Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:26, 7 March 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golan Heights article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golan Heights article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Volcanoes Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details. All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Recent changes

Jijutsuguy, I object to your changes you made to the infobox, you removed that its internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Both these two facts belongs in the infobox. Per npov undue weight, we should represent the worldview. "The international community maintains that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and without international legal effect" p 23 Or this GA vote about "occupied Syrian Golan", 161-1 "the United States considers the Golan Heights to be occupied territory subject to negotiation and Israeli withdrawal" p. 8. EU: . Arab League: Amnesty International:

The only alternative would be to just state the fact that its "Syrian territory occupied by Israel" and skipping the "internationally recognized as".

And about the International view in the article, you changed "the international community", to "many states". This is not presenting it correctly, "many states" could be 60%. "International community" better represents the facts. See the sources above. You also added "compatible with international law." without adding any new source. You also removed "while Syria doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist." which changes the meaning of the sentence. And that the IC "consider Israel a belligerent occupant of the territory." is important. The sentence here: better represents the situation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ford and Carter

I removed the Jimmy Carter democratic candidate position and "Ford letter" section for several reasons.

Personal views of individual people that aren't from the country the area is part of or the country that occupies it, has no significance or importance to the topic. Carters irrelevant believes are also contradicted by what he says in his book today where he says in: "We can have peace in the Holy Land: a plan that will work" on p 175-176: "Syria's Golan Heights"

Concerning the "Ford letter", Its about a letter that one former US president sent 36 years ago, the claims that it has been renewed by U.S. administrations after are only found in JCPA sources, which are not reliable, and other advocacy websites. And the only thing said is: "would give 'great weight to Israel's position that any peace agreement with Syria must be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights", a Ford letter 36 years ago about "would give 'great weight", does not deserve its own section in this article.

Also this Edgar S. Marshall source has its own section about the official US position: p 27 "United States policy toward the Golan Heights has remained constant since June 1967: first, that the Golan Heights is occupied territory subject to U.N. Resolution 242 and the principle of exchanging territory for peace", "the United States does not recognize Israels 1981 unilateral action annexation of the Golan" There is much more in the source.

And this is the official US position from the Congressional Research Service, from 2002: "the United States considers the Golan Heights to be occupied territory subject to negotiation and Israeli withdrawal" p. 8.

And the US view is one country of 200 countries. It does not deserve its own section. Specially not a section about a 36 year old letter without having today's US position. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

These are not just views of some individual people that aren't from the area. US policy on this matter is arguably important, and opinion of a US president arguably has some influence on the US policy. The statute of limitation does not apply here, especially because much of the article describes events of that time. If these former leaders have changed their position since then, this should be also mentioned. Please restore this notable material. - BorisG (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a source about today's official US policy together with the IC view in the lead. Concerning Carter, why would his view during his presidential candidate be notable for inclusion here? How is that notable? Today's US position is not mentioned separately anywhere in the article, how is a 36 year old Ford letter notable enough to have its own section here without having today's US position? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Ford letter is an important document re-affirmed by each subsequent U.S. administration. You have reverted well-sourced information that is very germane to the subject at hand.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that its "re-affirmed by each subsequent U.S. administration" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading the source before you reverted? Keep it up SD--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the claims that it has been renewed by U.S. administrations after I have only found in JCPA sources, which are not reliable, and other advocacy websites. The JPCA source also does not say "re-affirmed by each subsequent U.S. administration", it says 1991, and 1996. There has been several administrations after this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Translation

Two users have recently changed to placement of the names here:

These changes have been made without explanation or discussion. This is a place internationally recognized as in Syria, Syria's official language is Arabic, so that should come before any other. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Biblical occurrences in lead

