Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Scope?

What is the scope of this article? The territory occupied by Israel in 1967, or a more general geographic area that possibly extends to non-occupied parts of Syria and Lebanon? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Googling "Golan Heights" shows that most sources identify it as a geopolitical entity, i.e. Syrian and occupied by Israel since 1967, and not as primarily a geographic region. Editing accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@האופה: Please provide RS for your reasoning and participate in the talk page discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@האופה: Assuming good faith and pinging one more time. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Both. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I support [5] this edit restoring an earlier and more neutral lead. As I remember from discussions on this talk page years ago: the political status of the region is complex and cannot be summarized in a brief sentence. Therefore the political status is given, but not in the first sentence, where there isn't room to put the complexities. Trying to fit in a bit of the political status into the first sentence tends to create a sentence perceived as biassed by some people and is therefore avoided. This is a longstanding solution for this page to reduce editwarring. There was a much earlier version of the first sentence years ago that somehow managed to describe it in terms of the countries around it without actually stating (or implying) its own political status in that sentence. Whoever came up with that version was a genius. Please discuss on talk page before changing controversial parts of the article such as the first sentence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It isn't all that complex, Syrian territory occupied by Israel, effectively annexed by Israel but that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the international community. See Status of the Golan Heights. nableezy - 14:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Still probably too much to fit all that into the first sentence. Someone would come along, think the sentence is awkward, shorten it, and the editwarring would start up again. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t feel like the potential for future disruption means we shouldn’t strive for an accurate and comprehensive article or lead. nableezy - 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

We can have an accurate and comprehensive article without feeling we have to stuff a lot of information into the first sentence. That said, I notice that the first sentence of Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, "The Golan Heights are a rocky plateau in the Levant region of Western Asia that was captured by Israel from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War.", seems to be reasonably short, mentions both geography and political information, seems neutral to me (by not mentioning whether it's occupied or annexed; that can be discussed in later sentences) and seems at a quick glance at the page history to have been staying unchanged in the article for some time. So it might be a candidate for a first sentence of this article. Feel free to suggest other alternatives. What do you see as being inaccurate or un-comprehensive? What do you think needs to change, why, and what specific wording would you suggest? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m fine with that but it also needs to include occupied by Israel in the following sentence, or say and has been occupied by Israel since in that same sentence. nableezy - 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The next sentences could detail the history of the place HaOfa (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The history would go after the current status, which is Israeli occcupied. nableezy - 19:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this phrasing. Thanks, @Coppertwig, for striving to balance the content. HaOfa (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not, place is occupied, it's a defining feature. Selfstudier (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This phrasing is not based on any RS. There has been no responses to the RS cited above that define Golan Heights as explicitly and factually Syrian occupied by Israel since 1967. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep it as it is, the first sentence just saying that it's a region in the Levant. I think everyone agrees that that's true. Being occupied is not, in my opinion, a defining feature; I suppose it was the Golan Heights before it was occupied, and will still be the Golan Heights if/when it stops being occupied in the future. Makeandtoss, the article already includes a quote "...the occupied Syrian Golan Heights...", so no need to change anything. Also, I looked at the first RS you listed and it has subtitle "region, Middle East" and first sentence "Golan Heights, hilly area overlooking the upper Jordan River valley on the west" so it seems our focus first on simply being a region, then on geology, then finally geopolitics mirrors at least this RS, so no need to change anything in the first place. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Golan Heights profile from the BBC. They clearly think its occupation is a defining feature. Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It absolutely is a defining feature, in fact as a geopolitical entity it is the defining feature, and I hazard to guess you will find an overwhelming majority of sources discussing the Golan since 1967 to focus on that feature. This is like saying that Israel should be introduced as "a region near the Mediterranean Sea". nableezy - 18:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, the source you gave has first sentence "The Golan Heights is a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, about 60km (40 miles) south-west of Damascus and covers about 1,000 sq km." No politics in their first sentence either. The politics is important; that doesn't mean it has to show up in the first sentence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Their first sentence is a big map showing the occupied area. We have one too but its kind of tiny and you can barely make out the word occupied. Not that great for a defining feature.

I also don't much like our first sentence "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a region in the Levant. The region defined as the Golan Heights" with "Golan Heights" and "region" twice, looks artificial, probably the result of some past disagreement over wording.

Then it puts "as a geological and biogeographical region" first rather than "As a geopolitical region, it refers to a region (sic)" (all it needs to say is "geopolitically, it is a part of Syria") which follows. Those two could be switched around, methinks, along with dropping a few "region"s.

I'll work on that and see what I come up with. Selfstudier (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be more something like this:

The Golan Heights,[c] or simply the Golan, is a region in the Levant, geopolitically part of Syria and occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967. Illegally annexed by Israel in 1981, the area includes the western two-thirds of the Golan and part of Mount Hermon and which the international community continues to consider as occupied. Geologically and biogeographically, it is a basaltic plateau bordered by the Yarmouk River in the south, the Sea of Galilee and Hula Valley in the west, the Anti-Lebanon with Mount Hermon in the north and Wadi Raqqad in the east. Selfstudier (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Will just cite my prior phrasing here for comparison: "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a hilly region in southwest Syria. Most of the region has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War, and subject to a de facto Israeli annexation in 1981. Geologically,..."

In RS GH is used as a geopolitical definition rather than geographic, thus I would be more inclined to a "region in southwest Syria". Not sure if mention of occupation should be in the opening sentence. Also two-thirds could be replaced with most. Otherwise, I could also support this. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not only geopolitically part of Syria, but also historically. I also don't like the current first sentence "is a region in the Levant". It is non neutral as it gives weight to the minority pov that it isn't part of Syria. We would not say that the Gallile is in the Levant instead of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, latest version:

The Golan Heights,[c] or simply the Golan, is that part of Syria occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967. Illegally annexed by Israel in 1981 but which the international community continues to consider as occupied, the area includes the western two-thirds of the Golan and part of Mount Hermon. It is a basaltic plateau bordered by the Yarmouk River in the south, the Sea of Galilee and Hula Valley in the west, the Anti-Lebanon with Mount Hermon in the north and Wadi Raqqad in the east. Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If I understand things correctly, the Golan Heights is two-thirds occupied by Israel and the remaining third is still in Syria's hands? If so, then the opening sentence has to reflect that as well; the challenge is how to keep that as concise as possible. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It does say the occupied area is two thirds? Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the opening sentence which sets the scope of article defines it as only being the occupied part: "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is that part of Syria occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

How about:

The Syrian Golan Heights,[c] or simply the Golan, was partly occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967. Illegally annexed by Israel in 1981 but which the international community continues to consider as occupied, the area includes the western two-thirds of the Golan and part of Mount Hermon. It is a basaltic plateau bordered by the Yarmouk River in the south, the Sea of Galilee and Hula Valley in the west, the Anti-Lebanon with Mount Hermon in the north and Wadi Raqqad in the east. Selfstudier (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it would work if the scope of the article is about the occupied part rather than the whole region. I would lean in to the whole region that was partly occupied; rather than the partly occupied region. I base my argument on the fact that the region is fully geopolitically Syrian according to int. law. Which do you think the scope should be? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I am intending the scope to be the whole thing. It says it was partly occupied but describes the whole. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean but the focus of the opening sentence is on "partly occupied", implying the article is about the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights rather than the Golan Heights as a whole.

