Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Map again

Current consensus is that labeling the area as Syria is against npov. Since this map does label it as Syria it is against npov. Therefore we shouldn't use it. If there's a reason not to use the edited map I suggest we use another map or picture or nothing at all since it is more important not to break the npov rule than to have a map. Fipplet (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The last discussion on the topic, which ended over two weeks ago, came to the general consensus that it was better to not alter the map. Citing the source of the map (the CIA), and leaving it unchanged is about as neutral as anyone can get. Purposely editing a map from a reliable source - by redrawing borders, changing, or moving country labels - is inherently biased. It's the equivalent of changing a quoted excerpt from a reliable source while still representing it as a direct quotation. If you have other suggestions of maps, by all means present them here, but I also see no reason to remove a map from a highly reliable source. ← George ^[talk] 19:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the "Syrian territory" section. There the consensus is that we shouldn't label it as Syria. Now if you feel it is neutral to do so please give your reason there. But as for now this map is not neutral and therefore I feel we should remove it, edit it or replace it and try to stay neutral. Fipplet (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion in the "Syrian territory" was about labeling the area in text, not about modifying a map from a reliable source - a different discussion. I don't object to maps that don't label the Golan Heights as part of Syria, I object to the modification of a map from a reliable source in a way that fundamentally changes the meaning of the map. I'm fine with the map you've replaced the CIA map with, though other editors may disagree. ← George ^[talk] 20:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the map is from a third party reliable source. It should stay in its original form. AreaControl (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to have any problem with the map that I've replaced the CIA map with, and if you do then you haven't based your objections on anything so far. So stop the edit war and if there's something you're not happy about, discuss! My forthcoming revert is based on current consensus, see "Ghajar" and "Syrian territory", where the consensus is that labeling golan as syria is against npov thus "by syria" not "with rest of syria" etc. Fipplet (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My view is that the CIA map unaltered is NPOV and fit for purpose. The consensus view of the international community is that it is Syrian territory. That is what the map shows and that is a key piece of information that this article should present to a reader. This isn't a controversial piece of information and I see no need to handle it with kid gloves or complicate the issue by treating it as if it isn't NPOV. NPOV requires that we not give a false impression of parity. Non-compliance with WP:DUE can be produced by both the absence of information and the presence of too much information. In this case insisting on the absence of information creates a false parity and is in my view tendentious. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"No one seems to have any problem with the map that I've replaced the CIA map with" Fipplet need to stop trolling around and stop lying, me, area control and George have all tried to remove the map, Sean doesn't support it. No one has agreed to it, you forced it so please stop lying --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That was a bit harsh. I'm sure Fipplet's opinion is that his map has a higher degree of compliance with npov than the CIA map. I respectfully disagree because the CIA map simply states a fact (in the sense of it being as close to a fact as we are ever going to get in anything i.e. ~100% agreement with RS). Sean.hoyland - talk 06:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

SD you need to read my and Georges comments in their entirety. Sean I respectfully disagree with you too; this map presents the international view as a fact and not merely as a position. It is saying Golan is in Syria not that the international community thinks it is, and this is wrong since it is not in Syria, per previous discussions. Secondly if this is the international view, even though the map isn't saying so, why is this the only viewpoint stated in the map. Presenting the international view as a fact is not neutral and only giving the international view is not neutral. This is against npov. The international view is noted numerous times in the article and once in the infobox. But this map isn't noting it, it is presenting it as a fact. The other is neutral and it gives lots of information about borders and shows the situation in a more encyclopedic way. Fipplet (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

SD is right, there are many objections to your version of the map Fipplet. I strongly support the older CIA map, it is more detailed and represents the position of the international community and international law. It also more clearly labels certain political divisions and lastly it looks better! In a situation like this where there is a dispute we cannot identify the facts perfectly so we can use the international community stance as the best neutral view. The old map should stay Fipplet there is no consensus the other way. Me, George, SD and Sean.hoyland have all supported the CIA map for our own reasons and that strikes me as a consensus in favour of said map. AreaControl (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

