Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Some corrections to the lead

1. Currently the lead gives undue weight to the UN resolutions. With all due respect, the UN is also considering Taiwan part of the PRC, and as far as the UN is concerned Cyprus is one country and Somaliland doesn't exist. I don't see why the POV of the UN should be so much valued in this particular article.
2. Syria has never been a federated state. Therefor it is not accurate to say that the Golan Heights were a Syrian territory. It is more accurate to say that until June 1967 it was within the Syrian borders.
3. The Ottoman Empire never included a district called Syria. There was the Vilayet of Damascus. Ottoman Syria is just a name used for convinience, it was never official.
4. Since the Israeli Golan Law doesn't mention the word "annexation" it is better to avoid it here. DrorK (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1. I'll hold off on this one. Generally I'm more in favor of including information from global bodies, as they tend to be more neutral, but I haven't looked into the specific usage here.
2. Sorry, can you define what a "federated state" is? I think the area of the Golan Heights can be considered Syrian territory because, if nothing else, if you asked a person who lived there before (and in many cases after) 1967 what they were, they would reply "Syrian". Emigration records for at least the last hundred years list the nationality of people coming from this region as "Syrian" or from "Syria", even while under the Ottoman control.
3. I don't see this term being used... maybe it was removed?
4. I believe the common international label for the action was an "annexation", regardless of whether it was legally declared as such? It's a similar case to when one country attacks another and doesn't declare war, but everyone calls it a war, or when two countries stop fighting, but never sign a ceasefire agreement, but everyone calls it a ceasefire. ← George ^[talk] 08:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Claims of occupation in the lead

Presumably in reaction to my closing comments in the above RfC, User:Nableezy added a list of entities to the lead which allegedly "consider the Golan Heights to be Syrian territory occupied by Israel." I don't have any problem with the idea, but I'm not sure that the references for all of these entities justify the statement made:

• The United States: ref [1]. The only comment this page makes on the subject is "Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem as a result of the 1967 War." Note that the language used is "Israel occupied" rather than "Israel occupies". In 1967 there was undoubtedly a military occupation. Is there now? The link doesn't make a claim one way or the other, and makes no claim at all that the land belongs to Syria (the word "Syria" doesn't even appear on the page).
• The United Nations: ref [2] "He said Israel would realize that the peoples of the Middle East could not be cowed into submission. The 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut had called for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace based on the principle of land for peace, which was the way forward. However, a political solution could not be implemented as long as Israel continued to occupy Arab land in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank and the Syrian Golan Heights." This is the only mention of the Golan on this page. The problem is that this is quoting Tarek Mitri, the Minister of Culture and Special Envoy of the Government of Lebanon. This is not the UN making this claim, but rather a Lebanese minister. A new ref is needed.
• The European Union: ref [3] "The Presidency of the European Union calls upon the Israeli Government to clarify a reported statement by one of its Ministers to the effect that Israel intends to expand its settlements in the occupied area of the Golan Heights." This one is less contentious, my only confusion is that it appears on the website of the "European Commission's Delegation to Syria" rather than the EU proper. Note also that this does not claim it to be Syrian land either, only that it's "occupied".
• The United Kingdom: ref [4] "There are risks involved with purchasing property in Israeli settlements on land considered to be occupied under international law, in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan. Potential purchasers should be aware that a future peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, or between Israel and Syria, could have consequences for property they purchase in these settlements." "Considered to be occupied under international law" is a far cry from claiming it to be Syrian land.
• Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: I have no problem with the inclusion of these two, even though HRW makes no claim that the land is Syrian.

