out against the will of the localp population who were largely driven out of the territory. Illegal occupation of the Western Sahara by Morocco is the legal status. Historicist (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of parallels, none, of course, perfect. You can look at Gibraltar, Alsace , Tibet, and many other disputed cases without finding the word "occupation' on Wikipedia. Occupied territories lists some disputes in which one side or the other uses the term.Historicist (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RFC "Disputed" and "occupied" do not contradict each other and have two different meanings. "Disputed" means that the territory is claimed by more than one party, while "occupied" means (or implies) that the territory is under the control of a party that does not have sovereignty over it. Both terms may apply, with caution. First, it is not clear whether Israel claims the Golan Heights, as it has not officially annexed it despite having control over it and administrating it for more than four decades, so I wouldn't say "disputed sovereignty", as the article currently says; still I think it can be regarded as "disputed", even if Israel's position is somewhat vague. Second, the term "occupied" may carry legal implications which are not so trivial. It's hard to find consensus when it comes to international law, as it is not clear to what extent it is binding, or even what it is exactly (hence "illegally occupied" is even more shaky). My suggestion is to say it is disputed, and that it is "considered by ... to be occupied territory".--Doron (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The modern nation of Syria was founded in 1946, with the Golan Heights as part of its soverign territory. Prior to this time the whole Levant was parts of different mandates, kingdoms and empires. Modern Syria controlled the Golan Heights until the 1967 war, a period of about 21 years. Since that date, the land area has been controlled by Israel, a period of about 42 years. Therefore the land has been administered by the modern Israeli nation about twice as long as its was administered by the modern Syrian nation. --Nsaum75 (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Syria didn't begin with the mandates, Syrian Golan stretches back many thousands of years, but if you only want to talk about after the mandates ok, Since the mandates ended until today, Golan is still a part of Syria. When the mandates ended until today, It has not been Israeli for 1 second even, and it doesn't matter really if the newly arrived European and Ethiopian settlers are illegally administration it today. It is still Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that the Golan Heights has been part of an area named 'Syria' for nearly 500 years. Whether it be the modern Syrian Arab Republic (1946–present), or the French Mandate of Syria (1920–1946), or Ottoman Syria (1516–1918), a district in the Ottoman Empire. I don't think that stating that the Golan Heights has been 'Syrian' territory for 500 years is too far off, as the area has been part of various political units named Syria for nearly that long. ← George^[talk] 00:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that the area has been referred to as Syria for hundreds of years, but this dispute is between the modern state of Syria and the modern state of Israel. Not the mandates, not the kingdoms and not the empires. Using the logic of saying its been part of a Syrian-named nation for over 500 years, then you could say that if the Modern Syrian nation wished, it could say Israel, Lebanon, the palestinian territories and parts of Turkey are "occupied Syria". --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The territory was under Syrian control for 21 years. It has been under Israeli control for 42 years. I suppose we could refer to Syria as "Arab-occupied Byzantium," it does still have Aramaic-speaking Christian villages, after all. And by some lights San Antonio is part of "American-occupied Mexico." Yes, Virginia, there is a Chicano national liberation movement. But history marches on and the word "occupied" begins to look archaic, or a little too aggressively political for an encyclopedia. Disputed is probably the best we can do. Historicist (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should consider it Syrian territory for 500 years, just that these arguments that it's been Israeli longer than it's been Syrian are full of holes, and I'm not sure what the point is with regards to it being 'disputed' versus 'occupied'. At some point, the international community (including Mexico) recognized the borders of the United States, and Texas became a recognized part of the United States - not just an occupied territory. Now, it's entirely possible that one day the international community (possibly including Syria) will recognize the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, just as Mexico did Texas. However, that hasn't happened yet, and whether or not a land is occupied has nothing to do with some statute of limitations on how long the occupying force has controlled the land. It has to do with who claims the land, and who recognizes those claims. ← George^[talk] 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The 21 vs 42 argument or the 42 vs 500 argument are both political arguments, and thus irrelevant to this article. This article should state facts, not a political debate between Wikipedia editors. The fact is that the Golan Heights were deemed occupied Syrian territory by numerous near-unanimous UN resolutions and numerous American and European official statements, and this is what the article should state, more or less.--Doron (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, the Vilayet of Damascus did not include most parts of modern Israel during the last century of Ottoman rule. Borders of Ottoman Empire subdivisions changed over the years, but the Golan Heights were always subordinated to Damascus, as far as I know.--Doron (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire had a completely different division of the Levant region. I can hardly see the relevance of the Ottoman division to this discussion. DrorK (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This was exactly my point, in response to arguments by Nsaum75, Historicist and George above.--Doron (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Doron. Usage of the term "occupied" when referring to the situation is nearly unanimous among, say, 'English speakers of the world', and that's really what counts - not how long it's been occupied. Illegally occupied is most definitely out, but I don't really see a problem with just 'occupied', as a region can be legally occupied (my guess is that the most common international view of the U.S. presence in Iraq is that it is legal, for instance). Obviously some editors view even the term 'occupied' as non-neutral, but I don't think that it's considered a biased term in the world at large. It's similar to terms like pro-choice/pro-life/anti-abortion, where those involved see significant bias to specific terms, but those outside the discussion tend to pick common terms to describe the stances. ← George^[talk] 07:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC: "Israeli-occupied." "in south-western Syria" "30 Jewish settlements on the heights, with an estimated 20,000 settlers" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/3393813.stm Reuters: "Israeli-occupied Golan Heights" http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2368283220071123 CNN: "Jewish settler" http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/06/14/israel.syria/index.html New York Times: "Israel Opens New Golan Heights Settlement" http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/22/world/israel-opens-new-golan-heights-settlement.html Reuters: "About 18,000 Israeli settlers have moved to the Golan" http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2169272820080521 Daily Star: "Netanyahu vows to continue occupation of Golan Heights" http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=99222 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RFC I favour "occupied". This is the near-consensus view among the world's English speakers. "Disputed" implies it is generally accepted to be Israeli territory, but Syria is simply challenging or "disputing" this claim. The style-guides of most newspapers and broadcasters in the US/UK refer to the land as occupied. Even Israel accepted its nature as occupied territory until it annexed the Golan in 1981. Urban469 (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RFC This discussion doesn't make much sense to me. For years Israel refused to acknowledge the West Bank was occupied, until Olmert finally used the dreaded "O" word. I know the legal status in domestic Israeli law is different between the West Bank and Golan Heights, but internationally, it is exactly the same. So if Israel is prepared to call the West Bank "occupied", then as far as outsiders are concerned, the Golan is also "occupied"!!! There is no "dispute" over this land, Israel has openly acknowledged (under Yitzak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and most recently Ehud Olmert) during talks with Syria that it WOULD be prepared to hand back the land, subject to a number of conditions.

