Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 6

I do not support the actions and views of Oren0 as 3rd party
In his userpage it says "This user supports the continued existence of a free and independent state of Israel." and "This user is a Jew." Therefore Oren0 can not be considered neutral to this subject, of course he is gonna side with Israel. Another 3rd point of view should have been picked. Another 3rd point of view that takes a second look at the disputed/occupied argument. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is an issue, while I disagree with Oren0's view I do not find it unreasonable and have no reason to dispute his impartiality in evaluating the discussion. And being a Jew who supports the existence of Israel does not factor into the discussion. Nableezy (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

His position and views makes it inappropriate for him to be a 3rd view. He is not neutral to the subject. If there is a football game between USA and France, FIFA do not pick a french referee. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The following photograph clearly showcases Supreme's neutral and objective perspective towards the Jewish state: Image:No_Israel.svg‎

You happened to have blanked your page right before posting this hit piece. Coincidence? Perhaps. Give Supreme a warning and lets continue with the discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

SD isn't presenting himself as a neutral third party. Oren0 closed the Rfc in that capacity. Doing so was ill-judged, as it would be for other people with strong views on the subject, such as you and I, to do so.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oren0 is a capable and accomplished editor, and has earned enough respect to be awarded administrative privileges. If Oren had a prior history of conflicts, the closure would certainly be suspect, but by virtue of being a Jew and happening to support Israel does not automatically make him biased in applying 3rd party rights. To even pose such a challenge is borderline antisemitic and offensive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Of all the people to pick as 3rd view, did they have to pick a zionist in this kind of article? Is this fair? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wkikfan12345, by the same token, SD is entited to their views to oppose Israel until the cows go home, especially that Israel occupies a portion of their country. You cannot take that right away from them.  SD does not have to be unbiased on this subject, but the 3rd party does.  Please do not sing the antisemitic song unnecessarily all the time.  --98.194.124.102 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Many would consider "Israel has nt right to exist" as a strong indication of antisemitism. Per the Hama Massacre, where the Syrian military under the previous Assad despot decided to level an entire city loaded with civilians (30,000), killing most of them...maybe I should troll and challenge Syria's "right to exist." Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint and I won't question motivations but I will never tolerate outing a respected administrator by an Arab nationalist. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Being a Jew doesn't negate oneself from being impartial, neither does personal feelings towards a country, as long as they look at the facts and do not allow emotions to play into the decision. That said, I feel his response gave a balanced solution to the question at hand, allowing for all sourced viewpoints to be stated, so long as they dont overstep WP:UNDUE.  Wikipedia is not a place to criminialize a nation because some editors do not agree with its actions or existance, nor is it a place to straight-forward deny the viewpoint of an occupied people. --Nsaum75 (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "as long as they look at the facts and do not allow emotions to play into the decision", if they have any emotions at all, and they obviously do since they advertise it on their user page, then they should personally request to stand down from the refereeing position, for conflict of interest. --98.194.124.102 (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no religious or ethnic connection to the region, and I would have closed the RfC in exactly the same way if Oren0 hadn't beaten me to it. In his closing statement Oren0 simply noted the two terms are not mutually exclusive, and its not Wikipedia's place to make a definitive pronouncement on the validity of national territorial issues. There is scope for both points of view to be covered in the article in proportion to both weight and reliable sourcing. This seems like a commonsense approach. Please consider this a 4th opinion, if you like.