Barring stronger references, I believe that the words "Syrian territory" need to be removed from the quoted sentence and the USA and UN (though I'm sure a source for the UN could be found) should be removed from the list. Oren0 (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For the US, here is an up to date source [5] discussing labor and human rights in the occupied territories and including the Golan. Up to date UN [6]. I am willing to say Israeli occupied territory or territory occupied by Israel without Syrian. Sound good? Nableezy (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The US source still seems weak to me. "Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem during the 1967 War." Maybe I'm picky, but saying that the territories were occupied during the 1967 war is not the same as saying they are occupied now. I have no objection to the UN ref. As for your other point, I have changed the lead to say "territory occupied by Israel", and I don't object to language that's similar to this. Oren0 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the US source contains this sentence discussing labor rights in what it calls occupied territory: Labor laws apply to Palestinians holding East Jerusalem identity cards and to the Syrian Druze living on the Golan Heights.
I think its inclusion in a current report shows its current status according to the US Dept of State. Nableezy (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to infer the American position on such a delicate international issue based on the heading under which something appears in a single document. I wish there was something more concrete, a statement which flat out says "The Golan Heights is occupied territory." I'm not going to remove it for now, and we'll see what other people think. Oren0 (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This source should be rock solid: "Although the United States considers the Golan Heights to be occupied territory subject to negotiation and Israeli withdrawal, it sympathized with the Israeli concern that Syrian control of the Heights prior to 1967 provided Syria with a tactical and strategic advantage used to threaten Israel’s security."
That work? Nableezy (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, CIA World Factbook entry for Israel (click on People) includes in the population "about 187,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, about 20,000 in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, and fewer than 177,000 in East Jerusalem" Nableezy (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Oren0, a question regarding claiming sovereignty, should it read since the 67 war or since the Golan Heights Law was passed? Nableezy (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oren0, your argument is tenuous and nitpicky in the extreme. I do see Supreme Deliciousness's point that you were the wrong person to deal with this matter as a neutral third party. As a supporter of Israel, you're as much a partisan editor of this article as the rest of us. Look at the Department of State link that Nableezy first included in the article [7] This. It has a map. That map shows Israel in one colour and the occupied territoties including the Golan in another matching its neighbours. And it labels those territories on the map as occupied. Further the dashed line used used to separate the border between Israel and the Golan is exactly the same line used to separate Israel from Lebanon. Meanwhile a much thinner line is used to separate the Israeli-occupied Golan from the UNSCOP area and exactly the same type of thin line is used to separate the UNSCOP area from the rest of Syria. How you can use this to suggest that the US might not regard the Golan as Syrain, I do not see. Similarly with the British link given.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A note, this is the original link from the article for the State Dept, the pdf is what is in there now. Nableezy (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting my mistake. The map I'm talking about is in the link you provide here, not the pdf.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Nableezy's latest source. Contrary to what you may believe, I am not attempting to nitpick for my own benefit. Instead, I want to ensure that the references in the lead are rock solid to avoid future edit wars over what they say. One could make a reasonable objection if a reference claimed that the territory was "occupied in 1967" rather than occupied now. As a result of my "nitpicking", I believe that we now have a better source that isn't subject to that objection. Oren0 (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish communities" or "Israeli settlements" ?

In the box it says "Sites on the Golan in blue are Jewish communities." Should it be "Israeli settlements" instead? Notice that the map says Israeli settlements at the bottom right.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Oren0 (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how about the "country" part in the same box, what should it be there? and also it still says "- Disputed area 1,200 km2 (463.3 sq mi)" shouldn't this be changed to Israeli occupied?

and "controlled by Israel, claimed by Syria" changed to Israeli occupied? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

some more thing left

Right now it says at the top: "consider the Golan Heights to be territory occupied by Israel"

Shouldn't this be: "consider the Golan Heights to be Syrian territory occupied by Israel"

and in the box it says: "Currently: controlled by Israel, claimed by Syria" this should be changed to "occupied by Israel, claimed by Syria"

and: "Disputed area 1,200 km2 (463.3 sq mi)" changed to "to Occupied area" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your first point was discussed above. The sources for most of the bodies listed (USA, EU, UK, UN, and AI if I recall properly) do not explicitly call the territory "Syrian", they only call it "occupied." Therefore, the lead should say the same. As for the second point, I believe "controlled by Israel" to be more neutral, since no one can dispute that Israel controls the land but some do dispute that it is occupied. Again, we do not wish to use the term "occupied" as fact, but rather to only use it in the context of who claims it. As for your third point, per the RfC, I have changed "Disputed area" to "Controlled by Israel". Oren0 (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When sources quoted decribe the area as regarded as occupied under international law, and this assessment reflects the preponderance of legal opinion in reliable sources, then surely "occupied" can and should be treated as a fact.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Peter. Oren0 wrote that "some do dispute that [the land] is occupied". Who disputes that it is occupied? I know that some groups shy away from using the term, but who, exactly, disputes that it is occupied? How many people dispute the label? Do the Israeli settlers in the Golan Heights dispute the term? Does the Israeli government? Are there scholars out there writing about how the near-universal use of the term "occupied" is inaccurate? ← George ^[talk] 20:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But they call it occupied by Israel, so of course they are implying that someone else(Syria)is the owner.