Syrianawiki (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Syrianawiki (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

”’Reply to RFC”’ The Golan Heights is an occupied territory not a disputed territory. The term "disputed" implies that there is a debate on who it belongs to, THERE is no debate on who the land belongs to. It is a Syrian land and it is occupied by the Israelis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.78.125 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

”’Reply to RFC” The Golan Heights is and occupied territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.83.158 (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RFC The Golan Heights formed a part of Syria since the country's independence in 1946 and until the Six-Day War of 1967, when it was occupied by Israeli forces. Since final border settlement of Israel hasn't yet taken place, it can be strongly argued that they remain occupied, using that term . This doesn't change the fact that they are also disputed (the terms are not mutually exclusive) but gives a fuller context as to how the territory came to be disputed (because the territory was occupied by Israel and no final settlement has been reached yet). They thus remain occupied pending resolution of the issue ← Shadi^[talk] 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But I still don't think we're right in stretching "occupation" to include an area such as the Golan which, despite a strong military presence, is under civil administration. I personally prefer "Israeli-administered". Or does this sort of thing, under international law, count as occupation? Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Belligerent occupation" occurs when a country sends agents (eg. its army) into a region outside its own borders in a hostile fashion (i.e., without invitation; actual resistance is not required) and exercises firm control there. The legal definition derives from the Hague Convention and the Geneva Conventions. It corresponds with what ordinary people mean when they say "occupied". It doesn't make any difference whether the firm control exercised is of the military or civilian type. Zero^talk 05:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, but if we have to hew so closely to international law can we at least make the point that the Israeli military is not the one exercising the firm control? What most people think of when they talk about occupation is the military variety. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

”’Reply to RFC”’ and then have your say – occupied or disputed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.180.72.230 (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors, new and old, we need to keep in mind Wikipedia regulations regarding WP:MEAT, WP:SPA and WP:Canvass. Happy Editing! --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the disputed territory terminology. This whole "illegal occupation" argument has become less of a fact and more of a rhetoric perpetuated by activist organizations that have no understanding of international law. The legality argument is more disputed than the "occupied" argument, which is interchangeable with disputed territory. Syria has relative influence over the Arabs, and Israeli has influence over the Jews, and all are afforded Israeli citizenship though most Arabs deny it. It would be good to note that the latest US press releases refer to the the territories as occupied but not illegally. International law is rarely binding, and is not applicable to the more pertinent Israeli court system. Perhaps a compromise would be a brief mention of disputed/illegally/etc but more focus on the dispute between Israel/Syria rather than conflicting legality challenges. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RFC definitely 'occupied'. if we are to be civilized global citizens, then we abide by international law and call it "occupied" like the world community, the UN, does. anything else is a deviation from this world community and a challenge to it. some people see that they are above international law, and this is their right to view themselves as such. the rest of us will continue to abide by the pact we agreed to when joining the UN, and when considering ourselves part of the civilized world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.88.160 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, I understand your concerns about the use of the word "illegal", but you know we can use the word "occupation" as a standalone term. It is interesting that you note that "the latest US press releases refer to the the territories as occupied but not illegally". I wonder if you have any references. This would seem to me to be overwhelming evidence that we need to use the word "occupied" rather than "disputed". America, Israel's most steadfast ally, calls the land occupied, but we are scared to.--Urban469 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply I completely disagree with Ynhockey. "Disputed territories" can be shown to be demonstrably POV terminology, as in that only one side, and nobody else in the world, of the "dispute" uses this terminology. Only Israel uses "disputed" as the term. The rest of the world consistently uses "occupied", not just Syria or the Arab states, but the UN, the US: Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem as a result of the 1967 War, the EU, the UK: land considered to be occupied under international law, in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan, Canada: with regard to the Golan Heights, which has been under Israeli occupation since June 1967. Disputed territories is a POV term used by a tiny minority of the world whereas occupied is used by the governments and intergovernmental associations of the world (oh I forgot about the NGOs like AI: after inconclusive negotiations with Syria over the Golan Heights occupied by Israel in 1967, HRW: Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights since 1967). We have a case here of a view held by a small minority and we are asked to use that demonstrably POV language in place of what is used among the world. "Occupied" is clearly what is most commonly used for the Golan Heights, and to use "disputed" in its place is taking the POV of one of the "sides" of the dispute and using their terminology in place of what is used by the rest of the world. Nableezy (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well both are unfair comparisons. The territories are disputed no doubt but to many, including the world community, AI, blah blah, consider the situation to be far more serious...hence the rather charged "occupied" accusation even though it doesn't seem to apply to other countries. It would be fair of us to go thought he occupied rounds, but also invest time in the dispute debate. We aren't trying to under-play the feelings of reliable sources by white-washing it as "disputed territory" as your opinion suggests. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont see your point on other countries, my point was the 'occupied' is the terminology used by most of the world and should be used here. Disputed is used by one side of the issue and only that side, whereas occupied is used by everybody else, including those not directly involved. Nableezy (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are still missing my point. The quagmire is ultimately a territory dispute. Many go further and say it is illegally occupied, other people (not just Israel) say differently. One part is legal and the other part is just basic knowledge. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a territory dispute. It is southwestern Syria occupied by an invading foreign force. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the SOAPing. Israel captured the Golan Heights in a legitimate war instigated by the Arab collective. Syria used the Golan Heights to launch incursions into Israel during the war, and they have yet to make a Egypt-like treaty with the state outside of uncertain armstice agreements. Syria is also one of two countries who directly provide state-funding to armed movements that continue to war with Israel. The Jews couldn't care less about the Golan Heights as it was not allocated during the original partition, but now it has translated into a well-documented and justified security concern. Plus, Syria is over 180,000sq/k while Israel is barely the size of New Jersey. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not include the word "illegal" anywhere in my comments. So not just many, but nearly all say "occupied", I am not saying it needs to say "illegally occupied", but to say it is "disputed" territory takes the POV of a small minority where we have a term used by most of the world for the territory: "occupied". Nableezy (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But we are setting ourselves up for a legality debate. The territory is disputed (duh), x x and x say it is being occupied, many say illegally according to x x and x. Israel has rejected/disputed/whatever these claims and cites x x and x (legal rhetoric has been used to pimp both sides). Does that seem fair? The Golan Heights isn't say...Iraq, or Afghanistan, articles where we have devoted far less time in arguing occupied/disputed territory proportional to what is actually happening. Wikifan12345 (talk)