 * On an unrelated note I've converted the enormous image posted above into a wikilink for readability's sake. It's the same image, and the point being made is still understandable, but the massive image was interrupting the discussion. This is a layout issue rather than a content one, but if there's disagreement with this action please let me know.Euryalus (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't the article, especially on top of the map, state that, according to Israel the territory is disputed, and according to the rest of the world the territory is Syrian and occupied by Israel? --98.194.124.102 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a very good comment by 98.194.124.102 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious IP? The entire RFC has been over that POV. Ugh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is very hard for many editors to continue assuming WP:Good Faith when a group of editors continually find fault with any solution that doesn't reflect their own viewpoints 100%. We are trying to achieve balance and NPOV, not the rejection of all claims made which don't outright demonize the actions and status of one particular nation which some feel has no right to exist. --Nsaum75 (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You realize you keep saying that, but a number of people no doubt are having a hard time assuming good faith when RSs are shown to explicitly and without any disclaimer say that it is Israeli-occupied territory, and the response we get is nobody is disputing reliable sources. Really? Then why are we having this discussion, because people dont like what the reliable sources say? And nobody can provide a source where Israel itself actually disputes that the territory is occupied. And even if somebody could produce such a source no answer is given as to why there is a problem with the phrasing "The Golan Heights are Israeli occupied territory, though Israel disputes this". You keep raising AGF as though the actions of "your side" of the argument are without doubt pure and pristine. To some of us, this feels as a complete whitewash of verifiable facts, and when that happens it is indeed hard to assume good faith. Though nobody keeps questioning your motives and actions or bringing up your personal views, whatever they might be. Try to stop questioning everybody elses. That a user feels Israel does not have a right to exist has absolutely nothing to do with this, that another admin closed this RfC happens to be a Jew also has nothing to do with this. So please stop bringing up what you feel are faults with a users personal POV, unless that user tries to put into the article that Israel has no right to exist this conversation is useless. Nableezy (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misunderstood my comment, or maybe I wasn't entirely clear -- and for that I am sorry, I need to better proof-read before I hit "save page"; I wasn't debating the use of RS in my comment, rather the fact that an editor is trying to use an Admins religion and personal views as a basis for rejecting an RfC they don't agree with -- at least that is how it appears in the heading of this section and the first lines of the discussion. As for content, I personally am ok with the reliably sourced use of "occupied", for reasons I stated previously in the RfC; as long as its done in a manner which doesn't violate WP:UNDUE and we balance it with dissenting viewpoints. --Nsaum75 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And I think that user is wrong for raising such objections (in fact I said so above), but realize it is hard for "the other side" to assume good faith as well. But do it anyway. Nableezy (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do support the existence of the state of Israel and I make no apology for that. At the same time, I don't generally edit Israel-related articles on Wikipedia and was completely neutral when it came to the RfC on this page.  The fact that I am Jewish should have no bearing on my ability to close an RfC, any more than an African American wouldn't be precluded from closing a dispute on Barack Obama or an American wouldn't be disallowed from settling a dispute on a topic related to the USA.  In reality, there was no other way to close this RfC.  What did you think was going to happen, the infobox would say "illegally occupied"?  The current state of the lead, outlining the claims of all sides, is the only neutral way to determine the issue. Oren0 (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Oren0 can not be considered neutral to this subject, of course he is gonna side with Israel" - I think you're framing the dispute here the wrong way. This isn't the United Nations.  The dispute on this page is not one between Israel and Syria, it's a dispute between Wikipedia editors who believe that the correct NPOV term is "occupied" versus those who believe that the correct NPOV term is "disputed."  Not all editors here are citizens or supporters of either nation, and even if they are that doesn't imply one side of the dispute they must be on.  Not everyone carries their politics or nationality on their sleeves.  I'm also curious why you believe that I "side[d] with Israel", given that I support the lead as it currently is, immediately rattling off a list of those who consider the land to be occupied.  For the record, the reason I closed this is because my background gives me more historical context than someone who is totally unfamiliar with the issue, but at the same time I'm not so close to the issue to not act impartially.  Rather than question my beliefs or motives, I would ask that you look at the material of my close and tell me if, independent of who wrote it, you believe it to be biased or unfair.  