Biblical occurrences are not history, should not be in lead.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why have you added this then? There is no extra-biblical evidence for this piece of "real history" you have inserted instead. Chesdovi (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats not biblical. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes it is. Chesdovi (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How come? The books looks historical. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat hypocritical of you SD to revert information that is amply noted in historical text claiming that it's "biblical" but at the same time inserting information about the ancient amorites claiming that's "historical."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The information I removed from the lead said: "During the biblical era", do you have source that its noted in historical texts? I have not added information about ancient Amorites to the lead. I have added about Arameans, I don't see anything in the source I linked to that implys that its not historical but biblical. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The bible is a historical text. That book relys on it. There is no reason why such material can not be put in the lead. Abraham is mentioned in the lead of Hebron, so the Tribe of Menashe can be mentioned here. Chesdovi (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the bible is not a historical text, its religion, you know better then that. The text in the book that I brought is about The Iron age in the southern Levant. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bible documents historical events, like the wars between King David and the Arameans to the north of his Kingdom. There are no accounts of the Arameans residing in this are or of Arameans themselves besides from in the Bibile. And that's where that book sourcs its infomation. Chesdovi (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bible may contain real historical events, but we cant take whats in the bible and present it as history, it it were real events there would be other sources. This is a source that talks about the Iron age in the southern Levant. The same section talks about water systems on p 379: "a large reservoir has been cleared at Hesban that was certainly in use during Iron". It also talks about an Aramaic inscription found at Dan on the same page. On p 377, there is text where he mentions the bible and it is specifically attributed to it: "according to the bible" "official cult was sanctioned only in Jerusalem". Later he also talks about "small cult rooms or shrines have been identified at...." and tombs found. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a misguided discussion. The Bible does contain history, but as such it is a primary source. We rely on archeologists and historians to use the bible, and other primary sources, to construct historical narratives in secondary and tertiary sources. Those are the sources we can use in our entries. The Bible can only be directly used as a source on its own contents, and not on history. So if a historical work uses the bible as a primary source that's not a problem, but if we do that is a problem. That's the long and short of it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that's exactly what this book does. There is no external evidence of King David, yet his kingdom is mentioned on the same page. Same with Arameans. The book sources the Bible, and since it documents biblical events, we can use it. So I will be re-adding Menashe. Chesdovi (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to have the bible in the lead, then all of it should be there, so I added some more information how Israelites got there. Also the source says: Arameans controlled "Most of", so "majority" is better then "parts". Also where did you get the "9th century BC" and "13th century BC" from? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I had the same dating question. I checked these sources out after commenting here, and I did not find those dates in there.Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

SD, these edits are a WP:POINT violation. You had the right idea above when you argued against including the Bible as a primary source, now you appear to be editing in direct opposition to your beliefs to prove a point. Please revert yourself. This is not the way forward. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I said that the bible does not belong in the lead, but Chesdovi re added instances from the bible to the lead, so although I don't think it belongs there, we shouldn't cherry pick from the bible, if one part of it must be there, then all of it should be there to be balanced and neutral.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

SD, I have no desire to pick a fight. I'm telling you this because I'm hoping its helpful. You ought to read over WP:POINT, because what you describe is textbook. Chesdovi didn't source his addition to the Bible, but to a secondary source, as you did with your other addition. Perhaps there is a difference between what you added and he added still. OK, then discuss it here, don't add material you clearly think doesn't belong to prove a point. I wont say this again, and frankly I can see that its better if I high-tale it out of this talk page for good, but you would do well to take my advice on this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The secondary source he added does not say that "the Israelite tribe of Manasseh inhabited the region during the 13th century BC" as not being from the bible, but history. I didn't ad it to prove a point, I added it because I don't want to pick a fight (edit war), and remove it, so if it must be in, then it should at least not be cherry picked, but balanced and neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Suit yourself. You either don't get it or something else is going on, but I wont continue this discussion.Griswaldo (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Okey so if we remove the Amorite part of the bible from the lead, and only keep the Manasseh part. How would this be better for the article when that would be cherry picking? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

