Talk:Golan Heights


MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV discussion

I see editors are debating on the order of translations of this region, editors should discuss options for showing different languages. Guz13 (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an issue prior to it being changed by @ScottyNolan unilaterally with no reason and without consensus, although no doubt in the spirit of good faith. It was a stable article so it is incumbent for those wanting to change such a minute detail to adhere to WP:BRD and explain to us the reasoning please. JJNito197 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Guz13, the original long standing version is where Arabic is before Hebrew, this order should not be changed without consensus reached at the talkpage.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "longstanding version" seems to be the result of this discussion which had WP:NOCONSENSUS since there was strong disagreement on both sides regarding this change. Additionally, as a result, the longstanding version of the Hebrew being first was unilaterally changed to being Arabic first. Also it must be noted that WP:CCC and since there was limited discussion on this change (which occurred a very long time ago), this is worth revisiting. Consensus was not reached here and the topic requires additional discussion for a proper consensus to be reached. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you acknowledge the article has been WP:STABLE since 2009? JJNito197 (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Gjb0zWxOb, And in 2006 it had arabic first: [1], where was the consensus for the change? In the 2009 discussion whether you believe there was no consensus or not - the version with arabic first has been there for over 1 and a half decade. So if you want to change it it needs consensus at the talkpage before a change. You shouldn't engage in an edit war to forcibly change it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We are engaging in discussion now and if you look below at @Metallurgist's comment, he seems to make a pretty compelling case that the way this article is structured makes it an outlier as far as articles of this type go. Also, importantly, according to the article, Hebrew speakers are in the majority with 31,000 speakers in the region versus 24,000 Arabic speakers. Given the absence of specific policy, logic would dictate that the majority language of a region should be the one listed first in the article. Additionally, the situation on the ground is a bit paradoxical since road signs in Israel have Hebrew first, then Arabic, then English. This means that in the Golan itself, the order on road signs is Hebrew first and Arabic second. The Wikipedia article is an outlier in having the Arabic first and the Hebrew second. WP:CCC and I think in this case, it should. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Metallurgists comments below doesn't hold up as he has brought up several Spanish locations that are not internationally recognized as North African. The Golan Heights is internationally recognized as Syrian including by the United Nations. Metallurgist also brought up Jerusalem, but East Jerusalem that Palestinians are claiming has Arabic first. Several other locations Metallurgist brought up like Kuril Islands and Paektu Mountain have history and international recognition very different from the Golan Heights, so they also cant be applied here. Regarding the "Hebrew speakers" you speak of, these are Israeli settlers that according to international law have illegally moved into Syrian territory (Golan Heights) and that repeated UN resolutions have condemned their presences inside the Golan Heights. See: United Nations Security Council Resolution 452, United Nations Security Council Resolution 465 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 471. You can not put illegal Israeli settlers and their illegally imposed road signs in the same position as the indigenous Syrian population that speak Arabic.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What does "international recognition" mean to you? And can you point to where in our WP:PG "international recognition", if such a thing could even clearly be demonstrated, is the determining factor for which language would appear first on this page (or any other for that matter)? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
International view:[2] and [3]. See also: [4]. Based on that there is really no valid reason to put a different country's language before Syria's in the lead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The valid reason[s] is that the majority of the people who live in that region are Hebrew speakers, Hebrew is placed first on all of the road signs and every fact of life in the region indicates that Hebrew is the dominant language. This double standard is not and would not be exercised on any other page as indicated by the plethora of examples Metallurgist listed. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We are going around in circles at this point. This has been repeatedly replied to several times in this discussion now. The majority are not Hebrew speakers, the majority are Arabic speakers if you also count the eastern Golan Heights. Also the language of the Israeli settlers doesn't matter as they're presence in the territory is regarded as illegal by the international community. So the Hebrew speaking Israeli settlers are not legal residents or have any rights to be there. All the examples by Metallurgist were not the same as Golan Heights.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show us the policy where the majority speaking XYZ is what takes precedence, because I am sure that there are numerous countries with official languages that are a minority language, where this does not apply. I am not sure why it ever would. As for the rest, that is just blah blah righting great wrongs. It doesnt matter what the Israelis are, they are there, they arent going anywhere. Discounting them is entirely irrelevant. And you have not refuted most of my examples as far as I know, altho I have a bit to catch up on still. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The majority speaking arabic is part of it, those speaking arabic are also legal residents on their land, while Israeli settlers are according to the views of the international community not legal residents and have settled on other peoples lands, so why would their language matter? The area is also internationally regarded as Syria, not Israel. This discussion is not going anywhere, and its time to close it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that the de facto language in the territory for over 50 years is Hebrew. Anything else is WP:RGW. Guz13 (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted to the stable version. That article state is the proper context for discussion. Given that there is a decent chance the discussion will be targeted by accounts employing deception via sockpuppetry and accounts that are susceptible to off-wiki activism, and given that things like this are not really of interest to the wider community, it may not be possible to establish "a proper consensus". Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reviewing this discussion, I'm inclined to agree that there indeed was no consensus. Surely brute perseverance to preserve one version over the other cannot be construed as consensus. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In 2006 Arabic was first:[5] Could you show me the consensus for putting hebrew before arabic? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for either, which is why it is being discussed. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the old discussion linked above and I don't see any consensus established or any RFCs. The change seems to have started from this comment: "I want to change so the Arabic text and translation is before the Hebrew one." I don't see a "proper consensus". And WP:stable is an essay. And if we follow "stable," it says "Restoring the article to a stable version is not required, nor is it encouraged by any policy or guideline". Guz13 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you similarly explain the fundemental tenet WP:BRD and why by continuing to revert without discussion, you are acting in contravention of it? I have just restored to last stable due to this principle like others. Please discuss on talk and reach a consensus. If one hasn't been formed yet, there is no ground to stand on anyway. JJNito197 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We are doing the discussion right now. And I stated that I don't see any consensus established and that "WP:STABLE" is not a policy. Guz13 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having stable articles is something we as Wikipedians strive for; it's indicative of a good article (WP:GACR) foremostly, and when not evident and the article is unstable, it does not qualify to be a good article. Thus, if an article then becomes unstable it's indicative upon the party to explain why as a result of their actions we should not view their actions as dimming the integrity of the project at large, especially as principles which pleasant editors follow like WP:BRD are not acknowledged. JJNito197 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the argument for the change anyway? This is an occupied territory with limited recognition. In similar articles (Mariupol in occupied Ukraine, Kyrenia or Famagusta in occupied Northern Cyprus), the standard appears to be using the widely internationally recognised name first, followed by the name used by the occupying force. The current state of the article is not only long‑standing and stable, but also consistent with standard usage elsewhere on Wikipedia. Qoan (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of bickering about technicalities, lets consider the actual issue. There is interest in revisiting this issue, which it looks like everyone agrees is worth a discussion. As far as I can tell, there is no policy guidance on language order for these types of situations. I thought to look for examples as Qoan did. Regarding those, Mariupol is still fresh and the war is active, so its not odd that it retains its status. We are also a bit light on Russia-sympathetic editors who would advocate changing the order. Kyrenia and Famagusta do indeed have Greek first, which is surprising tbh.
  • Meanwhile, Transnistria has Russian First.
  • South Ossetia has Ossetian, Russian, then Georgian. But prior to the Russian occupation, the order was Ossetian, Georgian, Russian. Abkhazia has the same situation.
  • The Kuril Islands, occupied since 1945, are Russian first, then Japanese.
  • Crimea, occupied since 2014, is Russian, Ukrainian, then Tatar. Looks like it was Ukrainian first before the seizure.
  • Donetsk Oblast, Kherson Oblast, and Luhansk Oblast are still Ukrainian first, but they were only recently occupied.
  • Paektu Mountain is Korean first, altho it is split and not really disputed...except by South Korea kinda.
  • Spratly Islands are probably the most fun. Filipino, Chinese, Malay, Vietnamese. I wonder what the logic is there. Going by total land area, it should be Filipino, Vietnamese, Chinese, Malay.
  • Western Sahara is legally recognized by pretty much everyone as controlled by Spain, but Spain largely abandoned it in the 70s. Morocco partially occupies it. Arabic first, then Spanish. SADR is the same.
  • Somali Region is Somali first, then Amharic.
  • Ceuta is Spanish then Arabic.
  • Melilla is Spanish then Tarifit.
  • Kashmir has neither Hindi nor Urdu.
  • And perhaps most relevant, Jerusalem is Hebrew then Arabic.
For the most part, it looks like if a territory is controlled for a substantial length of time, the controlling powers language is put first. More recent territorial changes retain the status quo. Its worth noting there is some talk on Mariupol about giving more acknowledgement of Russian control.
All in all, I think there is merit to putting Hebrew first. Israel has controlled the territory for nearly sixty years, has annexed it (unlike the West Bank), the US has recognized it (albeit recently), its unlikely Israel will ever relinquish it, the Druze residents are starting to change their loyalties, and the new Syrian government is supposedly somewhat open to ceasing their claim to it (see [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] (rebels in 2014)). I found a few other sources and references, but couldnt trace them, which is infuriating.
There are other sources that dispute this. And there are sources that say Assad quietly conceded it, rumors are a dirham a dozen in the Middle East. But I just cant see how it would ever be returned; its far too strategic. I think we are likely to see normalization in the next 5-10 years, and Syria will end up formally conceding the Golan. CRYSTALBALL perhaps, but if anyone can demonstrate an alternative scenario, Im all ears eyes. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If Syria would cede the Golan in the future, then that is a discussion for the future, we cant make a change today about what might happen or not happen in the future. Just last month the UN ambassador thanked countries for "The broad support for Syria’s national position, particularly regarding its sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan" [11]. Today the area is internationally recognized as part of Syria including by the United Nations. Syria's official language is arabic, not hebrew. It wouldn't be appropriate to have the language of an invading occupier before the native language of the sovereign nation being invaded.
And in regards to the other articles you mentioned, Ceuta for example, it is not internationally recognized as Moroccan, so you cant really compare it with the GH. Also, Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights all have hebrew first, see for example: Had Ness and Metzar. And Palestinians are only claiming East Jerusalem not west Jerusalem, and that article has arabic before hebrew.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This isnt about what might or might not happen. Its the reality on the ground, an appraisal of the situation, and an analysis of analogous situations. If you can explain to me realistically how or why Israel would ever cede the Golan back to Syria, I would love to read it. If we are going by international recognition, then Western Sahara should be Spanish first. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are internationally recognized as part of Georgia, so that should be Georgian before Russian. Transnistria is internationally recognized as part of Moldova, so that should be Romanian before Russian etc. And fwiw, the Palestinians claim all of Jerusalem and all of Israel as Palestine, which is why the conflict has persisted for so long and the territory is disputed. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is Western Sahara internationally recognized as Spanish? Is Spanish the indigenous language? Both SADR and Morocco have Arabic as first language, once again, your are comparing apples with oranges. Same thing with other cases above in your list like Kuril Islands, Paektu Mountain, Ceuta, Melilla. The Golan heights is internationally recognized as Syrian and these other articles you brought up have a different history and international recognition. In regards to Crimea, it was Russian before 1954 and according to its article: 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language, 3.3% Ukrainian., same thing here, very different history and demographics from GH. Maybe some in the Palestinian street claim all of Jerusalem but in UN resolutions it is always about East Jerusalem and 1967 line and that article has Arabic first. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what about:
  • Transnistria: "officially known as the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR) and locally as Pridnestrovie, is a landlocked breakaway state internationally recognised as part of Moldova." -- Russian is first.
  • South Ossetia: "five members of the United Nations (UN) recognise South Ossetia as a sovereign state – Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Syria. The Georgian government and all other UN member states regard South Ossetia as sovereign territory of Georgia." -- Russian before Georgian.
  • Abkhazia: "the remainder of the international community recognizes Abkhazia as de jure part of Georgia." -- Russian before Georgian again.
  • Spratly Islands are disputed and controlled by five countries with four languages.
  • Western Sahara: "In 1976, Spain withdrew from Western Sahara and informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations that it no longer considers itself responsible for the territory. Nonetheless, the criminal division of the Spanish National High Court ruled in 2014 that Spain remains as Western Sahara's de jure administering power. This position is shared by the United Nations, the African Union, and several legal jurists. Additionally, Spain continues to exert control over Western Saharan civilian air traffic." -- Despite this, Arabic is first. Also, if we are going with indigenous languages, perhaps it should be Aramaic or Circassian first for the Golan Heights?
  • Somali Region is part of Ethiopia, but Somali first, then Amharic.
So on what basis are these the way they are, but this is somehow sui generis? And on what basis is international recognition of something prescribing the order of the languages? It looks to me like we go with the longtime controlling power.
As for Crimea, the Tatars were deported during Stalins rule, "[t]he peninsula was resettled with other peoples, mainly Russians and Ukrainians", "the government settled Russians and other Slavs in the region and promoted Tatarophobia amongst them", and "90% of toponyms were changed in 1944–1949 from mostly Crimean Tatar to Russian." This was of course long before 2014 to present, when Russia again deported people and replaced them with up to a million Russians. Not to mention you are arguing differently here. For the Golan Heights, you are saying it is internationally recognized as part of Syria. For Crimea, you are saying, despite being internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, because the (forced colonized) demographics of Crimea being supposedly majority Russian, Russian should be first there. Which is it? ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Transnistra, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are partially recognized states, so not the same situation as Golan Heights, SO also has Ossetian language first. Just because the UN views that Spain is the de jure administering power in Western Sahara, doesn't mean the territory belongs to Spain. Qoan brought several examples above: (Mariupol in occupied Ukraine, Kyrenia or Famagusta in occupied Northern Cyprus), all having the international recognized countries language before occupying power. Same as East Jerusalem and Shebaa Farms. Why should we cherry pick certain articles and then disregard others?
Keep in mind also that this Golan Heights article is not only about the two thirds of the GH that Israel occupied in 1967 and later annexed. Its also about the Golan Heights east of the ceasefire line where there are more then 100 000 Sunni Arabs living:[12]. They only speak arabic, not hebrew. There are only Arab road signs there (that someone else cared about above). So Arabs are the vast majority of the population over the entire region, not (illegal) Israeli settlers. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Golan is partially recognized as part of Israel as well. They still are largely recognized as part of Moldova and Georgia respectively, yet the administrating power is mentioned first. I already addressed Mariupol and similar. The conflict is still active, whereas other disputed territories have gone cold and we recognize the administrating power as predominant.
Well the dispute is about the two-thirds that Israel annexed. And the majority of the population isnt really material to anything. There are many examples of places where the majority speaks X and the article will favor Y. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Though it seems like there is at least rough consensus for Hebrew before Arabic in the most recent discussion, what does everyone think about potentially removing both the Hebrew and the Arabic from the lead and infobox? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 03:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely NOT "rough consensus for Hebrew before Arabic". Consensus is based on factual arguments, not votes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Youre both wrong. Consensus is what satisfies the largest number of people balanced with the least amount of dissatisfaction for the others. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I said "rough". Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 13:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think your argument provides a very compelling case that the way this article is structured makes it an outlier on Wikipedia. We can debate on if consensus existed before but the fact remains that WP:CCC and the facts make it clear that the article in its current form is problematic. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not really an outlier at all as the majority of cases he brought up in the list above are a very different situation than the Golan Heights, see my above posts.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's only problematic if you view the position from the lens of Israel/USA. For the rest of the world this isn't an issue hence the resounding unanimous NO to the Golan being part of Israel, which is reflected here on this article. Not controversial and not problematic. JJNito197 (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points made about consistency and the relevance of longstanding administrative control. The comparisons to articles like Crimea and South Ossetia suggest that in similar situations, Wikipedia often reflects the language of the de facto controlling authority in the lead. I also haven’t seen any Wikipedia policy that says international recognition determines the order of languages in the lead. If there is one, it would be helpful to cite it. If not, the decision should reflect consistency across comparable articles rather than arguments about sovereignty. ScottyNolan (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we would go by "longstanding administrative control." as you want, this article is also about the Golan Heights deeper into Syria, east of the ceasefire line, so not only about the two thirds of the GH that Israel occupied in 1967 and later annexed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is shifting the goalposts. You are implicitly admitting that my arguments are correct, but we still should not car because another pile of rocks is also part of the territory, despite Israel not controlling until recently. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As others already explained, Hebrew-first makes sense because Israel has exercised continuous de facto control over the territory for decades, so giving Hebrew first reflects present-day usage more accurately than an order based only on formal sovereignty claims.Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument doesn't take into consideration that this Golan Heights article is not only about the two thirds of the GH that Israel occupied in 1967 and later annexed. Its also about the Golan Heights east of the ceasefire line, deeper into Syria where there are more then 100 000 Sunni Arabs living:[13]. They only speak arabic, not hebrew.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article is ambiguous: the lead defines the Golan Heights as the plateau as a whole, but several elements clearly center the Israeli-occupied area, including the main map, the population figure of about 55,000 split between Israeli settlers and Arabs, and the demographic discussion of Druze citizenship under Israeli rule, etc. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The population in the infobox used to also include the eastern Golan deeper into Syria, but someone removed it. The article is about the entire geographical region.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The short description is clear : Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967. This what this article is about. Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As again, to repeat, the Golan Heights is internationally recognised as occupied Syrian terrority by every country worldwide, bar Israel/USA. As Israel does not use English as a language, and as this is English wikipedia, this article as it stands reflects the unanimous English-speaking worlds position on the matter. If you believe that Golan belongs to Israel, feel free to read the Hebrew Wikipedia page. Per MOS FL, a single closely related language goes next to English, this being Arabic. Whether Israel has 'control' over it is irrelevant, facts are facts. JJNito197 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hebrew does not make sense first, as the native population speaks Arabic, the area is internationally recognised as illegally occupied, and we don't place "Russian" as the first language in Russian occupied parts of Ukraine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is inconsistent: Wikipedia does not automatically order languages by indigenous status or by the legality of control. Otherwise, Algeria would list Berber before Arabic, which it does not; Crimea lists Russian before Ukrainian; and the Golan Heights today has a Hebrew-speaking majority overall, even though the Druze population remains primarily Arabic-speaking. Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up photos of Golan Heights in the commons and the signs are all in Hebrew or English. I did see one sign that also has Arabic as a secondary language. It's pretty obvious the people living there speak Hebrew or English.
Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
Guz13 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the settler signs are in English and Hebrew, I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. The settlers are themselves there illegally, so it is irrelevant whether they are the majority or not. Analogies with countries like Algeria whose current demographics were established centuries ago have nothing to do with illegal settlements put in place long after international law was formalised. Even Crimea has been majority Russian-speaking long before it was invaded. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article should reflect the defacto control of the settlers. I don't see the point of a reader coming to this page and thinking people there primarily speak Arabic when that isn't true. Guz13 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They are primarily speaking Arabic: [14], "By comparison, the WHO estimated the governorate’s population at 149 374.", this is not counting the Syrian Druze and Alawites in the Israeli occupied part of the GH. So arabic is used by about 180K Syrians on both sides of the ceasefire line. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the short description. This article is not about Quneitra Governorate. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the "2024 Israeli invasion of Syria" and "UNDOF supervision" sections which are exclusively about the GH deeper into Syria. There is also some info about Syrian villages east of the ceasefire line in the Syrian villages section. Yes, the majority of the article is about the two western thirds occupied by Israel in 1967 but its also about the entire GH region.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article is a mess. Some of the information should not be there. It should be consistent with the short description. In addition, this is how UN defines the Golan now. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because the one single user that added the short description decides the entire scope of the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the short description reflects a scope that is already widely used in reliable sources. There is already a separate article on Quneitra Governorate, so duplicating governorate-wide material here only creates confusion. Britannica gives the Golan Heights as about 1,150 km2, and Al Jazeera likewise describes it as a 1,150 sq km plateau.
Since you raise the point, the short description could indeed be changed to something more concise, such as "Golan Heights occupied by Israel" Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because the majority of sources focus on the Israeli occupation, but that doesn't mean that the area of the Golan not occupied by Israel in 1967 cant be mentioned here. The population in the Quneitra Governorate live in the Golan--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on recent reliable sources. The problem is not that sources focus on the occupied part, but that many of them define the Golan restrictively, not as Quneitra Governorate as a whole. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"On the Syrian Golan Heights, Israel uses the same tools of repression as in the West Bank" [15], "State Department defends Israeli occupation of Syrian Golan Heights" [16], "Talks between Israel and Syria could change the reality in Syrian Golan Heights", [17], All of these sources are talking about the eastern Golan Heights deeper into Syria, not the part occupied by Israel in 1967. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples are mostly journalistic shorthand and do not settle scope. Ray Murphy explicitly distinguishes between the broader geographic plateau and the usual political usage of the term: 'Reference to "the Golan Heights" has typically described the portion of the Syrian Golan that has been occupied by Israel since 1967.' Julian Cole Phillips uses the term in the same restrictive sense, writing that in 1967 Israel occupied '1,250 square kilometers of Syrian territory atop the Golan Heights.'Ray Murphy, Forgotten Rights: Consequences of the Israeli Occupation of the Golan HeightsJulian Cole Phillips, The Anti-Assad Campaign in the Occupied Golan Heights, 2011-2012 So this is not just about one editor or one short description: the academic sourcing already treat 'Golan Heights' primarily in the occupied-area sense. Even on this talk page, multiple editors - not just one - have discussed the article in those terms and supported a short description centered on the occupied territory. And to return to the original point, if that is the operative scope, then it is entirely normal to place first the language of the majority population within that scope. Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Golan Heights occupied by Israel" is a bit clunky and awkward, it is not generally a great idea to use the word you're defining in a definition, but "Territory occupied by Israel since 1967" is 39 characters, and works well while remaining inside the 40 character ideal short description length per WP:SDLENGTH. I updated that accordingly. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 23:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Iljhgtn, your version doesn't mention where the area is located, this is highly important. Area is internationally recognized as part of Syria and it is completely absent.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a better shorter SD than. It is supposed to be "short". Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 17:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How long does a population need to be primarily Hebrew-speaking before the order changes? Israel has maintained control of the Golan since 1967 (nearly 60 years), with Hebrew constituting the majority language in the region (31k Hebrew vs. 24k Arabic speakers). Roadsigns also reflect this with Hebrew being first per road signs in Israel. Is it 50 years? 75 years? 100 years? at what point does a de facto reality (i.e. stable majority and control) override pas demographics, absent a policy mandating international recognition for language order (which is not a policy i am aware of being in MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV or anywhere else).
Supreme Deliciousness failed to counter the majority of Metallurgist's examples. Transnistria has Russian first even though there is minimal recognition, Melilla also has Spanish before Arabic even though there are disputed claims and many other examples previously listed. Per WP:CCC and the examples mentioned, Hebrew>Arabic reflects the current de facto status and should be reflected as such. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't addressing that the "population" speaking hebrew are Israeli settlers who are regarded as illegal by the majority of the international community, so they are viewed as not having any right to be there. Hebrew is also not the majority language in the region as there are over 100K Syrians east of the ceasefire line: [18] this region is also the Golan Heights as demonstrated above:[19][20][21]. So the majority language in the GH region is arabic. I countered the majority of Metallurgists examples above, and frankly they weren't good arguments or similar to the Golan heights, same with your Melilla argument which is not viewed as Moroccan by the international community. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Melilla is recognised as Spanish by every single country on Earth apart from Morocco. And the second most spoken language is Tarifit, not Arabic. I wish people stopped comparing this article to others that have nothing to do with it; it is easy to find a lot of examples if you look at places that have full international recognition or where the current language was already the majority language before invasion/secession (ie Crimea or Transnistria). Qoan (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And yet those article reflected a different order prior to their seizure by the current administrating power. SD hardly responded to what I said here. Happy to have someone else look at the examples and why this should be treated differently. Also, I ask again for an explanation of how the territory will ever be restored to Syrian control as the preponderance of indications suggests that is extremely unlikely. And since the beginning of this thread, Lebanon is now seeking a peace deal. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Is anyone open to removing the languages entirely? Any other ideas we arent thinking of? ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the arabic translation for a geographical region inside an Arab country be removed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Judgement of Solomon ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Looking at this discussion so far, the Talk:Golan_Heights/Archive_4#Arabic_text_before_Hebrew previous discussion looms large. There was an established order that was changed without any consensus and the first response was "I don't see the point in doing so. Please avoid unnecessary edits." There was no consensus there to support the change. Now it's argued that WP:STABLE requires that we leave the article as is. A review of the article shows that the Golan Heights have been through regular changes of control and of language. The focus should be on the languages that are currently spoken in the area and the article makes clear that the majority of the area is controlled by Israel and populated by those speaking Hebrew. I am swayed by the analysis performed by User:Metallurgist regarding the precedent set in similar areas.