How about mixing our two versions: "The Syrian Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a hilly region in southwest Syria, which was mostly occupied by Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967."? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

(Replying) Another possible first sentence might be "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a hilly region of geopolitical significance in the Middle East."

I'm not strongly opposed to any of the wordings. My main concern is to get a wording that won't lead to editwarring. I suppose we have to state or imply at least the general part of the world it's in, to help the reader, but I'm opposed to mentioning in the first sentence that it's Syrian territory as not everyone agrees on that and it would invite editwarring, though I take the point that it's difficult to avoid mentioning it without seeming non-neutral. It can be mentioned in a later sentence, where there's more room to describe the whole situation.

I'm also questioning the wording "illegally annexed": I think it's more neutral and factual to state that Israel passed a law to annex it and the UN General Assembly near-unanimously voted to oppose that; and that more neutral wording is too long to fit within the first sentence. International law is complex and not all countries have agreed to all international laws. Do a strong majority of the RS's use the phrasing "illegally annexed"? I suppose according to Israeli law it's legally annexed, so it doesn't sound neutral to me.

While I think we shouldn't mention in the first sentence that it's Syrian, if we do, I think it should be in a context like "Syrian territory that was captured in the six-day war", which sounds more neutral as it was undisputed territory at that time (i.e. just before the war). Alternatively, we could say something ambiguous like "The Golan Heights is a hilly region at the southwest end of Syria." Or a very short first sentence: "The Golan Heights is a hilly region. Recognized near-unanimously by the UN as part of Syria, ..." Or possibly one sentence: "The Golan Heights is a hilly region recognized near-unanimously by the UN as part of Syria." However, please get a good consensus on the talk page before putting any of these in. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Your concern is valid, but we can simply insert a note saying this is the established consensus on the talk page, and if any user wants to challenge that, they would be forced to do it here rather than edit war. Not to also mention the ECR restriction, and page protection option. As you are not opposed to any of the wordings, I think this is a good solution that takes these concerns in consideration, so now we can proceed with the previously agreed upon version discussed with Selfstudier. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not say I did not oppose any of the versions. I've raised objections to the version Selfstudier proposed, and I've suggested a few options which attempt to address both Selfstudier's concerns and mine; I haven't seen opposition to those options. If objections are raised to those, I could suggest more. So no, please don't put in that version at least not yet. By the way, Selfstudier (I think) said the word region appears too many times; I agree; I think some words could be deleted in the first few sentences of the current version with little or no change to the meaning.

Some other options for the first sentence: "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a hilly region largely considered by the international community to remain part of Syria." Or, varying the pattern: "After the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel began a military occupation of about two-thirds of a hilly part of Syria known as the Golan Heights or simply the Golan; these terms are also applied to the part occupied." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Or we might be able to say this: "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a hilly region recognized by a unanimous UN Security Council resolution as remaining part of Syria." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Reading this, I think we can gain insight from the way internationally recognized Ukrainian territories are described in articles related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Compare, for example, the lede and infobox of Majdal Shams with Mariupol. Mariupol's lede states: "Mariupol is a city in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine." Perhaps articles relating to the Golan Heights should take inspiration from this and start referring to the Golan Heights as internationally recognized Syrian territory in WP:WIKIVOICE. In fact, if you read the Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts article, the infobox (disclosure: I wrote it) states that 143 UN member states recognize those oblasts as Ukrainian territory. In contrast, from what I understand, literally every UN member with the exceptions of the United States and Israel (191 UN member states) recognize the Golan Heights as Syrian territory. This article, and others related to the Golan Heights, should be written to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to the WP:FRINGE positions of the US and Israel, in the same way that undue weight should not be given to the Russian position regarding Ukrainian territory.

Just some food for thought. JasonMacker (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It seems to me that the versions I've suggested do not state the minority point of view and state only undisputed facts, so they seem to me in line with NPOV and still preferable. However, I now seem to be more firmly outnumbered, so in case anyone is in a hurry to start editing I'll reiterate that I'm not strongly opposed to any of the versions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Although: check the RS's. Of the RS's mentioned above, Britannica does not say that it's in Syria, (and seems to me to imply that it isn't), while BBC does (sorry I missed that earlier). To claim that the view that it's not in Syria is a tiny-minority view, you'd need a lot more RS's greatly outnumbering the Britannica one. A country's vote at the UN is not a source. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. From what I have seen, most mainstream, reliable sources do not usually refer to the Golan Heights as 'Syrian territory.' I don't see why we should either. ABHammad (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If a territory is considered occupied, then it is still what it was prior to its occupation, in this case, Syrian. As indicated there is a unanimous UN vote on this matter, that includes the US, so there is actually no question that it is Syrian territory. It does not actually require a discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It does require a discussion, since editors disagree. ... HaOfa (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course they do. BBC: The Golan Heights is a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, about 60km (40 miles) south-west of Damascus and covers about 1,000 sq km. It has a political and strategic significance which belies its size. Associated Press: The Golan Heights is a strategic high ground at the southwestern corner of Syria with stunning, broad views of both Israel and Syria below. It is roughly about 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) and borders the Sea of Galilee. Israel captured the territory in the 1967 Mideast War and annexed it in 1981, a move that was never recognized by any country in the world. U.N. Security Council resolution 497, issued after the annexation, refers to Israel’s action as “null and void and without international legal effect.” RULAC: Since June 1967, Israel has occupied the Golan Heights, over which Syria is recognised as sovereign. If you look at scholarly sources it isnt even close, nearly every serious source says the Golan is Syrian territory. It is just made up that they do not. nableezy - 20:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

All RS describe the GH as being annexed by Israel, which clearly is a statement on its Syrianness; you can only annex foreign territories that you have occupied. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The question is how much emphasis is given to its Syrianness, as opposed to its annexation. No need for being over-interpretative. Otherwise, we're entering a SYNTH territory here. HaOfa (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The annexation was ruled null and void and without international legal effect. It remains Syrian territory occupied by Israel according to both the international community and the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. That is what this article must reflect. nableezy - 20:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no synth. As demonstrated by Nableezy, RS are unanimous in explicitly stating its Syrianness. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with wording like "...at the southwest corner of Syria" as Nableezy's Associated Press quote says. That should satisfy everyone? Also, as far as I understand, no objections have been raised to this one of my suggestions above, as the first sentence: "After the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel began a military occupation of about two-thirds of a hilly part of Syria known as the Golan Heights or simply the Golan; these terms are also applied to the part occupied." Also, the current version by Selfstudier looks fine to me for the first couple of sentences; but I'd like to further reduce the weight given to the U.S. decision to recognize it; the U.S. is just one country, so that could be moved out of the lead into the body of the article, and/or shortened to "...except the U.S. ...". The way it is now, at the end of a paragraph, makes it sound almost as if a U.S. decision is a fait accompli. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Although, I would soften the wording where it says "...and then annexed...", as annexation should not be presented as if it's a fact. Maybe change to "Israel occupied two thirds ... and passed a law to annex it..." It's a fact that they passed a law; I don't think it's a fact that they annexed it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"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," so whatever you want to call that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The BBC source is clear "Israel unilaterally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981." Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

By the way, Selfstudier, thank you very much for taking my concerns into account in the version you edited into the article; good work striving for a neutral consensus version.