If so, I'm curious how you believe the discussion could have been resolved more fairly. Oren0 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oren0, I for one am not questioning your objectivity here, but what you wrote above shows the problem in the RfC. There was no serious suggestion for it to say "Illegally occupied", the choice was "Occupied territory", which I think is clear the sources provided above, such as BBC, NYTimes and others, is correct terminology, and "Disputed". It is unfortunate that so much of the discussion got sidetracked on what I feel is a strawman argument. Of the editors who felt that "occupied" should be used not many said we should say "illegally" in Wikipedia's narrative NPOV voice, just "occupied". I for one felt those disputing the term "occupied" did so with no sources backing them up, and when presented with undeniably RSs that say "occupied" without qualification just shrugged it off. But I for one am not about to start another dispute resolution process on this one, it is too contentious of an issue for people to actually come to a consensus on the matter. But it does annoy me that sources are just shrugged off and OR such as "but there is no military occupation in the Golan" is presented without any source backing it up. I really don't see how we (Wikipedia) make a judgement by using the word occupied. But the RfC is closed so no need to continue arguing I suppose. Nableezy (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a one month long debate on weather we should call Jerusalem as "the capital of Israel" or call it "disputed". Eventually the decision was made that we should stick by the dictionary definition that actually Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and neglect all other factors. And now, the decision is made that Golan Heights are "disputed territories", ignoring the dictionary definition and ignoring the mainstream sources. And ironically some of the editors who voted for "Jerusalem dictionary definition" want to ignore the dictionary definition here, and ignore the RS's. That's just an example of wikipedia bias. Imad marie (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not at all the decision that was made. We explicitly will not use the terms "disputed territory" or "occupied territory" as statements of fact.  Instead, we will make sourced claims about who considers the territories to be "disputed" versus "occupied".  See the first paragraph of this article. Oren0 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, as I recall the idiotic Jerusalem debate, there were something like a dozen reliable sources stating unequivocally that Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel. The Golan Heights is not as cut and dry.  --GHcool (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, we have not provided a number of reliable sources that state unequivocally that the Golan is, in fact, Syrian territory occupied by Israel?  nableezy  - 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Map
What is wrong with the existing map, which shows and names the surrounding countries? The new map imparts much less information. Add "Israel" and "Syria" in a neutral manner and I will reconsider. Viewfinder (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Fipplet added the new map, I reverted it, then Fipplet put it back without giving any new reason in edit summary or here. Per WP:BRD it is better to try to get consensus before reinstating challenged edits. The old map is completely neutral about whether the Golan is in Israel or Syria. What is wrong with that? Why do we need a new one? Viewfinder (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to take a look at each of these maps. 2 maps were modified from 1 source (the CIA). The original map (File:Golan heights rel89-orig.jpg as taken from here) shows the Golan Heights marked as Syrian territory with "Israeli occupied" in the occupied area and the UNDOF zone sectioned off as well. This was modified to create the plainly bogus piece of propaganda File:Golan heights rel89.jpg in which a wikipedia editor removed the words "Israeli occupied" and moved the word Syria from the Golan and placed Israel on the Golan. That such a map could even be considered as appropriate for an encyclopedia article is baffling, but I prefer not to get into that. Another map was created from this File:Golan heights rel89B.jpg, which moved the word Israel out of the occupied territory and back into Israel proper, but did not place "Syria" where it had been originally, side-stepping the issue completely. That is what had been in the article for some time. I think the File:Golan heights rel89.jpg map is clearly bogus and merits no discussion as to whether it should be included which leaves us with a decision of the other two. Now while it may appear "neutral" to have a map with neither Israel nor Syria being shown on the Golan, I contest that it is non-neutral to change what a RS says to fit the views of wikipedia editors. Especially when we cite it as a CIA map of the territory. If we do that we should have the actual CIA map (File:Golan heights rel89-orig.jpg), not something that distorts the views of the CIA (indeed, the views of most of the world) as to what country that territory is in and its current status. We have a map from a RS in map-making that is freely available, why should we use something from a non-RS (read the imaginations of a random wikipedia editor)? Nableezy (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And for those who want to say the CIA map is biased, the US government doesn't exactly have a history of being biased against Israel. We took a map from Israel's strongest ally, I do not see how that can be said to be biased against Israel. Nableezy (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I more or less agree with Nableezy on the map issue. While version 89B is the most neutral, I have serious concerns about moving the country labels on a map across international borders, changing the intended meaning of the map – especially when the map is from a reliable source, and not user-generated content. Version 89B may be acceptable, as long as it isn't identified as a map created by the CIA, because the modifications made to it fundamentally change the demarcations identified by the CIA. I would prefer to use the original CIA map, or find another map that is from a reliable source and doesn't require any modifications to make it acceptable to other editors. ←  George [ talk  ] 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The CIA map was replaced by a pro-Israeli editor who found a modification in which the word "Israel" was moved onto the Golan the "Syria" moved off. I then modified this map to move both off, this was most neutral. The original CIA map upholds the official US POV - that the Golan is in Syria, which is not neutral. OK, if other editors agree that we should not have modified this map, then we are better not to use it. But whatever map we use should show Israel and Syria, otherwise it fails to impart essential information. Not all readers know the geography. Viewfinder (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * George, 89b is not the most neutral, the international community sees it as part of Syria, to claim anything else is the opposite of neutral.