Discussion on whether or not the occupation is legal or not is premature, and besides the point of whether or not it is an occupation. From Wikipedia's standpoint, it doesn't matter if it's "fair", it matters if it's verifiable. To quote Wikipedia's policy on verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The vast majority of sources around the world label the area as occupied. Israel's rejection of such a label should of course be laid out in the body of the article, and properly sourced, bit its minority opinion does not trump the common international usage of the term. ← George^[talk] 00:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: In the interest of reaching a consensus in what appears to becoming a circular argument, maybe we should be look at one example of the changes that were made in the recent edit war: Example of Differences
Items specifically changed:

1. Occupied vs. Disputed

2. Illegal Settlements vs. Communities

3. Controlled by the IDF vs. governed by Israel

3. Occupied Palestine vs. Israel

How could we best address those specific instances where there is a conflict of word choice? Perhaps instead of using strictly one form or another, we could carefully and clearly include variations of both terms in the article. Saying the territory is occupied but also disputed by some countries, would be one way to start. This would help provide balance; or at least give us somewhere to start.
Constantly re-hashing that "it has to be this way and only this way" is not going to resolve this disagreement. We are going to have to agree upon a version that best reflects the current situation in the Golan, while being all inclusive to differing viewpoints expressed by a number of editors. --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Disputed" has to refer to only the border (does it reach the Sea of Galilee or not?) "Occupied" can be used (I give ground on this from above) but we have to discuss who considers it legal and who considers it illegal, and who doesn't care. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Millions of people in the muslim world consider PALESTINE to be occupied by the zionist entity. will we fairly represent that or just tell more LIES! Freegolan (talk)

”’Reply to RFC”’ We need to only examine international law to see whether the Golan Heights is occupied or not. If you do you will find that it is illegal for any country to gain territory from war. In 1967 the IDF occupied the Golan Heights, as well as East Jerualem, the West Bank and Gaza. Up to this day there are Syrians living in the Golan Heights separated by their family, culture and country by Israeli fences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.182.154 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

again, enough with the SOAPING. The IDF does not fence Arabs from going to Syria. Unlike Gaza and the WB, everyone is entitled to Israeli citizenship as far as I know. If you want to apply your definition of what constitutes illegal annexation, talk to the former Soviet Union. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nsaum75, you raise an interesting compromise, and one that I hope can be agreed on by consensus. It is this: the Golan Heights is occupied territory, although Israel disputes this. We can then reference the points made by editors in this RFC (i.e. the UN/US/world opinion vs Israel's opinion, the land dispute vs the border dispute - and the fact that Syria and Israel came to within 10m of an agreement to hand back the Golan in 2000, the interesting discussion about whether the occupation is legal or not). I am happy to submit some changes, which you can judge for yourselves. But I think we are coming close to ending this RFC.--Urban469 (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, we haven't been discussing the settlements in this RFC. But the BBC style guide is instructive in this regard. It refers to them "Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law". Even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton use the word "settlements" so I don't think there is much controversy there. The only country which uses the euphemism "communities" is Israel. Activists on the other side refer to them as "colonies". So settlements is clearly the neutral technocratic term.--Urban469 (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition in Israeli settlement includes the Golan Heights, as the article states explicitly. This is a result of an old RfC and ample arguments supporting this phrasing were brought up there.--Doron (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nsaum75, I am happy for us to say that the Golan is under Israeli civil control, unlike the West Bank. But we should mention that there are regular IDF patrols through the land (i.e. it is not demilitarised).--Urban469 (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the Occupied Palestine vs Israel, I'm not sure where this comes in. But this is a no-brainer, surely. "Israel" is the area inside the Green Line, "Occupied Palestine" is the land taken in 1967 give or take Gaza.--Urban469 (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We are so preoccupied with disputing the dispute over whether or not it is occupied... I was wondering whether anybody has a reference indicating that Israel actually disputes the term "occupation" with regards to the Golan Heights? Just because Israel (apparently) avoids the word "occupied" and sticks to the unrelated word "disputed" does not mean it disputes the term "occupied". Israel has explicitly rejected the term with regards to the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the grounds that they were not recognized sovereign territories of other country prior to occupation, but this cannot be applied to the Golan Heights.--Doron (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point Doron. Actually Ehud Olmert caused a lot of controversy when he called for an end to the "occupation" of the West Bank and the creation of a Palestinian state. So even in regards to the WB, it has been used.--Urban469 (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are mixing several issues here:

The actual state of affairs, the nature of the law and administration in the Golan Heights - in this sense, there is no occupation in the Golan Heights. The territory and its residents are under regular civilian regime, and the area is easily accessible from Israel proper without any barriers or limitations.
The point of view of many countries as to the legitimacy of the Israeli control of the Golan Heights - in this sense, most countries regard the Israeli control as a legal occupation per SC resolutions 242 and 338, i.e. Israel is entitled to control the area until the Israel-Syrian is resolved.