OK, I just noticed that Associated Press in the quote above also says "over which Syria is recognized as sovereign." Again, to me this is not quite the same thing as saying "is in Syria". (A traveller trying to get there will find a border in the way.) Possibly in our first sentence we could say something like "The Golan Heights, over which Syria is recognized as sovereign, was occupied ..." or perhaps "over which Syria is internationally recognized as sovereign". To me, that's better than saying "is in Syria".

I'm OK with changing "annexed" to "unilaterally annexed" or various other ways of softening the wording. Also definitely after "annexed", even if softened, we have to say something about the international response, as it currently does: "... the latter being rejected by the international community which continues to consider the territory as Syrian and under Israeli occupation." That wording is fine with me, or various other ways of saying the same thing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Effectively annexed is the phrase I most often see in scholarly sources. nableezy - 22:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems that we have a consensus to say in the opening sentence that the GH are "at the southwest corner of Syria". I would introduce this if there are no additional disagreements in the two upcoming days. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Introducing soon as agreed upon. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kurtis: Please self-revert your latest edit that goes against this consensus that resulted from a very long discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Sorry, didn't notice the discussion that took place here. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I also disagree with the new framing, I think the older one was more neutral. Owenglyndur (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Which older one? And which one is the new one? Kurtis ^(talk) 08:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Older one was "is a region in the Levant. The region defined as the Golan Heights differs between disciplines: as a geological and biogeographical region, the term refers to a basaltic plateau" as far as I understand, the new one says: "a basaltic plateau at the southwest corner of Syria." ABHammad (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"is a region in the Levant." takes the Israeli position against the worldview.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be like saying Sinai Peninsula is a region between the Red and Mediterranean Seas. Or the Negev is a desert in the Levant. nableezy - 14:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This edit needs to be reverted as Makeandtoss says, except perhaps for the addition of a category. If you want to argue for that edit, first revert it, then start a discussion on this page (here or in a new section) and only if a new consensus is reached can the wording be changed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

After it gets reverted, I suggest putting in a comment in the wikitext like <!-- consensus is "at the southwest corner of Syria" here; please discuss on talk page before modifying or adding to this --> like what Makeandtoss suggested above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. That way other editors won't make the same mistake as me. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Kurtis, and thanks Coppertwig for the good suggestion. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that "effectively annexed" has been changed to "annexed". This seems to me to contradict the discussion above. For example, the source linked in the article by Edgar S. Marshall says "The law had the practical effect of annexing the territory to Israel although the Israeli action did not formally annex the Golan." I think it should say something like "practically", "effectively" or "unilaterally" before "annexed". See also Nableezy's comment above about "effectively". It doesn't look redundant to me. I'd appreciate it if whoever deleted this word would put it back in. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I restored it. nableezy - 20:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! In reply to some other comments above: I agree that it's more neutral to just mention geography in the first sentence. I also liked the version just before this edit which was all geography. I'd like to point out that that version stayed in the article without editwarring for quite a number of days. While this would be partly because some editors were being respectful while a discussion was ongoing, it also indicates that the wording doesn't attract a constant stream of editors who might never have edited the article before and can't resist modifying it. Making analogies with other places doesn't convince me unless the other places also are occupied and kindof-sortof annexed but not really and with an international opinion having been expressed about that, or otherwise with a situation too complex to easily fit into the first sentence. Notice also how some of the sources stick to geography in their first sentence. The southwest corner of Syria is a compromise, not my preference. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I dont see how it is more neutral, and more relevantly I dont think that is how we introduce basically any place. Western Sahara would be similar, and it deals with the geopolitical situation immediately. Crimea says flat out been occupied by Russia in the first paragraph. Transnistria is introduced as a breakaway state internationally recognized as part of Moldova. Abkhazia deals with geopolitics for both of its first two paragraphs. nableezy - 00:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong earlier: maybe it is feasible to fit the whole geopolitical situation into the first sentence. I suggest changing the first sentence to "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a basaltic plateau in southwest Syria, two thirds of which was occupied by Israel following the 1967 Six-Day War and then effectively annexed in 1981, the latter being rejected by the international community which continues to consider the territory as Syrian and under Israeli occupation." To avoid oversimplification which would be non-neutral one way or the other, I think it has to be a long sentence. If agreed, we could put a note in the wikitext saying to discuss on the talk page before shortening the first sentence. Sorry if I lengthened this discussion by insisting such a long sentence wasn't possible. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Request quote

Someone added this sentence to the article: "By the Great Jewish revolt, which began in 66 AD, the Golan Heights was predominantly inhabited by Jews.", can someone ad the quote from the source here? Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It says "Throughout the period following Herod's death, therefore, from the reign of Philippus to that of Agrippa II, the Golan enjoyed a period of great prosperity. Josephus describes how the

western and central Golan was dotted with cities which had sprung up on the rich stony soil (BJ,IV, I, I). By then it was a predominantly Jewish area and fertile ground for the seeds of the

coming Revolt against Rome. The cities of Sogana, Seleucia and Gamala in the Golan were fortified by josephus, who had been proclaimed jewish rebel commander of Galilee (BJ, II, 20, 6). The revolt in the north was crushed in 67 C.E. when the precipitously poised city of Gamala witnessed a collective suicide (BJ, IV, I) that was a precursor of the end of the whole revolt at Massada six years later." Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't he talking about "the western and central Golan" and not the entire GH? Another source says: "After the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt in the 60s and 70s, many Jews sought refuge to the north of Jerusalem--in the Galilee, and in its sister territory to the east, Gaulanitis, or Golan. Again, after the Bar-Kochba Jewish rebellion in 135, an increase in Jewish population occurred in the Golan, which still, we suppose, had a Gentile majority." [6] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Geshur and Hasmonean in the lead