SD, you would do well to read, ponder and absorb Griswaldo's first comment here. You have added the Bible as a primary source. I spent a while trying to find a suitable source regarding the occupation of the Israelite tribe on the Golan. If you want to add other biblical info about the Amorties, you have find a suitable source too. Chesdovi (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Bible can only be directly used as a source on its own contents, and not on history." and thats exactly what I have done. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That I understood means on articles about the Bible itself. Chesdovi (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what difference it makes as I have presented it as from the bible. But since you want other sources there are several others: Here is a priest on p 64 , here is another source on p 181 , is this what you want? And are you also going to reply to where you got the 13 and 9 BC from? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would discount both as unsuitable. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How come? The book by the priest for example, a priest should be more knowledgeable then any other in the subject. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So can I add stuff aswell from biblical scholars? Chesdovi (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. In articles where a rendering of the bible's contents is appropriate. This would not be such an article.Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

georeferenced image illustrating the topography

I've just stumbled upon a properly licensed shaded relief image illustrating the topography in talk archives. I'm bold with it in infobox, let's see if it sticks. Since this image includes geographic coordinates Template Location map could be crafted and used for pushpin_map Infobox field in this and other GH articles. Elevation data is from NASA. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The new map is a bit off in that it never labels which part is the golan heights and instead, in small light pink print, labels it a disputed area. The map also draws an international border line between the golan heights ans Syria as if they were different nations, and the border line is missing between Israel and the golan heights. To me this looks like this image is clearly pro-Israeli ownership of the golan heights and anti-Syrian. Passionless -Talk 22:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove the original CIA map: This CIA map: showed basically the same thing as the previous, following the international view. So I guess this was why no one objected to it. This map was later reverted back to the modified CIA map that had no consensus by a user who did not give one single new argument for replacing it with the modified one:. So the original unedited CIA map should be re added as no new consensus has been established to replace it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Love it. "Disputed area" is perfect. It functions as Israel (so it could be labeled "Israel") but it might be so illegally (which could lead to it being Syrian) So "Disputed area". Great balance since it leaves the info box out of settling a long going intl dispute while keeping it as a summary. Plus topography is always good, IMO, but that is by far the least of my worries. This map embodies what we should be striving for as editors.Cptnono (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It has inaccurate borders, showing the ceasefire line as a "border" and not showing the border as a ceasefire line. This is basically showing that the area is "a part of" Israel, which is something rejected by the international community. The map is not representing the view of the international community as the two unedited CIA maps does:. The lines are also incorrect, see the real DMZ in this other map: , the map you want to use doesn't even point out the DMZs, it doesn't show the Israeli settlements, it doesn't show any villages, its much less detailed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The map is very much pro-israeli, I was only waiting to revert its addition as POV pushing until the one who added it responded. Passionless -Talk 09:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention it earlier, because it is a minor issue if you ask me, but since this question was raised, according to the image summary description borders, cities, and geographic features date used is by The Natural Earth. I'm not an expert in political issues, so I'm not going to express any opinion if borders are in fact drawn in the right place. My suggestion would be to evaluate neutrality using npov noticebord review. Back to the point of content, with the help of help desk we have Template:Location_map_Golan_Heights. I was bold with it on couple of GH articles, let's see if it sticks. I'm discussing this here, since I do not want to fragment this discussion to each instance of GH article and suggest to see it as "centralized" discussion for template location map. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

First, bring up all the points of why the map you want to use, is better then the other maps, whether its the CIA or the location map. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see I already addressed it above, I like this image, because:

1. It is properly licensed shaded relief image illustrating the topography
2. This image includes geographic coordinates Template Location map was crafted and could used for pushpin_map Infobox field in this and other GH articles. This would allow us to use two images in the infobox: one for overview and another for location.
3. I love the technology used for gathering Elevation data by NASA; topography is important for region which is geographically a plateau. Hope it answers your question SD. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning this article: The original CIA map also shows the topography:. You have not addressed any of the inaccuracy border/ceasefire line issues, pov issues and lack of settlements/villages and DMZ that I have brought up above about the image you want to use. Concerning the pushpin map: it has the pov and inaccurate border/ceasefire line issues. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that anyone claims that CIA map is defective in any way. And I already noted at point #2 that currently two infobox images could be used. Anyway, here is link for neutrality discussions, thank you for responding there, SD. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