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 89B is more neutral than the original CIA version. Whatever the international community's position, the de facto situation must also be taken into account. Viewfinder (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The de facto situation is that it is Syria and recognized as as such by the whole international community. To say that its not and ad a map that puts Syria in the same position as Israel to a land area that is Syria, is not neutral.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is the issue of Wikipedia editors' opinions not matching up to what is neutral among reliable sources internationally, or English-speakers worldwide. Viewfinder wrote that "the official US POV - that the Golan is in Syria... is not neutral." However, neutral or not, I'm not sure that it doesn't constitute a super-majority view. The view that the Earth is round may not be neutral because not everyone agrees, but so few people think that the Earth is flat that we ignore it as a super-minority view. I've requested sources stating who disagrees with the term "occupied" – Israeli settlers? The government of Israel? Certain scholars? – but nobody has provided such sources, instead citing their own vague conclusions on avoidance of the term "occupied" in the media. For that matter, who claims that the area is a part of Israel? Anyone? That said, I'm not opposed to the modified CIA map, which doesn't label the area as anything other than the Golan Heights, as long as it isn't cited as being from the CIA, which would imply that the POV of the CIA matches the (possibly skewed) POV of Wikipedia editors. ← George [ talk  ] 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

89b is neutral if you define neutrality as treating two sides equally, regardless of how reliable sources treat those sides. I dont define neutral like that, I define it as taking account minority viewpoints but not allowing those views to override wide-ranging consensus among reliable sources. Thats just me though. And 89-orig does take the current situation into account, it says "Israeli occupied" for the region Israel currently occupies. Nableezy (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The de facto situation is that the Golan is administered as an integral part of Israel, even though the rest of world does not think it ought to be. Syria plays no part in and has no control over its administration. Therefore I have a problem with any map on which the word "Syria" encroaches onto the Golan in a manner that implies that it does play a part. Viewfinder (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The de facto situation is that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. "Occupied" implies "administered" or "controls". Placing "Syria" on territory recognized to be Syrian territory is what maps do. And, again, I would like to raise the point that nobody has provided a single RS disputing that it is Syrian territory, whereas a plethora of sources (government sources, NGO sources, media sources) showing that it is Syrian territory have been presented. Nobody has presented a single RS disputing that the territory is occupied by Israel. This entire argument has been one "side" providing source after source and the other "side" just saying no. Nableezy (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the de facto situation should be reflected, I felt that the label "(Israeli occupied)" under the name "Golan Heights" achieved what you're suggesting – identifying both who controls and administers the area (Israel), as well as who "the rest of the world" thinks it belongs to (Syria). ← George [ talk  ] 22:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

89B was stable for about two years. It neither states nor implies anything incorrect and I thought it had been accepted by all. I will be sorry if it goes. Viewfinder (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with it as long as nobody is identifying it as the CIA map in the article. Is it the perfect map? No, and I don't think it's totally neutral (neutral meaning reflective of reliable sources in the world), but it's probably good enough if it helps avoids an edit war. I'm not going to touch the map, unless someone replaces either of those two semi-neutral versions with something silly. ← George [ talk  ] 23:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Intersitingly enough, I was called a troll for posing some serious question above, while you are conducting an endless discussion about some details on a map. 79.179.42.116 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On topic discussion is part of the dispute resolution process; discussion that wanders off topic usually isn't. ← George [ talk  ] 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that you delete any criticism on your work and refuse to take into account useful comments, you should consider deleting the word "free" from Wikipedia's title. In the article about hummus someone told me that bringing more information about the origins of the word is cooperating with a cultural theft. Here you delete my comments and claim that genuine useful information about the Golan is redundant as opposed to the position of the name "Syria" on the map, which you consider crucial. Forgive me for being a bit harsh, but have you ever considered the damage of your attitude? 