Rather than reverting material into and out of the lead, how about the following as a compromise, to keep the lead short: Change the first sentence of the paragraph to "The earliest evidence of human habitation on the Golan dates to the Upper Paleolithic period; later came the small kingdom of Geshur." Also, after mention of Alexander the Great and before mention of the Caliphate, shorten the others to "Intervening periods occurred involving the Itureans, Hasmoneans, Roman Empire and Ghassanids." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there are more important and relevant aspects to the history of the Golan Heights than a biblical territory who only some scholars think it existed as a city-state 3,000 years ago. Such examples include Zahir al-Umar's semi-autonomous state and the Ayyubid Nimrod Castle. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If I understand you right, you mean Geshur might not have existed. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) OK, in that case I withdraw my suggestion about mentioning Geshur in the lead: it would be hard to shorten it to just a few words if there's that kind of uncertainty. However, for the other periods, I think my suggestion actually shortens rather than lengthens the lead, so as far as I understand you don't oppose the second suggestion (correct me if I'm wrong). Actually, I'd like to include a little more information: how about "At different times, the area was controlled or inhabited by Arab or Aramaic Itureans; Hasmoneans and Jews; the Roman Empire; and Christian Arab Ghassanids." This would replace about two or three sentences of the lead. By the way, if there's scholarly disagreement, I suggest getting that mentioned in the main body of the article, as it seems to me to say that Geshur and Hasmonean periods did occur. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It might not have existed as a city-state or kingdom 3,000 years ago. As for your other suggestion, although I think it is important indeed to remove two or three sentence from the lede, I think putting all of these civilizations and giving them equal weight might not be representative of their actual importance, example: Hasmonean kingdom lasted for a century, while Ghassanid kingdom lasted for four; the Golan Heights was much more central to the Ghassanids than that Hasmonean kingdom; etc. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If I may intervene, your assumptions appear to be wholly incorrect. For the best of my knowledge there is no controversy over the existence of the kingdom of Geshur, and the Hasmonean kingdom lasted nearly a century and a half, followed by the rule of King Herod and his descendants, making it 2 centuries of continuous Jewish rule until the destruction of the Second Temple. Even if we don't nitpick over the decades, the Hasmonean Kingdom was the beginning of the Jewish presence in the Golan Heights which lasted undisturbed for an additional 6 centuries, until the end of the Byzantine period, as is attested by multiple synagogues scattered over the entire geographical unit. As such, the demographic and historical importance of the Hasmonean rule in the Golan Heights is paramount. Uppagus (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"More recently, Juha Pakkala (2010; 2013) criticized the extensive scholarly discussion of Geshur, highlighting the minimal historical information we have about this kingdom, which is entirely derived from the biblical narrative with no further historical source to support it (see also Hafþórsson 2006: 235–36)." [7]

As demonstrated above, there is actually indeed controversy over Geshur kingdom's existence. As for the Hasmonean kingdom, its presence did not last for a century and a half over the Golan Heights, as it was only reached in a campaign by Alexander Jannaeus, and seems unknown for how long he had held it. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The view of Juha Pakkala s not widely accepted and therefore is a fringe view. And you did not respond to the main argument referring to the historical and demographic importance of the Hasmonean kingdom in the region. Uppagus (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Presence of synagogues does not necessarily tie them to the Hasmonean kingdom. The RS did not say they were fringe, Pakkala and Hafþórsson are two notable scholars, which proves the lack of consensus and the presence, indeed, of controversy. Either way this is being overblown attention over other more relevant history aspects of the Golan, including its more recent and relevant history. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not claim that synagogues tied the Golan heights to the Hasmonean kingdom, I was saying that with the Hasmonean kingdom came the Jewish presence which remained uninterrupted unti the end of the Byzantine period. As such the antiquity of the Jewish presence in the Golan Heights should remain. The RS referred to the mentioned scholars, and then mentioned Nadav Naaman, also a notable scholar, who rejected the view you are promoting, and then even mentioned that Pakkala himself admits that the biblical account of Geshur could not have been completely invented. In the conclusion of the article the authors see no reason to reject the existence of the kingdom of Geshur. The lede already includes an extremely detailed description of the Golan Heights during the modern period. Uppagus (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, it seems to me that the quote you give of Pakkala doesn't seem to say or imply that Geshur may not have existed, but merely to criticize the amount of time spent discussing it when we know so little about it, so it seems to me that my first suggestion is still valid; however, if this is not accepted, another alternative might be "...the Upper Paleolithic period; later, as the Bible recounts, came the small kingdom of Geshur."

It seems to me that leaving something out entirely is a worse error than having the same small number of words as another longer period. If the Jews were there for several centuries, that justifies using about the same number of words for them as for Christian Arab Ghassanids; i.e. just one word for "Hasmonean" and three words for the Jews i.e. "Hasmoneans and Jews". (in my suggestion beginning "At different times..." above.) I also think it's OK to list periods without necessarily giving the proportional number of words as the length of the period. I think it's interesting information for the reader whether Jews, Arabs, or Christians had a major presence there at some time in the past even if it was only a century, and deserves mention. If we were making a list of presidents of the U.S. we wouldn't leave one out, or make their picture smaller or shorten their name, just because they were only president for a year. We might write a shorter paragraph about them, or possibly even a longer paragraph because we would have to explain why they were only there for a year. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It just needs mentioning in passing as one of or something like that, Geshur link is more than enough for a biblical account. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Uppagus To say that it the Golan became "populated by Jews" is erroneous and lacking in context as the dynasty enacted a policy of forced conversion on the native population. I have changed this wording per sources to reflect this in continuity with the proceeding sentence which expands on intricacies of later rulership. JJNito197 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on some comments above and other information, I amend my suggestion to "At different times, the area was controlled or inhabited by Arab or Aramaic Itureans; Jewish Hasmoneans; and the Roman Empire with over-arching rule over first Jewish Herodians, then Christian Arab Ghassanids." I think this is a fair compromise. Has anyone suggested (or would now like to suggest) anything that does a better job of taking into account (even if not perfectly) the various concerns expressed in this discussion? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree it could also be more succinct for continuity purposes; we could streamline the content as (controlled by) the "...Itureans, Hasmoneans, Romans and Ghassanids" before expanding on the most noteworthy (Arab) Muslim conquest and later (Turkish) Ottoman occupation; this leaves out who inhabited or subjugated the region and its residents entirely. We could also describe it as inhabited by Arabs (with emphasis) per Makeandtoss, as the length of habitation is unequal compared to other ethnic groups including Jews if counting the Iturean, Ghassanid, Muslim Arab, and recent Arab rule. It is worth noting the point about Ghassanid and Muslim rule which doesn't mention the religious change in demographics; only when it concerns Hasmonean or Herodian (Roman) rule is this noted with the dubious use of "populated by Jews". This could either be because the Ghassanid Arab Christian or Muslim Arab conquest didn't force conversion, but we will never know because it is not expanded upon. This makes this sentence out of place, as well as the proposed emphasis on Hasmonean (Jewish) affinity to the Golan which is a side note in comparison, especially as we are talking about events that took place more than a millennium ago. JJNito197 (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@JJNito197 You keep mentioning the Ghassanids, this is very puzzling. If you are treating them as residents of the Golan, then considering the fact that their center was not in the Golan Heights but in Syria, their presence is much less prominent compared to that of other groups such as the Jews. If you treat them as rulers, they served as Foederati under the Byzantines, and once again they were not prominent in the region. A testimony to this is the location of the few sites attributed to them being almost exclusively along the eastern border of the Golan. I wonder, maybe they should be omitted from the article altogether. I also find it puzzling that you put so much emphasis on the early Muslim rule, when it is well documented that there was a massive decline in the population of the Golan during their rule. So absent is their influence on the region that only in four sites did they unearth any finds from the early Muslim period (Hartal, Moshe. 1989. Northen Golan: An Archaeological Survey as a Source fro the History of the Region (Hebrew). Qazrin. P.135) and the entire region was left to nomads. On the other hand it is well attested that Jewish communities continued to flourish until the mid 8^th century (Maoz Z.U. 1992. Qazrin In Ephraim Stern et al. eds. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. (Hebrew). Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society & Carta. P. 1426, Killebrew, Anne. Ibid. P. 1427-1428). Uppagus (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"Golan Heights but in Syria" Golan Heights is in Syria. Palestine is Syria if we want to go that far.