For Golan heights I would not be opposed to having both a Syria map and the Golan Heights pin map. It has its use.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to second what other editors have already pointed out: By drawing a border of the same colour as other international borders also shown, the map do endorse the Israeli POV that the Golan Heights is part of Israel and ignores other POVs. Thus, it is in violation of . --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

On my monitor the borders and the ceasefire line appear in different colors. Perhaps we can adjust the image colors to prevent confusion, being presented on low-end hardware. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The colour difference is real. It is not related to choise of monitor. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused a bit. Could you elaborate, please? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What part was confusing? --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you intend to write that on your "monitor the borders and the ceasefire line do not appear in different colors" (bolded text added by me)? --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha, seems I have managed to confuse not only myself. Back to square one: if the ceasefire lines and the borders are in different colors, what's wrong with the map? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The map shows a border between Israel and Syria, but with Golan Heights within Israel. It should not show such a border, as that is an endorsement of one POV (the Israeli). Furthermore, it is also a minority POV, as very few countries recognise the Israeli annexation of said territory. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. Let's get into some details, may be we can figure out something positive here. There are three kinds of lines on this map:

1. Black lines for borders
2. Red lines for disputed borders or whatever
3. Brown line for occupied territory (that to my assumption has been mistakenly taken for black)

Is it the right and NPOV marking? If not, what the right marking is? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Its not only the colors of the lines that are pov, the image have other problems as brought up above, even if the colors are fixed, these issues will still not be taken care of. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Red lines are for UN disengagement borders, 'brown' lines are just where the black and red lines are mixed together. Now, if the lines where drawn NPOV there would be a line between israel and the golan heights as most of the world thinks that the golan heights are not a part of israel. Also the map kinda sucks in that the golan heights are never even labelled and that the font is harder than average to read. Also 'disputed area' seems to me like POV pushing like when creationist say that evolution is a 'disputed theory' because only 99.9% of scientist agree with it, disputed is being used to give the idea there is a large dispute when really it is only israel vs the world. The previous map was great, why change it.Passionless -Talk 20:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO this map is more convenient for the reader (in the means of getting better idea in lesser time of what and where Golan is) because:

1. it shows more vicinity
2. it is less crowded with all these unimportant villages
3. topography really shown

If you guys can tell what color goes where I'll repaint the borders. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and let me add the maps here, hopefully to save extra clicks to us all:

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I see now. The disputed line is drawn with a third 'colour' in addition to the red and black ones. That was definitely not easy to see. I had actually looked at both the standard size version and the full size version without noticing this subtle difference. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