SD is not right since I also wrote "if you do [have any objections] then you haven't based your objections on anything so far". Just wanted to point that out. Now, I think "my" map is more detailed since it provides an explanation to all lines, borders and areas, it more accurately describes the current situation by showing current and historical borders, which makes this perfect for a disputed area. It is much more detailed showing the shebaa farms, showing the 1948-49 demilitarized zones etc. Wikipedia policy is not picking a picture because it "looks good", it is also in the eye of the beholder. And most important, if this maps represent only the international community this map is against wp:npov. "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly". Using this map is the opposite of neutrality since it only presents one perspective, where there exist several, and at the same time presents it as a fact. On the other hand "my" map presents the situation fairly and describes it withouth using anyones views. Secondly George had nothing against "my" map. So so far only 2 serious editors have objected it, although Sean hasn't said anything for a while so I'm not sure. Fipplet (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think that the CIA map is better than the one you're promoting, but I won't revert your map unless I feel that theres a consensus to do so. Also, your NPOV defense isn't very strong. Nobody is saying that the Israeli perspective should not be mentioned in the article. They're saying that the Israeli perspective is a minority view, and doesn't deserve as much weight as the majority opinion. If you continue the quotation you started to the next sentence, "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight..." If you read Wikipedia's policy on undue weight, it states that "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." The view that the Golan Heights is not Syrian is a minority view. ← George ^[talk] 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Towns and villages ARE settlements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.110.105 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the map as it is now. Fipplet (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Golan heights rel89B.jpg is fine by me too. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it was Fipplet that together with his puppets forced the removal of the real map, it should be brought back since it is the real CIA map and the majority here supported it (I think). --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Either one is fine by me. Yes, sockpuppets are likely to be a recurrent problem around here. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My latest edit

I would like to add to my edit summary that "straddling the borders of Syria and Israel" is more true than "between Syria and Israel" since Golan is partly in Israel and Syria proper.Fipplet (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite a source that supports your claim that the "Golan is partly in Israel"? ← George ^[talk] 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[1] this source says Golan straddles the border of the two countries. Fipplet (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. To be clear, it's the Golan Heights region – that is, the geographic plateau – that straddles the borders... not just the disputed territory currently controlled by Israel. ← George ^[talk] 21:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but as the article says there are two meanings of the world. I don't think the disputed territory straddles the border, only the geographic plateau as you say. Fipplet (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. And the way the introduction is worded is talking about the region, so I think your wording of "straddling" is fine. Cheers. ← George ^[talk] 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Right now I am very happy with how the infobox is looking :). But there are some very small issues that I would like to discuss. First of all I think we should have 1946-1967 instead of prior to 1967 since it wasn't part of the Syrian Arab republic until 1946. 1946-1967 is simply more specific. Furthermore some editors have said "Prior to 1967: Syria" implies that it isn't Syrian anymore which would be a little pov, so I suggest we write "Prior to 1967(or 1946-1967): Controlled by Syria", since no one disputes the fact that Syria stopped controlling the Golan in 1967. Also I think we should have the "Prior to 1967" below the "1967-" since I think the current situation is more important then the situation pre-1967. Which country it is in today is more relevant than the country it was in yesterday. And the "country" today is "controlled by Israel, claimed by Syria, internationally recognized as Syrian territory". Of course we should still have "prior to 1967: Syria" since otherwise you will not completely understand the situation, but it is not as relevant. Therefore I say we should put it below. It is just an idea. Fipplet (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think it makes any sense to use (1946-1967), unless you're suggesting we also tag every city in Israel as under Israeli sovereignty (Since 1948). Yazan (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the Israeli point of view that it ended being part of Syria in 1967 and started being part of Israel after 1967. "controlled" is something you say about an area that does not belong to the country. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you(Yazan) have a point, but this is not the same situation, as the Israeli cities are under Israeli sovereingty now whereas Golan is not under Syrian sovereingty now. There's no need to tag the Israeli cities with anything except Israel whereas the tag for Golan should be when Golan was Syrian. And it was 1946-1967 while Israeli cities are now.Fipplet (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"whereas the tag for Golan should be when Golan was Syrian." - This is the Israeli point of view "when", as if its not Syrian today. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry "whereas the tag for Golan should be when Golan was controlled by Syria". I am not saying it is not Syrian but I am not saying it is either. Fipplet (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fipplet, the fact is, it has been under Syrian sovereignty all the way until 1967, in various forms and under successive different regimes. Unless you mean the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic, which was in 1946 (1936 actually with the franco-syrian treaty, and before that in 1920 under the Kingdom of Syria, etc.), but I don't see why we should explicitly state this, and turn it into a point of contention. Yazan (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic of course. And according to the article itself Golan only became a part of Syria(n arab republic) in 1944. The reason is because prior to 1967 implies Syrian sovereignty before 1944(or 1936 if what you say is true) which is untrue. (I didn't know about the kingdom of Syria but it is obviously not the same as modern-day Syria. Should we bring up Kingdom of Israel as well?)Fipplet (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Syria was a shortlived one after WWI, it's quite recent, so it is relevant, because it was in relatively the same borders as modern-day syria. Nonetheless, using the phrasing (1944-1967) is quite contentious because it suggests it wasn't part of what we consider Syria now, which is not true, it's always been a part of it. And modern borders are drawn in relation to that. I would argue that palestinians dispute the sovereignty of EVERY city in Israel (which not supported by the overwhelming majority of the world, much like Israel's claim to the Golan), does that mean that we should explicitly state that it has been under Israeli sovereingty since 1948? Yazan (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason not to state in the articles about Israeli cities how long have they been under Israeli sovereignty (of course I'm only talking about the ones which existed before 1948). In IMDB for example, you can see in actors' biography stuff like "Date of Birth: 28 December 1939, Jerusalem, Palestine [now Israel]". It's not POV, it's stating facts. The Golan was part of the French mandate and before that part of the Ottoman Empire. You could also go farther and list other empires which controlled it, but there's no need in my opinion since it was at least 100 years ago and need to stay in the History section of the article. TFighterPilot (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