"along the eastern border of the Golan" if you mean that eastern border of Golan after the 1967, then that would be still the Golan since Israel occupies two-thirds of it, so that would be the Syrian third. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Previously this wording didn't specify who inhabited the region, which saves us the debate. We should change it to just listing the empires and rulers instead per the talk page consensus and proposal of Makeandtoss which I have now edited in. Further information about the demographics should be given due weight elsewhere and we shouldn't muddle this up with who ruled the region as this is not synonymous. Due content should be edited in the article but not in the lead for continuity purposes with the subject which relates to geography foremostly. JJNito197 (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"entirely derived from the biblical narrative with no further historical source to support it" is pretty clear in saying that its existence is dubious at best, unless we take biblical or other religious mythologies at face value. Speaking of, recently I have trimmed tons of mythologies relating to the origin of Arabs at Arabs. Mythologies can be mentioned in encyclopaedias but they should not take precedence over actual historical facts.

As for your suggestion, I think it is more editorial/journalistic than encylopaedic, the type one would expect to read in a newspaper. Not to mention the existing concern of overamplifying the Hasmonean existence there that barely lasted a few decades in the Golan over the more recent four century rule of the Ghassanids who had their entire political power base there.

I agree with JJNito197 that it is better to mention the empires/civilizations rather than the populations as is normal practice in most historical regions/countries.

This summarization would need more nuance, we can't just group a brief rule by a small kingdom with a centuries-long rule by the Roman Empire and later the Ghassanid kingdom, not to mention the subsequent caliphates.

My suggestion would be, not to be taken literally: (controlled by) the "...Itureans, and Hasmoneans, before becoming part of the Roman Empire. In the fourth century AD, it was home to the Ghassanid kingdom, which had its base there. It later became part of the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Mamluk and Ottoman empires. [something here to be expanded about them to give due weight]"

Mentioning Muslim [and Ottoman] conquest without mentioning Greek or Persian or other conquests would be misleading. Also now after having read the body, there is a clear underreporting of the Islamic period. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss We should not ignore the fact that, as has been demonstrated, Pakkala does not represent the consensus, nor even an accepted scholarly view. Furthermore, you did not address the fact that even Na'aman, who is no stranger to biblical criticism, does not accept Pakkala's thesis, and the existence of Geshur is not seen as mythology, rather as an historical fact.

Regarding the political base of the Ghassanids, You are mistaken, the Ghassanid power base was in Damascus and the environs. If their power base was in the Golan, they would have left a much greater mark. Oddly enough, even the one sentence about them in the article has no source, so please supply sources if you have any to add.

And it appears that there is more than ample reporting of the Islamic period, simply due to the fact that the Islamic period provided almost no archaeological finds, unless you mean the Jewish village of Qazrin, which you may be right about, it should be discussed more broadly. Uppagus (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No such thing as “representing consensus”. Consensus by definition is general agreement. If there is disagreement then there is no general agreement. As for ruins, clearly the most important historical site in the Golan is the Nimrod Fortress, an Islamic ruin built by the Ayyubids who would later overrun a European colonial crusader state in their midst. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@JJNito197 On the contrary, the erroneous claim is the one you present. See Syon, Danny (2014). Gamla III: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989. Finds and Studies. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, No. 56. ISBN 978-965-406-503-0. p. 4: "Scholarly consensus holds that the Golan became populated by Jews following the conquests of Jannaeus in c. 80 BCE and as a direct result of these conquests."

And while it is true that Josephus states that the itureans were converted by Alexander Jannaeus, most scholars agree that this was anti-Hasmonean propaganda, and forced conversions did not occur, rather the Jewish population came from Judea, See Leibner below and Kasher, Aryeh. 1988. Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert during the Hellenistic and Roman Era (332 BCE—70 CE). Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. Pp. 39-45, Dar, Shimon. 1991. The Geographical Region of the Hasmonean-Iturean Encounter. Cathedra 59: 3–11, (In Hebrew with English abstract). Recent archaeological finds support this, 'thus the scholars who reject Josephus' report as entirely unreliable appear to be correct'. See Leibner, Uzi. 2009. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee : An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Pp. 321, 336 and Hartal, Moshe. 2005. The Land of the Ituraeans, Qazrin. (Hebrew) P. 374, who conclude that there are no signs that the Iturean population converted at all as opposed to the Idumeans who converted although most probably not through coersion, see sources above. Uppagus (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, your suggested wording looks OK to me. Regarding Geshur, since some editors seem intent on including it, I think we need to compromise and mention it very briefly. I suggest "...Paleolithic period; later was the biblical Geshur." If we mention Geshur I think we need to mention the Bible because if it says Geshur existed without mentioning the Bible some readers might get the impression there's evidence for Geshur outside the Bible, and a wikilink is not sufficient to clear that up. Also, mentioning the Bible fits in with the earlier part of the sentence, which is about evidence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Or better: "...later the Bible mentions Geshur". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I think we might have a consensus that to keep the lead short and balanced, in the lead we won't mention the religion or ethnicity of the population at various times, but we'll only mention the rulers. Religion and ethnicity can be described in the main body of the article, under appropriate headings. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the "biblical Geshur" suggestion. But now rereading the ancient history section, why are we mentioning Geshur but not the Amorites or the Canaanites who preceded them, particularly as there is actual archaeological evidence for them in the Amarna letters? My concern is that we're giving this [alleged] civilization undue weight. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