How about all the articles about Israeli settlements in Golan? Should they be called settlements?

Like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzrin

And Mount Hermon? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What should they be called? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Katzrin should be called an Israeli settlement, and Mount hermon should be called occupied by Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Settlements

I would like to name all Israeli settlements in Golan: "Israeli Settlements" , Katzrin, and many others, ok?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. But then I don't support the settlement policy in the first place. Also, should this perhaps go to IPCOLL? Places in the West Bank should be treated similarly and a centralised discussion makes sense to me.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't support Israel's settlement policy in regards to the Golan, but the discussion should go to IPCOLL. Some of the settlements have grown to such a size and existed for so long, that they indeed could be called "communities". --Nsaum75 (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically. I think state-controlled should be emphasized since all of the settlements are strategically located to minimize exposure and prevent violence from pouring into Israel. The logic has worked thus far... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here I have an Israeli newspaper (Haaretz) calling the Israeli settlements in Golan "settlements", http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1096062.html, does anyone object to calling Katzrin and other settlements: "settlements" ?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

occupied territories

only considered occupied by some, others say its israeli territory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.91.224 (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says its Israeli territory? Which country?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Arabic text before Hebrew

I want to change so the Arabic text and translation is before the Hebrew one. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point in doing so. Please avoid unnecessary edits. And there is another thing - I saw on your userpage that you reject Israel's right to exist. I appreciate your frankness, and I think it is a good thing to publish such a proper disclosure, but since you make such a statement overtly, it is hard to consider your recent suggestions as a genuine attempt to improve the article. DrorK (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Israelit, having been a dead language until recently, did not previously exist in the Golan Heights. Arabic was and stil is the language of the legitimate residents of the land as well as the WORLD WIDE recognized rightful owner of the Golan, SYRIA. Hamas4life (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew is quite alive and well, and extensively used by all residents of the Golan Heights, Jews and non-Jews. And BTW, the nick Hamas4life doesn't imply too much good faith about this article either. DrorK (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reported Hamas4life to UAA (I would have blocked indef myself, but I feel too involved in this discussion for it to be perceived impartially). I suspect the account is someone's sock or meat but I'm too busy to figure out whose.

As for SD, I'm more disturbed by the SSNP userbox on his page, which I find extremely prejudicial to good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Arabic is the official language of the country Golan belongs to and is a part of=> Syria. The native 130.000 population of Golan are Arabic speakers. The newly arrived Germans, Polish, Latvians, Ethiopians etc have imposed the hebrew language on the people and land, although they are not the owners of it. Therefor Arabic should be first.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

the hebrew should be deleted. ILLEGAL OCCUPATION does not establish a language.Freegolan (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one here who is disturbed by the politicization of this discussion? This discussion page is turned into a soapbox, and the arguments for changes in the article are stretching the concept of assume good faith beyond its limits. Are you here to improve Wikipedia or to start a war on the Golan? DrorK (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I will agree, there appears to be a desire among several editors, to have any and all reference of Israel/Jews/Hebrew minimized or removed. Perhaps yet another RfC should be opened to discuss the removal/re-arrangement of the Hebrew from this article. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

While the Hebrew should not be removed, I do not think it should come before the Arabic for the same reasons we do not have the Hebrew names before the Arabic ones in the articles on the municipalities in the oPt, or for that matter the same reason we do not have the Arabic before the Hebrew for cities in Israel that are overwhelmingly populated by Arabs (see Nazareth). Nableezy (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