The article needs a far greater degree of attention to the rich history of demographic transitions and a diminution on the often day-by-day examples of WP:RECENTISM. But we should allow the actual realities in the area dictate the language precedence, and that should be Hebrew and then Arabic for the infobox and lead; For those areas that are in the Golan Heights but outside of Israeli control, use of Arabic first could be appropriate, unless we want to adhere to a single standard.

As cited above, consensus can change; it has. Alansohn (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You want to bring up a discussion from 2009. The person that said "I don't see the point in doing so." Drork - is permanently blocked from Wikipedia for abusing sockpuppets in the A-I topic area, there are also two other joe job socks in that discussion, "Hamas4life" and "Freegolan". "There was an established order" Where? In 2006 it had arabic first: [22], where was the consensus for the change to hebrew then? Area is internationally recognized as part of Syria. Syria's official language is Arabic, not Hebrew. Those who speak hebrew are Israeli settlers who according to the vast majority of the international community shouldn't be there, they are not a legitimate population or legal residents in the region. The majority of people in the Golan Heights speak Arabic as there are around 150K Syrians east of the ceasefire line: [23] this region is also the Golan Heights as demonstrated here:[24][25][26]. Combined with the Syrians in the western Golan, Arabic speakers are around 180K.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Litigating the past either way is silly. We are here now. Lets work this out. Anyway, that is a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS argument. I refer again to my arguments above. I am genuinely curious the scenario under which Israel would return the Golan to Syria. Because thats pretty much a red line for them and strategic suicide. The Assad regime and Sharaa had and have essentially conceded that it will remain in Israeli possession in any peace deal (see links above). If you can explain to me how the territory would be restored to Syria, I am all eyes. I am fairly confident that there will be a peace deal by the end of 2030, altho I am not sure I would bet on it, but Ill leave this here and we can come back on January 1, 2031. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please show the links that show that "The Assad regime and Sharaa had and have essentially conceded that it will remain in Israeli possession in any peace deal (see links above).", I have not seen such links posted here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You replied to this a few times, so Im not sure how you didnt see it. And Ill ask again, in genuine good faith curiosity, how do you expect the Golan to be restored to Syria ever? Being interested in geopolitics and alternate history, I would like to read your perspective and thoughts on this. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Several of those articles are conflicting including opinion piece, I have never heard of vinnews.com and aljumhuriya.net, one is saying: "Israel would retain strategic areas in the Golan Heights equivalent to one-third of its territory, hand over a third to Syria, and lease another third from Syria for a period of 25 years.", another "Willing To Concede The Golan Heights" another "engage in internationally mediated talks on the status of the Golan." its all different guesses, not an official confirmation. This is not a forum where we post our personal opinions about the future. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It isnt a forum, but if you could outline how the situation is going to change, it would justify your opinion on presentation better. I think its rather clear that the Golan Heights has been under Israeli administration for over half a century and will continue to be so for decades to come, which supports the preferential treatment of its primary official language. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "rich history of demographic transitions" is romanticised sophistry excusing and dismissing the actual modern reality, forced occupation. So are you saying that because the region has Hebrew speakers this is a prerequisite for a language change on Wikipedia? Can you show me where this is outlined on Wikipedia? Last time I checked, the Golan is internationally recognised as occupied territory, excusing the position held by Israel and USA. USA and her position is not the authority on the English Wikipedia, as such the article should reflect the English speaking worlds position on the matter (by whatever metric is suitable). See Hebrew Wikipedia and numerous topics inc West Bank and the Golan for reference. Or does that rule not apply to us? JJNito197 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I literally did that with Crimea, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Shall we go over there and restore Ukrainian and Georgian before Russian? Also, I dont think the English world has any preference of this or that language first. Its a Wikipedia editor decision. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointed out to you above that the situation with Crimea, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are not the same as with the Golan Heights. Crimea was originally Russian before 1954 and according to its article: 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language. The Golan heights was always Syrian, not Israeli, and the majority including both sides of the ceasefire line speak arabic. The Russian speakers in Crimea are also not regarded as illegal settlers by the vast majority of the international community, unlike the Israeli settlers in the Golan Height, who are not legal residents. South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are two break away states and the language reflect that political entity's proclamation. Ossetion and Abkhaz are the first language in those articles, are those who speak it regarded as illegal settlers the same as the Israeli settlers in the Golan Heights? You are trying to compare these other articles to the Golan Heights, but the situation is very different in several ways. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This has remained intractable after a couple months. An RfC may be appropriate at this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Golan which also has it's own page Golan is the Hebrew name of this region--which was named Golan prior to the Arabic conquest making it the older name with the more ancient claim to the area. I think it's therefore proper for the Hebrew to come before the Arabic spelling of the region. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This articles name is "Golan Heights" which is English, not Hebrew. Also, do you have any evidence that "Golan" is originally Hebrew? do you have any source? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The page I linked to Golan gives you the entire history of the word--it's not English. In addition there is an etymology section of the Golan Heights page itself. The Arabs invaded the region in 636 AD-during what is known as the Muslim conquest of Syria prior to that Syrians spoke Syriac and Aramaic--Arabic was introduced after this invasion. Prior to this conquest, the land was fought over by the Jews, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians. But the word Golan first appears with the Jews. The sources are on the pages themselves--I mean Arabic is in fact a colonialist language that is not even originally endemic to the region--the Hebrew is. It's the closest language to ancient Canaanite, while Arabic is also semitic it's on a completely different language branch, see here: [[27]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know "Heights" were Hebrew. Do you have any source for that? Could you also show a source that says that "the word Golan first appears with the Jews." ? Arabic has been in the Golan Heights for thousands of years, so if that isn't endemic, neither is hebrew, as it also came from elsewhere.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Golan is Hebrew. "Heights" obviously isn't. See WP:SNARK. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Name of article is "Golan Heights", not "Golan". And no one has provided a source that "the word Golan first appears with the Jews.". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This very article shows that the word originates with Hebrew, then was adopted into Aramaic, Greek, and then Arabic. It may predate Hebrew in Canaanite or something. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not say that "Golan" originates with hebrew, it says "Hebrew Bible, Golan is mentioned as a city of refuge located in Bashan", it specifically talks about a city, not a region, and it doesn't say that the word originated with hebrew.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is first attested in Hebrew, from a Semitic root, so for all intents and purposes, thats the origin, until academic consensus determines otherwise. And the present name carries on from that. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP SOAP, and this is not the place for conspiracy theories. You seem to have a fundemental misunderstanding of the region as Arabs have been in the Golan for at least 500 years prior to the Muslim Arab conquests. See Ghassanids who ruled the Golan since 200 A.D. Whilst you're at it, see Hebrew as you seem to think modern Hebrew wasn't invented in the 19th century. The language used in antiquity (one of many) is fundementally different from today. WP SYNTH. JJNito197 (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT label perfectly legitimate arguments being put out here by fellow editors as "conspiracy theories", that borders being a WP:PERSONALATTACK. You've been warned for this, do not do it again please. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 18:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your recent edits per WP:BRD. Reach consensus for these changes on talk. JJNito197 (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the 7th-century Muslim conquests, Arabic established itself as a "colonial" language in the Levant, shifting the region from Aramaic dominance to Arabic. It spread through administrative imposition, migration, and trade, acting as a lingua franca that gradually merged with local languages, rather than replacing the population itself." That is from wikipedia: Arabization the source I used in the edit was from Google Scholar: [[28]] titled The Decisive Battles in the Arab Conquest of Syria. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What was the colonial language of the Golan Heights prior to the Muslim conquests, if it was ruled by Christian Arabs?! Did Hebrew ever establish itself "colonially" in the Golan prior to the Ghassanids is the question, whatever that means. That's not what you said above and in your edits to the page. As far as I'm aware, Arabs speak and write Arabic and have been present and ruled the Golan since at least 200 A.D. See one source here.[1] JJNito197 (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the indigenous Languages? like Syriac and Aramaic? Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have made clear that the language change happened after the Muslim conquest, rather than the Arab conquest, as the Arabs already ruled the region before. JJNito197 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring to remove Arabic from lead

Gjb0zWxOb has repeatedly edit warred to remove the Arabic from the lead, and now yesterday he once again removed it despite there being no consensus in the discussion to remove it: [29] This is extremely disruptive and disrespectful to everyone that participated in the discussion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus does not appear to favor the Hebrew or Arabic first yet, though it does seem to be leaning strongly towards Hebrew first. In the absence of either or having clear consensus, removing them both seems to me to be neither disruptive nor disrespectful. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have also repeatedly edit warred to remove the Arabic from the lead: [30][31][32]. So your position is clear to everyone. But if there is no new consensus established at the talkpage then the original order should remain, and so far there hasn't been any. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to take a look at my edit summary when you get a spare moment. There is not a firm consensus for the Arabic being first, therefore I removed the languages entirely per WP:ONUS, which reads, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content." Please also read WP:AGF and WP:CCC Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"is on editors seeking to include disputed content".... The Arabic was first in the lead when the above discussion started and had been so for 17 years, until it was edit warred out by you yesterday. So it doesn't need a new consensus for "inclusion" as there was never any new consensus to remove it, and should still be there. The removal was done through edit warring by you.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been consensus established for Hebrew or Arabic first. And in another reply, I looked at the commons and found that the physical signs in that area are Hebrew. Guz13 (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