How about "Later, ancient writings indicate Amorites, Canaanites and Geshur in the region at different times." instead of the sentence about Geshur? Ancient writings includes both the Amarna letters and the Bible. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the suggestion but ends up conflating archaeological writings with mythological scripture. Maybe "Before antiquity, the Amorites and Canaanites controlled the region, as well as biblical Geshur later. After the 8th century BC, the region then became part of the Assyrian,... empires." Makeandtoss (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

How about "Later came the Canaanites, the Amorites, then biblical Geshur." The phrase "Before antiquity" sounds odd to me, like "before a long time ago", which makes no sense. Wiktionary defines antiquity as starting at 500 AD, not quite what we want here, and mainly for Europe. I think this suggestion of mine weakly implies that the Amorites were after the Canaanites, whereas putting "and" between them tends to sound as if they were both there working together at the same time. Mentioning the Bible helps give a very rough sense of when this happened. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Biblical stuff without real evidence isnt history but there is evidence for Geshur: [8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it is safer to say there is evidence which was tied to Geshur. Either way biblical doesn't imply this is entirely mythical but that the only historical written reference to it comes from the bible; so far. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, @Coppertwig, @Supreme Deliciousness, @Uppagus, hey, can I ask why we dropped Aram-Damascus? Its activities in the Golan are well-documented by scholars, especially after incorporating Geshur. On the other hand, I haven’t found any mention of Canaanites in the Golan during the Iron Age. What’s that based on? The Amarna letters from the Bronze Age don’t necessarily imply a Canaanite population; actually, scholars think the 'Land of Gauru' mentioned there is an early incarnation of Geshur. Mariamnei (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind: "biblical Geshur, then Aram-Damascus." As for Canaanites, this was taken from the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Just checked the source in the body, and it doesn't mention anything about Canaanites, Amorites, or Labaya. So, I'm updating the lead to say, "During the Iron Age, it was home to biblical Geshur, which was later incorporated into Aram-Damascus." :) Mariamnei (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mariamnei: I don't think it was good practice to remove that information from the body, particularly after the lengthy discussion here. That information is not likely to have been made up, and we have ways with dealing with this kind of situation, including the not in the source and citation needed in-line tags; which gives editors the chance to verify contested information, instead of their wholesale removal.

I don't have access to this source which would seem to discuss the Golan Height's Iron age period: [9]; or this source which might refer to subject as well [10]. As for the Arameans: "From the available information, it is highly plausible that Arameans settled in southern Syria

in the tenth–ninth centuries in the Beqaˁ valley and the eastern shores of the Sea of Galilee and the Golan heights." page 798 While this biblical journal source page 17-18, claims that the area was originally part of Canaan. Also: "The reference, in the El Amarna correspondence, to Amorite kingdoms on the east bank of the Jordan and the Golan Heights indicates that the conquest of the Amorite kingdoms of Sihon and Og is not pure literary fiction." page 98. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Currently I don't see anything about Canaanites or Amorites in the body of the article. If it isn't in the body of the article it shouldn't be in the lead. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Coppertwig: That is because it was removed, despite having other options to deal with this situation. Plus, here we are discussing the body not the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mariamnei:. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

"the latter being rejected", why is it only the annexation being rejected? I am sure the occupation was also rejected; UNSCR 242 as an example. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

242 is a call to withdraw from territories occupied via land for peace (as per Jordan and Egypt) and is applicable to Syrian territory as well. You cannot "reject" an occupation (defined as "temporary") unless declaring it illegal, which might happen shortly in the case of Palestine. The transfer of settlers to it is a war crime as it is in the case of Palestine already. Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know just feels that it implies that the occupation is fine. I would propose switching to ", which was rejected"; as this would refer to the occupation and subsequent annexation collectively. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Would it work to say "effectively annexed in 1981 in a move not recognized by the international community"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

"move" is singular so still same issue. ", which was rejected" this phrasing should solve this issue. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, as I think the international community recognizes that it is occupied, as the article seems to say, even if they condemned the occupation. However, the wording you suggest also seems fine to me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. The change is fine with me, but I should tell you that I think the wording is ambiguous. I think it's OK for it to be ambiguous. Some readers may think it means the annexation and occupation were rejected, while others may think it means the annexation was rejected. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed ambiguous and might have been my intention away from implying only annexation is problematic; should be good for now unless we have a better proposal. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Request add word to opening paragraph

This sentence: "It is bordered by the Yarmouk River in the south, the Sea of Galilee and Hula Valley in the west, the Anti-Lebanon with Mount Hermon in the north and Wadi Raqqad in the east."

Please replace "the Anti-Lebanon" with "the Anti-Lebanon mountains". Without knowing there are actual mountains called "Anti-Lebanon" parsing the sentence takes much longer. Bob Jed (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Spelling

Unrelated, but Quneitra has been misspelled as Quneintra multiple times in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:9A29:FF00:5589:C495:188D:F836 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Zero^talk 02:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

edit warring

We have previously discussed the weight given to the US position, and the consensus version should remain absent a consensus to change it. Edit-warring to force it in is disruptive. If you feel that the weight given to the US position is not correct then feel free to argue that point here on the talk page, but not through reverts. nableezy - 13:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Removing one-sided POV from lede

"Effective annexation" is subjective. Israel doesn't call it an annexation. Certainly some critics do. But the subjective views of some critics doesn't belong in a lede. In the body, we can and do discuss why some call it annexation. I have used the neutral term "extended Israeli jurisdiction" because that is objectively true. More detail is in the body.

Furthermore, the "international community" didn't declare the extension of Israeli jurisdiction to the Golan null and void. The UN did in 1981. But the United States (both Republican and Democratic Presidents) have recognized Israel sovereignty in the Golan Heights and currently do so. There is NO SOURCE CITED subsequent to US recognition in 2019 that says "international community." I cannot find any place in wikipedia where the "international community" is cited as all agreeing where the "international community" excludes the USA without mentioning that exclusion.

Originally, I hoped to state the controversy, both the view of the UN and that of the USA. But if you don't want to state the controversy, you can't just give one side of it. If the United States recognition is a "detail" that should not be included in the lede, the UN view should also be excluded. So I have removed the issue entirely from the lede. It is still in the body.

I'm happy with either: 1) stating both sides of a contested issue in the lede; or 2) leaving it out.

But I believe it is against Wikipedia policy to state only one side of a contested issue as if it were true and without mentioning the other side. It would be like saying, "Everyone agrees that the Yankees are a better team than the Red Sox" on the Yankees page. Either say what BOTH Yankees and Red Sox fans think. Or leave out the issue entirely.

