Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-20 Syria


 * Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Request details
Consensus cannot be reached over the NPOV naming of the section about Israel and the Golan Heights.

What's going on?
User:Terrillja and User:Shirulashem have tried to keep the title of the section as "Israel and the Golan Heights", User:Zozo2kx and anon user 85.227.151.163 have tried to keep the title of the section as "Israel occupation of Golan Heights".

What would you like to change about that?
Provide an outside perspective to the disagreement, User:Zozo2kx has mentioned on talkpage that they would like it bring it up with an admin.

Administrative notes

 * Opened case Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 09:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors have come to an agreement, case closed. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 08:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
It is explicitly mentioned in the article International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict, that "The international consensus, excepting the U.S. in some cases, is that:
 * The annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are illegal and not recognized by international law"

I can't see why using the "occupied" would be considered POV. Yazan (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to point all interested users to Naming conventions (events), a widely accepted Wikipedia policy. This policy states that when discussing an event, the title should tell you where the incident happened and also what happened. Israel and the Golan Heights tells people the where the event happened (Golan Heights), but it fails to mention what happened. On the other hand, Israel occupation of Golan Heights tells the reader both where (Golan Heights) and what (Israel occupation) happened. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 09:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I could see that if the section was called Israeli capture of the Golan Heights, and just talked about how Israel captured the Golan Heights. However, the section is not just about a specific event, rather it is about the event of the heights being captured and also about current life there (selling apples and such). --Terrillja (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about renaming this article (German occupation of France during World War II into German capture of France during World War II)? It also talks about the life under occupation, should we just go on and name it Germany and France during WWII?. There is an international consensus on calling it Occupation. -- Yazan (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... How can be the mediator? Guy0307 (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment By definition, defining something as an "occupation" is POV. Refer to this article. I don't think we should argue about the facts, because we won't agree. What I feel we should be discussing is whether the word occupation is NPOV. In addition, as the article points out, since at least the US and Israel classify this as a disputed territory, not an occupied territory, isn't that sufficient evidence that it's not clear cut? Why don't we just call it disputed territory, which is 100% neutral?? Shirulashem (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If a reputed encyclopaedia like Britannica calls it occupation, I dont see why we cant. "The area was part of extreme southwestern Syria until 1967, when it came under Israeli military occupation,". Or the CIA Fact Book - "Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied with the almost 1,000-strong UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) patrolling a buffer zone since 1964;"... They dont consider the word occupation POV. Yazan (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Possible resolution Am I allowed to admit that I might be wrong? :-) After reviewing the entry from the CIA and Britannica, perhaps it is correctly referred to as occupied. Maybe the issue is whether the occupation is justified, which is obviously a completely different topic. Therefore, I personally can't find any further justification for not noting that it's "occupied." As long as the facts in the article are properly sited. ;-) Shirulashem (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree to these terms. --Terrillja (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That works for me. :) -- Yazan (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)