79.179.42.116 (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, yes I have. I have determined that my attitude is damaged and damaging. Any other questions? Because we are trying to write an encyclopedia article, and what country the Golan Heights is in is kind of important for the article to be accurate about. Much more than what type of luggage brands are the most common among Israeli tourists visiting. Nableezy (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to miss the point here, over and over again. If you want to know within which political entity the Golan Heights are today - that's the State of Israel. You won't get any better answer, for the reasons I mentioned above (if they are still visible, if not, use the history tab). If you want to be informative, there are several criteria you need to check - which legal system is used in the region, from where the region can be accessed, which authority is responsible for the residents, etc. I'll give you another example - until June 1967 it was commonly accepted that the West Bank is part of Jordan. Only the UK officially recognized the West Bank as part of the Hashemite Kingdom, but for any practical reason, people regarded the region as Jordan. Similarly, most countries regard Taiwan as part of PRC, but for any practical purpose it is regarded as an independant country. The official position of governments and international organizations is a valuable piece of information, but if you really want to serve the purpose of Wikipedia you job is to be informative - i.e. to reflect facts and not positions or views. 79.179.42.116 (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not that I miss your point, it is that your point is completely contradicted by every single source. The Golan Heights are not "within" the state of Israel. The Golan Heights are not in Israel. Nobody recognizes the Golan Heights to be in Israel, nobody. The Golan Heights are under Israeli occupation and are administered by Israel, but that does not make it in Israel. Similarly, from 48-67 Jordan was occupying the West Bank. It was not a part of Jordan. (And it is funny how we dont have a problem of using the word "occupation" in that context, as in Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan or Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt, but have an inability to so the same for any of the territories occupied by Israel) A state does not "occupy" its own territory, it can only "occupy" another country's territory. The sources are unambiguous about this, the Golan Heights are not in Israel, they are not Israeli territory, and they are under belligerent occupation by Israel. Israel controls the territory by occupation, that does not make it a part of Israel. Please stop spouting nonsense, it is clear you have not the slightest understanding of this issue. Nableezy (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As you might have noticed, the accuracy of the article about the Jordanian rule of the West Bank is questioned, so you might as well correct that article too and finally remove that template. You try to drag me into a debate about the meaning ofthe term "occupation" and you keep referring to opinions (in this case governments or international organizations' opinions) as if they were facts. There is a famous tale of a Turkish sailor who was sent to Malta and couldn't find it, so he reported "Malta yok", i.e. Malta doesn't exist. You seem to go with this sailor's attitude. If you take maps reflecting the UN or the State Departments' opinions (rather than those reflecting their real knowlege) you won't ever find The Republic of China (namely Taiwan). Now, would you like Wikipedia to reflect opinions or facts? Getting back to the question of the WB and Gaza (thanks for pointing that out), the Egyptian rule in Gaza was indeed defined as an occupation by the Egyptians themselves, while the West Bank was considered (in practice) inseparable part of Jordan until June 1967, was closely tied with Jordan until 1988. 79.179.42.116 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just the UN or various countries or the ICRC or other NGOs, but other sources such as BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, the NY Times, the Washington Post, Haaretz, and countless scholarly sources acknowlege this to be a plain fact. Not a single reliable source has been provided saying that either the Golan is in Israel or that Israel does not occupy the Golan or that the Golan is not in Syria. I am not debating the meaning of the word occupation, I am asserting a fact that is backed by sources. The Golan Heights are not in Israel, they are Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Your words are meaningless in the face of sources that are unambiguous in backing up these facts. If you want to say that the Golan Heights are in Israel then get a blog, in an encyclopedia that will not fly in the face of countless sources that contradict it. Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For some reason you insist on answering me with oranges while I'm talking apples. All the sources you bring are meant to communicate political positions or report about political opinions. I am talking about facts on the ground. If you look "occupation" up in Merriam-Webster or Oxford dictionaries, you will find out that the common Enlgish defionition of the word is: establishing foreign military regime in a certain country or part of it ( 3rd definition b-c definition 2). This common understanding of the term might be relevant to the situation prior to 1981, it is not relevant today. It is also not relevant to the situation in the West Bank before 1967, nor to the situation in Western Sahara. In all of these cases there is definitely a dispute, sometime even a bitter dispute, but no occupation. Now, keep in mind that we are talking about plain factual information, i.e. you should bring sources that show that the Israeli army regularly administers the Golan Heights. Currently all the evidences show that there are no special restrictions whatsoever in the territory or on its residents. The pre-1967 residents are even entitled to Israeli citizenship. 79.179.42.116 (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is retarded, there is no dispute among anybody who has the slightest understanding of the issue as to what the current status of the Golan is. It is an indisputable fact that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. None of the "points" you bring or "facts" you provide mean anything that contradicts that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. I am not going to let you waste another second of my time; if you have a source that says that the Golan is Israeli territory provide it, if not then stop the douchery. Nableezy (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote the very first line from Wikipedia's core content policy on verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." It doesn't matter what you think the "facts on the ground" are, only what verifiable sources say. Kindly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. ← George [ talk  ] 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break