I would be interested to understand how a transform like "Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967" => "Territory occupied by Israel since 1967" could be regarded as an improvement? It removes an objectively accurate and informative single word. It degrades rather than enhances the information content of the statement for readers. It does not seem to be consistent with the "here to build an encyclopedia" because it treats absence as better than presence. I find it genuinely puzzling, even if I try to think like a partisan ultra-nationalist Israeli who has been subjected to extensive social engineering my entire life. What am I missing? Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The problem is also that some users engage in edit waring to forcibly get their way through wikipedia. Boutboul, where was the consensus for the change to remove the location of the Golan Heights in the description? Why did you revert me? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Time for the fill in the missing word game - "Following WP:BRD a contentious topic area is bad because...". Anyone want to give it a go? Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the previous wording was both more accurate & informative.
@Boutboul May you clarify where you believe consensus for the change in question was established? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A short description should generally be under 40 characters, per WP:SDLENGTH. That’s all. Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Though I agree that WP:SDLENGTH is good to keep in mind, it's also not policy. The benefit of a short description is that concision forces editors to focus on the most notable details. As such, though concision remains important, we shouldn't prioritize it over the description's actual ability to inform the reader.
With this in mind, are there any outstanding objections to changing the description to "Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967"? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, if compression to < 40 chars is the objective, what are the arguments against ""Syrian territory occupied since 1967"", "Territory occupied since 1967", "Occupied territory" and so on? Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with "Syrian territory occupied since 1967". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case for similar treatment as Jerusalem – City in the Southern Levant, ie "Plateau in the Southern Levant", which is 6 characters fewer than present, and decidedly neutral.
etc etc
It appears in most cases that if any country is mentioned, it is the administrative power. Thus, either the above or "Disputed territory administered by Israel". Mentioning Syria is without merit and there is no case for why this should be sui generis. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Mentioning Syria is without merit" - I click on your userpage and you have an Israeli flag.... Metallurgist are you here to contribute to an encyclopedia or for some other reason? How exactly is there no merit to mention the country it is part of according to the vast majority of the international community? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have had an Israeli flag and a Ukraine flag and an American flag on my userpage about as long as youve had an account, and its never been an issue. Please cease WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS and stick to the merits of discussion here, else I would be happy to boomerang your large proportion of Syria-related edits.
Mentioning Syria is without merit because it is disputed and they dont administrate it. Other countrys opinions arent factual reality, this plays out across numerous articles. Also, I refer you to the other examples, few to none of which mention the claiming party. I think a neutral description mentioning neither Syria nor Israel is a fair compromise. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that "Mentioning Syria is without merit" in regards to the description of Syrian territory, recognized as such by all but Israel & the US, is a bold claim & honestly, rather nonsensical. That other articles' descriptions are phrased differently is a poor justification for your change when there is no policy regarding a standardized wording. The context of each individual article should take priority when writing a description.
That you knew there was a dispute over the description & disregarded it in favor of your own preferred wording is uncollaborative. I find your wording of "Plateau in the Southern Levant" overly vague to the point of being rather unhelpful. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly at all for the reasons I stated. The only thing we have to go on is other examples in light of no policy and local consensus. I felt this to be a fair and neutral compromise between those who want it to say Syria and those who want it to say Israel. It is no more vague than "Jerusalem – City in the Southern Levant", which was developed via consensus years ago as that is an unresolvable dispute. Admittedly, some might say this is more the Northern Levant or Central, but according to Southern Levant, some do include sothern Syria.
Alternatively: "Disputed plateau between Israel and Syria", if we can fall back on alphabetics in MOS or wherever, I cant find the policy, without fussing over that. But even this isnt good because Lebanon claims Shebaa Farms, so some form of "Disputed plateau/territory in the (Southern) Levant" is actually the best short description. Short descriptions are supposed to advance the title a bit to help disambiguate or give a hint of what the topic is. Being vague isnt a problem, altho I would disagree that it is vague. There are plenty of SDs that say "Country in West Asia" or something. Thats even more vague. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article content should be decided by the preponderance of reliable sources & should avoid creating a false balance. When the majority recognize it as Syrian territory, abstaining from mentioning that fact, as if the 2 parties have equal claim, is non-neutral. In fact, treating Shebaa Farms as part of the Golan Heights is in itself privileging Israel's perspective in the dispute as I don't believe Syria nor Lebanon treat the 2 territories as the same.
Unlike the Golan Heights where the overall international perspective is rather clear, Jerusalem carries a significant amount of technicalities & minutiae that can't be adequately summarized by a short description (Besides the issue of conflicting territorial claims & status as a capital, there's also the need to delineate between East & West Jerusalem). So in that situation, such a vague description was appropriate & a necessary compromise. Another reason I'm against using "Southern Levant" is, as you touched on yourself, the term is imprecise in nature due to ill-defined borders. If the term itself doesn't have a precise definition, it won't be as helpful making an accurate description.
Regarding short descriptions as a whole, I believe they should be meaningfully descriptive, both to be as informative as possible within the limited space & to help differentiate between articles. The fact that other articles fail to do this when better alternatives are available, is not an argument in favor of more vague descriptions. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The dominant international position is clear, but it is simply false that reliable sources use only one formula. For example, the American Journal of International Law calls the Golan Heights "another disputed territory", a Taylor & Francis article refers to "the disputed Golan Heights", and Eurasia Border Review speaks of "the territorial dispute between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights". It is a fair reflection of the fact that serious sources do not all frame the issue identically.[2][3][4].
I would suggest : "Plateau in the Levant occupied by Israel". Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent list of relevant examples provided by @Metallurgist. "Plateau in the Levant occupied by Israel" is the SD that most accurately and most objectively describes GH. It will be [WP:UNDUE]]] include some of the other versions provided above. The world does look to how the US perceives geopolitical affairs, therefore it holds substantial weight against the opposing claims from the rest of the English speaking world, whose views are far from uniform anyway. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The examples provided by Metallurgist are not the same as the Golan Heights. And where in "Plateau in the Levant occupied by Israel" is Syria mentioned? You know the country this region is located in according to the vast majority of the international community.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I must have copied erroneously. I meant Metallurgist's suggestion "Plateau in the Southern Levant". signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Besides my point stands. Wikipedia is a reflection of what is and not what should be. "What is" is Israel retains administrative control over the Golan and therefore what the UN or the "international community" thinks it should be does not take precedence. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What about Syrian territory occupied by Israel? In my opinion the year of occupation is less important than what country it belongs to and what country it is occupied by, but I don't know if others agree. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What Metallurgist is suggesting here is the most consistent suggestion per the examples he gave of other pages. We generally choose as editors to use the administrating power in control of a given area or a neutral geographic descriptor when it comes to adding short descriptions of places. Therefore here, a geographically neutral description such as "Plateau in the Southern Levant" is the most consistent to how we generally handle these per above. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Metallurgist on this one. Per WP:SHORTDESC, this should be a simple, neutral identifier. Terms like “disputed” or “occupied” are interpretive and need context, discussion, etc., which a short description can’t give readers.Including such terms in the short description also risks giving UNDUE weight to just one aspect. I think that a straightforward geographic description like "Plateau in the Southern Levant" better fits policy. ScottyNolan (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Levant is not the correct, as it is not concisely defined. It's a vague unhelpful term, in a similar vein to the antiquated 'Middle East'. Of course Israel would call it part of the Southern Levant, however others would define it as Levant proper. JJNito197 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I always said its about the entire Golan Heights region, but the main focus is on the part occupied by Israel in 1967. Considering its a short description with a handful of words, we have to make a choice or it would be to long. So there is no issue with having the short description focus on the main part. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -
    1. The Golan Heights is a plateau, and the short description should say so.
    2. More importantly, some reliable sources now use dispute-based wording. For example, the American Journal of International Law calls the Golan Heights "another disputed territory", a Taylor & Francis article refers to "the disputed Golan Heights", and Eurasia Border Review speaks of "the territorial dispute between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights".
    Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaah, the beloved "disputed territory" (beloved by Israeli settlers, that is). It is deja vu, all over again, as the expression goes. It brings me back 20 years; I was a newbie here, and had plans writing about art, etc, almost by chance I got involve with a discussion about the West Bank, where editors cherrypicked the few articles who called it "disputed", while ignoring the great majority that didn't. That twisting of facts completely changed my direction on wp, leading to 20 years of writing Palestinian history instead.
    Anyway, we had a huge discussion about this, back in 2010, see this. There is no doubt, that under international law, the Golan Heights is occupied territory. Do you really want a rerun of the 2010 discussion? cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think that is the right approach. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, especially secondary reliable sources, not directly on international law. And the source landscape is not the same as it was in 2010.
    Since then, the United States has formally recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The dominant international position is still that it is occupied Syrian territory, but reliable sources are no longer completely uniform in their wording and I can provide much more examples on this. I don’t believe it was the case in 2010.
    So no, this is not about cherry-picking or denying the mainstream view. It is about acknowledging that the sourcing has changed, and that Wikipedia should reflect the current source landscape rather than assume it is still exactly what it was in 2010. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the US position, absolutely nothing has changed wrt the international view on the matter. And you might want to ignore that, but I doubt the wp community will. Huldra (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you believe the United States' recognition carries enough weight to counter-balance every other nation's perspective, this would still be cherry-picking sources.
    Also, your argument that "the sourcing has changed" doesn't quite line up with the Taylor & Francis article you cited being from 1995 & your citation to Eurasia Border Review arguing against your position. It continuously describes the territory as occupied & is about Israel's attempts to assimilate the territory. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the short description, the lead should also reflect this more neutral descriptor. Instead of stating it "is a basaltic plateau at the southwest corner of Syria," it should state, "is a basaltic plateau in the Southern Levant." As has been previously stated above, using geographic descriptors is purely accurate and more consistent. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Gjb0zWxOb, you shouldn't be making these large controversial changes to the lead without consensus. The region is internationally recognized as Syria and you removed it. There is nothing neutral about that.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The neutral descriptor is already reflected in the short description. Per WP:BRD, I added the neutral geographic descriptor rather than the disputed territorial descriptor. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The short description was changed without consensus in an edit war you participated in. It was forced into the article. So you shouldn't do the same with the lead. The lead also does not have to be the same as the short description as there is no length limit. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted this change of yours as, not only did you make it without discussion (something specifically mentioned in the hidden note you deleted), but also because it isn't "purely accurate".
    As has already been stated in this discussion, the term "Southern Levant" does not have a strictly defined set of borders, so your change only introduced vague language while also further removing reference to the territory being Syrian. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shahîd, Irfan. Byzantium and the Arabs: Late Antiquity. Belgium, Byzantion, 2005.
  2. ^ "Secretary of State Describes Israeli Settlements in the West Bank as Not Per Se Inconsistent with International Law" (PDF). American Journal of International Law. 114 (2): 326–333. 2020. the Golan Heights, another disputed territory that Israel captured during the Six-Day War
  3. ^ "The Golan Heights: Peace in Sight?". Middle Eastern Studies. 1995. Talks between Israel and Syria over the disputed Golan Heights have been in stalemate...
  4. ^ Maeda, Koji (2013). "The Ba'thist Arabization Policy in Border Areas: Reconsidering the Hauran and the Golan Heights in Syria" (PDF). Eurasia Border Review. 4 (1). the territorial dispute between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights

RfC: short description

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Editors debate whether the short description should define the page in political or topographic terms, but there is no consensus for specific language because a majority objected to the RFC on technical grounds. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What should be the short description of the Golan Heights?

  • A:"Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967" this was the text until 2 weeks ago
  • B: something else. If B is chosen, we will take a new RfC to determine which

Huldra (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • A, short, precise, accurate, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you able to !vote in an RFC you started? I'm actually not sure on the WP:PG on that, does anyone else know? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you are. Why would you not be allowed to? See Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment#Neutrality: The RfC question should not include arguments supporting or opposing any particular outcome, unless included as part of a brief summary of all sides of the argument. Your own opinions should be posted in a separate comment, not in the question itself. In any case, RfCs are not votes, they are discussions - RfC stands for Request for Comment, not Request for Votes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, most accurate and neutral, represents worldview. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, concise and clear JJNito197 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Shouldn't the original short description be restored before RFC? it was changed without consensus.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely, due to WP: BRD JJNito197 (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A per above Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - An accurate description. I'm also fine with either "Syrian territory occupied since 1967" or "Syrian territory occupied by Israel" as potential alternatives. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • BAD RFC Per WP:RFC, this RFC has several issues. One major issue is that there is only one option listed instead of listing the option that was beginning to gain mass consensus above, that being "Plateau in the Southern Levant." Instead, the OP lists one option and states that an additional RFC is required if anything else is chosen. This makes the RFC process take longer unnecessarily and subtly biases the RFC towards Option A. Additionally, none of the people that were participating in the discussion above were tagged in this RFC so they have no idea that this vote is happening. I suggest that this RFC be properly redone with all the choices listed and tagging all of the participants in the above discussion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    YOU make it sound as if you are quoting a policy. But there is no WP:BADRFC or WP:BAD RFC, Huldra (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It was once a redirect to WP:RFCNEUTRAL. It really should have stayed, as it is obviously still commonly used, just without the wikilink anymore to RFCNEUTRAL, I had !voted for it to back when. Anyway, WP:RFCNEUTRAL I think is commonly what people are still referring to whenever someone calls an RFC to be poorly constructed (as in this case) or done without prior discussion of options (also, a problem with this faulty and BADRFC). Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is strange: when I am not logged in, and test for WP:BADRFC, I get that there was never such a page. When I am logged in, I get that it was deleted early March???
    Anyway, thanks for the WP:RFCNEUTRAL link. It says explicitly that a RfC with, say, 4 options, is a bad RfC. The problem is, that don't see any single option for Option B (except the one I have chosen: namely to defer the choice). Do you? Huldra (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, an RfC must not be called. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • BADRFC this is a malformed RFC which seems to have been hastily and improperly put together. Discussions were ongoing, but should have been discussed for which options to include and then the RFC could have been decided on to put forward those options. Additionally, this RFC fails on leading with a statement of "this was the text until 2 weeks ago", which goes against the framing of an RFC where the participants should not be guided to one option or another. There are many other things wrong with this, but overall, it should be closed speedily and reopened after some brief discussion on what all the options are that should be included per WP:RFCNEUTRAL Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • BADRFC I agree that a new request for comment should be issued to get more editors involved. This page is on a highly contested topic and there needs to be more than two option available--it seems that A is very well defined while B is completely open ended and doesn't seem to be very well balanced. I think we need more options which reflect the wider array of opinions on this page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - Not sure if a new RFC will be created, but for now I am voting for the status quo option. It fulfills all the necessary criteria for a good short description, and it reflects the common consensus of reliable sources. Not seeing any compelling reason to make a major change. 296cherry (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you seen an RFC structured like this before? It is basically akin to asking, is apple your favorite fruit? Isn't it so delicious? Or do you like some gross other fruit? I think this process should be restarted so that there can be a proper discussion with all options laid out. This RFC has barely touched on policy because it was not fleshed out enough by the OP. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The RfC (this one or a replacement) probably needs to be advertised as widely as possible to properly sample the editor population and reduce the potential impact of ban evading actors (Golan Heights related topics have a relatively high concentration of socks compared to background levels). Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Sean.hoyland here. The RfC was not properly publicized and the problems here appear to be unresolvable. Let's start over and get this right. Alansohn (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, (in addition to the automatic RFC notice on the history and geography sites). If any more wikiprojects should be informed; please feel free to do so, Huldra (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also notified Wikipedia talk:Short description, Huldra (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad RfC Why are we deciding between A and a mystery box? This is stuff that should be sorted out before starting an RfC. Also, having an RfC where one of the options is start another RfC isn't an effective use of editor time and shouldn't be done unless necessary. It also stands to reason most people wont choose B unless they can think of a better option than A themselves. Even if A isn't the best option it gains an advantage by being the option that isn't stuck inside of a mystery box.
That said, I'm not just going to complain and then add nothing to the discussion. How would people feel about mixing A with the current short description? I'm thinking something like Syrian plateau occupied by Israel since 1967. That captures the physical geography and the political geography accurately (a completely uncontroversial statement that nobody will disagree with me about I'm sure).
―Maltazarian (talkinvestigate) 18:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support this wording as an alternative. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a great option, as it maintains the mention of Syrian sovereignty and Israeli occupation. I would hope that nobody would take issue with it. 296cherry (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It could be one option of many after discussion and review prior in a proper and new RfC. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
B - Wikipedia is based on recent reliable sources, and the plateau is no longer defined systematically as Syrian. That is already clear from at least three academic papers, and more can be provided if needed.
  1. The American Journal of International Law calls the Golan Heights "another disputed territory" "Secretary of State Describes Israeli Settlements in the West Bank as Not Per Se Inconsistent with International Law" (PDF). American Journal of International Law. 114 (2): 326–333. 2020. the Golan Heights, another disputed territory that Israel captured during the Six-Day War
  2. A Taylor & Francis article refers to "the disputed Golan Heights">"The Golan Heights: Peace in Sight?". Middle Eastern Studies. 1995. Talks between Israel and Syria over the disputed Golan Heights have been in stalemate...
  3. Eurasia Border Review speaks of "the territorial dispute between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights".Maeda, Koji (2013). "The Ba'thist Arabization Policy in Border Areas: Reconsidering the Hauran and the Golan Heights in Syria" (PDF). Eurasia Border Review. 4 (1). the territorial dispute between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights
I would suggest something like Plateau in the Levant under Israeli administration Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I already replied to these sources above, but you hadn't acknowledged it, so I'll repeat the issues I previously observed here. Your argument that there's been a recent shift in academia is not supported by a Taylor & Francis article from 1995. Then there's the issue that, if you read the Eurasia Border Review article you cited in full, you'll see that it discuses Israel's attempts to assimilate the territory & that it continuously describes the territory as occupied. I don't see how you can characterize that as supporting your position.
Besides the issue that the quotations you're citing only show that there is a territorial dispute, something that doesn't contradict the fact that the territory is Syrian, your argument against describing it as such hinges on preferencing the United States & Israel's perspective over that of every other nation's. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that the first source, immediately after your quote ends, continues

Pompeo said that the U.S. decision does not set a precedent allowing territory to be taken from another country by force, describing the occupation of the Golan Heights as a “unique situation”

Anyways, after looking up papers and books mentioning the Golan Heights in the past few years, excluding purely biological and ecological studies made by Israeli scientists, I find that calling it an occupation is still common practice.[1][2][3][4][5]
An example of it also not being referred to as an occupation.[6]
―Maltazarian (talkinvestigate) 01:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - "Syrian Golan" clearly exists in sources, but it is not the only wording, so the short description should not present it in wikivoice as if it were the neutral formulation.
  • The Guardian, 11 December 2024, No pardons for prison torturers, says Syrian rebel leader: "Israel ... has deployed ground troops into and beyond a demilitarised buffer zone in the disputed Golan Heights..."
  • The Guardian, 15 December 2024, Schools reopen in Damascus as celebrations over Bashar al-Assad fleeing Syria continue: "Israel has seized control of a formerly demilitarised zone in the disputed Golan Heights."
  • Sky News, 15 December 2024, Syria latest: UK in 'diplomatic contact' with rebel group; Turkey offers Syria military support: "The area is a disputed strip of land between Israel and Syria..."
  • UNRIC, Jan-Jun 2024 page, modified 24 March 2025, The UN and the crisis in the Middle East: What you need to know (Jan-Jun 2024): the Blue Line divides Israel from Lebanon and "the disputed Golan Heights."
  • The Soufan Center, 8 April 2025, Israel Expands its Security Zones on All Fronts: Israel took control of a UN-patrolled demilitarized zone "on the disputed Golan Heights".
  • Springer - Sören Zimmermann, 29 November 2023, Territorial Rights After War in the Golan Heights: "The Golan Heights is a contested area in the Middle East along the Israeli Syrian border."
  • Journal of International Economic Law - Olga Kanevskaia, 10 May 2023, WTO Rules for Trade with Disputed Territories: "Disputed territories are territories over which sovereignty is contested..."
  • American Journal of International Law - Ian Brunk and Monica Hakimi, 2024, The Prohibition of Annexations and the Foundations of Modern International Law: "the dispute around Israel's attempted annexation of the Golan Heights..."
Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I'm sure you can find many sources describing in in any one of a number of different ways, and what term we use is going to have to come down to what the consensus among scholars is on this matter as there is no real way to be "neutral" on this, as in not favouring any narrative over another, while also serving the purpose of the encyclopedia which is to provide information to readers. WP:NPOV does not mean that we can't say anything in wikivoice if it's disputed. As for what the scholarly consensus is and how we should weigh it: that's up for discussion. But I would like to postpone having that discussion until we have a better structured RfC.
⹃Maltazarian ᚾtalkinvestigateᛅ 11:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the scholars not in agreement and the reliable sources not in agreement, and we as editors not in agreement, wouldn't the best course of action be to use the most neutral short description, i.e. the geographical descriptor, more specifically, "Plateau in the Southern Levant"? Everyone may disagree on who should own/control the territory but everyone agrees on the geographical facts. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"If" is doing a lot of lifting there. If there is a significant dispute among scholars are reliable sources then yes, but the existence of a minority opinion does not mean the majority opinion cannot be used while maintaining neutrality. See WP:FRINGE.
⹃Maltazarian ᚾparlayinvestigateᛅ 14:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the Golan as disputed or contested territory is very widespread, as I showed above. I am not in a position - and I assume you are not either - to determine which wording is more common, "Syrian territory" or "disputed territory". In that case, it is better to use a neutral description, as proposed by @Gjb0zWxOb Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sources vary in what wording use. I prefer academic papers by experts openly taking a stance on the issue over British newspapers who are doing their best to not step on anyone's toes though. Again, this is something I'd prefer not having a discussion over as long as the status of the RfC is a bit unclear.
Also don't think I didn't notice what you did with the last of your listed sources.
  • American Journal of International Law - Ian Brunk and Monica Hakimi, 2024, The Prohibition of Annexations and the Foundations of Modern International Law: "the dispute around Israel's attempted annexation of the Golan Heights..." "...a piece of land that is part of Syria, and for various territories around the globe that remain occupied."
The second to last source also includes the passage

