Jump to content

Talk:Golan Heights

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request add word to opening paragraph

[edit]

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)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]
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)[reply]
Fixed. Zerotalk 02:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

[edit]

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)[reply]

Removing one-sided POV from lede

[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

<- 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)[reply]

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. Zerotalk 15:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Same content, in the body

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The sources can be added in the article body, without the need for any footnotes. Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. WP:LEADCITE. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deaf. Selfstudier (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Blocked for a week from the article for his troubles. Selfstudier (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
'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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The UNSC ruled, the international community considers. nableezy - 19:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, I don't hugely oppose the further specificity if others don't either. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golan_Heights&oldid=1238353776"