back to the map issue - the altered map should definitely go. its misleading, making the golan look like a small country between syria and israel, and it has been falsified to portray a so-called "neutral" picture. i haven't seen any reliable sources which dispute that it is occupied either, and therefore think the original cia map, with occupied territory marked, is the best one. untwirl (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A note for the record - my remarks here are constantly censored, and I received a threat according to which I will be blocked if I continue to write here, unless being supervised by another Israeli. DrorK (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I accidently revealed my true identity, so you can block both me and my IP address. Nevertheless, I hope the lesson is learned. This debate is political, not about information. I know this kind of "tricks" are formally forbidden, but there was no other way to prove to falasies in this debate. DrorK (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been purposefully trolling here and at Talk:Humus, and now you say this is a threat to block you? Stop trolling, you have been making plainly false assertions turning this into a "political" debate based on your warped views and nothing else (as anybody can see you have yet to provide a single source for a single word you wrote as your ip here). I for one do not want to deal with any more inanity, if you want to stay then stop trolling, if not then actually do what you said you wanted to do and leave.  nableezy  - 08:33 10.07.2009 (UTC)
 * Drork, don't be silly. Also, don't use static IPs. You also might want to read some Karl Popper. You have some misconceptions about 'proof'.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ..and I hope that my answers to your questions at 79.179.42.116 written before I knew it was you make you feel bad now. They should.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Without taking a side in the debate at hand, Wikipedia is notorious for labeling people "trolls" based upon whether or not the majority of the editors in the debate agree or disagree with a vocal user. Its much easier to dismiss someone we disagree with as a "troll" than to debate the merits of their input. That said, we all possess inherant bias. The best we can do is try to look beyond our own insecurities and internal flaws; the end result should be an informative, all inclusive, article, not one that mirrors our pre-conceived outcome. Now lets return to debating the merits of a map, rather than who we think "is" and "is not" a troll. --Nsaum75 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * the "merits of his input" were discussed at length, including the providing of several wp policies and reliable sources. if someone just typed "ignore troll" and then didn't respond, i could see your point.  since that didn't happen, your post doesn't really apply to this situation.  bring sources and we'll discuss them, but opinions, "truth" and "facts on the ground" don't (and shouldn't) trump RS.  untwirl (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that you guys should try to compromise. "Compromise " means first figure out what are the two sides of the argument, then try to find some way to find a compromise between them. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. Let's start with the unaltered CIA map (File:Golan heights rel89-orig.jpg). Given that the CIA World Factbook is cited 12 times in the Israel article, by far the most cited RS, do we have any evidence that this map misrepresents anything or gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * by the way, taking a single source, and asking why anyone would diasagree with that single particular source, is not the best way to begin discussing compromise. if other people have other sources, that is considered valid around here. so now let's try to always look at others sources as well and to try to consider them. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry, that is not a way to compromise. The way to compromise is that if other good-faith editors have a totally opposed viewpoint, you find a way to hear their proposals, and then to provide a compromise which somehow is responsive to their points of view also.


 * I know you think that would be wrong, because you think your viewpoint is right and theirs is wrong. but (striking my text which I wrote due to my misreading of other editor's legitimate comments and suggestion.) compromising on Wikipedia means accepting that some knowledgable people may legitimately have some opinions which are totally different than yours. you need to accept that their opinion has some value, and start finding ideas and ways to edit the article in a way that both sides consider somewhat useful. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't have a viewpoint on this issue that is of any importance at all. I'm not an RS. Perhaps another approach would be a bottom up approach i.e. what are the important/key elements that we think the map should show ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Sorry, by the way, I have just reread the discussion a bit more closely. I misunderstood your suggestion earlier. I agree, using the unaltered map as it appears in the actual source might be a good way to address some of these things. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

 * According to Noam Chomsky, lots of authoritative American sources refer to thef Golan Heighs as disputed territories, Chomsky prefers to say ""occupied."