ElComandanteChe, that's not the original CIA map, this is the original CIA map that was never agreed to be replaced: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain the dif SD, I don't see it immediately.Passionless -Talk 21:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The placement of the word "Syria". --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see now, lol. Not sure what to say about that. Though it also does label the golan heights as israeli occupied which is good. Passionless -Talk 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Topography is about equal in both images, and the villages are important when one is trying to figure out exactly where villages/the borders in comparison to villages lie. (There are many times I need to look up if vilages in the news/wikipedia are in israel/west bank/gaza/golan heights due to people deleting information as a form of POV pushing.) Passionless -Talk 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The current map isn't good. It doesn't state where the Golan Heights are. Instead, the reader must know that the words "disputed area" refers to the Golan. TFighterPilot (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, these are good points. Not sure about the villages - from one point it is important indeed, from other - absolutely useless at 300px resolution. Topography is ways better on the new map, sorry :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course its not useless, people can click on it and look closer, see the villages, settlements, DMZs, roads and other details, all missing in this map: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the villages inhibit the image at 300px either. And I guess I could care less about topography...there are some mountains, some sand, little bit of water, whatever, . Passionless -Talk 21:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit that being a military history fun (a common psychosis among nerds) I like to see terrain maps, where it's relevant. For example, I was quite pissed to be unable to find a proper map of Pinsk Marshes - a terrain that has a notable impact on Operation Barbarossa. Golan is so notable because of its military importance, which is defined by its topography. (I'm not arguing, I just want you to understand my considerations.) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The areas topography is more detailed in the CIA map then in this one: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well if the map is re-wrote to remove the POV pushing that I among others have described above, it can be added to commons where many excess photos are placed. Passionless -Talk 22:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh thank you )))) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"It doesn't state where the Golan Heights are". Yes it does. It is in a "disputed area". Saying anything else is against the guidelines for infoboxes. It is part of Israel. This is more than likely illegal. The dispute is too long for an infobox. However, the map not laying out the political details but showing where in the world it is and what the topograph is is exactly what an infobox is for. Of course, no map is still my preferred option since any other version (except maybe for this one) leads the reader to editor's POV. The infobox is supposed to be an easy summary and not long details. It certainly should not be POV but that is actually the base of the problem but not the real issue to someone not familiar with Misplaced Pages's P-I conflict. Cptnono (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So you like this map because it shows where the golan heights are in the world even though it is not labeled and is only a little more zoomed out than the other maps, it has a little better topography, and pushes the POV that you agree with that the GH are a part of Israel. Since the opinion that the GH are in Israel is a minority opinion it would be WP:UNDUE to have the article's map represent that opinion. Plus the removal of the villages is detrimental and people should be able to locate it since the four bordering nations are all labelled on the original map, seeing Palestine and an unlabelled Mediterranean doesn't help much. Passionless -Talk 07:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"So you like this map because it shows where the golan heights are in the world even though it is not labeled and is only a little more zoomed out than the other maps, it has a little better topography, and pushes the POV that you agree with that the GH are a part of Israel " is more like it. Also, do not comment on the contributor since I have been in trouble for it and love seeing others do it. Also, please reread my comments above where I mention the purpose of the infobox and their lack of ability (based on design) to explain complex situations. Thanks. Cptnono (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, how's about adding a new set of lines to describe the geographical borders of the Golan Heights (including the parts which under Lebanese and Syria control) and adding a map legend bellow the image? TFighterPilot (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The map clearly gives the impression that the golan heights are a part of Israel, an idea rejected by most of the world thus can't be used due to WP:UNDUE. No complaints have been made about the previous map, either version. Besides the incorrect borders on the map, the labels for the Golan Heights, Palestine, and the Mediterranean Sea are missing. The lack of information on roads, villages, and landmarks certainly does not benefit the map. I suggest that the map is fixed and placed with the other not so good maps in the commons. I think all editors here but Cptnono and possibly AgadaUrbanit would be happy with that. Passionless -Talk 08:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This edited map: is still not neutral, as it puts Israel in the same position as Syria, something that is not the case. The original CIA map presents the situation according to the international view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate community input. I'm going to restore the topography image per following rational, I'd appreciate Passionless's patience, while the discussion is ongoing. I'd like to remind people that neutrality of the map is being reviewed, per request of number of editors who are concerned about underrepresentation of Syrian POV, anyone is welcome to contribute there. Misplaced Pages is neutral and does not take sides. I'm somehow surprised by some analysis of lines meaning drawn without any map legend. As a reminder, we do have a verbose political map in the article, maybe it could be used as one of two vacant infobox images? In addition there were remarks generally about design, I've contacted the image contributer their input would be very welcome here. See their map gallery for more samples. There are strong feelings on all sides and their perspective would be helpful. I'd like to remind everyone that there is a genuine consensus on this talk page and in the world generally that the map describes Syrian territory occupied by Israel. I'm not concerned this way or other, but I would not object changes in the image that would make the point that the Golan Height is Syrian even more clear, but again the article generally is consistent on this point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You do not have any consensus to ad the map you added, the consensus has not been changed for the original unedited CIA map. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The topography image makes it appear as though Lebanon and Jordan are as much a party to the territorial dispute around the Golan as are Israel and Syria. I say keep the earlier political map – it's a political dispute, after all –, paint Lebanon and Jordan a dull gray color, and indicate that the Golan is at the center of an Israeli-Syrian dispute by means of diagonal strips whose colors alternate between the color assigned to Israel and the color assigned to Syria. It's less confusing than it sounds.—Biosketch (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points by Biosketch, Jordan is not part of dispute, though I would not draw any conclusion about dispute participants from the topography image. We talk in the body of the article about Lebanon participation in GH dispute, see Territorial sub-disputes, there is an issue, per provided sources, among them UN, of the territory, known as the Shebaa Farms, measuring 22 square kilometres (8.5 sq mi) and in addition there is a complex issue of the Al Ghajar village, west of Shebaa farms. We're probably too sloppy to not mention this in the infobox wording, appears as underrepresentation of Lebanon POV on this issue. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@Biosketch, I understand what you mean, but to draw it as to split ownership between Israel and Syria (plus a little to Lebanon) would be to give way too much weight to the minority opinion that the GHs are Israeli territory per UNDUE. I don't think it is possible to show both the minor opinion without ruining the map, just like how the Earth picture is 100% round and no flat image is given or mixed in with the majorly held thought. The original map *posted furthest right above* however does make it clear that the territory is widely thought to be Syrian territory held occupation by Israel. Passionless -Talk 20:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Passionless, there is a genuine consensus on this talk page and in the world generally that the map describes Syrian territory occupied by Israel. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I clarified exactly which map I meant. The map that you added AgadaUrbanit *posted furthest left above* states that the GH are a part of Israel and not Syrian territory. Even if is says disputed territory, the map is clearly pro-israeli, thus breaks NPOV. Passionless -Talk 21:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the NPOV consensus isn't being disputed here. The question is how best to represent the political reality visually to the article's reader, since the political context is what the Golan Heights are most frequently grounded in. Representing the Golan as intermediate between Israel and Syria doesn't necessarily imply that the international community is split as to the territory's underlying political identity; rather, the map should make it clear that Israel and Syria are the two parties claiming the territory as theirs. (Whatever claim Lebanon has to the territory, regardless of the international community's stance in that regard, is comparatively minor.) The topographic map is nice with its elevation shading and all, but it doesn't clearly reflect the reality that the Golan is at the center of a dispute between two parties, Israel and Syria. That aim would be better served by displaying a political map highlighting the Golan as being at the center of an Israeli-Syrian dispute. Painting diagonal stripes of alternating colors – say blue for Israel and red or black for Syria – would convey the political reality that the Golan is a politically disputed territory. It's a matter of what message the image wants to emphasize: the fact that the international community recognizes the Golan as Syrian territory, or the fact that Israel and Syria both claim it as theirs. Isn't the second consideration more important?—Biosketch (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Biosketsch, what is the problem with this map? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Supreme_Deliciousness, the answer should be obvious from my post above. (WP:TLDR?) The map you're asking about has the same potential to mislead readers that the topographical map has. In both cases, Lebanon and Jordan are made to appear as sharing the same status vis-a-vis the Golan as Israel and Syria. Our goal should be a map highlighting the fact that the dispute is between Israel and Syria. (Then again, looking for example at Kashmir, it's impossible at first glance to make sense of what's going on there, so perhaps I'm demanding a higher standard of clarity than is the norm for Misplaced Pages.)—Biosketch (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't put Lebanon and Jordan in the same position as Syria and Israel, the name "Syria" is on the GH, this represents the international recognition, and the name "Israeli occupied" is also on the area, showing that Israel occupies it. The ceasefire line is also slightly thinner then the international border.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@Biosketch, The map is not a stand alone article, it is there for various purposes but it does not need to explain everything which is why there is text which clarifies everything. The important thing is that the map does not serve a minority POV instead of what is accepted by most of the world. And to your 2nd last post, I think the colouring has much more ability to confuse people than does the text in the furthest right CIA map, which clearly states the GH are Syrian territory and occupied by Israel. Passionless -Talk 00:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, the point the two of you are trying to advance is clear. I mean, you go to Kashmir and, like I said, it's impossible to figure anything out just by looking at the map. You go to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus or the Falkland Islands and there they're just generic maps – blank, without names of anything. That being said, the problem I still have with the maps being proposed here is that I find them cognitively difficult to process – not as bad as the Kashmir mess, but that might just be because I'm more familiar with the Golan's history than I am with Kashmir's. As for which of the three maps is best, I have to say the "far right" one (on my laptop the "far right" one is actually on the left in the second row) is the most confusing, because of the overlap of "Israel occupied" and "Syria." I understand the word "Syria" was centered in the image for aesthetic reasons, but it's still confusing because it's half in the gray and half in the white. User:Passionless is right that the map doesn't need to explain everything. Best then would be to go with the one that's the least confusing. I withdraw my earlier opposition to the topographical map; it now seems to me the cleanest and least confusing of the three.—Biosketch (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The topographic one may be simple, but the problem is that it is a map designed to support a minority POV. It goes against the majority of the world, and thus goes against NPOV and UNDUE, and should not be presented as fact. The overlap I think is quite straight forward in that it shows the GH is Syrian territory but does remind people that Israel is occuping the territory, and the reason it is white is to make the GH distinct from surrounding territory, as the article is only about the GH. Passionless -Talk 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