While Israel’s administrative authority over these territories, including their trade and customs relations, does not contradict the understanding of territory under WTO law, it is not acceptable from the perspective of international law, which allocates these territories under the Palestinian or, in the case of the Golan Heights, Syrian authority.[33]

So yeah I'm not convinced, but I'd rather hold off until the RfC situation is sorted out. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparlayinvestigateᛅ 16:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can be found to support all kinds of various designations which is why the neutral geographical descriptor avoids stepping on any landmines in the first place. However, I think a significant number of us can agree that this is a BADRFC and a poorly constructed forum for proper discussion to take place. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of RFC is this? This needs to speedy close on technical grounds, and be restarted after a proper discussion of options, or at least a presentation of options. I know the initiator of the RFC knows this, so I am rather confounded and taken aback. Railroading one favored option is not an RFC, it strikes me as quite bizarre. Especially given that there was polite discussion about possible options prior to the RFC. The short description is clearly disputed in multiple directions, so this absolutely needs to be redone. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Im also concerned by the avoidance of listing at WP:WikiProject Israel, deliberately picking the IP Collaboration project, which has nothing whatsoever to do with an Israel-Syria dispute. And the apparent doubling down on refusal to do so. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not "doubling down"; this is the first time you mention it. And I said explicitly, that editors should (of course) feel free to notify any other wikiproject, Huldra (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra So why did you notify WikiProject Syria and WikiProject IP Collaboration (which has nothing to do with this) and not WikiProject Israel? That others can do so is irrelevant. Why did YOU selectively notify projects? ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad RfC - Slanted towards producing a specific outcome. Unproductive when discussions are still underway. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to suggest this is a bad RfC because it presents itself as a multiple choice list without presenting multiple choices, but now that I think about it, this would've been completely normal if it were just formatted a little differently. If this were presented as a yes or no question, something like "Should the short description read Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967?", that'd be a perfectly fine RfC question that wouldn't be seen as non-neutral or favoring a particular outcome. This RfC is fundamentally not that different, the only difference being that Support !votes are called "A" and Oppose !votes are called "B" instead of just "Support" and "Oppose." Presenting the "oppose" option as a multiple choice "B: other" option creates the appearance of a "mystery box", but it functionally is just an "oppose" !vote with a slightly different label. Is this a flawed RfC? Yes, for the reasons I just described. Is it an unacceptably bad RfC? Honestly, no, not at all. A fresh RfC will very likely be necessary anyways because of how messy this one has become, but I don't think the reactions here have been entirely fair to the nom.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would honestly say that would also be a bad RfC simply due to the fact that it has the same "mystery box" effect as I mentioned in my response. At the least it should include the other proposed description (Plateau in the South Levant) or the person who makes the RfC will benefit from simply not mentioning the suggested alternative they disagree with. I think it should have been structured as follows:
    Option A: Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967
    Option B: Plateau in the South Levant
    Option C: Something else
    ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparlayinvestigateᛅ 15:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that if it's going to be a multiple choice RfC then there should actually be multiple choices, but I don't think a yes/no "Should the subject of the article be described as <x>?" style RfC question necessarily has a "mystery box" issue as that style of question is generally seen as good practice. I can understand where the nom is coming from when they said that the opposition to option A isn't all unified behind a single alternative, so trying to include all the alternatives in the question risks running into one of the problems WP:RFCBRIEF tells us to avoid (an ever-expanding list of alternatives to !vote on). In a situation like this where one proposal (the previous language, option A) is a source of disagreement but may or may not have a consensus, meanwhile an obvious alternative hasn't emerged, a simple yes/no on option A would be an efficient way to see if there is a need for an alternative at all. Which I think is what the nom was going for here, but they selected the wrong format for the type of question they were asking and accidentally turned what should've been a closed-ended question about a single proposed phrasing into an open-ended one, hence the "oppose" option becoming a "mystery box" option.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the complaints the author of the RfC have about WP:RFCBRIEF, and I was almost going to write a comment about it. The guideline saying "four, five, six" and crossing over four and five as an example of bad RfC practices is incredibly prone to miscommunication, even though I see what they were trying to go for when writing it. I honestly don't put the fault on the author who was acting in good faith and trying to do their best (I honestly dislike the practice of saying "Bad RfC" in general, it comes across as very thorny). Especially if opposition isn't unified behind one option.
    I think the disconnect that's happened here is I was assuming there was a clear second option. If that is not the case then I'd agree with you that the wording could have fixed a lot, but I still think it the "need for an alternative" way of looking at things is problematic because it incentivizes editors to start an RfC instead of trying to solve the disagreement through discussion. Instead of giving a chance for a consensus alternative to form editors who don't want it will be encouraged to open up an RfC because the current version is "acceptable", regardless if the alternative would have ended up being better or not. In a topic area as contentious as this one I think that's a genuine concern to have. Now let's be clear, I don't think the author of this RfC is responsible for doing that. In fact, the people opposed to the status quo short description should have tried to form a consensus for an alternative before trying to edit the article (WP:ONUS etc.). Also the concerns are of course even greater if the alternative subject to the Yes/No isn't actually the status quo but I'm assuming you didn't mean that as the current RfC is about the status quo.
    This kind of became a ramble but I guess the short of it is that people really should try to discuss things more before opening up an RfC. And that we need to change the default wording for saying an RfC is flawed from "Bad RfC" to something else because it's seriously impolite to someone who is attempting to solve a dispute. Guess I'm not free from blame on that one for going with the stream. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparlayinvestigateᛅ 18:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • BAD RFC for the reasons mentioned above. Not notifying WP:WikiProject Israel seems particularly egregious, whether intentional or not. (And I'm sorry for saying bad rfc after the comment above... it is what it is... don't mean to be impolite here) Slava570 (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanilla Wizard This really ought to have had a discussion of proposals first before the RFC, as there appear to be more than two or even three possible directions. Something so contentious shouldnt really have a one option yes/no. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Slava570, BAD RFC. The choices are presented in non-neutral language. Guz13 (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RfC per previous editors. It's not the only contested territory in the world, and I've seen a lot of edit warring about short descriptions of other places. A geographical definition would be most stable probably. A territory may change hands once in a while but the plateau is not going anywhere. Alaexis¿question? 17:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RfC As per the users above, "Plateau in the South Levant" is natural and concise, so a RfC with an opening statement rejecting that as an option and mandating that a second RfC needs to be started if users want to decide on that is nonsensical. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • B: Plateau in the Southern Levant, Occupied plateau in the Southern Levant, Disputed plateau in the Southern Levant, or Basaltic plateau in the Southern Levant in order of preference. No need to mention political status for a geographic area. HKLionel TALK 13:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Alkhalili, Noura; Dajani, Muna; Mahmoud, Yahia (2023). "The Enduring Coloniality of Ecological Modernization: Wind Energy Development in Occupied Western Sahara and the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights". Political Geography. 103 (2) – via ScienceDirect. ..in the name of energy transitions to prolong illegal military occupations in two territories, namely occupied Western Sahara and the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.
  2. ^ Eiran, Ehud; Pressman, Jeremy (2023). "US Recognition of Israeli Territorial Claims in the Golan Heights and Jerusalem". The Middle East Journal. 77 (2) – via Project MUSE. An earlier 2017 agreement between Israel and China about Chinese labor in the Jewish state similarly excluded all sites in the Occupied Territories. Israel preferred not to have clear language about the matter. Both countries thus agreed that, instead of using negative language listing prohibited areas, they would agree positively about the included locations, which indeed did not include any occupied areas.
  3. ^ Pinfold, Rob Geist (2023-04-20). Understanding territorial withdrawal : Israeli occupations and exits. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780197658888. It contrasts the above cases to those of Israeli occupation, without exit in: (iv) the West Bank and (v) the Golan Heights.
  4. ^ Dajani, Muna; Eldin, Munir Fakher (2022-09-26). Mason, Michael (ed.). The Untold Story of the Golan Heights: Occupation, Colonization and Jawlani Resistance. London: I.B. Tauris. doi:10.5040/9780755644551. ISBN 978-0-7556-4455-1.
  5. ^ Braverman, Irus (2024). "Frontier ecologies: Israel's settler colonialism in the Jawlan-Golan". Political Geography. 111 – via ScienceDirect. This, indeed, was the romanticized imaginary of the Golan Heights that I grew up on. In it, there was no room for civilian Syrian villages, for acknowledgement of the occupation, or even for an awareness of the name "Jawlan."
  6. ^ Kheir, Eve A. (2023-03-02). Codeswitching As an Index and Construct of Sociopolitical Identity : The Case of the Druze and Arabs in Israel. Brill. p. 157. ISBN 9789004534803. At the end of the Six-Day War (June 1967), the Golan Heights (including the aforementioned four Druze villages) passed from Syrian to Israeli control, and a new border was created between Syria and Israel, which divided Druze families.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Modern Jewish settlement

The heading "Early Jewish settlement" was changed to "Modern Jewish settlement" to reflect the facts documented in the article about Jewish presence in the preceding thousands of years before the Ottoman period. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues (one technical, one for discussion)

So I have two things here. I don't think the first is controversial. I'm sorry I'm so technically challenged, but I was not able to figure out how to add a third ethnic group to the infobox. First is Jewish Israelis/Israeli settlers (This is the possibly controversial part. I'll get to that). Second is Druze. I can't get the third category in, which is Israeli Alawites, with a population of 2,400. The options are "Custom population type 1" (and title) and "Custom population type 2 (and title). It needs a "Custom population type 3" and I don't see how to do it. Is there anyone who can help with this?

The reference I would like to add for the 2,400 figure is: Shmuel, Samuel; Ali, Shemali (July 2017). "Identity and Sense of Place of Ghajar Residents Living in Border Junction of Syria, Israel and Lebanon". Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 8 (4): 62. Retrieved 24 March 2026.

The second part is the controversial part, I guess. There's an Al Jazeera reference which I added for the statistic. Al Jazeera is by no means pro-Israeli, but they use the term "Jewish Israelis." I think that would be the better term to use, as it is NPOV. Thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Druze are Arabs and they are not an ethnic group by itself. This will be changed back to reflect reality; only in Israel are Druze considered an independent ethnic group or deemed different from other Arabs for political purposes. Same goes for Alawites. JJNito197 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is contradicted by this source, for example, which says The Druze are a small, secretive religious and ethnic group that originated in the Middle East more than a thousand years ago. [34] Slava570 (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying they are not Arabs? It's well known that they are. Same as Alawites. Please don't embarrass yourself further. JJNito197 (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not saying that. Not all Arabs are the same. Iraqis are Arabs and so are Egyptians. The Druze are a distinct ethnoreligious group. Here's another source that calls them an ethnic group. Pew Research Center [35]
It would be great if we could not engage in personal attacks. Slava570 (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point, though? Dividing Arabs into smaller, manageable entities is a long term Israeli goal (and why they give specific status to Druze), not sure why we need to parrot that. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're using demographic information as a proxy for a political battle. Whereas I think the purpose of population statistics in an infobox is to provide basic information about the makeup of a place. The Druze self-identify as a separate ethnoreligious group, so why shouldn't Wikipedia readers learn that? Whether that allegedly serves the interests of one or another state or political ideology shouldn't matter. Slava570 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know that they don't identify as Muslim, but I'm not seeing any rejection of being Arab within the Druze article, with the "In Israel" section even specifically stating "Most Israeli Druze identify ethnically as Arabs."
While I could see an argument for having subcategories listed under an Arab population count, I don't see the value in making such a hard distinction, especially when they themselves don't seem to. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So looking further into the quote you added, the source for that is Pew Research Center: [36] Added to the source is this quote: A somewhat smaller share of Druze (71%) say they are ethnically Arab. In other words, labeling them as Arab would be incorrect for nearly a third of them, whereas labeling them as Druze would be correct for all of them, without negating the 71% that identify as Arab. Not only are they not Muslim, but most Muslims consider them heretics, but that is a different issue. Slava570 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 3 sources that says they are.[1][2][3] You want to do Alawites next? JJNito197 (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources that refers to Israeli settlers in the Golan heights as Israeli settlers: [37] [38][39][40]. There is no reason to cherry pick one that does not. To use anything else but "settler" would be to claim their presence in the area is the same as the Syrians who remained there, which is highly inaccurate. Regarding the Alawites, the majority of them in Ghajar actually live in Lebanon and not in the Golan Heights as the majority of the village is in Lebanon. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources that refer to the Jews as settlers and some that refer to them as Jewish Israelis. So it's cherry picking either way. All the sources that call the Jews settlers would agree that they are Jewish Israelis though, since that's just an objective fact. They are Jewish and they are Israeli. But not all the sources that call them Jewish Israelis would agree that they are settlers, because that presupposes an ideological position. So the term Jewish Israelis would be objectively agreed upon by a larger number of those sources.
Secondly, calling the Israeli Druze Syrians is imposing an identity on them for political reasons. They don't self-identify as Syrians. 80% of the Druze men in Israel enlist in the IDF [41] and over 20% of Golan Druze are Israeli citizens.
According to the source I provided above Today all Ghajar residents hold Israeli citizenship, and some living in the northern part have dual Lebanese and Israeli citizenship. So even if they live in the northern part, they are still part of the Golan population since they have free movement there, so they should still be included for demographic purposes. And if they hold Israeli citizenship, it's just an objective fact that they're Israelis. The same source also says that a resident said "They feel that they are Syrians". But that doesn't apply to the Druze. Slava570 (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By removing that they are settlers, you are putting them in the same position as Syrians, inside an occupied territory internationally viewed as Syria. This is completely unacceptable. I'm not talking about Israeli druze, Im talking about the Syrians in the Golan heights both Druze and Alawites, whether some are Israeli citizens or not doesn't matter as they are all of Syrian origin and they are living on their land, legally in the Golan Heights, which the Israeli settlers are not.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So firstly, all of the 2,400 Alawites in the Golan Heights are Israeli citizens since 1981. And 20%+ of the Golan Druze are Israelis. This was something they chose. They were not forced to become citizens of Israel, so they should definitely not be called Syrian. Their choices should be respected. Having an origin in another country doesn't negate how they choose to identify now.
But citizenship is not the only factor at play here. For example, look at this source [42]
a 2020 poll from the Jewish People Policy Institute found that 61 percent of Israeli Druze surveyed identified “very much” as “real Israelis”
and
According to a December 2024 poll, 53% of Druze respondents said the war increased their sense of belonging to the Israeli state, with only 7.5% reporting deteriorating ties. Eighty percent of Druze residents feel part of the Israeli state and its problems, per a December 2023 Israel Democracy Institute poll.
We shouldn't use people as pawns to further a political narrative and impose labels on them against their own wishes. A large majority of Druze in Israel don't want to be called Syrians. Slava570 (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thats basically propaganda and not an accurate view of the situation, if someone is threatened with expulsion from their lands (Golan Heights) and the only way they can remain is to became a citizen, how was that a choice? Over 200 Golan druze have lost their residency rights and can no longer return to the Golan heights because they moved abroad. 80% of druze in Israel join the Israeli military, not the druze in the Golan Heights. But it doesn't even matter, All of the Golan Druze and Alawites are of Syrian origin weather they have Israeli citizenship or not. And they are living on their land, the Israeli settlers there are not living on their land, the Israeli settlers have illegally moved into an area internationally regarded as Syria and settled inside this Syrian territory. So these settlers can not be put in the same position as the indigenous population who are living on their own lands.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are different definitions of propaganda, but for me one of the hallmarks is dismissing objective data when it doesn't fit the narrative. A poll taken in the present day that says a large majority of Druze see themselves as Israeli is just data and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. A choice is a choice, even if it's a difficult one. Demographic data in an infobox should be about demographic data. We are interested in who lives in the place, and we should not force labels onto groups that don't accept those labels themselves, just because those labels fit our narrative. That is what propaganda is.
The word Israeli is an objective and neutral word to describe a nationality. If someone is a current Israeli citizen, then objectively they are an Israeli. If large percentages of a population describe themselves as real Israelis, such as the Druze, then that's what they are. Slava570 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We follow what the reliable sources say and I showed above several reliable sources calling the Israeli settlers in the Golan Heights "Israeli settlers". Just calling them "Israeli" is not objective or neutral as it normalizes their presence in an occupied territory and puts them is the same position as the natives, something the sources does not do. What the Israeli settlers identify as or not is of no importance in this regard. According to them, its their land and they obviously don't view themselves as invaders or settlers. Their views about themselves is of no importance on what we call them here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that you believe people's self-identification doesn't matter (and to be clear, I'm talking about Druze self-identifying as Israeli and even being citizens, joining the IDF, etc). We need to remember this in case you argue the opposite at some point in the future.
Secondly, your argument is based on a political agenda (we should not "normalize their presence") If sources do normalize the presence of Jews, we need to reflect that, whether we like it or not, especially as this becomes the more and more mainstream view in the future.
Separately, there's also some context we've been missing about the Alawites. From the New York Times [43]
“Villagers said that in June 1967, when Israel captured the Golan Heights, its troops stopped short of Ghajar, considering it Lebanese territory. But the Lebanese authorities, reluctant to absorb an Alawite community into a land already divided by religious strife, told a delegation from Ghajar that their village was part of Syria and warned the group that if villagers crossed the Hasbani River into Lebanon, they would be shot or jailed.
Residents then invited Israeli forces to take the village with the rest of the Golan, and the villagers were granted Israeli citizenship in the 1980's. Many now work in neighboring Israeli communities and speak fluent Hebrew.”
This leaves no room for doubt here that at least the Alawites of Ghajar are Israeli. This is from a reliable source. It's irrelevant if it doesn't fit your political agenda. Slava570 (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question that may hopefully progress this discussion somewhat: Are we defining the population by nationality or ethnicity? I realized that with the way we're currently presenting the population numbers, we're listing Israeli settlers (A group defined by their nationality but potentially of various Jewish ethnicities) alongside Druze (A group strictly defined by their ethnoreligious identity) as if they are the same "type" of social group. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They can be defined as both, for example: "Israeli settlers (Jewish)". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate this... In my opinion, we need to pick a lane, either
    A. ethnoreligion, or
    B. ethnoreligion + nationality/status.
    All three groups that should be listed are ethnoreligions (Jewish, Druze, Alawite).
    It would make no sense to split Jews up beyond Jews, and I doubt that we would be able to even find stats for Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahi, Ethiopian, etc specifically for the Golan Heights. If we also want to include nationality/status, then for Jews it would either say Israeli or settlers (I don't like settlers, but let's set that aside for now). For Druze, 20% are Israeli, the rest are residents, but the large majority is integrated in Israeli society. I think it would just have to say Druze either way, and the note clarifies that 20% are Israeli citizens. For Alawite, it would say Alawite Israeli, since they are all Israeli citizens by choice.
    I would be fine with making it ethnicity only or ethnicity plus nationality/status, but definitely all three groups need to be included. Slava570 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a formatting similar to the West Bank article? We could have a single total population number with the number of settlers moved to a footnote & then break ethnoreligious groups (Jewish, Druze, Alawite) into its own distinct section. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The West Bank article only puts the population of Israeli settlers in the footnote, and they don't include figures for Samaritans at all (it's very small, but I would think of interest...) There's also no separate population figure for Christians and Muslims. I feel like in this case, with only three groups, to just tell people what each population is would be of interest to readers who want to learn about the composition of the Golan Heights. Otherwise, we will end up with a single population figure, accompanied by another very long footnote that not a lot of people will read anyway... So I don't think that would be as useful, honestly. Slava570 (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The demographic makeup of the West Bank is linked in the infobox which does include a figure for Samaritans, but that's getting off-topic.
    We could just list the religious groups instead, rather then specifically ethnoreligious ones & then have a dedicated section in the article covering the demographics of the Golan Heights. I don't see how a footnote saying "~31,000 Israeli settlers live in the Golan Heights as of 2024" can be considered "very long" though. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, yeah I see now that the word population links to a section on demographics. No offense to anyone, but I don't think that's well done. For me, the purpose of an infobox is to give you quick stats about a place. The three main groups here are ethnoreligious groups, so I'm not sure why we would change that to religious groups. And why would the note only include the population of Jews and not Druze and Alawites? What I'm saying is, a note about all three would be quite long. On the other hand, what other information is there other than the population of these three groups that would justify a full new section on demographics (especially considering there's already a maintenance box that says the article is too long). The info I think we need to include is Jews (whether with settlers/Israeli/nothing TBD) 31K, Druze 29K, Alawites 2.5K. It would just work very well if we could have three lines in the infobox... Slava570 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Syrians in the eastern Golan should also be included, they were in the infobox before, but someone removed it a while back. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're not taking recent developments into consideration. The 2019 US recognition fundamentally changed the equation as that represents 20% of the security council. Even so, that is not the main issue for this conversation because that was about who the land belongs to, not the status of the people living there. That's a bit more complex.
As of March 2026, 40% of Golan Druze have now chosen to take Israeli citizenship voluntarily. The same countries that recognize the land as Syrian also recognize these Druze individuals as Israelis, and they are treated exactly as other Israelis are treated by those countries. They do not have Syrian passports, although they are allowed entry into Syria. Those who have not taken Israeli citizenship travel with Israel-issued laissez-passer documents, where the citizenship field is left blank.
Golan Druze also overwhelmingly self-identify as Israelis, as evinced by the polls mentioned above.
Finally, there has been a change of regime in Syria, and the new regime is largely hostile to the Druze. So to call them Syrian is just not correct at this point. See here for more info on everything I've said here: [44] Slava570 (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I only brought up theoretically changing my initial proposal of "ethnoreligious group" to "religious group" because I thought you were objecting to it as excluding "Christians and Muslims", but if that comment was aimed towards the West Bank article, then it's moot. I also only suggested a separate section on demographics because you've been discussing a lot of details about the intricacies of the Golan's demographic makeup & thought you would've wanted somewhere to expand on that. Again though, if I was mistaken, it's now a moot point.
The note would not be singling out any ethnicity, (nor even nationality, as you yourself have stated, many Druze have Israeli citizenship), rather it'd only cover Israeli settlers because unlike every other demographic of the Golan Heights, they are illegally occupying foreign territory. The most notable aspect of the Golan Heights in the modern day is its status as occupied territory, with the settler population being directly relevant to that. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The term "settlers" is dated for this geographic area. You have Druze with Israeli citizenship. Most were born there and others moved there. Guz13 (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What you believe is "dated" is not in accordance with reliable sources that use "Israeli settlers": [45][46][47][48]. We follow the reliable sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're trying to state here as settler is in no way a "dated" term. Israeli settlers are defined by their illegal settlements in an occupied territory, whether they moved there or were born there, they're still settlers living in illegal settlements. This is a completely separate group to Druze who hold Israeli citizenship, as they may be Israeli, but they aren't living in illegal settlements. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]