 * Beverley Milton-Edwards, no friend of Israel, confirms Chomsky's opinion.


 * Even John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt refer to the Golan Heights as "disputed territory". in the The Israel Lobby (p. 268)  They are livid about this, and totally pro-Syrian, but they call it like it is in this case, and this territory is disputed.


 * These are outrageous libels against both Walt, who himself happens to be Jewish, and Mearsheimer. (And the author of the libels provides no evidence to back them up.) They should be surely be removed from Wikipedia. Supercarpenter (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * blp vios removed.  nableezy  - 01:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Disputed Territory is the phrase that people apply to the Golan Heights  when they are attempting to sound neutral or objective .  Even people like Noam Chomsky who have strongly and well-known anti-Israel opinions.Historicist (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read what you cite instead of just googling phrases, you will see that the "disputed territories" title in the second link is used for the West Bank and Gaza (and people who try to sound neutral, objective and accurate rightly call these territories occupied, those who are virulently biased will say disputed). The second link does not discuss the term disputed as it relates to the Golan, only Gaza and the West Bank. The first one is describing what one person not affiliated with the government of Israel used, so that hardly shows that the government of Israel disputes that the Golan is occupied. And that source itself shows the absurdity of calling these territories disputed and that the term disputed is biased. But to "call it like it is" in this case (and for the oPt) is to say the territories are occupied. No serious commentator on international law has said otherwise. The term "disputed territories" is itself incredibly biased, as it is the term favored by one "side" and nobody else, whereas the term occupied is used by the whole world when discussing these territories. Might want to try again to prove your point, but the fact is it cannot be proven because it is nonsense. Nableezy (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And as much as I like Noam Chomsky he did make a mistake in that book, the US does not support the "annexation" of the Golan, in fact there are sources that say the US views the Golan as Israeli-occupied territory subject to withdrawal by Israel. Nableezy (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are sources that say "occupied," but the NPOV thing to say is "disputed"Historicist (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, I guess that settles it. There are of course two problems with that, the first being it has not even been shown that Israel disputes that the Golan is occupied, the second being that it is most certainly not NPOV to use the chosen language of one side in the issue and ignore what the whole world says. That qualifies as a fringe theory given greater weight than international consensus. That may fit your definition of NPOV, but thankfully not Wikipedia's. Nableezy (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your first source, Chomsky, is actually saying that "disputed territory" is an inaccurate word for describing the Golan Heights, and he's claiming that the term is being used to whitewash history – specifically when people are trying to not be neutral or objective. Your second source is talking about the Palestinian territories, not the Golan. I'm not sure the point of your third source. I fully agree that the area is disputed, but I also think that Israel's control of the area is most commonly referred to as "occupied". Now – and this is critical to understand – two people can dispute who should own a piece of land, and the one who currently controls it can still be considered an occupier – the terms are not mutually exclusive. The opposite of "occupied" isn't "disputed", it's "not occupied". It's also not a question of what the most vocal critics of Israel think, it's a question of what is most commonly used internationally, which is the term "occupied". ← George [ talk  ] 22:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The UN and International Court of Justice call the territories occupied. They can be disputed as well, but as far as I know "disputed" isn't a legal term. The territories are occupied in the sense of e.g. the Fourth Geneva Convention, so it could be correct to say "occupied and disputed", however the legal status is "belligerent occupation" which is a well-understood term. Belligerent occupation is also the status of the territories according to the Israeli Supreme Court in 2004 (Beit Sourik Village Council v. the Government of Israel: paragraph 23, HCJ 2056/04, Beit Sourik Village Council v. the Government of Israel and the Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, 30 June 2004.) "The general point of departure of all parties – which is also our point of departure – is that Israel holds the area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica)." http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/04/560/020/A28/04020560.a28.pdf --Dailycare (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this does it, Ill ad "Occupied/Belligerent occupied"--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)