BTW, when trying to look for a less biased POV, it is not advisable to look in the Lebanese and Syrian media. DrorK (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork, if you scrool up a bit you will see links from Reuters, BBC, CNN, NYT using "occupation" and "israeli settlers" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the article itself, you'll find out that the Egyptian Daily Star reports that the pre-1967 residents of the Golan Heights enjoy better standard of living than the Syrians in Syria. It is quite hard to imagine that this is possible if the Golan Heights were under occupation regime. As for the NYT, I don't see the word "occupation" in this article [4] nor in this article [5] nor here [6]. DrorK (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DrorK, the NYT does in fact mention the occupation here [7], here [8] and here [9]. Shalom70 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The NYT is inconsistent in its description of the Golan Heights. Usually when it describes the issue from a Syrian point of view it uses the term "occupation", and when it describes it from an Israeli point of view it doesn't use this term. Therefor, the NYT is not a good source for this matter. DrorK (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN is not very consistant either. It does not refer to the Golan Heights as occupied neither here [10] nor here [11]. In some texts it does use the term "occupied" but doesn't refer to the territory as Syrian [12] - note that the location at the beginning of the article is "Golan Heights", not: "Golan Heights, Syria" or "Syrian Golan Heights". This inconsistancy makes CNN also a bad source for the issue we discuss. DrorK (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What kind of standard of living Syrians have is of no importance to if an area in southwestern Syria is considered "disputed" or occupied: Ill post the links again so you can see who calls it occupied, and who calls the settlers= settlers: BBC: "Israeli-occupied." "in south-western Syria" "30 Jewish settlements on the heights, with an estimated 20,000 settlers" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/3393813.stm Reuters: "Israeli-occupied Golan Heights" http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2368283220071123 CNN: "Jewish settler" http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/06/14/israel.syria/index.html New York Times: "Israel Opens New Golan Heights Settlement" http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/22/world/israel-opens-new-golan-heights-settlement.html Reuters: "About 18,000 Israeli settlers have moved to the Golan" http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2169272820080521 Daily Star: "Netanyahu vows to continue occupation of Golan Heights" http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=99222 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