References

MOS ERA

Does @Agnieszka653 want to explain to us why they deemed it necessary to go against MOS:ERA brazenly, quote "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page". Technically, it should be all BC/AD due to it being most used on the page. Thanks JJNito197 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CE/BCE came first on the article, and MOS:ERA usually requires consensus to change from one to another. Since it started as BCE/CE, it makes sense to restore that and make it consistent throughout since both have appeared in different places on this article. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JJNito197 stop being rude too please to other editors. @Agnieszka653 did nothing "brazen" in attempting to correct for mistakes found in a Wikipedia article. Thank you Agnieszka653 for making the changes. Per MOS:ERA, "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first" Where was the consensus to move away from BCE/CE first found on this article? While WP:CCC, as it clearly has for many things across the spectrum on this article, that needs to first be established, or BCE/CE should immediately be restored. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All of you read WP:STABLE articles, and the BCE/CE did not apply to the new information that was added. This seems like WP Brigading and WP:TAGTEAM as multiple editors seem to be acting in unison. Do we want to see if this rule you made up applies to other articles aswell? Provide evidence. This matter will escalate to the relevant noticeboad. No, it is contrived and not operating on Wikipedia tenets. JJNito197 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that rudimentary 2 paragraph article you posted, enough information was added since then (counted about 2 BCE/CE usages, great) and read Wikipedia:Consensus. You clearly don't have any understanding on how Wikipedia operates if you think you have to revert back to 2001 article. Btw, MOS:ERA wasn't even enforced yet, so your argument is invalid. JJNito197 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article started off using BCE/CE until it was changed without clear consensus to make the switch. As the article stands, per MOS:ERA, there is a mix of BC/AD and BCE/CE already in the article, with the BC/AD largely confined to the Roman Era. Most of the sources cited in the article use the scholarly standard of BCE/CE. Per MOS:ERA, "The default calendar eras are Anno Domini (BC and AD) and Common Era (BCE and CE). Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles depending on the article context." Given the context of the article, it hardly seems appropriate to be using BC/AD, let alone in a mix with BCE/CE. As there is no broad standard in the article for either format, the consensus to restore the status quo ante of the logical contextual CE/BCE option seems to be the appropriate format to use throughout. Alansohn (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh another one. That's not how MOS ERA works. It's about the text in the article. The logical move next would be to make all BCE/CE to BC/AD as The latter outnumbers the rest. As I've already said, if you have to revert back to a 2001 version, a version of 2 paragraphs, your argument is invalid. Especially as MOS BCE wasn't even established yet on wikipedia. Because it wasn't esbalished yet you don't actually have any ground to stand on. Consensus forms with stable articles, and an article becomes stable due to no edit warring occurring. As no edit warring happened, for 25 years, and as the article was greatly improved, there is no ground to stand on and your argument is incorrect. JJNito197 (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the things to fuss over, can we focus on the discussions above rather than CE AD whatever. Im not even sure why either would be objectionable. If this is an issue, we can come back to it later. Personally, I am partial to ab urbe condita, alas that hasnt caught on... ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Golan uses CE. Guz13 (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this is a widely used academic practice reflected in many articles. As mentioned above, per MOS:ERA, established style shouldn’t be changed without consensus. The fact that it was changed from BCE/CE to the current mix suggests no clear consensus. Later expansion of the article doesn't, by itself, establish consensus. Restoring BCE/CE until consensus has been reached in whatever direction follows policy and general Wikipedia practices. Maybe it's worth considering using 'BP'. ScottyNolan (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was only changed yesterday. It wasn't changed to the current mix, it was editors adding simply adding content. Either way, it's good to know in the future. Per the comments at the ANI, MOS:VAR makes it clear that, If discussion fails to reach a consensus regarding which of two or more competing styles to use at all, then default to the style that was used in the first post-stub version of the article in which one of the applicable styles appeared. So what you are saying doesn't apply, it was simply reverted back to the stub version of the article irrespective of consensus being reached. JJNito197 (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, I will continue adding content with AD/BC on this article regardless, and editors that feel it incumbent to change to CE/BCE can clean up after me. All it shows is that BCE/CE is an important aspect to some, which is telling. I simply use AD/BC because it is standard in the U.K. JJNito197 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a tag to use US English. It's clear that more people want BCE/CE. It's not an issue that matters much to me, but also think BCE/CE is better. Slava570 (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, which is why I wont request consensus. It doesn't matter to me, but it clearly matters to others. JJNito197 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
user:JJNito197 stop WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS. ScottyNolan (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
which is telling. That is saying that the preference for BCE/CE is revealing something formerly hidden to you. What does the preference for BCE/CE reveal to you? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That editors feel the need to revert back to a 2001 stub version to get what they want and prove a point, which shows that AD/BC was something that editors felt strongly averse too. I can work with both ERA's, see my edits here where i kept CE/BCE because this is common on articles regarding Judaism, and thus suited the passage about the Great Jewish Revolt. [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]. JJNito197 (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
" Standard in the UK " is irrelevant. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BCE/CE should remain in this article and has strong consensus based on contextual considerations outlined in MOS:ERA. The guideline explicitly recognizes that article context is significant, and BCE/CE represents a more neutral and internationally recognized option for topics not specifically focused on Christianity—particularly for broad historical, archaeological, or multi-religious subjects. Wikipedia policy doesn't mandate a religious dating system when a neutral alternative is equally appropriate under the Manual of Style.
At this point, though, the matter extends beyond MOS:ERA to questions of editor conduct. After several editors clarified the relevant guidance, repeatedly forcing a personal preference onto the article seems disruptive rather than constructive, which could require attention from an admin. Instant History (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a religious dating system. Only in Israel is it used in this way, and even then it's not universal. I am not religious and nor do I use AD/BC in this manner, neither does ancient Egypt on Wikipedia or other articles pertaining to non-biblical Judaic history. You are wp assuming this to be the case, and assuming I want the article to be all BC/AD. This is wrong assumption on your part; I am not aggrieved by AD/BC usage and I'm not affiliated to Abrahamic doctrine. JJNito197 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DROPTHESTICK Guz13 (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "Only in Israel is it used in this way, and even then it's not universal."? ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was no established era style as both were being used on the page, however, as previously mentioned, the CE/BCE era style was used first which gives it a basis for being the style for the entire article. Please remember WP:CIVIL when participating/initiating TP discussions @JJNito197 Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus seems to be overwhelmingly in support of BCE/CE. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, we could perhaps add this in the banner for this talk page so that the settled consensus is apparent and no one tries to war in their preferred AD/BC variant again without extensively coming to new consensus. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With only one editor lightly supporting BC/AD, I am not sure there is much of a dispute to enshrine a consensus in such a manner. If it became contested again, then perhaps, but at present, it would add clutter to the top banners. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of source to "win" argument at talkpage

User Gjb0zWxOb changed the text in the etymology section from: [57] "In the Hebrew Bible, Golan is mentioned as a city of refuge" to "The name "Golan" first appears in the Hebrew Bible".

But when I look at the source (p 43 [58]), there is nothing there that says that the name: "Golan first appears". The source only says that the name Golan appears as a settlement in Bashan. This is a clear misrepresentation of the source.

What is also interesting is that Gjb0zWxOb did the change after I pointed out at the talkpage to Metallurgist, that the article does not say that the name "Golan originates with hebrew" [59]. Gjb0zWxOb holds the same views as Metallurgist in all the disputes at the talkpage.

So Gjb0zWxOb, then just "solved" the issue by just misrepresenting the source, so that a user he has the same views with can now "win" the argument at the talkpage. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness, I'm confused. The source cited in the diff you mention states that "The name 'Golan' appears in the biblical references as a settlement within the region of the Bashan (Deut. 4.43; Josh. 20.8) or as a city (Josh. 20.8; 1 Chron. 6.71), the first considered free, the latter a Levitical city." Yes, the places where it is listed -- Deut. 4.43; Josh. 20.8 / Josh. 20.8; 1 Chron. 6.71 -- are the chapters and verses of where "The name "Golan" first appears in the Hebrew Bible", first in Deuteronomy, then twice in Joshua and then in I Chronicles. What's wrong with this and why are you making accusations of misrepresentation, when this is exactly what the source says? Where does the name Golan appear earlier in the Hebrew Bible? Alansohn (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently written as if this is the first time the name appears altogether, even outside the bible. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also confused and don't see any "misrepresentation" here. @Supreme Deliciousness, please be more careful with how you characterize the motives of other editors. Such claims can quickly move into WP:PERSONALATTACK territory if you are not careful. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of PapaTakaro, see investigation)[reply]
I believe you're misinterpreting the statement "The name "Golan" first appears in the Hebrew Bible" as if it were saying that the term originates from the Hebrew Bible, rather then what the full sentence in context means, which is when/how the term is first used in the Hebrew bible.
While I'm not sure if that historical information necessarily belongs in the etymology section, I don't see the "misrepresentation" that you seem to. I understand how editing in this topic area can be frustrating at times, but you're coming in way too hot here & should probably take a breather &/or a step back. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you were right - and I think, on the contrary, that the added sentence does follow the source - you should still word your comments in a way that assumes good faith on the part of other editors. Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with this, but I think I can understand why tensions might be a bit high. No-one seems to be following WP:BRD in good faith as an optional content resolution process, which would greatly improve dialogue between editors. JJNito197 (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would also change 'appeared' to mentioned personally. JJNito197 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the improvement of "mentioned" over "appeared" in my view. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of PapaTakaro, see investigation)[reply]
I think now is another time to remind editors to WP:AGF when they initiate TP discussions. I also would have appreciated being tagged in discussions where I am mentioned so that I can give my thoughts. I believe that the chronological primacy of the Hebrew Bible strongly implies that this is the first use of the term, particularly that there is nothing else on the page or anything else I was able to find that found an earlier mention of the word "Golan." That being said, to be overinclusive, I added an additional source which states, "The name 'Golan' is first mentioned in the Bible as a settlement in the region of the Bashan." Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew language in etymology section

I don't understand why Hebrew words are in the etymology section now. [60] This is an English Wikipedia, not Hebrew. We can't understand it. I have added a template to revolve this issue. Instant History, assume good faith. [61] WP:AGF @ScottyNolan @Instant History JJNito197 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Following this principle: editors should seek to write articles accessible to the greatest possible number of readers. See Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable JJNito197 (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging involved editor Slava570. I need a reference for the claim you made about "Common practice is to insert a few foreign words in parenthesis".[62] Yes a word, not an entire sentence with no english translation. I'm speaking for the benefit of the english speaking population who does not know Hebrew, thank you. JJNito197 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:!EN Non-English terms should be used sparingly. I was reacting to the obnoxious maintenance box you added that said, among other things, that the whole section was written in Hebrew and is intended for Hebrew speakers and should be contributed to Hebrew Wikipedia, followed by a threat to delete the whole article, followed by lengthy instructions on how to translate. It's a few short lines. Get a grip. And by the way, labeling the Hebrew language as "jargon" is offensive. Slava570 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I did not expect that reaction. It's offensive actually to add a foreign language and expect others to understand who don't speak/read it. If you are getting offended by me simply caring about readability for the non-Hebrew speakers, I don't think you care about improving Wikipedia for its English speaking readership. Otherwise you would have fulfilled this simple request and translated it. JJNito197 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
JJNito197, unless you are immune from sanctions because you use disposable accounts, I suggest you avoid being drawn into a personalized dispute with the Slava570 account. Those kinds of disputes only have utility for people willing to spin up a new replacement account once their old account has been sanctioned. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Sean.hoyland account speaks the truth. It is very wise. Slava570 (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, understood. JJNito197 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland, that comment is inappropriate. Speculating that an editor may be using ‘disposable accounts’ and implying future sanctions is not a content argument and does not help resolve the dispute. Per WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:FOC, editors are expected to address the issue, not make personal insinuations about other contributors. If there is an actual conduct concern, Wikipedia has formal venues for that; specific concerns about violations of WP policy should be addressed at ANI. Otherwise, this kind of remark only derails discussion and escalates tension. The matter under discussion is whether the material complies with MOS:FOREIGN and is understandable to readers of the English Wikipedia. Please discuss the content, not the presumed status or motives of other editors. Instant History (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't actually accusing any users here of being a sockpuppet, rather, as Sean.hoyland predominantly focuses on analyzing sockpuppet behavior, they frame most discussions from that perspective. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't notice, they referred to JJnito197 with the pronoun "you" (a human) while referring to me as "an account" (a nonhuman). If this is something Sean.hoyland does all the time, that sounds like a problem, if you ask me. Slava570 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You literally presumed I wasn't editing in good faith in your edit. [63] Take your own advice. JJNito197 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Instant History, I have a different view. I shall explain. There is no speculation. There are no personal attacks. There is no incivility. There are no insinuations (I can't see ban evading actors, I can see statistics though). It is consistent with WP:FOC, and it is intended to do the opposite of derailing anything (that was the point, to stop a derailment by providing an actual reason to stop rather than a bunch of ineffective acronyms). As for anyone's motive and intent, I have no access to verifiable information about those things, so they are irrelevant from my perspective. If everyone in the topic area used that approach, accepted that they can't see motive, it might be a better place. The reason my comment is appropriate and useful, in my view, is because we can estimate the probability of encountering an effectively unsanctionable ban evading actor on this page. It is substantially elevated compared to background levels. Pragmatic editors who factor this into their decision making can avoid getting themselves into conflicts where the potential costs of sanctions are asymmetric (there is of course zero cost to ban evading actors). I understand that people have sensitivities about these things, but I think it is helpful for editors to live in and make decisions based on reality (which is not defined by a bunch of acronyms), especially if it helps them avoid needless conflict. Slava570, I try to think about Wikipedia as interacting accounts with properties, and try to ignore everyone's humanity, including my own. This is not really possible in practice so apologies if my referring to you as an account offended you. It doesn't mean non-human, although I guess there are probably already some agentic accounts around. Sean.hoyland (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no harm done... Slava570 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, why were these Hebrew sentences:[64] added into the etymology section here at ENGLISH Wikipedia? Whats the point? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an etymology section and  the point is to explain where the name comes from and how it appears in the earliest sources. In such section, original language forms are often important, especially when the earliest mentions are in Biblical Hebrew.
    MOS:FOREIGN does not say non-English text can never be used. It just says it should be used sparingly and in a way that still helps readers. That seems to be the case here.
    The Hebrew there is the actual wording from the passages where “Golan” is first mentioned, so it is directly relevant to the discussion of the name’s origin and make the section more accurate. Of course there should also be an English explanation.
    English Wikipedia also does this in other articles when discussing names and origins. The Jerusalem article Etymology section, for example, includes Hebrew, Greece, Arabic and other forms of scriptures in its naming discussion. Instant History (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Greek letters are only for "Golan" which is appropriate, the problem here is that these are several larger sentences in Hebrew. In this case the Hebrew letters are not used sparingly and it does not help the reader. Quite the opposite, it just clutters the section with something the vast majority of readers cant read. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I would add that the etymology section also has words in Greek as well as transliterations of Aramaic and Arabic. We could add the actual Aramaic and Arabic words, and that would help show the multilingual history of the region. Slava570 (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summary