UNGA motion

Now that Fipplet has been blocked indefinitely, does anyoen object to this edit of his being reverted? This will reinsert the matereial about the motion on the "occupied Syrian Golan" where Israel was the only opponent and 161 or 171 countries (depending on which UN page you read) voted for it. Oren0 has previously commented on the lack of material substantiating our statement that the international community regard the heights as Syrian and this resolution substantiates it.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the material should be reinstated. nableezy - 14:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} the edit listed at the top of the section has apparent consensus to be reverted. Nobody has spoken up in favor of keeping the UNGA resolution out of the article. nableezy - 04:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Mountain names

Should the title & names of articles about mountains in the Golan Heights be in Arabic or Hebrew? nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Notifications have been left at WP:Israel, WP:Syria and WP:WikiProject Volcanoes. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 20:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

These are the mountains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Hills_on_the_Golan_Heights

Many of these have the hebrew names, I propose they be changed to the arabic name.

For example Givat Orcha - Tel Jukhdar or Mount Jukhdar

Mount Hermonit - Tell al-Sheikh or Mount Sheikh

Mount Bnei Rasan - Tell Bani Ghasan or Mount Bani Ghasan etc. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Those mountains have been under Israeli control for longer than they were under Arab rule. They are currently known to tourists and residents by their Hebrew name, are home to Hebrew speaking Israelis, etc. Even if, at some point, that region is transferred to Syrian rule, it is not our place to predict the future, or to disregard the reality in the Golan. okedem (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

