This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Syrian Heights and WP:COMMONNAME
The following phrase has been inserted into the Lead, “also referred to as Syrian Golan or the Syrian Heights.” The reference for the POV edit is one 30-year old source. Per WP:COMMONNAME, it doesn’t hold up. One ref to a 30-year old source is insufficient to establish a commonly used name. Moreover, I have found the following sources that refer to it as the Israeli Golan;
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
If one can refer to the Golan as “Syrian Golan” on reliance on one 30-year old source, surely one can easily call it the "Israeli Golan Heights" based on a multiplicity of much more recent sources that refer to it by that name.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Syrian Heights" was common before 1967 and doesn't need to be in the lead. "Syrian Golan" is the standard name used by the UN and other international bodies and must remain (with a more recent source). "Israeli Golan" is not a name at all but a description. Zerotalk 06:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that "Syrian Golan" must remain. The United Nations frequently refers to the region as "Syrian Golan"[10] and there are many other reputable sources that use that name.[11][12] This is an encyclopedia article, not a soapbox.YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Syrian Golan" isn't a name in the same sense that "Syrian Heights" or "Golan Heights" are names. "Egyptian Sinai" and "Israeli Dead Sea" similarly aren't names but rather nationally designated territories or sites. Is there a source establishing that the Golan Heights are also referred to as the "Syrian Golan"?—Biosketch (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Many of the articles references address that, but the one that I linked to above is especially clear. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Syrian Golan" isn't a name in the same sense that "Syrian Heights" or "Golan Heights" are names. "Egyptian Sinai" and "Israeli Dead Sea" similarly aren't names but rather nationally designated territories or sites. Is there a source establishing that the Golan Heights are also referred to as the "Syrian Golan"?—Biosketch (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that "Syrian Golan" must remain. The United Nations frequently refers to the region as "Syrian Golan"[10] and there are many other reputable sources that use that name.[11][12] This is an encyclopedia article, not a soapbox.YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Map Problems
There are currently three maps used in the article which is way too many. This one [13] is not neutral as it shows the Golan as part of Syria. The Golan Heights have been under Israeli civilian control for 44.5 years. They have been under Syrian control for only 21. I have compiled a number of maps from reliable sources (including National Geographic and United Press International) showing the Golan as belonging to neither Israel nor Syria. Please note the UPI map.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] The Golan remains under defacto Israeli control and it’s disputed status should be reflected on corresponding maps.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Maps that don't indicate Israeli control of the area are a disservice to our readers.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- However the one JJG indicated [23] does show Israeli control. Zerotalk 06:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly, it actually specifically says that Israel controls the territory, with that control having a name. This attempt to whitewash the near consensus among competent parties on the Golan's status is more than silly, it is disruptive as it attempts to distort facts backed by countless scholarly sources to allow for a fringe narrative that the Golan is not Syrian territory held by Israel under military occupation. That is the position of nearly the entire world, and the sources in the article back that up. nableezy - 15:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Improve Readability of the Lede
I think that the lede is currently way too wordy and dense with information. Let's work on improving the summary so it's readable and easy to understand. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see nothing basically wrong with it. It would be best to set forth your proposals here for general consideration.Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've improved it considerably since my last comment. The lede is pretty good now, in my opinion. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Purple Line, disambiguation
Small fix, but could someone make it so "Purple Line" doesn't link to the disambiguation page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.98.183 (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for bringing that up. nableezy - 17:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Golan evacuation.jpg Nominated for Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Golan evacuation.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
- I'm going to vote *Delete*, but in the meantime I think it should be taken out of this article. No one has any clue where the image came from. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Revert Edit by Biosketch
I just reverted this edit -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=463492771 -- by Biosketch in which he or she reverted an edit from a day earlier. In the earlier edit, I replaced a Subdivision Infobox section that had the word "Status" as "subdivision type" and a paragraph of text as "subdivision name" with "Country" as the subdivision type and "Syria (occupied by Israel)" as the name. Also, Biosketch did not bring his or her revert to attention on this talk page, as required by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed. Months ago it was pointed out that while the international community considers the Golan Heights Syrian territory occupied by Israel, sources disagree as to whether it is in Israel, in Syria, in neither, or in both. None of the sources cited for the claim that the Golan Heights are located in Syria actually says what you're claiming they say. The version I reverted to corresponds to the language used by the reliable sources cited in this article. Your version, on the other hand, pushes a POV not supported by any of the sources.—Biosketch (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the facts in the long text, but I don't think that a 16-word entry for "Country" is a sufficient summary. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, the purpose of an Infobox is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears." I'm open to other condensed wording, as long as it's still factually correct. Many of the references support the current wording. For example, reference #2, [24] is the CIA World Factbook article on Syria and it states, "there are 41 Israeli settlements and civilian land use sites in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights." The current infobox wording is "Syria (occupied by Israel)". YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Many of the references support the current wording." No they do not. They support the earlier consensus-based NPOV wording describing the Golan Heights as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. The CIA source, moreover, is only representative of the perspective of the CIA, or maximally the U.S. It doesn't merit greater weight in the infobox than the other sources cited in the article. Regarding the "16-word entry" concern, the geographic location of the Golan Heights is controversial; an exceptionally long description of the Golan's geographic location is justified by the exceptional circumstances involved with the territory in practice.—Biosketch (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- '"Many of the references support the current wording." No they do not.' -- Based on that quote, I do not think you can be reasoned with. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just a heads up that Biosketch made this new revert to this section before consensus was reached here and without mentioning the new edit here on this talk page. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- '"Many of the references support the current wording." No they do not.' -- Based on that quote, I do not think you can be reasoned with. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Many of the references support the current wording." No they do not. They support the earlier consensus-based NPOV wording describing the Golan Heights as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. The CIA source, moreover, is only representative of the perspective of the CIA, or maximally the U.S. It doesn't merit greater weight in the infobox than the other sources cited in the article. Regarding the "16-word entry" concern, the geographic location of the Golan Heights is controversial; an exceptionally long description of the Golan's geographic location is justified by the exceptional circumstances involved with the territory in practice.—Biosketch (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the facts in the long text, but I don't think that a 16-word entry for "Country" is a sufficient summary. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, the purpose of an Infobox is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears." I'm open to other condensed wording, as long as it's still factually correct. Many of the references support the current wording. For example, reference #2, [24] is the CIA World Factbook article on Syria and it states, "there are 41 Israeli settlements and civilian land use sites in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights." The current infobox wording is "Syria (occupied by Israel)". YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
- I've tagged File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg for speedy deletion with this reasoning: "No license given in source. The source doesn't say anything about the origin of the photo. The author is unknown. The country where it was taken is unknown, so the copyright is unknown. Clear speedy delete." YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the speedy delete to a copyright violation speedy delete since I tracked the photo's origin down. It's a Corbis Rights Managed photo -- http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/BE021814/israeli-tank-firing-from-the-golan-heights. I'm going to remove the photo from the article. That makes two recent copyright violation image removals from this article -- we need to find replacements. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Israel/JNF owns Golan Heights land (both in Israeli controlled area and Syrian area)
Someone should add information about this as it is missing from the article and very relevant. http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=381343 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.77.156.152 (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)