This edit removed some relevant, sources information about Aramaic, Canaanite, Greek and Arab history on terminological usage and reverence in the Golan. I do not see it as an improvement, especially because it added information while retaining citations that do not support the additions. Tiamut (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. JJNito197 (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What information? GordonGlottal (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted material includes the following:

  • "What is clear is that there were many holy sites in the Golan surrounding Mount Hermon connected to events involving Jesus and the Apostles that received increased attention following Christianity's adoption as the religion of the Empire. Dozens of churches and monastic retreats proliferated there, secured by the Arab Christian Ghassanid foederati, whose capital was at Jabiya. This Christian ascetic tradition continued and spread into Islam, as al-Muqaddasi notes meeting a community of forty of his coreligionists (zuhhād) who wore robes of wool and subsisted on acorns, demonstrating its place as one of the "holy mountains" to followers of Islam and the Abrahamic tradition."[1]
  • "and Canaanite" (after Hebrew), while not mentioned in the cited text, it is mentioned here
  • the different Aramaic names used as transcribed in English ("The Aramaic language name for the region is Gawlāna, Guwlana and Gublānā.[2]"). The edit linked above removed all but Gublana. It also mischaracterized them as the name of a city, when they in fact referred to a district, per Sharon as cited and per Jastrow who he cites (see here
  • Also removed a citation and this: "and came into use by the Hellenistic period in the 2nd century BCE.[3]"

The edit should be reverted and you can add whatever you added in your edit, without removing all this information. Tiamut (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I do not know what that has to do with the etymology of "Golan Heights" beyond what is already included. If you think it is relevant enough for the etymology section, add it back.
(2) I removed the reference to "Canaanite" because I could not find it in the cites. You apparently also could not find it, and now offer a very general statement from 1845 about Syrian names generally. If there's some evidence of Canaanite etymology, please add it.
(3) The only Aramaic names are those which I have added to the page. These are alternate transliterations of the same 2 attested spellings. It is not clear to me either from the dictionaries or from the primary contexts whether it refers to consistently a city or region. Here are the contexts: M. Sotah 9:15, "The Galilee will be destoyed and the Gablan will be demolished (ישום, b. Sanhedrin 97r יאשם ashamed)". Y. AZ 2:4, "Rabbi Jeremiah went to Goblana". Y. Megillah 3:1, "Rabbi Jeremiah went to Gawlana". M. Sotah refers to a region, but the Aramaic mentions are note clear.
(4) I removed that it because it is not correct and I could not find any mention in the source by search (no page number). The only mentions are (M. Sotah) attributed to Eliezer ben Hurcanus, who lived in c. 100 CE, Judah ha-Nasi, c. 150 CE, and regarding Rabbi Jeremiah, c. 300 CE. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get "Jewish Babylonian Aramaic" from, it's not in the source. Neither are the translations you made, but I kept it. I have reverted back to Aramaic only per the source and WP:SYNTH, and I also removed a reference to the "Land of Israel" as it is not relevant under the header; we don't particulary care whether it is debated by Talmudic scholars. I have restored the text regarding the Ghassanids, as it is relevant to the passage about it being regarded as a Holy Mountain. JJNito197 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Aramaic spellings are available in Jastrow (linked above) and Ben David (cited on page), or any Hebrew-language source (where it is no additional trouble for typesetters). You can see them in the original here (Last word on the twelfth line), here (last word on the eleventh line), and here, third word in the penultimate line of the first paragraph. Unfortunately there is no careful digital version of this text at the moment, since the Maagarim database was destroyed by hackers a few weeks ago. Lesser copies are easy to find online. I can also provide page numbers for critical print editions if you have one.
Obviously the fact that it is a borderline inclusion in the Land of Israel is relevant to establishing where it was!? As discussed in the cited sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I did not remove the Aramaic spellings, out of WP:GOODFAITH, but the source provided does not mention Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and it simply mentions Aramaic. This is my reason for restoring this in accordance to WP:SYNTH. Regarding the "Land of Israel" and its borders, you and I are surely aware it's far from concrete in its scope. It's dubious and not relevant for the subheader, especially as it is debated and rather fits the latter body of the article, somewhere relevant and WP:DUE for those that care, not the general public. Thanks JJNito197 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have reverted the edits regarding the Aramaic, do you understand WP:SYNTH and how by adding content not in the source, it is acting in contravention of it? JJNito197 (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this discussion regarding the need for citations when it comes to spelling non-Latin orthography. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly this discussion. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point, it is WP:SYNTH to assume any dialect is used in this source. [65] It is not specified a such. JJNito197 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:BLUE issue if you understand the subject basics. "Guvlana" only appears in one text, the Palestinian Talmud. The term "Jewish Palestinian Aramaic" largely exists to describe the language of the Palestinian Talmud. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what the source says? If the source says "Aramaic" we insert it as is, rather than switching from Babylonian Jewish Aramaic to now Palestinian Jewish Aramaic which you have done. We don't care what is "true" we care what is cited, and if the cite says x, we don't embellish the content. How do you know it wasn't simply Western Aramaic? JJNito197 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is a WP:BLUE issue. There's no such thing as a generic "Western Aramaic" word that exclusively appears in such contexts in the Palestinian Talmud, it's nonsensical.
I want to discuss the use of "but" in the last paragraph. The reason I inserted it is that the purpose of the sentence is to describe why we cannot be certain who considered the mountain holy. That's why I said "there are christian sites BUT al-Maqdisi ALSO etc." This is a sentence relevant to the meaning of the phrase "holy mountain", which is our subject. The way that you've edited it turns that into two sentences about the history of the region which would belong lower down on the page. We need efficient language which makes clear that the Christian sites and Muslim ascetics are being cited as evidence towards alternate interpretations of the phrase. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"But" insinuates that it is contested by either/or. Ending the sentence provides two separate examples of two different spiritual traditions without taking away from either. I also don't understand why Aramaic alone doesn't suffice; it also is only used by Jews in the specific Palestinian Jewish Aramaic article, which discounts the usage from other non-affiliated Aramaic speakers that would have used it to refer to the region. You have melded it into a sentence to bolster the Jewish affinity without consideration of the aforementioned fact. JJNito197 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is either/or! That's the point. Only one of the two is the actual reason that Al-Maqdisi refered to it as a "holy mountain". That's why our source (Shahid) uses the language "Whether . . . or . . .". We need to follow him.
No, speakers of other Aramaic dialects would probably have called it something, but why should it be "Guvlana"? The only non-Jewish mention in Aramaic that I know of is the descriptor ܓܘܠܘܢܝܐ which I added from the Syriac Eusebius. This is not an equivalent of "Guvlana" but of "Goulanite"; still, it is definitely not what you would get if you made "Guvlana" into a descriptor!
Please WP:AGF. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The original source listed 3, Gawlāna, Guwlana and Gublānā. I see your point, but would we ever know the truth anyway? And the Muslims could've seen the Christians and named it after them and themselves. It doesn't have to be a yes/no/ either/or and even a "but" solution. Would "and" suffice? I am assuming GF, but you did remove the Ghassanid reference from the text, which made little sense as the lead up fitted perfectly. JJNito197 (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JJNito197 "Gawlana" and "Guwlana" are alternate transliterations of the same spelling. The only 2 mentions are in the manuscript I linked above. And I don't think there's any utility in listing all the possible pronunciations of every word which is only attested consonantally. "Guvlana" is, unlike Gawlana/Guwlana/Gublana, a possible reading of both attested spellings. This is the approach taken by my encyclopedia (I can post the cite when I get back to my desk). [Update: Kossovsky, Moshe (1985). Otzar leshon talmud yerushalmi: Otzar hashemot (in Hebrew). p. 161 GordonGlottal (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)].[reply]
Agree with @User:JNito197. The source says Aramaic and does not specify a dialect. A reminder that Itureans who lived in the Golan in the 2nd century BC also spoke and wrote Aramaic. Believe that the Greek Gaulanitis came from their usage of the term as their habitation predated later Hasmonean settlement. Tiamut (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tiamut, please read through this discussion before contributing. No word for Gaulanitis is attested in any Iturean or other non-JPA Aramaic corpus, so we do not know they would have called the region, if they had an equivalent term. There is no reason to assume that it would be the same. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also you may "believe" that they originated the term, but where is your source!? This is an encyclopedia. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was just simplifying it. The specific Christian background is IMO not notable for the etymology section, beyond "he might have called it holy mountain because of there were a lot of Christian sites around". I wish you'd just put it lower down like I suggested, because your attachment is to the history, not its very minimal possible pertinence to the etymology. How about something like "Although the site has no known Muslim theological significance, Christian . . . He also mentions acorn etc." I think this is the crux. On the one hand, he's a Muslim writer. OTOH, there's much much more evidence of Christian connection. And as a smaller third consideration, the ascetics. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It fits the subheader you created perfectly. The etymology section does not read congruently and is a mess of various languages and tid-bits of information. Not all your fault granted, but are you suggesting we strip every mention of other religious groups (or just Christians) when you inserted a passage about how the borders of the Land of Israel are debated by Talmudic scholars?! JJNito197 (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This content preexisted my reorganization, but the idea behind my subheading Golan heights#Etymology#As a holy mountain was to explain the "heights" part of "Golan heights". To answer: How was it that the name "Golan" became attached to a geological feature, instead of a political border which had never been given a geological definition? Not to put general history into the Etymology section. The answer to this question, as I understood from the preexisting content on the page was, Al-Maqdisi refers to Jawlan as a "holy mountain". Now, we can spend a sentence on the "holy" part of that, having brought it up, and because Shahid suggests that Al-Maqdisi originally meant only monastery by "holy mountain", a metonymy based on mountains being commonly topped by monks. This sentence should express Shahid's uncertainly regarding the origin of "holy", being either Christian, relating to one or several local Christian sites, or Muslim, relating apparently to the ascetics. I offered It is not clear if this designation was Muslim or a translation of the Christian honorific ἄγιον ὅρος, "holy mountain". In the Golan are many Christian religious sites, but in Al-Maqdisi's time it was also home to a group of Muslim ascetics who ate nothing but acorns (بالبلوط al-ballūṭ), led by a Thawri scholar named Ishaq al-Balluti (اسحاق البلوطى). I don't see the relevance of the Talmudic reference. It is directly related to the etymology, in that it bears on the meaning of predecessor Yovlana, which is a geographic term referring to a specific location. The only data point we have to establish what location is that it is a borderline inclusion in the Talmudic "Land of Israel". The nature of the Christian sites has nothing to do with any term used for the site; our understanding of the geographic range of "Jawlan" in Al-Maqdizi is not affected by it according to any source currently cited. But I already said that I'm not going to fight it, I'm much more concerned about accuracy than where accurate information should be placed. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I think what you suggest regarding 'but' actually works better with the sentence in hindsight. Apologies. JJNito197 (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your wording
In the Golan are many Christian religious sites, but in Al-Maqdisi's time it was also home to a group of Muslim ascetics who ate nothing but acorns (بالبلوط al-ballūṭ), led by a Thawri scholar named Ishaq al-Balluti (اسحاق البلوطى).[1]
vs my wording
In the Golan many Christian churches and monastic retreats proliferated, secured by the Arab Christian Ghassanid foederati, whose capital was at Jabiya. This Christian ascetic tradition continued and spread into Islam; Al-Muqaddasi notes meeting a community of forty of his coreligionists (zuhhād) led by a Thawri scholar named Ishaq al-Balluti (اسحاق البلوطى),[1] who wore robes of wool and subsisted on acorns (بالبلوط al-ballūṭ), demonstrating its place as one of the "holy mountains" to followers of Islam and the Abrahamic tradition.[1],
Accounts to the fact that Christian monastic sites were in the golan prior to the Muslim conquest in accordance to the sources provided. Your wording with "also" assumes that that it wasn't prexisting and contemporaneous only at that juncture. JJNito197 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a problem with the current language? I don't see the need for extra color on Ghassanids or the wool clothing etc., but whatever. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to the amount of colour given to...? JJNito197 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to know that Muslim ascetics wore wool and ate acorns

In a section about Golan as a holy mountain, the point is made that the Arabic term "noble mountains" or "holy mountains" used by al-Maqdisi may derive from the many churches in the area before the conquest. In this edit , I trimmed he paragraph to focus on the name and the main thing removed were details about al-Maqdisi meeting group of Muslim ascetics, listing that they wore wool, ate acorns and who their leader was. These details were removed because they were not relevant to the rets of the section. JJNito197, in this edit, carelessly added the typo "8kmconcerning", as well as reverting the entirety of my edit.

I find it hard to understand why we need the details that these Muslim ascetics wore wool and ate acorns, which appear completely UNDUE in this context. User:JJNito197 then adds more sources, but the act he sources exist doesn't require us to include the content.

Maybe JJNito197 can explain why the content and details about wearing wool and eating acorns are needed here and get consensus for inclusion? Alansohn (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly reverting due to the Ghassanid Christian information which you removed in your edit. We had reached an agreement above regarding this content. Regarding the wool and acrorns, I think it provides context for the Muslims as to why the Golan mountains were referred to as holy. It gives greater context and I don't see the purpose of removing this if so; it leaves the reader yearning. The mountain(s) is something which is, or was viewed as, holy to two different religions. JJNito197 (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues in the maintenance box is that the article is too long. However, I don't think one extra sentence will make or break it. It seems to me that acorns and wool is an interesting detail, and while it's not essential, it helps make the the article a bit less dry. At the same time, I think the change to calque is ok, as well as other copy edits that didn't need to be reverted. Slava570 (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also want to add that JJNito reverted twice in a 24 hour period. Slava570 (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also this information you added here:
(...) that proliferated in the Golan prior to the conquest, alongside a community of forty Muslim ascetics
Which doesn't make sense and was discussed above; it is presumed this veneration was contemporaneous rather than prexisting by the way it is written. JJNito197 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The point of including the information is to express the continuation of holy tradition in the shift from Christianity to Islam, which is expressed by the source cited, and the reason I removed "however" here. Tiamut (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tiamut, please read the discussion above. Such an inclusion would not belong in the etymology section although it can be added below. The purpose of this sentence in the etymology section is to explain why Al-Maqdisi refers to the mountain Jawlan as "holy". According to one interpretation, it is because there were local Christian sites. HOWEVER, Al-Maqdisi also mentions Sufi ascetics, so it may be that it was holy to Muslims as well. Feel free to reword if you can make that clearer. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the discussion and my comment and edit speak to it directly. It was holy to Arab Christians (Ghassanids) and holy to Arab Muslims (some of whom may have been those Arab Christians before adopting Islam, see here).
Also this "soft revert" you just made, again erased information on Harith being named for Nu'man. Please restore it, and correct the link to Al-Nu'man VI ibn al-Mundhir, ibn Harith (Aretas). Tiamut (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is considerable controversy over the question of "Harith" in early Arabic poetry. Harith may a location named after any of several kings named Harith, or it may refer directly to a person, or it may be unrelated. The poetic mentions are not clear, that's why I linked it to the personal name page. This question is discussed by Shahid (1995) and Pasha (1982) among others. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New settler attempts to colonize further into the Syrian Golan

Is the page scope political or topographic?

The recent short description RFC (which I have closed as no-consensus) seemed to hinge on this question. But it should affect the entire page, i.e. as remarked by @Gjb0zWxOb the lede is currently "The Golan Heights . . . is a basaltic plateau" but it should be ". . . a Syrian territory" if there's consensus to define the topic politically and change the short description. The last discussion (May-June 2024) arrived at compromise lede language without defining the scope of the article. But for a short description we do need to decide.