In my most recent suggestion, as a compromise, I have removed the issue entirely from the lede and explained it in detail in a footnote to the lede as well as in the body.GreekParadise (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. The UN is signed on to a UNSC resolution declaring the annex null and void, which your edit removed from the lead. A unanimous UNSC resolution IS the international community. The US position is self contradictory and undue for the lead, explanation in the body is sufficient. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "effective annexation", that's the way the Golan Heights Law is widely described, both at the time and looking back. We have plenty of RS cited in this article and the one I linked above that say as much: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please show me a source to say that the United States of America is not a member of the international community. Without such a source, the lede is untrue. Changed to "some"GreekParadise (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I have made it clear that the UNSC unanimously (including the United States therefore) declared the annex null and void and tagged your addition for clarity (since it is not even English). Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem your saying (truthfully) that the UNSC declared it null and void in 1981. But you can't say "international community" without pointing out that the USA disagrees. I have found no source that says the "international community" does not accept it since 2019. Have you?GreekParadise (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The US is one out of 200 countries and its unilateral flip-flopping does not override a UNSC resolution that it has already signed up to. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-israel-un/u-n-chief-clear-that-golan-status-has-not-changed-spokesman-idUSKCN1R623E/

...after U.S. President Donald Trump recognized the Golan Heights as Israeli territory."The U.N.'s policy on Golan is reflected in the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and that policy has not changed," Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thats super easy lol, The occupied Golan Heights is still recognised as part of Syrian territory by the international community. Or Most of Majdal Shams's around 11,000 residents still identify as Syrian more than half a century after Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria and later annexed it in a move not recognised by the international community. Or Israel annexed the 1,200-square-kilometre (460-square-mile) Golan Heights in 1981, a move that was not recognized by the international community. Syria demands the return of the strategic plateau, which also overlooks Lebanon and borders Jordan. That's Al Jazeera, France 24 and Reuters, all after the recognition by Trump. Anything else? nableezy - 15:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

<- GreekParadise, are you using a disposable sockpuppet account? If not, what is the basis for your decision to use edit warring as a tool when edit warring in the PIA topic area usually results in editors being reported eventually and sanctions being imposed? I'm interested in how you made the decision. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The UNGA overwhelmingly passes resolutions against the Israeli annexation on a regular basis. The most recent was resolution A/RES/78/77 passed 151-2 last December. It is the best indicator of the "international community's" view and shouldn't be hard to --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)find a secondary source for. Zero^talk 15:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

To Sean Holyand: Sockpuppet? What are you talking about? I've used this account for more than 15 years.

To Zero: I have no problem with your citing a UN General Assembly resolution or a UNSC resolution. But I do have a problem with your saying "international community" when that it is simply false. In fact, if you go to the wikipedia entry on international community, you can see why the term is NOT appropriate here, particularly when it excludes the United States, which by all accounts IS part of the international community.

Please fix this to make the false statement true or find me a source that expressly says the USA is not part of the "international community" or that it's ok to cite the international community when the USA disagrees. As the international community entry says, "The term is also commonly used to imply legitimacy and consensus for a point of view on a disputed issue" and is criticized exactly for that concept, but that's the point. The international community is either a unanimous opinion where all countries (or at least all major countries) agree or it's subjective.

Let's just leave out "international community" and mention the United Nations. That's not subjective anymore. That's objectively true.

I will leave the disputed tag up until you fix the statement. If you disagree and insist that the USA is not part of the international community without having any source that says this, let's go to arbitration.GreekParadise (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The term "international community" does not mean every country without exception. It obviously couldn't, because Israel always rejected what the international community said and it too is a part of it. But I have provided several sources that continue to say "international community" does not accept the Israeli claim to the Golan. Ill repeat them here for you. The occupied Golan Heights is still recognised as part of Syrian territory by the international community. Or Most of Majdal Shams's around 11,000 residents still identify as Syrian more than half a century after Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria and later annexed it in a move not recognised by the international community. Or Israel annexed the 1,200-square-kilometre (460-square-mile) Golan Heights in 1981, a move that was not recognized by the international community. Syria demands the return of the strategic plateau, which also overlooks Lebanon and borders Jordan. That's Al Jazeera, France 24 and Reuters, all after the recognition by Trump. Anything else? nableezy - 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

US view is one single country. That view was also lobbied by the Israeli lobby, so the US view is infact an Israeli view through a proxy. This does not belong in the lead, but in the body of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Same content, in the body

Fun fact, the lede content stems from content in the body - so let's look at the section down there first.

It's completely accurate and appropriate to say the international community rejected the annexation, citing UNSCR 497. It's also fair to say that the "international community" continues to reject it, considering the UN General Assembly majority continues to pass resolutions (latest in 2023, and at least back to 2017). I think it's also DUE to include a mention of the US's current position - they are one of the biggest players in the UN, and were an original signatory to 497; noting the current, apparently contradictory stance is notable here.

I went ahead and re-organized the first paragraph of the body section to reflect this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the reorg of the lead is very good and undoes a recently affirmed prior consensus on the first paras. Instead we have an unwieldy third para, overstuffed with quotes that are inappropriate for the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the removal from the first paragraph on the declaration being null and void was improper, and the third paragraph is placing far too much emphasis on the US position. I've reverted. I did however add one bit to the opening paragraph to clear up any concerns about the term "international community". nableezy - 17:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Your addition to the last sentence makes it feel much more at home in the first paragraph. I like it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with it too, now that you've added with the exception of Israel and the United States. I will add the sources to the United States recognition as a footnote. GreekParadise (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources can be added in the article body, without the need for any footnotes. Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup. WP:LEADCITE. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Deaf. Selfstudier (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

They did it anyway, this is all coming up because everyone keeps asking the US admin about the Golan and even though the Trump admin did it, Blinken did not actually endorse it and that is reported here again a couple days ago "seemingly reaffirmed the policy in 2021 (but stopped short of endorsing Trump’s decision)" and apart from that there is a lot of legal and other opinion just simply questioning the US position on this (because it is completely at odds with international law, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/48778420).

Actually, I don't think we can categorically say that the US policy under Biden is identical to that of Trump. Selfstudier (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't need to be calling people deaf in article talk pages.

On the content matter, the Biden administration is absolutely continuing Trump's policy: the State Deparment in 2021 backed up Blinken's comments, saying "US policy regarding the Golan has not changed, and reports to the contrary are false"; and John Kirby said again a few days ago that US "policy on the Golan Heights has not changed under this administration". That's not to say both admin's policies have been identical, but Biden hasn't publicly changed much of anything since 2019. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a week from the article for his troubles. Selfstudier (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I already gave you two links that show that is at least qualified, State outranks Kirby. They say the policy hasn't changed but it is reported as not endorsing Trump (which the JP, surprise surprise, failed to report), after all how could they endorse a breach of international law. Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy I'm just noticing, but in your revert of my lead change, you also reverted my re-organization of the body paragraph, but provided no explanation in your edit summary nor here. If this was intentional, I'd appreciate an explanation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont think the language on The United States, though an original signatory to UNSCR 497, has recognized Israel's soverignty over the Heights since 2019. adds anything, and the though is editorializing. It also makes things jump around chronologically, with the US recognition placed before the negotiations on the original resolution. nableezy - 21:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair point about the chronology. To that end, it's probably best to keep mentions of current or ongoing international reactions in the existing 'Territorial claims' section below (which already started off with a sentence similar to what was in 'History'). Mentioning resolution 497 segues nicely into the discussion about 242 anyway. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