These mountains have been Syrian for thousands of years and they havent been israeli for even half a minute. Wikipedia is not a tourist guide, so what the illegal settlers and their supporters think about a region in southwestern Syria is not the views of reality. The vast majority of the world sees it as part of Syria, it is therefore inappropriate to have hebrew names for Syrian mountains.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The country known as Syria came into existence in the 1940's, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. If you wanna talk about ancient history, I can point to Gamla, a Jewish city in the Golan, which was destroyed back in 67 AD, long before Syria existed. This was just one of the Jewish towns of the Golan, which long had a Jewish presence, and was part of kingdoms like the Hasmonean kingdom, and the earlier Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), and Kingdom of Israel (Samaria). So if you want to base your argument on history, you might have a problem. okedem (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this really a discussion you want to go into? Have you heard of the Aramaeans or Amorites? These are ancient Syrians! do you know where they lived? Take a guess. And if you want to talk about the bible, according to the bible: "Next we turned and went up along the road toward Bashan, and Og king of Bashan with his whole army marched out to meet us in battle at Edrei." Dt 3:2: "The LORD said to me, "Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon." Dt 3:3: "So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors." Dt 3:4: "At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan." Dt 3:5:"All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages." Dt 3:6: "We completely destroyed [a] them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying [b] every city—men, women and children." Dt 3:7: "But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves." Many of these ancient Israelite kingdoms invaded and expanded into Syria (Golan). And also, what connection do the ancient semitic hebrws have to do with the Russians, polish or Ethiopians = Israelis of today? Is this really a discussion you want to go into? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You're the one claiming "thousands of years", and nothing in your quotes negates what I said. There's nothing special about those actions - this is the way all kingdoms operated, even the Amorites and Aramaeans. Though those people lived in what is now called Syria, to claim they are "Syrians" is a stretch - it is far from clear they have any connection at all to current day Syrians. And by your penultimate sentence, I see I have nothing to discuss with you, as you know nothing about the subject of Jews and Judaism. okedem (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a pressing interest for both languages. Both languages should be used. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, both names should be mentioned in the article (even in Israel, Arabic is an official language, and so Arabic names are used), and there should be redirects from names in either language to the articles. Unfortunately, for the very name of the article we are left with a simple binary choice - either Hebrew, or Arabic. okedem (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

We should accept the names used by the United Nations which recognizes the Golan Heights as part of Syria and accepts the Arabic names that Syria uses in their English language publications. See this map from the UN on page 15 where Arabic names are used.[2] I notice however that the map in the WP article from the CIA factbook uses the Hebrew names. So probably the Hebrew names should be in brackets. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely false. The map on p. 15 does not have any mountain names. The document itself, though, consistently uses the hebrew name 'Mt. Hermon' - over a dozen times, and never once does it use jabl A-Sheikh. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any mountains in the CIA map. Those names are the israeli settlements. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not the UN, and are not subject to their decisions, which are primarily legally/politically motivated. We need to consider how common each name is, and which one is actively used. The name used by the people who actually live there is of the highest importance, even if one thinks they should live there. okedem (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not the UN but according to wikipedia rules we should represent the majority viewpoint, and that is that the entire international community sees Golan as part of Syria, which means arabic should be used for these Syrian mountains, not hebrew. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. okedem (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Coming from the RFC and not having done much if any editing in this area. (I shall probably be shot by both sides for this opinion). I checked on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. The Ministry accepts that the Golan Heights are part of Syria which is subject to Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration. Successive Israeli governments have accepted the principal of withdrawl on the Golan Heights. This is not the same status which Israel accords to East Jerusalem (annexed to Israel) or to Judaea and Samaria (parts are under full Israeli control). My view is therefore that where the Golan Heights are being discussed in the context of law, jurisdiction and administration, the Israeli/Hebrew terminology should be used, but where the context is away from these areas, the Syrian/Arabic terminology should be primary. The naming of physical features is not primarily a matter of law, jurisdiction or administration, but of geography, and therefore I would use the Arabic names for the mountains of Golan. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If names are not about "law, jurisdiction or administration", why use Arabic names? Perhaps legally (murky term), the Golan belongs to Syria, but the people who live there are Israeli citizens, the places are maintained by Israeli agencies (like the Parks authority), visitors can come to these places only through Israel, using Hebrew names. okedem (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost half the people that live there today are Syrian citizens and the others are illegal settlers, the real native population that lived there before 1967 were exclusively Syrian.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion regarding legality, or what should be, is not the point. Wikipedia isn't a legal document, and isn't bound by UN ideas. It should simply use the common names, and the name the area's residents use is very relevant. okedem (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