When in disagreement over the order of a series of words, I usually suggest to alphabetize them as then there is a NPOV formula to their layout and appearance. Several editors have expressed the desire to remove some or all Hebrew/Israeli/Jewish terms/information in other articles based on similar or other (example) reasons, however in this instance, since there appears to be a general agreement that Israel currently maintains a form of control and/or occupation and/or administration over the land, I am firmly opposed to the complete removal of the Hebrew term from the opening sentence. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont think it should be removed either, it is a language spoken by a portion of the population and it is currently governed by a state that has that as an official language. Nableezy (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I think this is an inane discussion, certainly not one that justifies a RfC. Who cares what comes first, Hebrew or Arabic? Most people can't read either, nor do they care how it is written in either. But for what it's worth, I think Arabic should precede Hebrew, as Arabic is the official language of Syria, and the mother tongue of most Golan Heights' residents.--Doron (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion for the RfC was only in response to Freegolan's suggestion that the Hebrew be deleted entirely; not that we have an RfC to debate the order in which the languages appear. It does seem, however, to be nit-picking of the article. --Nsaum75 (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RFC: The Golan Heights are by all Standards syrian land and can by no standard be a part of Israel. By demographic and linguistic standards, it is an arab land. Prior to 1967, it was a part of Syria before being invaded by Israeli troops in the so caled 6-Day war. The legitimate status cannot be reversed and made legitimite by an illegitimate action like war and aggression. The U.N. Resolution, issued after the cessation of hostilities calls on Israel to return the OCCUPIED lands to Syria. Algeria has been occuoied by France for over 130 years, this did not change the fact that the Algerian people called themeselves occuoied people until they freed themeselves from occupation, although the french always insisted that it be called France (the word "Algerie Francaise" is still resonatin in Algeria). If the world has always seen Algeria as Algeria between 1830 and 1962 as an occuoied land, then - I think and hope - that Wikipedia should as well reconsider this incorrect formulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.170.32 (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This rhetoric is becoming redundant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have listened to all your arguments and I agree, but I think Hebrew should be listed first since the word Golan actually is a Hebrew word/derives from Hebrew(correct me if I am wrong). From an etymological point of view I think it should be first. Fipplet (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree because Golan is part of an Arabic country, the native people are Arabs and the owners of it are Arabs. Therefore, arabic first.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is part of a Hebrew country also. Parts of the Golan is de jure in Israel while the majority of the Golan is de facto in Israel. Fipplet (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

SD, or anyone else, is the term 'Golan Heights' use in Syria? I don't see anything in the article to show an Arabic origin to that name. --Shuki (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Shuki: Exactly, SD: Yes it is. For example Hippos in the Golan is De Jure in Israel. Much of the rest is De Facto in Israel. Or do you reject the fact that Israel is controlling the Golan heights? Fipplet (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We already know that Israel is illegally occupying southwestern Syria. It does not mean it is Israel. It is not Israel, has never been and will never be. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not 1 cm of Golan is Israel. Hippos is Syrian. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"The site is just on the Israeli side of the 1949 UN-demarcated border between Syria and Israel". Fipplet (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So now you care about what the UN says? Then go and change the name of this article to the "Israeli occupied Syrian Golan" until that day comes, you should be quiet about what the UN says. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said I don't care of the UN. I say UNs views are views worth noting but not facts. Regardless of that, Israel controls hippos and Hippos was Israeli territory before the six day war thus it is in Israel De jure. Fipplet (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Parts of the golan are 100% in Israel, see for example Hippos. These parts has never been de jure syrian. Furthermore the fact that Israel is controlling the rest makes those parts de facto israeli.Fipplet (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if "parts" of the Golan are Israeli territory, the vast majority is not, the vast majority is Syrian territory. And looking above, there is a pretty wide agreement to use the Arabic first, either because of the reasons just mentioned, or in one case it was to go in alphabetical order in contentious cases (A before H). So before you revert again please establish a new consensus to do so. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No actually the vast majority is Israeli controlled and syrian claimed, i.e. de facto israel de jure no country, according to the article itself. From an etymological point of view Hebrew should be first (if indeed golan is a Hebrew word). This is more a etymological question now when the sovereignty is disputed. Fipplet (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, the vast majority is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. I think we have established that the RSs support that this is Syrian territory occupied by Israel, not that it is in some sort of alternate reality where it is not a part of any country. It is not even de facto Israeli territory, it is Israeli occupied territory. And for all this "disputed" nobody has been able to produce a source that actually disputes that this is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Nableezy (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And the Arabic word is widely used. Nableezy (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Golan heights being Syrian territory is no fact at all. Rather the view of certain nations and organizations, not facts. The only facts we have about sovereignty of the Golan heights is that