Tagging from previous discussions: @Makeandtoss @Supreme Deliciousness @Coppertwig @HaOfa @Selfstudier @JasonMacker @Kurtis @ABHammad @Huldra @Redrose64 @JJNito197 @Thepharoah17 @Butterscotch Beluga @Kvinnen @Agnieszka653@296cherry @Sean.hoyland @Alansohn @Maltazarian @Boutboul @Metallurgist @Vanilla Wizard @Slava570 @Guz13 @Alaexis @Chessrat @HKLionel @Gurkubondinn @ScottyNolan @Lutzv @Daviddwd@Dunutubble GordonGlottal (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will not comment on the subject area. What I will comment is that the short description should (in my view as a general rule) reflect the lead, which should be the result of consensus over the precedence of elements, as what the first sentence says should reflect the most important primary information about the territory. Therefore, if the first words of the lead remain "basaltic plateau," then I would remain in support of that as the starting point. HKLionel TALK 14:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally pages on places include parts about both political geography and natural geography, unless they are entirely artificial political constructs where the geography they cover isn't really relevant to them and is best covered in other articles (United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus) or if they're nearly entirely uninteresting from a political standpoint (most natural geographic features like mountains or caves). The Golan Heights fall under neither. It's a geographic area that is clearly distinguished from it's surroundings but also one where politics are incredibly relevant. We have to be able to cover both aspects. For this reason my preferred short description is something like Syrian plateau occupied by Israel since 1967. or Plateau in Syria occupied by Israel since 1967.
    As for the whole thing about the lead: if editors feel that should match the short description then we can just make this discussion about both things at once. The consensus reached for the short description can be reflected in the first sentence of the lead. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a separate page for Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, which is a lot shorter. There's the problem of the maintenance box which says this article is too long, and it seems to only be getting longer. I would be in favor of splitting up the information more evenly between both articles. This one could focus mainly geography, etymology, history, with a smaller amount of political stuff, with the other article having the opposite focus. Thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think it's a good idea to summarize the political conflict here while hatnoting that as the main topic so it doesn't take up the whole article. It's pretty standard to limit the articles about entire territories to be summaries of the different aspects of it, and if some aspect would take up a lot more space than others it gets split off, hatnoted to and summarized in the main article. I don't see why that shouldn't be done here too. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My only comment is that there is nothing special about basaltic plateaus on rocky planets, as wonderful and interesting as they are. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Basaltic plateau in Syria" seems like a decent short description. It's a short description, not an article. Yes, there has been Israeli occupation since 1967, but the article is covering thousands of years of history in this article. Also, Israeli occupation and control is illegal and its legitimacy is rejected by the vast majority of states, organizations, and scholars. I don't see why it's so important to mention it in the short description. JasonMacker (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The modern state of Syria didn't exist for thousands of years either, so if our timescale is thousands of years, that's misleading. If that's the case we should say something neutral like Levant or Southern Levant. It's also not exclusively described by scholars as Syrian, as per Michael Boutboul's comment above. The US recognizes it as Israeli (and before anyone says this doesn't matter, it does matter... at least enough to warrant not being completely ignored.) Slava570 (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Where in "Basaltic plateau in Syria" does it imply that the modern state of Syria has existed for thousands of years? And why is this relevant for where it is located today? In the Galilee and Negev articles it says that they are located in Israel despite that the modern state of Israel only came into existence in 1948, using your own logic and argument then: "our timescale is thousands of years, that's misleading. If that's the case we should say something neutral like Levant or Southern Levant." - So go ahead and change those two articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That was specifically in response to JasonMacker's assertion that the article is covering thousands of years of history. The modern state of Syria also came into existence in the mid 40s. That in no way negates the previous history. Same is true of Israel. The Galilee and Negev are not comparable. Slava570 (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any logic in your comments. So what if the article covers thousands years of history? So do most geographical articles, their locations are also described as being in their modern states. Exactly the same as Galilee and Negev. Whats the issue? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing is to use neutral language. Slava570 (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How is it neutral to remove any mention of Syria when the area is internationally recognized as Syria? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
International recognition is not, by itself, a Wikipedia rule for how to label a territory in wikivoice. Otherwise, the same logic could produce misleading short descriptions in other cases - for example, Taiwan would not be described as a "country in East Asia" but in terms of the claims made over it. Wikipedia follows sources, and, as noted above, multiple recent reliable sources describe the Golan as disputed or contested rather than simply Syrian. The short description should therefore be neutral and should not present one contested characterization as an uncontested fact. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The short description is subject to no different rules of neutrality than the rest of the article, and as noted above the most reliable of sources nearly exclusively refer to it as Syrian territory. It's not a violation of WP:NPOV to use a description favoured by the scholarly consensus; to not do so is failing to adhere to WP:DUE, among other things. Plateau in Syria occupied by Israel since 1967. is entirely in line with what a supermajority of recently published scholarly sources on the subject say. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 09:49, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's a majority, we have to take into consideration sources that don't call it that. We also have to take into consideration that the situation is still developing. Even if disputed my a minority so far, it's still disputed. Slava570 (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No that's precisely what I'm saying we don't have to do, for the same reasons as WP:FRINGE doesn't allow you to use tabloid articles suggesting the government has anti-gravity technology as a reason to present whether or not humans have anti-gravity technology as being a matter of debate when nearly every physicist in the world is saying humans don't have anti-gravity technology. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 12:33, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in reference to the modern state of Syria. It would be in reference to Syria (region). JasonMacker (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Readers wouldn't understand whether the reference was to Greater Syria or Syria the modern state. In any case, Greater Syria doesn't cover the full history either. Slava570 (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a short description. It's not intended to be a thorough explanation. Even if they thought it was the modern state of Syria, that would be good enough for a short description to help a reader get a basic understanding of what this article is about. Do you really think someone searching for Golan Heights and seeing this short description is going to get confused? JasonMacker (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, interesting. Would you support "the Levant" then? I think Syria isn't likely to be understood that way. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that would work too! But I still think "Syria" would be better, as "Syria" is more easily recognized compared to "the Levant." JasonMacker (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think "South Levant" is inappropriate for a short description. Short descriptions are meant for identifying the subject, and readers are less likely to know what the "Levant" is than Syria. Sure, many will know the Levant is in the Middle East, maybe even that it's near the Mediterranean, but many of those would still struggle to say exactly what territory the term "Levant" covers. Adding "South" to it would be rather unhelpful, considering saying something is in the South of a region only helps you know where it is if you know the boundaries of that region. Also a lot of people would probably think of the Golan Heights as being near the centre of the Levant.
If you say it's in Syria but occupied by Israel that narrows it down to exactly one spot, the border region of Israel and Syria, and the Golan Heights happen to span nearly the entirety of it. The fact Syria as a state is relatively new doesn't really affect this. We are trying to help modern readers identify a region, and to a modern reader Syria is highly recognizable.
If it helps we could refrain from calling it Syrian and instead phrase it as Plateau in Syria occupied by Israel since 1967. In fact I think there is also less room for someone to misinterpret that phrasing. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 04:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think readers largely know what Levant means. You're not engaging with the argument that not all sources call it Syrian territory now. It is described as disputed territory as well, and the US recognizes the majority of it as Israeli territory (this holds more weight than other countries). If the only argument against using Levant is that readers won't get it, I don't buy that at all. Slava570 (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, yes, many readers will perhaps know that the Levant is that bit of the Middle East that borders the Mediterranean. Even more readers will know what Syria is. Also, again, saying Levant isn't nearly as precise as saying Syria. As for not engaging with the argument over sources: yeah because I already engaged with that extensively in the RfC. I only responded with the new point I had to make. But, if you insist on me engaging with your argument about the sources: I remember spending that about a month ago I spent over an hour looking at academic publications talking about the Golan Heights that had been published in the past few years, and I was almost completely unable to find any of them not calling it Syrian territory. My comment from the RfC about this:

Anyways, after looking up papers and books mentioning the Golan Heights in the past few years, excluding purely biological and ecological studies made by Israeli scientists, I find that calling it an occupation is still common practice.[4][5][6][7][8]
An example of it also not being referred to as an occupation.[9]

I even included an Israeli source despite the obvious issue with that because I felt that I should at least have something to give to the side arguing it wasn't consistently called Syrian anymore, so my whole source analysis didn't look blatantly biased. Despite doing that I still chose not to include stuff published in Palestinian studies journals due to the obvious bias there. The take-away is that even when I try to favour the side saying it's not consistently called Syrian territory the answer I come up with is still that the highest quality of sources still almost exclusively say that it's Syrian territory.
Also (..this holds more weight than other countries). isn't accurate. They all matter the same on EnWiki: not at all. Let's stick to arguing over reliable sources, they're what's relevant here. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 13:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As for not engaging with the argument over sources: yeah because I already engaged with that extensively in the RfC. Fair point, sorry to make you do that again. I'll get back to you about the rest though... Slava570 (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine it wasn't a big deal, I just wanted to explain why I left it out originally. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 16:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No territory name under any nationality. Guz13 (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everyone knows: I am going to change the short description pending us being able to get a consensus. I am doing this based on WP:NOCON as the RfC ended with no consensus. The relevant piece of policy is: When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. We can't have it at the boldly changed to Plateau in the South Levant. in light of the no consensus outcome of the RfC. I didn't realize nobody had changed it back (it shouldn't really have been like that during the RfC either) until I typed in Golan Heights to get to the page and saw the short description had not been changed back.
Looking at the page history I believe the current version was put in place by this edit and the original edit that began the chain of people changing the short description is this one. It was made by the now-banned-for-being-a-disruptive-sockpuppet Iljhgtn. Shocker. The stable version of the short description (the one in place right before the sockpuppet edit) was Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, so that's what I'm changing it to. For the record this isn't exactly my preferred choice for the short description, and I'd absolutely be open to some sort of temporary compromise if the other participants can come to one, but it is what it is. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 10:12, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What are some other choices you'd be ok with? FYI, here are my thoughts about whatever temporary change we come up with. I think it makes more sense to say occupied by Israel than Syrian territory because that's just the reality of the people living there. If we leave out Israel people will think it's operating under Syrian law. The problem with putting in occupied by Israel, is that, as the first line says, only the majority is occupied. I don't know how to make this work... Slava570 (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I would be fine with a lot of options, but the difficulty is finding a temporary compromise that other people are willing to accept. I have to think about it a bit more, it's difficult.
Also I think Israelis know Israel controls the area, and also there are limitations as to how much a short description can tell a reader. A reader is always going to be able to make incorrect assumptions about something if they only read the short description, but generally speaking they don't do that. I think nearly every reader looking up the Golan Heights is going to click the article and read no matter what the short description says, so such assumptions shouldn't be an issue. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 12:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The short description is sometimes seen in isolation from the main page, so it shouldn't be misleading... WP:SHORTDESC Slava570 (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will catch up on this full discussion later, but I think something along the lines of "Plateau in the Levant" is the most neutral, and reflects the Jerusalem compromise (Jerusalem – City in the Southern Levant), which is similarly disputed as this. Optionally including "disputed" and whether it is Southern Levant has been debated. I think either way could be argued. The territory is contested between Israel and Syria, and the reality for over half a century and foreseeable future has been and is Israeli control, so its not really sensible to favor one or the other. This isnt the same as a recently occupied territory (eg Donbas) and similar examples appear to accept the controlling party (eg Russia) as primary. Again, Ill expand further upon this when I get the time. ← Metallurgist (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The thing with Jerusalem is that scholarship and much of the international community views it as split into West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem, and then there is obviously just the nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict as a whole. This is more akin to something like Dakhla, which has been controlled by Morocco since 1976 but is widely considered by scholarship and the international community alike to be occupied territory. We present it as Dakhla, Western Sahara and state it is occupied territory. Also I would say it's similar to the Donbas, but I'm not really sure what you meant by similar examples appear to accept the controlling party (eg Russia) as primary, so when you get the time to expand I hope you can clarify that a bit too. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 12:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dakhla has this as a short description: "City in Western Sahara". Guz13 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and Western Sahara is a political designation, unlike Southern Levant which is a geographic/historical/cultural designation, take your pick I suppose, but point is that it isn't a strictly defined territorial entity, which Western Sahara is. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 17:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why should Southern Levant be used instead of just Syria? Readers are far more likely to be familiar with Syria (which has a modern state using that name) than with the Levant (an imprecise historical name)? JasonMacker (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its not even located in the southern levant, its in the middle.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The advantages of "basaltic plateau in the levant" is that not one word of it is disputed or misleading, and it's 30 characters long, which is under the target of 40, as anything past 40 can be "truncated in some contexts" WP:SDESC.
The disadvantages of the current short description "Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967" is that only a majority of the territory is occupied (as the lead says). Part of it is under the administration of the current Syrian government. So this is misleading in saying that all of the plateau is occupied. Secondly, the language is disputed for several reasons. Thirdly, it's 46 characters (while allowed, it's not the ideal). Slava570 (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After the Israeli invasion in 2024 Israel occupied all of it or the vast majority, so its accurate. Also saying "basaltic plateau in the levant" completely erases Syria from an area internationally recognized as Syria and puts Israel in the same position as Syria. How is this neutral? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it back to the prior SD that was on there for months. The article covers several thousand years of history, archeology and geography. All of these significantly predate the modern Syrian state as well as the 1967 occupation/administration of Israel. The topographical description encompasses much more of what the article is actually about rather than only the 20th Century status. Short descriptions are written in wikivoice and they lack context that is provided later on in the article. Using a contested political descriptor is less ideal than using a neutral geographical descriptor that better encompasses the wider article. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm going to have to revert that. I'm not the biggest fan of the stable short description either, but we have been unable to reach any consensus on changing it, and until we do that it has to remain unchanged per WP:NOCON on modification of article content. That said, perhaps tensions have cooled a bit since the last discussion, so I'm going to bring back my suggestions Syrian plateau occupied by Israel since 1967 and Plateau in Syria occupied by Israel since 1967 (I won't, of course, change it to this without a consensus). ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 17:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So if something is "Stable" does that make it stable for perpetuity? A different version was also stable for a few months. All of these options are too long and misleading and disputed politically. Plateau in the Levant is not misleading, it's the right length and not disputed by anyone. There is simply no incentive to reach consensus, so we're stuck with something bad forever. Slava570 (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal to change the word "Israel" to "The Levant" for all geographical features currently listed as being in Israel. Heck, we could even do this for Egypt if we want to stretch it. You know, for funsies.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A stable version just means the version before a dispute, it doesn't really cease to be stable unless its changed and nobody opposes it or if there is consensus to change it. The other version can't be considered stable because a dispute ongoing with attempts to gain consensus. I don't know why it was changed back to be that way during the dispute despite there not being consensus for it, and I only noticed later that it wasn't at the stable version.
I don't see how you can say "Plateau in the Levant"/"Plateau in the South Levant" isn't disputed considering the previous discussions that have taken place on this page. I agree it is not misleading, but the dispute was mainly about it not being precise enough; "Place on Earth" is also not misleading, but we can obviously do better than that. I think calling it a plateau instead of a territory is preferrable and something that can gain consensus, so unless someone objects to it here I'm willing to change it to that. It wouldn't solve the dispute but it would be a step forward. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 00:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's minor, but anything helps. It will shave off two characters. As far as your point about it not being precise, I disagree. It's not comparable to place on Earth, and I doubt there are many other pages that would have similar short descriptions. It's specific enough that it would be unique. Slava570 (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a disputed territory, seems most neutral. Guz13 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You were well aware that this is an active discussion & yet you changed the short description nonetheless, without even attempting to obtain consensus for your proposed wording first. I've reverted your edit & object to your proposal of "Disputed territory between Israel and Syria" as it introduces a WP:FALSEBALANCE, inaccurately portraying Israel & Syria as having equal claim to the territory.
The Golan Heights is internationally recognized as Syrian territory, that Israel & the US are outliers is ultimately immaterial to the overwhelming global perspective on the matter. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't they have equal claim to the territory? Guz13 (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained why they don't - "The Golan Heights is internationally recognized as Syrian territory, that Israel & the US are outliers is ultimately immaterial to the overwhelming global perspective on the matter."
To argue that they somehow do have equal claim to the territory despite the vast majority of the international community being clear that they in fact, do not, would be to give an inordinate amount of undue weight to Israel & the US' perspective on the matter.
So the question now is, why do you believe that Israel & the US's perspective is equivalent to that of the entire remaining global community, or in other words, why do you believe treating them as having equal claim to the territory justified? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Disputed" doesn't mean "equivalent." It doesn't have to be a 50/50 split. The US represents 20% of the UN Security Council and, alone, carries more weight than other countries. Also consider what the residents of the Golan think, and the vast majority of them want to stay under Israeli rule. But as others have pointed out, this is not what fundamentally matters anyway. What matters is how the territory is described in sources, and a large number of sources previously listed have called it disputed. We could easily sidestep this issue altogether in the short description by focusing on the geographic features. The first sentence of the article then gives an explanation of the political situation. Slava570 (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that reliable sources are what matter here, so why even bring up the antiquated structure of the UN Security Council or the opinion of a population which has been radically altered by Syrians being driven out and Israeli settlers being brought in to replace them?
Regardless, the Golan Heights are in modern discourse inseparable from the Israeli occupation of the area. People are usually not thinking about the natural geography when they discuss the area, because it's mainly notable for its political geography. Per WP:SDPURPOSE the short description should be indicative of what the article actually covers, which in large part is the political status of the area. We shouldn't make it sound like it is just another natural feature when it is also conceived of as a territory in the political sense and treated as such by much of the article. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 11:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The US represents 20% of the P5, not the UN Security Council as a whole, which has 15 members. So the US is actually just 6.67% of the UN Security Council. WP:UNDUE weight should not be given to the fringe POV of the US & Israel.--JasonMacker (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that writing that the Golan height being a part of Syria when it has been a part of Israel for such a long time is political. I'm sure I can find some examples of areas that are notably in dipute and that isn't written in their short description. Doing that only for Israel is not neutral. BananaNotes (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I am looking for a neutral way to describe the situation and does not misinform readers. Guz13 (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please self-revert this edit of yours as you've now repeatedly been made fully aware that you don't have consensus to change the short description & your refusal to acknowledge this or materially engage in this discussion is becoming disruptive. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and reverted it immediately myself because the thing it was changed to literally hasn't even been discussed and doesn't really follow best practices established for short descriptions. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 16:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for best practices on short descriptions for disputed territories.
East Jerusalem: Section of Jerusalem delineated by Green Line of the 1949 Armistice agreements
Spratly Islands: Disputed archipelago in the South China Sea
Western Sahara: Disputed territory in north-western Africa
Crimea: Peninsula in Europe
Kashmir: Region in South Asia Guz13 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmir & Spratly Islands are like that as 3 or more nations lay claim to them & alongside Western Sahara, there doesn't appear to be nearly as clear of an international consensus on the matter (Even if I have my own opinions on the matter).
As for Crimea, it appears from the talk page that there's a rough consensus for the scope to be primarily geographical in nature, with coverage of the territory's administration split off inAutonomous Republic of Crimea & Republic of Crimea. Personally I disagree with this outcome as the article itself acknowledges that Crimea "remains internationally recognised as part of Ukraine", but that's a discussion for a separate article & a topic I'm much less familiar with.
The East Jerusalem description though, outside of even any discussion over territorial claim, is just horrible. Way too long, fails to actually inform the average reader due to consisting mostly of jargon, & it could just as easily be used to describe West Jerusalem. I'm honestly amazed that short description has lasted as long as it has. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You made it say Israeli-territory (1967-Present), Syrian-territory (1946–1967) which isn't like any of those. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Instant History The short description is subject of an ongoing dispute. Could you please not reinstate edits that have been reverted without participating in the discussion? That version has been challenged and it shouldn't be reinstated without consensus. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 11:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the short description has been for long time somehow Geographical based and if I am not mistaken it was changed to be politicaly sensitive by you which was not done by consensus either. Instant History (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained why I changed it to that in multiple comments, like this one, but regardless of that, the description you changed it back to wasn't even geographic. If your argument is that it shouldn't have been restored to its pre-dispute state then why change it to say "Israeli territory" instead of "Plateau in the South Levant"? That doesn't add up to me. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 12:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see you have explained it but there were a lot of dis-agreemnts to your proposal. I reverted to the territorial timeline wording, covering both the Syrian period and the Israeli period. I did not describe it as Israeli territory alone. I am also fine with the Geographical description “plateau in the South Levant,” but if you and other editors are not comfortable with that wording, then the tone should at least be adjusted slightly so the article is described in a more balanced way. (We know that the teritory was under Syria from 1946 to 67, having that teritory for 20 years does not make Syria the natural owner of the land and then Israel the occupier (the land has been in different historical states for centuaries). And another scenario, Modern Israel was established in 1948 in a place where the Jews used to live thouseds of years ago, and at the time of its establishment, the land that we call Israel now was under British mandate, and we are not saying the Israel article in short description ''Occupied teritory of Palastein'', but rather ''a country in West Asia''. Instant History (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it is currently an Israeli territory is not neutral. Your arguments about it not being the "natural owner" is an opinion that, while I respect you having it, does not reflect how reliable sources view the situation.
We do not describe Israel as occupied territory of Palestine as that would go against how reliable sources describe the situation.
I have already said this before and I'm not interested in rehashing the same arguments. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 13:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a part of Israel though, it's occupied, so characterizing it as part of Israel would be both less neutral & less accurate.
In regards to "I'm sure I can find some examples of areas that are notably in dipute [sic] and that isn't written in their short description." though, the broad assertion that other articles may theoretically follow your preferred handling of the short description is not a strong argument, nor one based in policy.
Besides the immediate issue that your assertion of these types of articles existing currently remains unsupported, there's the further aspect that, even if what you consider to be examples are found, each article possesses their own context that justifies different handling of the material (& that's all before even considering if those articles' short descriptions are accurate either).
What's important is how sources on this article portray the matter, which in this case, is overwhelmingly that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here. The notion that the Golan Heights have been "part of" Israel for a long time is conflating control with ownership, and the clear consensus among scholarly sources and the international community is that the Golan Heights are occupied Syrian territory, and that status is a large part of why they're as notable as they are. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 16:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Guz13 nails the best practices of other similar territories and points to a consensus short description that accurately reflects the disputed nature of the territory and best captures the context of the area in a way that's even better than my edit attempt at a neutral, factual wording. This is a rather clear, and well-trodden path to an effective and accurate compromise to break the logjam here. It's not just that consensus can change; what's clear here is that we have not been able to find a stable consensus, that there have been individuals edit warring over the hort description and that a reasonable alternative may put this to an end. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In what world does Israeli-territory (1967-Present), Syrian-territory (1946–1967) "capture the context of the area" in any way? That isn't best practices at all. We're not meant to attempt to cram a bunch of detailed information such as when the control over an area changed hands or when Syria gained independence. That's a matter left for the article to discuss.
As the dispute has primarily been between whether or not it should be described as Syrian territory or just as a plateau in the Levant I totally fail to see the reasoning behind making this the short description. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Alansohn - it looks like this discussion shows there is no consensus here. There needs to be a short description that is neutral, not political, and closer to the pattern used in other short descriptions for complex territorial cases (there are many examples in the disscution - I won't repeat them). BananaNotes (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah of course we have no consensus, I'm not disagreeing with that, that's literally what I have been saying and that's why I changed the short description back to what it is now after the RfC ended with no consensus. I supported a different short description than the one currently in place, but with no consensus it goes back to the version in place before the dispute began per WP:NOCON on modifications to articles, and that version is "Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967". At this point I don't think it is likely that we are going to reach a consensus without a new RfC. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 20:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest a different approach. My premise is that a policy compliant solution will not be possible at this article in particular. If there was an RfC that could properly sample the entire editor population it might be possible, but that has been tried and failed. Since a short description must be policy compliant, and that does not appear to be possible, I think a more pragmatic approach in this case would be to accept that the system fails here, and use "none" as a short description. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have also been considering that as a fallback option, mainly per the fact the status quo didn't have consensus in the first place. If someone hsd just removed it then it could not be included per WP:ONUS, but it seems like everyone wants some short description, so I don't know if it can be changed to that. Perhaps an RfC with 2 questions, one being what the SDESC should be and one being "If this RfC fails to find consensus on what the SDESC should be, should it default to 'None'?" is the way to go. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 11:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessment of "policy compliant." You are characterizing a disagreement as a behavioral issue. This is very chilling to the discussion. I agree that there is no consensus here. I also agree with putting none for the short description... but as a temporary measure. Putting none temporarily would force all editors to reach a compromise solution. Slava570 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm doing actually. I'm not thinking about behavior or why this article is special. Nothing can be done about that so why waste time on that. What I see is that there is a dispute over policy compliance that does not appear to be resolvable because there are incompatible views about policy compliance. I know for example that there is nothing anyone can say to convince me that treating the Golan Heights as if it is in Israel rather than occupied by Israel is not a straightforward NPOV violation. And I know that arguments based on patterns, how other articles do things, notions of 'best practices' etc. rather than policy compliance are completely ineffective for me when they generate what I regard as policy violations. So, given constraints like that, I just think it is more pragmatic to agree to disagree, use "none", and move on. Maybe it will be resolvable one day, but not now it seems. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I see the wisdom in this, it is very sad that the "solution" is silence/erasure. Tiamut (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth it's not like this dispute has been free of behavioural issues. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 11:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Update lead for administrative precision and structural clarity