”’Reply to RFC”’ The Golan Heights is Syrian land stolen by Israelis. end of story. to pretend otherwise is merely more of the same fantasising that Israelis have indulged in to cover the gross immorality of the very nature of the Israeli state itself - Ahmad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.41.64 (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork you are confusing NPOV with Israeli POV. Find one reference where a country - other than Israel - views Israel's control of the Golan Heights as "legitimate". Also, you are correct in alluding to Israel's annexation of the Golan (i.e. no barriers or limitations from Israel proper, and civilian rule), however this annexation was "condemned internationally" - the annexation is ONLY recognised by Israel. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/3393813.stm We are NOT talking about whether it is a legal or illegal occupation so let's stop muddying the waters here please.--Urban469 (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Urban, this is not a political debate. We are trying to describe reality. There is no occupation regime in the Golan Heights. If you want to visit the region, simply get a visa to Israel, land in the Ben Gurion Airport, and take a bus northwards. It is not the case for the West Bank which is indeed under martial law (at least in those parts which are not governed by the PA), which means its residents are subject to special limitations, and access to the region is limited. Now, many countries suggest that the Golan Heights should be under Syrian control rather than Israeli contol, hence the term "occupation". Okay, so you may write that, but don't mislead people to think there is an occupation regime in the Golan Heights. BTW, I suppose the BBC uses the term Falkland Islands, while Argentina prefers Malvinas and regard the region as British occupied. I also assume that the BBC regards the American military presence in Iraq as legitimate, while Syria constantly call it "the American occupation forces" (قوات الاحتلال الأمريكي). DrorK (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Drork, all of the westbank and east Jerusalem within the 1967 line is considered occupied by israel, although the seperataion wall is built so parts of the westbank and east Jerusalem is reached by israelis, still, those parts and east Jerusalem is conisdered occupied, by everyone. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Occupied is relative, and that is what is being disputed. Golan Heights isn't Iraq-occupied, or Afghanistan-occupied, or any true fundamental defining characteristic of occupation. And what about illegal/legal occupation? Your statement that "everyone" believes the Golan Heights is "occupied" is a crude and fallacious generalization. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Occupied is relative"? It most certainly is not. The effects of occupation, the level of military control, those are relative. But whether or not an area is occupied is not relative, it is a clearly defined term. And nearly everyone agrees that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. And by nearly everyone I mean nearly every government in the world, Israel excepted. Nableezy (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, you are stepping into a minefield (if I may use this metaphore...), because if we go by your logic we will have to define Western Sahara as Morrocan-occupied, Hamas must be defined as a terror organization (it is recognized as such by many governments), and the Syrian regime should be defined as totalitarism. I suppose you want to avoid using such definitions on the English Wikipedia, and therefor you should support a neutral description of the situation in the Golan Heights. DrorK (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, Hamas is recognized as a terror organization by 6 governments (and terrorist does not have a clearly definition, where occupied does), and I wouldnt be completely opposed to calling Western Sahara Moroccan-occupied. Totalitarian is likewise a complex term that doesnt have clear definitions. And it is not just the countries, it is also the multi-national organizations such as the UN and the EU, it is the vast majority of English RSs, it is the NGOs like AI, HRW, the ICRC and so on that make this different from the examples you give. Nableezy (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the word 'terrorist' is almost inherently non-neutral in that it is near impossible to objectively apply it consistently. Occupied is not, it makes no judgment on the actions or motivations, it simply describes the current status. It is a bit like the difference between calling an act a terrorist act (which we see around here plenty) and a person a terrorist, which cannot be done neutrally. "Occupied" has no such issues. The biggest point here is using the term "disputed" when it is the term preferred by one side of the issue and nobody else uses it whereas we have a term used by the rest of the world and nearly every RS, "occupied" Nableezy (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is only one problem with your argument - there is no occupation in the Golan Heights. The regime there is civilian and there are no special limitations on the residents of the region. Therefor, you suggest using the term "occupied" just like "terrorist", as a political statement. There are reasonable definitions for "occupation" and "terror" as de-facto situations, but you are not interested in them, you are looking for the political declarative aspect of these terms, hence the problem with your argument. The term "disputed" is not used specifically by Israel. Israel simply refrain from using any additional "title" for the Golan Heights. We, on Wikipedia, decided to use "disputed" in order to show that that the current status of the territory is not acceptable on all. It is you who wants us to use a unilateral terminology. You also suggest setting a prcendent which will lead to changes in other articles - definitely Western Sahara, but also probably Hamas, Hizbollah, and others. May I remind you that by your standards, the opinion of 6 influencial governments, and some international organizations, is very significant. DrorK (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No I am not trying to use a unilateral terminology, I am trying to ignore both what the two main sides here say and look at what the rest of the world says, which, unsurprisingly, is that the Golan Heights are occupied. And no, 6 governments is not all that I am basing my argument on, I also base it on the the UN, the ICRC, HRW, AI, and many other sources, including most of what we here call "reliable sources", which, again unsurprisingly, say that the Golan Heights are occupied. And I am certain I can find more sources that explicitly call Hamas or Hezbollah resistance movements than you can find ones that call them terrorist. There is no consensus among the world that those groups are terrorist groups, while here there is that consensus that the Golan is occupied territory. I am not going to engage in the OR you are attempting by finding my own definition of what an occupation is, the RSs that we depend on are relatively clear in this matter. The Golan Heights are occupied according to most of the world and those qualified to make such statements. The term "disputed territories" is used almost exclusively by the Israelis (though there are times when Israeli government officials slip up and accidentally use the term occupied). To use that term to the exclusion of what the sources are unambiguous about is nonsense. Martial law is not a requirement of occupation, which is apparently what you are basing your argument upon. Having effective military control of the territory is. Do you actually argue that Israel does not have effective military control over the Golan? And if you do make that argument is it possible that you have sources that make that argument? There is broad agreement outside of Israel, and apparently wikipedia, that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. That should be reflected. Nableezy (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DrorK, your arguments will not be able to convince the rest of the world that the Golan Heights isn't under occupation. Whilst it may appear to casual tourists that nothing is amiss in the Golan Heights, travel further deeper however and reality will reveal itself. A quick example, talk to the Syrian Druze in Majdal Shams who've not been able to see their relatives in decades. Or may I suggest a bit more research.

For starters, you could read here [13]. I don't see what the problem is citing the BBC. In response to your comments, they have a good article regarding the Malvinas [14] with a sub-heading titled "Illegal regime". With regards to the occupation in Iraq, they've not hid the fact in their articles. e.g. [15]. If after all that you're still not convinced, there's always the article I previously linked to in the NYE [16].

But let's agree to disagree as we're getting nowhere with these circular arguments. As previously suggested by Nsaum75 followed by Urban469, both points of view can be put across so that readers can walk away with a balanced picture of how Israel and the rest of the world views the situation in the Golan Heights. Shalom70 (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think one fundamental thing that editors are missing, and which I tried to explain earlier, is that from Wikipedia's standpoint it doesn't matter if the term occupied is the "truth". If 80% of the world labels the area as "occupied" then, whether they're right or wrong, that is what belongs in the infobox and lead. The minority viewpoints should of course be covered later, in the body of the article. ← George^[talk] 09:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

George, not 80%, but 99% of the world sees Golan as Syrian land occupied by Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what the editors are missing George is simply how we should frame this occupation rhetoric. Shalom your proposition is extremely soapy, what are you trying to say? Okay, several reliable references have published articles critiquing Israeli occupation of Golan Heights. So what? Many reliable references illustrate a far less sinister portrait, which begs the question...why pick and choose? Spinning an article is easy, all we have to do is select valuable and precise factual information while forcing everything else out at the expense however we are going to define occupation. I would really like to see the Syrian POV here. Israel seems to be able to speak on behalf of Israel. Has Syria managed to put as much timely effort in terms of legal/political battles outside of physical conflict (i.e, bankrolling Hamas)? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think people here developed a somewhat post-modern view of how we should present knowledge. According to some people here, if most people in the world think that the world is square, we should write so in Wikipedia, even if there are reliable sources and indication proving that the world is round. This is not the spirit of Wikipedia whatsoever. The fact that many countries define the Golan Heights as "occupied" is a political point of view. It might be shared by many, and yet it doesn't tell us much about the actual state of affairs. If you want to cite major countries, the UN or the BBC - that's fine, I won't object that, but saying the Golan Heights is under occupation because the BBC says so is very problematic, even when this view is shared by many. DrorK (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but if 99% of the scientists who study the matter say the earth is flat then we give that view greater weight, sort of the opposite that we do now with the flat-earth proponents. What you are doing here by saying that we shouldnt use the countries, UN, NGOs, and the press when they say it is occupied is OR, you want to determine yourself whether or not it is occupied. Nableezy (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, I thought it was perfectly clear what I was saying. The label 'occupation' seems to be agreed upon by a majority of individuals here backed by lots of relevant citations (major organisations such as the U.N. cannot be ignored!). Unless you have some very convincing citations to share, this element in the discussion should be drawing to a close going by what George has kindly pointed out. Why is it necessary then to drag in the Syrian POV? Remember, what's important here is the major consensus; Wikipedia serves the world.