1. 1944-1967 it was part of Syria

2. 1967- it is controlled and claimed by Israel, thus de facto Israel

3. Still claimed by Syria

4. Considered to be Syrian territory by the UN (Would like to see a source for this but I suspect it is true)

5. Neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign over the Golan, nor merely exercising the power of the territory is sufficient; sovereignty requires both elements

Now these are the only facts we have. Neither Golan being Israeli or Syrian is a fact, but two different views, thus the only correct term for this territory is disputed.

Secondly I never said the arabic word wasn't widely used by arabs, but the word Golan(and possibly Jawlan) derives from the Hebrew word Golan. Fipplet (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasnt basing this on the UN or any other political institution, but rather reliable secondary sources, such as LA Times, BBC (explicitly says Syrian territory occupied by Israel), and just for fun another BBC article where nearly every mention of the words "Golan Heights" is preceded by the word "occupied", The Times, and I can keep going if I must, where nobody has yet to provide a source that says it is in fact Israeli territory or even that it is not Syrian territory. The sources are clear in this regard, and the fact that the article cannot provide the same clarity is rather disappointing for something that calls itself an encyclopedia, but for this discussion if we are deciding on what name goes first the logical answer is the language of the country to which the territory belongs. The sources are clear that the Golan is not in Israel and is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Unless you can provide a reliable source that says it is not in Syria then I do not think you have a leg to stand on. This isnt a game where we present our own arguments on what we feel international law says and what the borders of countries are. The sources say that this is Syrian territory, so the Arabic name should go first. It is also the native language of the majority of the population, so the Arabic should go first. The majority of the population also holds Syrian citizenship, so the Arabic should go first. And even based on alphabetical sorting the Arabic should go first. Why exactly should the Hebrew go first? Even if it was Israeli territory, Arabic is an official language of Israel and the majority of the residents of the Golan are Arabic speakers. Why would Hebrew go first even if it was a part of Israel (which it most certainly is not)? And if it is a part of Syria why would the Hebrew go first? So why, either way, should the Hebrew go first? Nableezy (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I am sorry for that. But the fact is that neither LA Times or The Times is saying that Golan is Syrian territory, only that it is occupied. If it is occupied or controlled is not the question here since it is de facto Israeli territory anyhow, the question is whether the territory is Syrian or not. And as I said, two of your sources are not saying that it is Syrian but de facto Israel. Now the funny thing is that the only one of your sources that are saying Golan is Syrian, BBC, is also explicitily saying the boundry between Syria and Israel is Mount Hermon. This is from the second, just for fun, BBC article; Mount Hermon is straddling the Israeli-Syrian border(i.e. on both sides of the Israeli-Syrian border). This means the border, not de facto border or anything else, between Israel and Syria is Mount Hermon in the Northern Golan heights. So either bbc is contradictive and not a reliable source or the border between the two countries are the Israeli claimed borders thus making parts or whole of the Israeli controlled Golan, Israeli. So my conclusion of your sources:

La Times: Golan = De Facto Israeli

The Times: Golan = De Facto Israeli

BBC: Golan = De facto Israeli, Israeli and/or Syrian or a contradictive/not reliable source.

So please read my 5 points again, it is still true that those points are the only facts. None of your sources contradicts me except bbc that contradict itself and supports me. Now can you show me a source that says the majority has syrian citizenship, cause I know that many druze in the Golan have acquired Israeli citizenship. You ask why Hebrew should go first; I think because this is an English article, the English name is Golan which origins are Hebrew(correct me if I am wrong), thus from an etymological point of view Hebrew should go first. The Hebrew name is afterall the source of the English and possibly Arabic name. And now when we know it's not Syrian according to any reliable source and that the border is at mount Hermon I don't see why Hebrew shouldn't go first. Hebrew is also the de facto first language of the Golan. The majority of road signs write Hebrew first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fipplet (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You again say 'de-facto Israeli' without a single source backing you up. And yes the BBC says Syrian, it says a mountainous region in SW Syria. And this article is not about the name "Golan Heights" so the etymology is not a concern for which name goes first. To repeat, the BBC says it is Syrian, so when you say 'it's not Syrian according to any reliable source' in the face of that it just baffles me. You make these pronouncements on the 'de-facto' language and the 'de-facto' control without a single source to back you up. And you misrepresent what sources I have provided so that they say the exact opposite of what they say. It is becomgin quite difficult to AGF with you. Nableezy (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned before it was part of Syria before 1944, so I will not agree to "1944-1967" because this is false.