'neutral term "extended Israeli jurisdiction' No, it is not WP's job to promote euphemisms used by governments involved in human rights violations. It is called annexation by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss in your revert spree, you've undone several of what I consider to be improvements to the article:

• Reverted the change of "was" to "has been" which reflects the ongoing nature of the Israeli occupation
• Removed the answer to the question "why is Israel still occupying the Golan" from the lead
• Removed the answer to the question "how does Israel justify their occupation" from the lead
• Generally worsened the prose around the annexation and subsequent rejection by international community

These improvements were brought about in recent days by editing and discussion from a handful of editors, so your instruction to "see talk page consensus" as justification for your reverts is odd to say the least... PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely not call adding overcomplicated prose cited to the Trump Administration Archive website and the Jerusalem Post as an “improvement” to the opening paragraph. Restored “has been.” As for the why and how this is undue weight that does not belong in lede which serves as a summary of the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

How is explaining the core tenets of the disagreement of why the region remains occupied WP:UNDUE for the lead? For our readers coming to this article to learn about the Golan Heights, I'm sure they'd love to learn why Israel refuses to relinquish them.

And those citations in the lead were superfluous anyway (WP:LEADCITE), but I found it a succinct and accurate summary of the situation, as described in the body with plenty more citations. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless the answer is "because Israel has zero respect for international law", I'm not sure what is worth adding. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"learn why Israel refuses to relinquish them;" here you are confusing the alleged reason, or how Israel markets its theft of Syrian territory, with the real reason, Israel's expansionism and disregard for international law. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We had reached a consensus. If this is all going to be upended, I suggest putting a disputed tag on it until we do. As I understand it, folks who oppose the consensus we agreed to believe that the United States is NOT part of the international community. I will seek arbitration on that point. I think we should tell the readers that the USA disagrees OR simply leave it out of the lede.GreekParadise (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed it - by saying what the international community "rules" rather than "considers". Ruling is what the UNSC and ICJ do, so there's no argument there, and no need to weigh in on the opinions of individual recalcitrant states. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Except the "international community" has not "ruled." The United Nations has. Why not simply say:

Two thirds of the area has been occupied by Israel following the 1967 Six-Day War and then effectively annexed in 1981 – an action unrecognized by the United Nations, which has adopted several resolutions stating the Golan Heights to be Israeli-occupied Syrian territory.

That's undisputably objectively true. Plus readers may well wonder how the "international community" made a ruling. Let's be precise and accurate. (I would also add citations to the UN resolutions, but I know some folks prefer that footnotes be in the body and not the lede.) GreekParadise (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The UNSC is the ruling body of the UN – which represents the international community – and its resolutions are binding. The ruling is United Nations Security Council Resolution 497. How about you just accept international law? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The UNSC ruled, the international community considers. nableezy - 19:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

However, I don't hugely oppose the further specificity if others don't either. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

So change it. As it currently exists, the statement is false. And everyone here knows it to be false. When 20 nations disagree, it's untrue the entire international community agrees. GreekParadise (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "20 nations disagree" ? Where are you getting this from? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

UN resolution A/RES/77/125, passed with a vote of 141-2-25. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Abstention doesn't mean that they disagree with that its occupied Syrian territory, there can be something within the resolution they disagree with or cant stand behind which would make them abstain. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

UNGA passes that resolution nearly every year (along with a dozen or so other condemning Israel for one thing and another) and the most recent one for 2023 91 8 62, so what? At any rate, the one you are showing shows 2 against, prize for which 2? None of them override 497, which was unanimous, including the US. Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

2 against along with 25 abstentions, meaning 25 additional countries who don't care one way or the other. Thus, 27 countries who don't fall in the category of "countries that have rebuked Israel for the effective annexation of the Golan". PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That isn’t what an abstention means. nableezy - 21:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Then feel free to clarify. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

An abstention is just not taking a position on that specific resolution. But, and the part that keeps getting passed over, international community does not mean every state on earth. nableezy - 22:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

not taking a position sounds an awful lot like don't care one way or the other PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

On that specific resolution. One can abstain because they don’t want to be in the position of criticizing an ally, or not wanting to criticize a US ally. nableezy - 02:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesnt say "entire international community". And it is 2 countries. nableezy - 15:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if we ignored 497 (which of course, we shouldn't), I still say the current US position is unclear. The UNIFIL resolution (2695 (2023)) renewing mandate till end August 2024 speaks about the "occupied Shab’a Farms" and the US signed on to that. But if the US considers the farms as part of the Golan how can the territory be occupied and recognized as Israeli territory by the US at the same time? Oh well, yea, we signed that resolution but that doesn't mean we agree with all the wording, right... Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ops, forgot the source, https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-september-25-2023/ "QUESTION: Okay. If you – you would not take the language – so why did you sign on to it? MR MILLER: We decided it was the appropriate thing to do in this instance, but our policy has not changed." Lol. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In the most recent UN vote to reaffirm the issue, 8 nations disagreed (including the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Israel) and some 62 nations abstained with only 91 voting in favor. There is definitely NOT an international consensus on this. See

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-israel-golan-heights-un-general-assembly-resolution-palestine-war-2469139-2023-11-29

and

https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n23/376/68/pdf/n2337668.pdf

(text of resolution)

When there is no international consensus, the lede is untrue. And we should not post knowingly false information on wikipedia. It would be truthful to say the United Nations has this position as Iskandar323 agree. It would also be truthful to say that the "majority" of nations has this position. Or we can return to the consensus which nableezy posted earlier. But it is simply untrue to say the "international community" agrees on this and imply consensus when that consensus does not exist.GreekParadise (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This was replied to above: [16] Abstention doesn't mean that they disagree with that its occupied Syrian territory, there can be something within the resolution they disagree with or cant stand behind which would make them abstain. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither Canada, Australia nor the UK hold that Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights is legal. On the contrary, they all hold that it is illegal. The vote means that there was other stuff in the resolution they weren't willing to vote for. Also, it is not correct that this was the latest vote. It was on 28 Nov 2023, but resolution A/RES/78/77 adopted 9 days later only got 2 votes against (guess who). This is a common pattern at the UN: a resolution with uncomfortable provisions is followed by another that gets wider support. "International consensus" is completely correct. Zero^talk 03:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This has gotten sidetracked focusing on the UN, especially in its recent (sadly) moribund state. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I provided several sources that support "international community". That should be the end of the discussion unless and until someone provides conflicting sources and not their own opinion on what international community means. nableezy - 17:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Zahir al Umar

Any references on Zahir al-Umar's quarter of a century rule of Golan? Might be more notable to mention than the Herodian kingdom's unspecified rule of it some 2,000 years ago. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)