Now to DrorK... Using your analogy, the the two of you seem to think the world is square and we the majority, are trying to patiently show you otherwise; citing various sources not as proof or fact but as evidence as to what we already know as common sense. Two more mentions of occupation can be found here in the Jerusalem Post [17] and Haaretz [18]. Shalom70 (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Shalom, it could actually be funny, because what you say here is probably more-or-less equivalent to what the Pope told Galileo Galilee. You bring citations from politically motivated sources that back your terminology, and suggest that we must follow this terminology (I have nothing against politics, but we are not talking politics now). I have already showed you that the NYT and CNN are not as decisive as you suggested, and that even an Egyptian newspaper acknowledges the fact that the regime in the Golan Heights is not exactly an occupation regime. The UN is not a relevant source because it is a political organization (and so it should be). You can cite the UN or any other significant political organization, but don't claim it is the truth. Now, you must separate between political views regarding the legitimacy of the Israeli control over the region, or the future of the region, and the actual facts on the ground. You want us to chose misleading terminology, because you chose to mix between two different meanings of the world "occupation". The sources you've brought all talk about points of view regarding the future of the region and not about the actual state of affairs. DrorK (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, one of the article you've brought is an editorial by the left-wing writer Gideon Levi, it is not a report. In the JPost article, it is probably a citation of the Red Cross that was mistakenly put without quotes. DrorK (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Why is it necessary to drag in the Syrian POV?" Is that a serious question? This article is basically a competition between Syria and Israel. Regardless of the opinion of the UN, or the consensus of major media, both of which are far more complicated and diverse than the way you have portrayed them to be, means little if we do not emphasize the agenda of Syria. Syria is ultimately an extremely despotic and oppressive regime, continues to engage in proxy wars with Israel and Jews, conducts hypocritical campaigns of violence (Hama Massacre), and is given little to no credibility outside of the Arab League. therefore, the POV of Syria is extremely important, more important the assessment by the UN or Gideon Levi. How they define occupation in relation to Israel and the West is beyond pertinent. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, is there an intention to change the description of Western Sahara into Morrocan occupied? DrorK (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I ask that we use the following as another possible citation "the Israeli occupation of the Golan, which brought about the displacement of most of the Syrian residents there and the destruction of their villages". Source, again the Israeli newspaper Haaretz [19]. Shalom70 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

People notice that even the Golan map on the top front of the article says "Israeli Setllement" in the bottom right square.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not endorse that sentence Shalom. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

occupied. everyone should remember that this is not a contest between editors but a comparison of statements in reliable sources. if wikipedia was around in the time of galileo, his fringe view would not merit prominent mention in the article on the earth when the preponderance of sources at the time opposed it. however right he might be, wikipedia is not about the truth, it only reflects what the reliable sources at the time say. you might say, "look, he's right!! i did the math and you can see right here - its the truth!!" but, that would be original research and is forbidden here. the reliable sources overwhelmingly say occupied, and that is what wikipedia should say as well. untwirl(talk) 03:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing reliable sources. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is a move here to introduce politics into the description of the Golan Heights, not only in this article, but also in the articles about Israel that mention the Golan Heights. This is very sad. May I remind you that the goal of Wikipedia is to offer real useful information. What you are doing is nothing more than causing confusion and mixing facts with opinions. This is not the right way to work. DrorK (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, and could you tell me what is wrong with saying "the Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel, though Israel disputes this"? This covers everything, that the world recognizes that this is occupied territory and that the term occupied is disputed by Israel. Nableezy (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