From 1967 there is an illegal Israeli occupation of 100% Syrian territory=Golan.

Every single country on the planet knows it is 100% Syrian.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Elaborate reasoning, based on sources, versus... what? "Everybody knows it", "this is false" and "I don't like it" aren't enough to rely upon. Reliable sourcing and verifiability, always. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and if you noticed before you reverted on apparent instinct you would have noticed not a single source has been provided that contends with sourced assertions that it is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Or that the residents widely refused Israeli citizenship and consider themselves Syrian. Or that the majority (the Druze and the Arab Christians and Muslims) are Arabic speakers. RS and V indeed, perhaps you could try adhering to those rules instead of just trumpeting them. Nableezy (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

These thing has already been talked about before at the talk page (Look above) and implanted in the article before you changed the article without a new consensus at the talkpage. "The Golan Heights are of great strategic importance in the region,[10][11] and were governed with rest of Syria under successive historical regimes[12] "Part of Vilayet of Damascus until 1918 (during the Ottoman period), later part of the French Mandate of Syria until 1944, then part of the Syrian Arab Republic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Syria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Mandate_of_Syria Therefore 1944-1967 is untrue. "The United Nations,[1] the United States,[2] the European Union,[3] the United Kingdom,[4] the Arab League...." Thats the world. So please answer this, why did you change the article now, when no new consensus has been reached? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed it back. Every other recent major edit included an explanation in the edit summary. Yours had none. Please use the edit summaries consistently—and civilly. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't change it back, you changed it to his version that has not been agreed upon, he put info in today without consensus at the talkpage, in fact, the exact opposite was agreed upon, thats why 1944 was deleted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't compare ottoman syria, a region, french syria, a mandate, with the modern syrian arab republic. The dispute is between the modern state of Israel and the modern syrian state of Syria who was recognised as a state in 1946 (Not 1944, my mistake). Fipplet (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This was already explained in the article before you changed it without consensus on the talkpage: "were governed with rest of Syria under successive historical regimes" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So we write 1946-1967 then. Fipplet (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No because it was part of Syria before 1946. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Syria that exists today, did not exist before 1946. It was part of a different nation, with a different government and different borders. You could also argue that between 1958 and 1961 modern Syria was part of the United Arab Republic with modern nation of Egypt. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it did, just like Egypt existed before 1922. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

These reliable sources -- [8], [9], [10] -- say the modern, independent nation of Syria didn't come into existance until the 1940s/1946. Prior to that the land area of modern Syria was part of different nations or mandates, some with names like "Ottoman Syria", but were not in fact the modern, currently existing, nation of Syria. If the modern & independent nation of Syria -- the same country which is currently in a dispute with Israel regarding the Golan Heights -- existed before 1946, then please provide reliable sources. --Nsaum75 (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nsaum75, those links say that Syria got its independence in the 1940s, it doesn't mean that Syria is 60 years old. Just like Hong Kong is a city that is older then 12 years. The history of Hong Kong stretches back way further then 1997, and so does Syria's. This has already been talked about, The Damascus district of Ottoman Syria, the French Mandate. Vilayet of Damascus: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/OETA_Syria.png This was what was written before Fipplet changed it without discussion: "were governed with rest of Syria under successive historical regimes" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Syria may be centuries old, but the state of Syria could not claim sovereignty over land before it was a sovereign state. Nableezy (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it can if it is historically its, just like Syria is still claiming the Sanjak of Alexandretta, because that area is Syrian through out history. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources? The article itself says the majority of the residents are Arabic speakers. I am not going around and around with you, provide a source that says this is Israeli territory, unless you can do that you have no reason to place the Hebrew first. This article is not about the name "Golan Heights" it makes no difference if the name is derived from Hebrew. It is about the place, a place that is widely recognized as Syrian territory and whose inhabitants are Arabic speakers. Nableezy (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And they do not say de-facto Israeli, they say occupied by Israel. You cannot occupy your own territory, to use the word "occupied" is to say that it is not Israeli territory, just Israeli controlled. Please provide a source that says this is Israeli territory. Nableezy (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And "we know it's not Syrian according to any reliable source"? The BBC source says "The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria" and then says Israeli-occupied, not de-facto Israeli. None of them say de-facto Israeli, that is your own invention. They say Israeli occupied which is a huge leap from what you are saying. Nableezy (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, I never said that Golan is Israeli territory, so I don't need to provide any source for that. All I have said is that it is controlled by Israel and claimed by Syria, neither Israeli or Syrian territory. Only de facto Israeli. And your sources agree with me. None of your reliable sources has recognized it as Syrian territory, it is not "widely recognized as Syrian territory".