These mountains are in the Golan, which is internationally recognized as part of Syria, an arabic speaking country, arabic names should be used for arab mountains belonging to an arab country. To have hebrew names about what is recognized internationally as Syrian mountains is not neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• I favour using both Arabic and Hebrew names where possible with the primary names being Arabic where a choice has to be made. I agree with Supreme. To use Israeli names as the primary names for geographical features that are in Syrian territory is highly inappropriate in my view. I'd even say that this is the kind of thing that can bring Wikipedia into disrepute. These features already had and still have internationally recognised Arabic names. Linguistically re-mapping an occupied landscape is about as far from neutral as you can get. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment The question remains, although Israel has said any return of the occupied Golan lands is subject to the peace process, very little action has been taken to achieve that. Various Israeli regimes have stated differing opinions, with Netanyahu most recently alluding to the fact that the Golan may never be returned. This isn't a simple dispute spanning a few years, but rather 40 years. Regardless of what the United Nations' opinion is (which is one opinion among many), consideration must be taken into how the land area is promoted internationally and what terms are commonly used to refer to the land and its geographic features. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 14:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And how is the land seen internationally? Do the entire world see it as Syrian or Israeli? This is not a tourist guide for supporters of the State of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 19:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a common name used internationally for these mountains? Steering clear if the political or legal ownership of the Golan Heights, which I feel doesn't have much relevence to the debate, do geological organisations and publications usually use the Hebrew or Arabic? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment (here due to RFC) - Is not the simplest answer to give the names on BOTH languages? Unless the mountains have been successfully identified with their ancient Hebrew names, I would guess that the names will often be quite close to each other. Since the Jewish presence in the region was minimal from the 1st until the 20th century, I would suggest that the Arabic name should be the primary one, but names in other languages including English and those used by the Christians of the region should also be given. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Second thoughts -- Since this is the English WP, names should be English ones as far as possible. Thus tel (Hill - ?) and jebel (mountain) could conveniently be trasnlated, provided an English foirm can be found to he been used by some one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd say English names or names most used in English WP:RS, but having the most reliable sources be International ones like UN, encyclopedias, truly neutral sources and not publications from Israel or Arab sources. If there is a fair equality in which is used, use both. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • • English is the way to go and, as suggested, material produced either by international or standard Enclish-language physical geography texts should be preferred.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Title must be arabic name. Land belong to arab country, it always belong to arab country. the legitimate citizen in golan speak arabic. And hebrew language that be use by israel be made up language devise by Theodore Hertzl who borrow most of "new hebrew" word from Arabic and then change them to sound like "hebrew" word. Ani medjool (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, this must be the stupidest thing you have written yet, and boy is that saying something... Herzl invented Modern Hebrew? And he did so by borrowing most words from Arabic? Ya'allah! :P Breein1007 (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew is a made up language?? Ouch... --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 05:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully the English language would never steal words from other languages and change them. Shocking behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• This has to be done on a case by case basis as the determining factor in the name of the article is not whether or not it is Arab or Israeli territory but rather what the most commonly used name in English is. If English sources primarily use a transliteration of the Hebrew or the Arabic as the English name for any of these places then Wikipedia would also use that same name, and if they use something else entirely then Wikipedia should likewise be using that. The answer here is not saying the articles must be named based on either the Hebrew or Arabic name, the answer is to find out what English sources primarily use for the name. nableezy - 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

problem be, isreali lobby in US be strong and impose view on english speaking world, so natural that hebrew name be name wide known because of pov push by supporters of israel. Article need reflect name of rightful owner of land and dominant language of land and people, which be arabic. Ani medjool (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not how it works here, the most common English name used, and the name itself need not be English words but rather be the most commonly used name in English publications, is what the article should be titled. That is Wikipedia policy. nableezy - 00:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ipatrol's simple system

I have a simple system designed to maximize readability, comprehensibility, and neutrality; as follows:

• Use English names only wherever possible
• When an English name is not known or does not exist, use both Hebrew and Arabic names
• When using Arabic and Hebrew names, alternate the order at random

--Ipatrol (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) A note to all, please be civil on this issue. Let's not get into long, protracted arguements over who's "right" and which language is "correct" and let's try to come to a solution we can all agree on.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Maps using arabic names

I have found these maps: Southern Lebanon and vicinity. CREATED/PUBLISHED [Washington, D.C. : Central Intelligence Agency, 1990] can be found here: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/gmdhome.html Golan Heights and vicinity CREATED/PUBLISHED [Washington, D.C. : Central Intelligence Agency, 1994] http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_item.pl?data=/home/www/data/gmd/gmd7/g7462/g7462g/ct001957.jp2&style=gmd&itemLink=D?gmd:2:./temp/~ammem_fDHR::&title=Golan%20Heights%20and%20vicinity%20%3a%20October%201994.