coming to this particular controversy for the first time, it seems obvious to be that the neutral word is "occupied", and that you can then make of it what you will based on your own political views of the conflict. If one's POV is that Israel has illegally occupied it, and holds it in defiance of the rest of the world, none the less it is certainly "occupied" by Israel. If Israel has taken possession of it justly in self-defense, then until this has been generally recognized by the rest of the world as legitimate, then still, they do "occupy" it. Occupied has been historically used for just this situation because it implies nothing about who has the right to the area.. The use of the other terms suggested implies a political judgment; this term does not. Saying "illegally occupied" certainly implies a conclusion about it, saying occupied buy the IDF is not accurate, because Israel does have established what appears to be civil government there. "disputed," though not incorrect, is a much more general term--many things are disputed between the two governments besides this. Using terminology that assimilates it with the internationally recogized State of Israel is wrong also, because it implies that this is internationally recognized also, which is simply not correct. Whether or not it should be does not enter into it. The word "occupied" is universally used for the purpose of describing this situation wherever it occurs, because it implies nothing about the legal status. Having settled this very preliminary question, we can then have a suitable discussion of the different views of what its true status is, and what it ought to be. I doubt we will settle here, and I don't think we even ought to try. The fairest thing is to use the plain word. DGG (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Invited reply to rfc. The Golan Heights are an occupied territory. This is the internationally recognised expression. Adding illegally is provocative; disputed is a term used by a politically-motivated minority both within the world in general and, indeed, within Zionism. Administered is a term that can also be used if some variety in language is needed. BTW, I had tried to incorporate a discussion on this terminology into the page at IPCOLL looking at use of language. Perhaps the outcome here can be recorded there.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Along with the two editors above (DGG and Peter cohen), I believe "occupied" is the most accurate description of the Golan situation, i.e. Syrian territory currently occupied by Israel. Disputed is not an accurate assessment because it is not a piece of land that has never had a clear owner; it is part of Syria, and no-one in the international community disputes that with the exception of Israel. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Internationally community" is ambiguous. Be explicit, say the UN and include the various resolutions. It's undue to simply say "international community" because Israel has been routinely excluded from participating in UN and "international community" affairs. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not just the UN. Nableezy (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What else? If anything, we should be even more explicit. Much of the "condemnation" can be sourced from the United Nations Human Rights Council, whose members include Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The UN is most responsible and plays a central role in the Middle East. Whatever other "international community" programs exist are certainly in a different league. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RFC. Few people here have bothered to read the plentiful articles about how, when and why the very NEW modern state of Syria came about and that nothing about it is clear-cut, either politically, historically or geographically. There is obviously an attempt underway to paint a decidedly one-dimensional picture here of Israel as the "bad guys" and the Syrians as the "good guys" which defies WP:NPOV. This article should start with a GEOGRAPHIC & HISTORICAL description of the Golan Heights that goes back at least to the days of the Ottoman Empire until 1917 when the Golan Heights belonged to Turkey, like the rest of Syria that was part of the Ottoman Empire, and how with the conquest of Syria by the British with the aid of the French, the Golan Heights was part of that area that the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916 put under French control as the French Mandate of Syria in 1923, it included Lebanon by the way (State of Greater Lebanon), which is why the Syrians keep on trying to grab back that "occupied" country. At any rate, the French finally left Syria in 1946. See the divison of Syria and what went on in French Mandate of Syria: The Mandate and the various ways that the French chopped up (the French Mandate of) Syria, so it wasn't "whole" then either and historically the borders of the areas of modern-day Syria have historically been subjected to change based on political, military and diplomatic realities that unfolded over time, especially in the twentieth century when the borders of Syria were never fixed for any one long period of time, so it is ludicrous to seize on one chunk like the Golan Heights and hold it up as some kind of "sacred soil" belonging to Syria that did not even exist prior to 1926! Part of Syria even was handed back to Turkey (Sanjak of Alexandretta), that should also be "occupied". At any rate, from 1946 to 1956 Syria was in total chaos. Syria's constant and indiscriminate bombardment of Israel below the Golan Heights and its treaty with Egypt led to the Israeli counter-attack in the 1967 Six-Day War and Syria lost the Golan Heights in that war ever since. Yet again with Egypt, Syria joined in attacking Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War and launching an invasion INTO the Golan Heights and beyond into most of the adjoining Israeli areas that was met with an Israeli counter-offensive that resulted in further and reinforced Israeli control of the Golan Heights. So to sum up, the introduction for the sake of neutrality should state that: "The Golan Heights is an area between Israel and Syria [exact location] that was part of the Ottoman Empire for 400 years, conquered by the British in 1918. The area was handed to France as part of the French Mandate of Syria based on the 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement. Syria was a French colony until 1946 until the pro-Nazi Vichy French regime was defeated. Syria held on to the Golan Heights until 1967 until its decision to bombard Israel led to the 1967 Six-Day War when Israel conquered the territory. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War Syria attacked Israel and lost. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin annexed the Golan Heights to Israel, but the area has been in dispute as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the UN passing various resolutions as to how to solve the dispute and bring it to closure to the satisfaction of all sides and the international community." Something along those lines sounds neutral and factual. Otherwise to call the Golan Heights "occupied" or clearly pejoratively worse by Israel is openly hypocritical and sounds farcical and obviously one-side, in violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE (for Syria, Israel or anyone -- just the facts), when a huge part of the French Mandate of Syria was ceded to Turkey so that would make that truly occupied and Lebanon too should be part of Syria since it was part of the original French Mandate that was sliced off and noone argues, except the Syrians, that any section of modern Lebanon or any part of southern Turkey is either "occupied" or in any way should be part of the new Syrian state. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

IZAK, The article already mentions the ottoman empire when the border between the Damascus vilayet was right through the sea of Galilee, which means during the Ottoman empire Golan belonged to Damascus, the sykes picot agreement between Syria and Palestine was based on the Ottoman empire lines, The mandate were not divided as such, because Syria lost land to Palestine, half lake Hula for example and accses to the Sea of Galilee. You say Golan didnt belong to Syria before 1926, Golan has been part of Syria for many hundres and even thousands of years. And Alexandretta was not "handed back" to Turkey, it never belonged to Turkey, the land was part of the Syrian entity for thousands of years. An empire is occupying other peoples lands. 130 000 Syrians were expelled from Golan, And today we have polish, germans, ethiopians and americans living there today. We know who it belongs to. The boundaries of modern Syria is very clear to everyone in the international community, --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottoman Syria circa a long time ago. Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, etc...

Syria has not been a sovereign entity for "thousands of years." Prior to the French mandate, it was part of the ottoman empire for over 400 years. Most of these land grabs (by the Turks, not Syrians) were through despotic wars and conflicts, like how much of today's Middle East has been carved. Please look at the facts before attempting to rewrite history. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, im talking about the Damascus Vilayet: through the Sea of Galilee: Golan is Syria: http://www.zionism-israel.com/maps/ottoman_eng_1.gif

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/arabworld/ottsyr19061914text.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Ottoman_Syria_1918.png

http://unimaps.com/jordan1914/mainmap.gif --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Which Syria? Today's Syria? No. Modern Syria, the Syria that claims Golan, is not the Syria that existed thousands of years ago or even "hundreds of years ago." Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Its pointless to say its been Syrian for thousands of years, when the Syria that is laying claim to it has only existed since 1946...and only controlled it for 21 years -- where as Israel has controlled it for twice that. --Nsaum75 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont believe anybody here is trying to say that Israel has occupied it for thousands of years so I really dont see the point of this. And length of the occupation doesnt mean it suddenly is no longer occupied. Nableezy (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RFC. I believe we may be losing sight here of some basic principles of Wikipedia. Much of the discussion revolves around whether the Golan Heights are occupied (legally or illegally) or not. That is not for us to decide, nor must we. This is neither a court of law nor a referendum. Where differing views exist (as they certainly do), WP cannot take sides by saying certain things in its own voice. Pardon me for this reminder: we are here to present information; every possible statement—especially anything controversial—must be reliably sourced. Then let the reader draw conclusions. The article already contains numerous references to conflicting claims and demands. Perhaps it might be helpful to provide in addition a small, well-sourced sub-section (under “Status”) summarizing the various positions.