Either it's you or it is me who do not understand the meaning of de facto and occupied. De facto means in practice, it is in practice Israeli territory since it is controlled by Israel. Even if it was occupied it would still be Israeli territory in practice. So all sources says it is is de facto Israeli even if they do not use the expression de facto. You see what I mean? I don't have to provide a source, all I said it is in practice Israeli territory.

And now for the BBC. As I said before the only source that actually say it is Syrian territory, BBC, is also explicitily saying the boundry between Syria and Israel is Mount Hermon. This is from the second, just for fun, BBC article; Mount Hermon is straddling the Israeli-Syrian border(i.e. on both sides of the Israeli-Syrian border). This means the border, not de facto border or anything else, between Israel and Syria is Mount Hermon in the Northern Golan heights. So either bbc is contradictive and not a reliable source or the border between the two countries are the Israeli claimed borders thus making parts or whole of the Israeli controlled Golan, Israeli. You see? No reliable source say it is Syrian. And none is saying it Israeli, just Israeli in practice. And this is the status of the territory. In practice Israeli, claimed by Syria, not recognized as Israeli by the UN.

But you are right this isn't an article about the name and the area is predominantly populated by arabs so I agree that Arabic could be placed first. Fipplet (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for recognizing that. But what I wanted is a source that says it is Israeli territory, de-facto or otherwise. My point is to use the word occupied is to say it is not Israeli territory, only Israeli controlled. You can say controlled by Israel without any contention, but to say it is de-facto Israeli territory you are saying it is Israeli territory, and I would like just 1 source that says that. Nableezy (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

break

Can anybody provide a source that contradicts any of the following: the majority of the population speaks Arabic, or that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory or that most of the residents refused Israeli citizenship and consider themselves Syrian? If you cannot then there is no reason for you to place the Hebrew first. Nableezy (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

None of your sources have said it is Syrian territory (execpt for the one also saying it is Israeli territory). I don't say we should write it is Israeli territory just the facts: Controlled by Israel, not recognized as Israeli by the UN, claimed by Syria. Secondly I think the majority is Israeli citizens since about 10% of the arab population has Israeli citzenship. Fipplet (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I could argue for placing the Hebrew first since its under the control of a nation that has Hebrew and Arabic as offical languages; I could argue for the use of Arabic first since the most recent settlers of the land (pre-Israeli control) spoke Arabic. This debate at its root is wholly and completely nationalistic in nature -- to the point that its become a circular argument with neither side willing to reach a consensus. Therefore, in light of this, I suggest we list them alphabetically based on the parent languages. An alphabetical listing cannot be bias because nobody will argue that A comes before H (alternately, A'rabii comes before Ivrit). This solution is called a stalemate between editors.

THEREFORE, May I have a show among editors, as to whom would support or oppose the listing of terms based on an alphabetical listing of the parent languages' names?--Nsaum75 (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support listing them alphabetically, so that this discussion can come to a close, if nothing else. We've already established that people disagree over who is the "rightful" owner of the area, and editors are unlikely to change their minds, so we might as well pick some heuristic and move on to more important issues. ← George ^[talk] 04:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think there are reasons for both languages to be placed first: Hebrew, since it is the de facto first language of the Golan Heights and since Golan is a Hebrew word. Arabic since the majority of the residents speak arabic as their first language and since Arabic starts with an A. Fipplet (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)