As far as I can see "Har Hermonit" is the only Hebrew (I think) name used for these mountains, all other Golan mountains are written by its arabic name. I therefor propose that we follow these maps and change all Golan mountains to its arabic name, except Har Hermonit, since that appears to be the "official" names.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Find more. nableezy - 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found two more maps: http://lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/lebanon_south_and_vicinity_1976.jpg and http://lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/lebanon_southern_border_1986.jpg both these maps show two mountains by what I think is the hebrew name Har Hermonit and Har Baron, all other mountains are written by they're arabic names. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned in the past, a simple google search of each of these mountain names in their transliterated Hebrew with quotation marks comes up with staggeringly more results than the same search for Arabic. This is a very clear indicator that English speakers more commonly refer to the mountains by their Hebrew-English names. If you do these searches and go through some of the results, you will have a nice list of sources that use the Hebrew-English names and not the Arabic ones. Frankly, I don't see the purpose of going through them all and linking to them here... it's easy enough to do a google search.

I will link to one though, because curiously, it claims that the Golan Heights are in Syria, but still uses the Hebrew-English names for the volcanoes that it mentions! [3]Breein1007 (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

SD posted CIA maps, you posted a blog. That is one of the reasons a google search is not sufficient for anything, we need to see what high quality sources use. nableezy - 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because we are not dealing with an issue of sourcing info here. We are talking about determining what is the most appropriate English name for something with a real name in a native language. To do this, it is definitely notable to consider which version of the name is more widespread, something that a google search is certainly sufficient for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breein1007 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, we look for the most predominant name used in reliable sources on the topic. That requires a bit more effort than typing a phrase in google. nableezy - 04:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese newspaper: [4]

Israeli newspapers: [5][6]

Book: "The Yom Kippur War" [7]

Virtual Library: [8]
Breein1007 (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The lebanese source only mentions Mount Hermon which is the english name, Jpost and Ynet are israeli sources so for them to use hebrew names are natural but both the links you provided only mention Mount Hermon which is the english name - no other mountains, The Yom Kippur War book only mentions one mountain besides the english Mount Hermon, and of course Jewishvirtuallibrary will us Hebrew names, its a pro-israel website and if you look at the bottom it says "Source: Allan Rabinowitz, Wikipedia." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I will kindly request that you strike out the lie in your last comment. After quickly glancing over just the 1 page that I linked from that book, I saw mention of 5 of the mountains/volcanoes in question. I have a feeling searching through the entire book would lead to even more. Furthermore, you discounting Israeli sources simply because they're Israeli shows your incapability to deal with Wikipedia policies objectively. It's all about POV pushing for you, as always. Israeli sources and reliable sources are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't matter if they will "naturally" use the Hebrew-English names. They are reliable sources, so we consider them. If you want to find me anti-Israel sources (like the Lebanese newspaper I linked up there that actually used the Hebrew-English name) that use the Arabic name, feel free. I don't think you'll be very successful, because guess what... the international consensus is that the English names of these places happen to be Hebrew equivalents. Tough luck. Breein1007 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at the page in the book and I only see mention of one mountain by its hebrew name, Mount Odem. The Lebanese source uses the English name which is Mount Hermon. Could you please provide evidence for your last comment that "international consensus is that the English names of these places happen to be Hebrew equivalents." ?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