How the topographic map currently stands is the equivalent of if the Falkland Islands' map was changed to show the whole of Argentina highlighted along with the islands. But, because the argentinan claim is a minority POV, the map is not like that, and rather shows the Islands' by themselves. Passionless -Talk 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if it's a majority POV (how can you say that for a fact?), it's still a POV. A map that has Syria written on the border is clearly pushing that POV while a map that has neither Israel nor Syria written there and instead just Golan is not pushing any POV whatsoever. No POV is always better than majority POV when it's possible. TFighterPilot (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several sources within the article that shows that its internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel, (see references currently at number 13) that is exactly what the unedited CIA map shows. According to Misplaced Pages policy npov: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." . At many articles at Misplaced Pages we say that city's such as Haifa etc are located in Israel, but according to about 20 countries, the area is called Palestine. so how come "we take side" in those articles? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Even if it's a majority POV (how can you say that for a fact?), it's still a POV. A map that has Syria written on the border is clearly pushing that POV while a map that has neither Israel nor Syria written there and instead just Golan is not pushing any POV whatsoever. No POV is always better than majority POV when it's possible." (-TFP)Cptnono (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And based on that reasoning, we have about 20 times as much reason to go to the Haifa article and remove that its located in Israel. The edited CIA map puts Israel in the same position as Syria which is not the international view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to look at the map in the Haifa article. You'll see that it doesn't have the word Israel written anywhere on it. I don't see how your example is relevant. TFighterPilot (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Its a location map of Israel, and it says in the first line of the article that its located in Israel. We are therefor, as you said: - "pushing that POV". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:TFighterPilot articulates another valid argument in favor of using the topographical map, in addition to the argument put forth by User:Passionless that the map "does not need to explain everything which is why there is text which clarifies everything." Basically there are two advantages to using the topographical map now rather than the overtly political one. 1. The topographical map is visually clean and cognitively easy to process (similar to the generic maps at Northern Cyprus and the Falkland Islands). 2. The topographical map avoids embracing any POV and as such qualifies as WP:NPOV par excellence (which, after all, is just what we want).—Biosketch (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The CIA map shows more detailed topography then the one Agada brought, so you shouldn't call Agadas map "the topographical map". The fact that the map you want is "visually clean" is not an advantage as important information is not shown in the map, that Israel occupies it, that its internationally regarded a part of Syria, the location of the settlements, the location of the villages, the roads, the DMZs. All these are very important facts for the reader. You have also not addressed the issues that the map Agada brought shows it as being part of Israel trough the colors, so how does it "qualify as WP:NPOV"? It has inaccurate ceasefire/border lines, both in placement and in colors. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's a question of what we want the image to stress more, the geographic context or the political one. Initially I was of the opinion that the political context is integral to any visual representation of the Golan Heights. However, after seeing the chaos of the political map at Kashmir, I much prefer the simplified geographic maps at Northern Cyprus and the Falkland Islands. User:AgadaUrbanit's map avoids the political confusion by making the reader's geographic orientation the foremost consideration. Now, User:Supreme Deliciousness has a couple of compelling counterarguments in his favor as well, which do need to be addressed. Firstly, if the boundaries on the topographical map aren't drawn right, then there's no question it's a bad map and, at least until such time as the boundaries can be redrawn accurately, we need to revert to the more accurate map, it's other problems notwithstanding. Secondly, the topographical map doesn't say "Golan Heights" anywhere, which is rather bizarre, given that we're trying to orient the reader's geographic context. But as to User:Supreme Deliciousness' claim that the CIA maps have more detailed terrain data, I frankly don't see that at all. To recap for now: 1. If the topographical map is sloppy, scratch it for now and revert to the CIA map. 2. The topographical map doesn't say "Golan Heights." That's another reason to scratch it and prefer the CIA map. 3. On the other hand, the geographic context should take precedence over the political context, following the example of Northern Cyprus and the Falkland Islands, which is a reason to favor the topographical map. 4. And finally, the topographical map steers clear of potential POV pitfalls by treating the Golan Heights as a discrete geographical entity.—Biosketch (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