Current text:

“The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a basaltic plateau at the southwest corner of Syria, the majority of which has been occupied and administered by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War.”

Proposed text:

“The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a basaltic plateau administered by Israel as part of its Northern District under the 1981 Golan Heights Law, while remaining subject to competing international claims.”

Textcurator (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions are fine with me. Please don't post AI-generated text on wiki. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Golan Heights is occupied by Israel. It is part of the Israeli occupied territories. This is one of the most significant features and it should be presented to readers with absolute clarity. Any effort to obfuscate this important feature is, in my view, inconsistent with Wikimedia's Universal Code of Conduct, and Wikipedia policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The entire international community and the UN views it as a region in Syria and your proposed text completely eliminates that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Short description RfC workshop

This dispute has flared up again and is verging on becoming disruptive, so, considering the previous RfC had some procedural issues, I think it's more than fair to attempt another RfC.
I think that with the options put forward so far we have something like this:

  • Option A: Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 (status quo ante bellum)
  • Option B: Mention Syria, it being a plateau and the Israeli occupation of it
  • B1: Syrian plateau occupied by Israel since 1967
  • B2: Plateau in Syria occupied by Israel since 1967
  • Option C: Mention only its aspects as a natural feature
  • C1: Plateau in the South Levant
  • C2: Basaltic plateau in the South Levant
  • Option D: Disputed territory in the South Levant
  • Option E: Israeli / Syrian, with dates
  • E1: Israeli territory (1967–Present), Syrian territory (1946–1967)
  • E2: Control by Syria (1946-67), Israel (67-) <- added by Alansohn
  • Option F: None (renders as an empty short description)

I gave B and C suboptions because I think they're similar enough in the reasoning behind them to do so. Should any of these options be removed? Should any other options be added?
Mass ping of unblocked editors who have participated in related discussions: (a, b, c & d) – @Sean.hoyland @GordonGlottal @Butterscotch Beluga @Guz13 @Slava570 @Michael Boutboul @Huldra @Metallurgist @Supreme Deliciousness @Kvinnen @Gurkubondinn @Gjb0zWxOb @ScottyNolan @רמרום @Agnieszka653 @Thepharoah17 @Redrose64 @296cherry @JJNito197 @Alansohn @Vanilla Wizard @HKLionel @Alaexis @Makeandtoss @Coppertwig @Selfstudier @JasonMacker @Kurtis @Nableezy ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 13:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC) @BananaNotes @Instant History @Dan Murphy ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 13:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support C1: Per WP:SHORTDESC, the purpose of a short description is to concisely identify the topic. In a disputed area, the most neutral approach is to describe the subject itself rather than summarize competing political claims. Issues relating to Syria, Israel, occupation, annexation, and international recognition are important, but they are better addressed in the article lead rather than in a short description, which should avoid unnecessary contentious detail. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear to everyone: this isn't an RfC, it's preparation for an RfC to make sure we get the options right on the first go and avoid a mess; I intend to start the RfC in maybe a day or two, depending on what is said here. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 15:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also added another option I remembered had been suggested (Disputed territory in the South Levant). ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 15:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe B1 is the strongest as the Golan Heights are internationally recognized as Syrian territory & to not mention this based solely on 2 nations being outliers is to give an inordinate amount of undue weight to Israel & the US' perspective, creating a clear WP:FALSEBALANCE. Option C is overly vague, both due to the "South Levant" being territorially ill-defined & as it could refer to several other places, including the Korazim Plateau or the Hauran. I also dislike option D as it includes all the issues I referred to above. Then option E is plainly inaccurate as again, it's not Israeli territory. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I don't think Option E makes any sense (which, for the record, has been copyedited to not have hyphens between territory and Israeli/Syrian and also to use a dash instead of a hyphen between 1967 and present) because, if it could be neutrally described as "Israeli territory" (which it can't) then there seems no be no reason to include fact it used to be part of Syria in the short description. I tried to revert it and got reverted myself despite no consensus for it so I don't see much alternative other than to include it, despite the fact I think it has absolutely no chance of gaining consensus in an RfC. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 16:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support E2 which most concisely addresses the control of the territory by Syria (from its founding in 1946) and then by Israel (from 1967 to the present). The original option E (now labeled as E1) is far longer than the 40-character guideline maximum at a way-too-long 63 characters. I added option E2, which is a compromise that I had offered two weeks ago in this edit, and one that I hope can gather a consensus. Alansohn (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was controlled for 400 years by Ottoman Syria (1516-1918), under Syria vilayet for the latter part and Damascus Sanjak before that. This formulation pretends it entered into history in 1946. Tiamut (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going with Israeli territory then it should just say "Territory controlled by Israel" or "Territory annexed by Israel in 1981" (I forgot that saying "Israeli territory (1967–present)" doesn't even align with Israel's official stance when I was creating this topic). ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An annexation recognized only by the USA and Israel (maybe Micornesia?). Its a fringe viewpont in global terms and could not be stated without qualification (illegal) or (under Israeli domestic law). Tiamut (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support E2: I also support E2 with slight modification to: Control by Israel (1967-), Syria(1946-67) Instant History (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these periods that (falsely equate) a few decades of Syrian political sovereignty and Israeli occupation do not do justice to the long history of this Syrian plateau. Tiamut (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going back to history, the region also has ancient Israelite associations, since biblical Golan was located in Bashan and assigned to the tribe of Manasseh. Instant History (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the Ghassanids and their capital at Jabiya. Point is your proposed short titles do a disservice to the very long, ancient history of this Syrian region. Tiamut (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support B1. A short description is meant to help readers identify the topic quickly, and the Golan Heights are not just any plateau in the South Levant. The Syrian status and Israeli occupation are defining characteristics, so B1 is the best way to help readers understand what they're looking at and quickly. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support C, prefer C2. The thing is, for the RFC, I think we should try to remove the suboptions. I think B1 is preferable to B2 because it's 2 fewer characters. I think C2 is preferable to C1, but if Boutboul has a good reason to exclude Basaltic, that's fine too. Even with Basaltic, it's under 40 characters, and there is a geology section in the article, so I don't see why not. I think we should delete E1 as well, as it's way over the limit. The only three options that are under the limit are C1/2, D and E2. However, Option E suffers from the same problem as A and B, which is that only a majority of the territory is under Israeli control/occupation. Slava570 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Option E1/E2 or option D. Either mention who controlled it in the past or just say its a disputed territory. Guz13 (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that we should remove the suboptions for the actual RfC. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to propose a shorter option for the B-group (B3) as word count concerns have been raised: Israeli-occupied Syrian plateau. Tiamut (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Altetnatively, B1 can simply omit "since 1967". Tiamut (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option E2 The de facto reality in the Golan Heights should be reflected in the short description rather than contested political framing. E2 ("Control by Syria (1946-67), Israel (67-)" is the best option that strikes the balance between having the article reflect the historical reality and not advantaging one side's legal claim in wikivoice. It also adheres to WP:SDSHORT unlike option E1. Many of the other proposed options use the word "Syrian" and/or "Occupied" in the present tense, which goes to the heart to why we have been discussing this for months. The fact that this conversation has been going on for this long highlights that it is highly disputed and that wikivoice should not be used here to favor one side or the other. As @Metallurgist stated in a prior discussion above, Mount Paektu, Kuril Islands, and Crimea (just to name a few examples) all have neutral geographic descriptors. However, since we have seemed to be at an impasse in respect to the neutral geographic descriptors, I think that E2 is a good compromise that synthesizes the two main points of view that seem to be present on this page and it will be easiest to obtain consensus around that option. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support B1: Option C is too vague, while Option A disregards the natural feature aspect. B1 is a reasonable compromise because it says what the place is and why it is politically notable. R3YBOl (🌲) 15:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked options

I've read the suggestions and I feel like there isn't any opposition to not mentioning the date for the options that aren't E, and I also I don't think including 'None' is helpful considering that's not anybody's first choice and is more of a stopgap in the case we reach no consensus. With that in mind, I think the options can be trimmed down to:

  • Option A: Syrian territory occupied by Israel
  • Option B: Syrian plateau occupied by Israel
  • Option C: Plateau in the South Levant
  • Option D: Disputed plateau in the South Levant
  • Option E: Control by Syria (1946–67), Israel (67–)

Does anyone want any of these options rephrased? Supporters of Option D, is that how you want it to be phrased in the RfC? ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 22:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone comes forward wanting an option rephrased I will be creating the RfC with these options once 24 hours have passed since I posted the reworked options. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 19:06, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the short description

The previous RfC about this failed, in large part due to procedural issues, and the dispute has flared up again without any resolution appearing forthcoming. Details and WP:RFCBEFORE available in the extensive discussions above this RfC.

What should the short description be?

  • A: Syrian territory occupied by Israel
  • B: Syrian plateau occupied by Israel
  • C: Plateau in the South Levant
  • D: Disputed plateau in the South Levant
  • E: Control by Syria (1946–67), Israel (67–)

⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 20:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • B > A I find both acceptable, but I have a slight preference for option B over option A because the Golan Heights is not a purely politically defined territory, but also a geographical feature, and the fact that it is a plateau is a major factor in why it is occupied as it gives it strategic importance.
I'm opposed to option C because the political geography of the Golan Heights, rather than its natural geography, is the source of the vast majority of its notability. You don't hear it discussed by RS as a plateau, you almost exclusively hear it discussed for its political status.
To preface my opposition to options D and E: I have based my conclusion on a review of how solid scholarly sources that discuss the political geography of the Golan Heights describe their political status, limited to those published in the last 6 years as arguments for not calling it occupied territory have in part been based on the claim that a recent shift towards not calling it occupied has occurred, I find that a significant majority of them favour calling it a part of Syria occupied by Israel[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] and a small minority other options.[8][9]
I'm opposed to option E because it's going in the face of reliable sources and doesn't really make sense for a short description. It's just awkward and doesn't say what the Golan Heights is. We generally don't favour giving a partial list of the history of who controlled something over saying what that something is (territory, plateau) in the short description. We don't add to Alsace-Lorraine's article that it was controlled by Germany. The argument that it is different here because of the context doesn't make sense, as it isn't the fact that it was controlled by Syria that is relevant, but rather that it continues to be part of Syria under international law.
Option D is less bad than option E, and has been argued for because it is similar to the short descriptions for some of our articles on disputed territories (examples that have been brought up include the Spratly Islands and Kuril Islands). The reason this argument doesn't hold up is that the status of the Golan Heights is not comparable to those disputed territories, as there is an international consensus and a scholarly consensus that the territory is Syrian, which isn't the case for the other articles; there is no consensus for what their status is, so we simply note that they are disputed. Here, reliable sources clearly tell us that it is Syrian territory occupied by Israel, and it is WP:FALSEBALANCE for us to refuse to say that because a relatively small minority of reliable sources disagree with it.
⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 20:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B followed by Option A - The Golan Heights are internationally recognized as Syrian territory & should be referred to as such. I prefer Option B over A due to its specificity, satisfying the geographical aspect of the territory. I'm opposed to option C as it's overly vague, both due to the "South Levant" being territorially ill-defined & as it could easily be used to refer to several other places, including the Korazim Plateau or the Hauran.
I'm also opposed to option D, both due to my previous objections to the "South Levant" being vague, as well as it introducing a clear WP:FALSEBALANCE. To argue that we shouldn't refer to the Golan Heights as Syrian in the short description due to their being a territorial dispute, is to both dismiss the overwhelming international & scholarly consensus on the matter, as well as giving an inordinate amount of undue weight to Israel & the US' perspective. Option E is simply uninformative, focusing exclusively on the dispute to the detriment of all else, failing to even clearly define what the Golan Heights are to the average reader. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, then A per Maltazarian (Summoned by bot). It's a geographic feature and it's Syrian. Hard to make a more accurate and concise statement. TheSavageNorwegian 23:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option E followed by Option C, option E points readers the authority over the region in timelines without a biased signal and Option C, describes the rigion geographicaly than politically. Both way my point is that the short description will remain as most neutral as possible. And I suggest that the short description to stay blank till consensus is reached, it looks it is going to take some more time.Instant History (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or B. The area is internationally recognized as part of Syria including by the UN. C and D are inaccurate as the area is in the middle of the Levant, not the south. E is very non neutral as it presents Syrian control of its own territory in the exact same way as Israels occupation of Syrian territory. E also claims that it wasn't part of Syria before 1946 (it completely removes the regions ancient Syrian history) and that it isn't part of Syria today.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or B, as accurately displaying the recognized country of ownership. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.