SD did not discount Israeli sources, would you like to strike out that lie? He said that JVL is not a reliable source, and looking at the sources for the article in question he is right. nableezy - 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Look again. He commented that the Israeli newspapers are Israeli sources and thus they would naturally use the Hebrew-English names. His entire message was a deconstruction of my sources, trying to disprove their validity one by one. Therefore, he was implying that Israeli newspapers should not be considered in this matter. Please don't try to play games with me... frankly I'm just really not interested in dealing with bullshit here. This is such a pointless matter. It's clear that we have the articles named correctly, based on the more common English names. The only reason this whole battle started is that there are a few people here who constantly find new, annoying methods of pushing their anti-Israel POV into Wikipedia through loopholes and technicalities. Can we be serious for one second? Step back and think about how utterly pathetic it is for us to be wasting time arguing something so unimportant. I think our time would be better spent making constructive suggestions and edits. I have presented my case, provided several reliable sources, and with that I'm going to move on. I'm confident that this issue will be settled very soon. Breein1007 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What about you insert anti-arab pov to constant article? Article mislead right now, we attempt to correct but israel lobby insist on hide truth. Some editor say that be anti-arab. Ani medjool (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes he did say that, but I dont see anything where he says that they are not valid sources though. He has also presented reliable sources that use the Arabic names. And I too hope this can be resolved quickly, but it wont be with users saying such inane comments as "anti-Israel POV" for presenting sources using a different name than is used currently on Wikipedia. Or with users saying inane things like Hebrew is not a real language. What is needed here is dispassionate analysis of the sources, not gut feelings and personal prejudices. nableezy - 21:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - most of these mountain articles lack any sources whatsoever, and many fail to mention much beyond the fact that the land form exists. This may open a new can of worms, but since we are going by "most commonly used English name", perhaps the name of the mountain should be based upon how it is referred to in the majority of the reliable sources. Those mountains for whom WP:RS cannot be found (and that don't even appear on maps -- as it appears only Mount Hermon appears on most maps) should probably be deleted based upon not being notable. Going by some of the photos here on Wikipedia, I'm not even sure many of these are indeed mountains, rather just large hills. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 19:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all relative. Since the area is not too mountainous, prominent hills are upgraded in status. In another are/country, these rocks would be mere hills. Most of these Golan mountains are distinct land masses. --Shuki (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion of the facts provided

Sources for Arab names:

• Southern Lebanon and vicinity. CIA map 1990 can be found here: [9] Showing all hills by they're Arabic names except one, Har Hermonit.

• Golan Heights and vicinity. CIA map 1994 [10] Showing all hills by they're Arabic names except one, Har Hermonit.

• Detailed map from the University of Texas libraries, South Lebanon and vicinity [11] Showing all hills by they're arabic names except two, Har Hermonit and Har Baron.

• Map from the University of Texas at Austin, Southern Lebanon border area: [12] Showing all hills by they're arabic names except two, Har Hermonit and Har Baron.

• National Geographic Map, showing only one hill in Golan, and that hill is by its arabic name: [13]

Sources for Hebrew names:

• Book: "The Yom Kippur War: the Arab-Israeli War of 1973" using the Hebrew name for 5 of the hills: Booster, Avital, Bental, Hermonit and Odem [14]

• jewishvirtuallibrary.org article that is sourced from wikipedia, using the Hebrew name for one of the hills "Mount Bental" [15]

Sources for English names:

Note: Mount Hermon is not a hill on the Golan heights, but a mountain in Syria/Lebanon/Golan and we are not discussing a name change of it but only: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Hills_on_the_Golan_Heights

• Book: "The Yom Kippur War: the Arab-Israeli War of 1973" using the english name for Mount Hermon - a mountain which we are not discussing a name change of. [16]

• jewishvirtuallibrary.org article that is sourced from wikipedia, using the english name for Mount Hermon - a mountain which we are not discussing a name change of. [17]

• Lebanese news site Naharnet using the english name for one Golan mountain, Mount Hermon - a mountain which we are not discussing a name change of: [18]

• Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post using the english name for one Golan mountain, Mount Hermon - a mountain which we are not discussing a name change of: [19]

• Israeli newspaper Ynet using the english name for one Golan mountain, Mount Hermon - a mountain which we are not discussing a name change of: [20]

Wikipedia should be based on reliable and notable documented sources and looking at all the evidence provided above, I believe that the only correct thing to do is to carry out the name change of all the hills or the majority of them to they're arabic names since not one single source (let alone a notable reliable one) have been provided showing the majority of hills by hebrew names. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation in the so-called conclusion of facts

