Talk:Golan

Copy and paste
This was originally copy and pasted, and I have now noted that in the beginning of the article. I think it should really be rewritten and resourced as much of the article covers the current archaeology of the site which I'm sure has changed in the last 100 years. I looked for information on Google, but I couldn't find much. I've copyedited the whole article, so it at least looks presentable for now. I also looked for an appropriate tag to give the article, but I couldn't find one. Basar 20:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC) - The article needs to reflect both Syrian and Israeli histories, rather than simply the Betar Youth Movement (or whomever's) apologistic version. Aminaa 16:19, 9 October 2006 )]
 * This article is about the ancient city of Golan, whose modern-day location is not known. Please read the article. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

- "Syria" (souriya/bilad-i-sham) is a geographical term (as in Latin Syria, Roman Syria, Arab Syria, etc) not tied to any contemporary political reality and can be safely used for times past while 'the land of Israel' (eretz Yisroel) is a political concept tied to a contemporary maximalist political agenda within Israel. There have been two states called "israel", one that disappeared 2700 years ago, one established in 1948; in between, there was no "Land of Israel" outside ideological texts. Neutral terms like "Canaan". 'The Levant", "the Holy Land" and even "Palestine" are preferable as they include EVERYONE in the region; terms like "the land of Israel" are specifically exclusive ethnic labels referring to a narrower reality. As we are striving to maintain a Neutral Viewpoint, using loaded and ideological terms should be avoided Aminaa
 * Please respond to the issues raised above. Jayjg (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I DID; do you not read English? It says Golan is east of the Jordan. Is that Israel, eternal and indivisible or whatever you guys think? Aminaa


 * See the article Land of Israel. In short, yes. The city is clearly mentioned in Deuteronomy 4:43 as being in the Land of Israel. (as mentioned in the article). --Eliyak T · C 18:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Part of the issue here is that the vast majority of people will understand Syria as meaning the modern country, by the way. --Eliyak T · C 18:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that 99.9% of the world will understand that the use of "the land of Israel" is a contempoary political claim isn't problematic? The article primarily deals with the Hellenistic era when there was most definitely no "land of Israel" and the region was most definitely known as "Syria" Aminaa


 * At the time "Golan" existed there was no "Syria", that came over 1000 years later. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No states or countries are called "lands." On the other hand, Syria is the name of that country. --Eliyak T · C 22:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Opting for neutrality
Hmm, this discussion is very interesting and shows how important it is to try to be dispassionate! It looks like almost everyone has an axe to grind here or is otherwise not exactly "neutral" in their POV! Clearly, both terms in debate "land of Israel" and "Syria" carry string present day resonance and are both strenuously objected to by large segments of the people in the area, if not world wide. I went and looked at the Wikipedia entries for the two terms and, interestingly, neither one seems to be correct. In the Land of Israel entry, there's a map of it and, quite clearly, Golan is not included while the Syria entry concentrates on the current state by that name (though Syria disambiguation gives a broader scope to the term) I personally think the term "Levant" is about as close to neutral as can be found and I am altering the article to that.Stampcollector 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Golan is most certainly in the map of Land of Israel. The pink map is an approximation of the map of the United Monarchy of Israel, not the land of Israel. Btw, you have that first sentence on copy-paste?, I see you use it elsewhere :) . Cheers. Amoruso 23:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

merge this page
What is the purpose of having a separate Golan and Golan Heights page? As this one is underdeveloped and contains little that is new, I suggest merging the information and getting rid of this one.--Gilabrand 06:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Arabic first
Since the area is a part of an Arab country, the Arabic name should be first. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a page about the Biblical area, before there was an Arabic language. --Shuki (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove Jawlān in your revert? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't. It wasn't there in the first place. --Shuki (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had added it: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Arabic belong first be cause this be arabic country and arabic be older than hebrew . Also, during time which Golan of history exist, the hebrew people speak aramaic. Hebrew al ready fall out use by era of Golan city. Modern "Hebrew" be invent by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, who create it by stealing many word from Arabic and "hebrewize" to make sound like it be relate to biblical hebrew words. So modern arabic word more appropriate for all these reason. Ani medjool (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Walla? Titkadem kvar achunah. Breein1007 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

there aren't too many quotes
in the article so I removed the tag. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusing and USELESS
As it is, it's one long confusion. If it were about the biblical town of Golan, it would make sense; but it's mixing up regions, periods, everything that can be mixed up and confused: biblical Golan, Classical Gaulanitis, Golan Heights. It needs reworking from scratch.

Mind: Sahem aj-Jaulan is outside the Golan Heights (east of Wadi ar-Ruqqad). Take it from here, create a chronological skeleton/structure, read AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND the sources, interlink and study related pages, and only then you can go into fighting over ridiculous details (whose orthography should take precedence etc.) Do your basic homework, and nationalism is never part of that. Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)