Mention was made in this discussion of the status being disputed only among a handful of WP editors. I think it more likely this handful represents a microcosm of the wider world. I doubt we would be having this discussion if the status wasn’t disputed. It is hotly disputed here, and not just here. The amount of vitriol expressed here should be sufficient evidence (if such evidence were needed) that disputed is an appropriate word. A dispute over whether a dispute exists has its absurd side. I have little doubt that the status is disputed, or maybe “contested” or “indeterminate”. There is no way to make it less ambiguous without taking sides.

It amazes me that editors with declared strong biases or blatant hostility can expect to be taken seriously when it comes to objective, neutral editing. One would think that they would have effectively disqualified themselves. The “because it’s clear to me and because it’s something everyone knows, it is The Truth” mentality is inimical to Wikipedia editing.

It elates me to see that editors with genuine scholarly knowledge and writing talent, who understand and respect the rules under which WP operates, are ready to step forward, and if allowed, could considerably advance the article’s development and usefulness. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hertz1888, The status is not disputed, please tell me how many countries sees Golan as Syria, and how many sees it as Israel? It is only disupted on wikipedia thanks to people like you. In the real world, everyone knows who the real owner is.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hertz, you are right, it is not for Wikipedia to decide the status. We report what RSs do, and the overwhelming majority of them say that it is occupied. Now I know that WP:FRINGE was developed with scientific disputes in mind, but the same thinking applies. We do not start the Earth article with "Whether or not the Earth is flat is disputed because there are a few flat-earthers out there. We say what the overwhelming majority of qualified sources say, and here they say that it is occupied. And saying the fact that some Wikipedians dispute it here is evidence of the dispute in the real world is trying to make it so we make the judgment of what it is, not letting the sources decide. Nableezy (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That was mainly a nod to the irony of the situation. You will notice I said "if such evidence were needed". There is enough ambiguity in the non-wiki world to make the case. Also please notice my stress on the primacy of reliable sourcing. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC Comment: I support the term disputed because it is inclusive to both minority and majority views -- those who view the Golan as occupied and those who view it under some other form of control; that said, I could support occupied, as long as somewhere in the lead it is made clear that some nations, organizations and individuals dispute the term "occupied". My main concerns about this article comes from edits like this--specifically, the edit on the left-hand side--where divisive and nationalistic terms such as "Illegal settlement" are used multiple times. It gives the appearance that Wikipedia endorses one particular POV in regards to the communities/settlements. I'm also deeply concerned about the number of WP:SPAs and IP addresses which have added input to this RfC, as this raises the issue of whether or not WP:CANVASS or WP:MEAT has occured; however I will leave it up to the 3rd party Administrator who closes this RfC, as to how to handle the input from those accounts. --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Who disputes the term "occupation"?

Sorry to bring this up again, but the several pages of discussion above seems to be unimpeded by the burden of substantiating reference. While we have seen an abundance of quotes supporting the term "occupation", we are yet to see a single reference indicating that the term is disputed by anybody (except for a handful of Wikipedia editors). So, once again, is there any reliable source that indicates that Israel objects to this term, or is this just the private opinion of a few Wikipedians?--Doron (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The word "occupation" in the English language and in the context of the modern political situation is a clearly loaded and one-sided term that is anti-Israel by implication and hence its use violates WP:NPOV, so that while it would be legitimate to quote what Arabs may say in an argument in the body of the article, it cannot be the objective "universal" description that introduces the subject. It's illogical to assume that official Israeli policy wishes to decribe itself objectively by the use of such a negatively understood word especially since there was a move to annex the territory by at least one Israeli governement under Menachem Begin. IZAK (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Your previous post is very convincing but I am really not understanding how "occupation" is inherently POV as you believe it to be. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting IZAK. Now do you have a source that says Israel disputes the term? Just because you think it is negative doesn't mean Israel is claiming it does not apply to her.--Doron (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In researching this I have come across mention of a Thomas Friedman column in the New York Times in which he says basically that the Golan isn't occupied in the usual sense. I haven't been able to find the original column yet.

The issue seems to be coming down to a conundrum: Both disputed and occupied are correctly used in their legal senses to describe the Golan, yet they both have connotations which the different sides want to avoid. Should we go with the consensus use of "occupied", due to heavy media and NGO use that seems to draw no official Israeli protest, or something else entirely to put NPOV first? (I feel "disputed" is off the table for reasons I've given already) Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think IZAK is missing one of the key concepts to WP:NPOV - WP:UNDUE. WP:UNDUE states that "though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article... must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view... giving undue weight to a [minority] viewpoint is not neutral". The minority view is that the term "occupied" is biased, and that the term "disputed" is more neutral. The majority view is that term "occupied" is accurate, reflected by its far more frequent usage globally when describing the situation. ← George^[talk] 08:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above in previous section. --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/3393813.stm Golan Heights (BBC) see second bullet point under "Golan heights facts"
^ Cite error: The named reference palmowski was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ UN Security Council Resolution 497
^ UN General Assembly, The occupied Syrian Golan: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 15 January 2007.

[1] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/3393813.stm Golan Heights (BBC) see second bullet point under "Golan heights facts"

[palmowski-2] Cite error: The named reference palmowski was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] UN Security Council Resolution 497

[4] UN General Assembly, The occupied Syrian Golan: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 15 January 2007.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]