Your summary is full of lies. Surprise? The book lists much more than one mountain, as I already told you above. Your Texas U source specifically states that it used pre-1967 sources for the names in the Golan Heights. I find it funny that you yourself recognize 3 sections, Hebrew, Arabic, and English names. If you recognize that there are already appropriate English names, why the hell would you want to change them to Arabic on English Wikipedia? Our goal here is to use appropriate English names. You yourself admit that they exist. So what's the problem? Hmm, I wonder... could it have something to do with your political agenda? Breein1007 (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Texas map says that it uses pre-1967 sources for names and locations for Syrian villages. No connection to hills. You are right that this source also mentions other hills (5) by they're hebrew names, I did not see that. There are no english names presented at this talkpage for the hills. The only english name used is for Mount Hermon which is not a hill, and we are not discussing a name change of it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another book that mentions many of the hills by their proper Hebrew-English equivalents, and none by their Arabic. [21]

And another book that mentions Hermonit and Booster [22] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breein1007 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Both these links doesn't work for me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The book "Arabs at war: military effectiveness, 1948-1991" specifically says "The Israelis were deployed primarily on two volcanic hills -tels-" (which the arab names uses, and then it says:)"called by the israelis "hermonit" and "booster"". The book "The heights of courage: a tank leader's war on the Golan" is written by Avigdor Kahalani who is an Israeli and chairman of the "Golan Lobby in the Knesset". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not seem to have learned that on Wikipedia, labeling someone as "Israeli" is not enough to discredit them as a reliable source. Please get used to that. Breein1007 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

lies? please no attack other editor. it valid information that be correct to correct current incorrectness. Ani medjool (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out that he's lying about the source isn't an attack. It's a statement of reality. He said that the source listed 1 mountain, when he has been made clearly aware that it in fact contains 6. In terms of your reference to "valid information that be correct to correct current incorrectness"... I don't see the need to add anything. Breein1007 (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

I was asked to try to help wrap up this discussion, but I don't think any of the maps and books cited above are totally convincing one way or another. Instead I'll offer a few new suggestions that might help break this dead-lock.

As several editors have suggested, WP:ENGLISH and WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name should be the guiding principles here. From WP:ENGLISH:

Use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language as the title of the article, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form (Aragon, Venice, Normandy; Franz Josef Strauss, Victor Emmanuel III, Christopher Columbus). Rarely, as with Germany or Mount Everest, it will be completely different.

Has anybody consulted reference works other than maps? Do other encyclopedias have articles about the specific hills of the Golan Heights?

WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name says:

A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity".

If no such statement can be found, the guideline lists several suggestions for determining widely accepted names. Has anybody looked for statements of the type described above? I'm not sure that all the suggestions in the guideline have been exhausted in this case, and some of them may be fruitful. Or not.

I wish I could be more helpful. Good luck. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, NCGN doesn't really work here because there are several reliable sources with different viewpoints on the matter. In othernwords, there is no widely accepted name for these mountains. Most don't really have english names either. This discussiin is degenerating into Godwin-like insults and mudslinging, please Hold yourself together! What are we, mature editors, or selfish whiny babies?! The conduct of many of you here is absolutly abhorent. Now, lets try to work out a compromise, ok?--Ipatrol (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As Ipatrol says, there are no widely used names for these hills, but if you look at the only presented evidence at this talkpage, there are several very reliable english maps using arabic names for the majority of the hills and one book calling the hills "tels" (arabic) and says that the hebrew names is what the Israelis call them. And there is one book presented showing some hebrew names for some of the mountains, and one book written by an ex Israeli soldier and chairman of the "Golan Lobby in the Knesset" using the hebrew name for one hill. I do not really see how the evidence presented for hebrew names "beats" the evidence presented for arabic names. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So is this issue dead now? Despite as I see it, a lot better sources supporting arabic, there will be no change?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You see it that way, but others see it differently. Such is life. There isn't consensus to support the suggested change. Breein1007 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont see consensus for hebrew. I see more support for arabic then for hebrew. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And I see more support for the English names than the Arabic names. But you know very well that conflicts are not settled with that mentality. Breein1007 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The English sources use the arabic names as I have shown above in several maps. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While you did link several English sources that used the Arabic names, I linked several English sources that used the English names. What exactly are we accomplishing here? We aren't bringing anything new to this discussion. Breein1007 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You didnt show any english names.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I barely know where to weigh in. So I'll do so hear. IMHO, based on a review of the above comments by all editors, there is no compelling reason to change the existing names to the Arabic names. That said, I support redirects of the Arabic names to the existing pages, if they do not already exist.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)