SD, this discussion is about the map, not the article. Making articles related to Israel NPOV is nearly impossible. However, making the map devoid of any POV, in this case, is very much possible. The whole controversy around the ownership of the Golan should be in the article, not on the map and preferably not on the infobox either. TFighterPilot (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

So why do we have a location map of Israel in the Haifa article and all other articles about places in Israel? Why doesn't they instead have a map of the area with the text "disputed territory" on it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that the map should have "Disputed territory" written on it. I actually said that this text should be replaced simply with "Golan Heights" which carries no POV whatsoever, just like the map in Haifa's article only has Haifa written on it. Enough with the Strawmanning TFighterPilot (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Okey I thought you wanted this map: . Must have confused you with Biosketch. Biosketch also said above: "User:TFighterPilot articulates another valid argument in favor of using the topographical map", which might have got me to think you wanted it. The map in the Haifa article is a location map for Israel. Concerning content of the articles for places in Israel, for example in the Haifa article, it says that its located in Israel in the first line of the article. If it instead said: "Haifa is a city in Mount Carmel next to the Mediterranean coast" (or something like this), without mentioning any country, this way we wouldn't have the majority or minority POV either.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Again with the straw man. I didn't say anything about either article, only about the maps (the topic of the discussion). The articles themselves cannot and will never be NPOV. Who said it's a map of Israel? Maybe it's a map of the mystical kingdom of Palestine. Your claim that it's a map of Israel comes from your knowledge, not from the map. That's the point. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you only said about the map, I'm only trying to present this other situation for you about basically the same thing. If its to be done to maps, then it can also be done to text in articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well? Is anyone going to edit the map so the label "Golan Heights" at least appears somewhere on it? For all its flaws, the CIA map at least indicates the region the article's about. The topographical map just says "Disputed Area." That's too vague.—Biosketch (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to put the CIA map back, but it was reverted, somehow statusquo got switched around, feel free to re-add the CIA map, I would but I'm on sanctions. Passionless -Talk 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough people have disagreed with inclusion that reverting will be continuing the edit war. How about trying to edit it? Anyone familiar enough with images to add "Golan Heights" onto the map? Also, the name of the article, infobox heading, caption, and so on should make it clear but I could see reasoning to make it clearer. The balance and POV issues outweight the argument that ti is not clear enough in my opinion.Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No consensus over which map to use means no map in the infobox doesn't it ? And yet there is a map in the infobox. Something is wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

1. "Shuttle Radar Topography Mission: Mission to Map the World". Retrieved 2009-04-26.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• Start-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• All WikiProject Volcanoes pages
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions