Talk:Golan Heights

It can't be that Gaulonitis redirects to Golan (city), and Gaulanitis to Golan Heights (region), as these were just 2 versions of the same name for an ancient territorial-admin. unit. Arminden (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Gjb0zWxOb, And in 2006 it had arabic first: , where was the consensus for the change? In the 2009 discussion whether you believe there was no consensus or not - the version with arabic first has been there for over 1 and a half decade. So if you want to change it it needs consensus at the talkpage before a change. You shouldn't engage in an edit war to forcibly change it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

We are engaging in discussion now and if you look below at @Metallurgist's comment, he seems to make a pretty compelling case that the way this article is structured makes it an outlier as far as articles of this type go. Also, importantly, according to the article, Hebrew speakers are in the majority with 31,000 speakers in the region versus 24,000 Arabic speakers. Given the absence of specific policy, logic would dictate that the majority language of a region should be the one listed first in the article. Additionally, the situation on the ground is a bit paradoxical since road signs in Israel have Hebrew first, then Arabic, then English. This means that in the Golan itself, the order on road signs is Hebrew first and Arabic second. The Wikipedia article is an outlier in having the Arabic first and the Hebrew second. WP:CCC and I think in this case, it should. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Metallurgists comments below doesn't hold up as he has brought up several Spanish locations that are not internationally recognized as North African. The Golan Heights is internationally recognized as Syrian including by the United Nations. Metallurgist also brought up Jerusalem, but East Jerusalem that Palestinians are claiming has Arabic first. Several other locations Metallurgist brought up like Kuril Islands and Paektu Mountain have history and international recognition very different from the Golan Heights, so they also cant be applied here. Regarding the "Hebrew speakers" you speak of, these are Israeli settlers that according to international law have illegally moved into Syrian territory (Golan Heights) and that repeated UN resolutions have condemned their presences inside the Golan Heights. See: United Nations Security Council Resolution 452, United Nations Security Council Resolution 465 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 471. You can not put illegal Israeli settlers and their illegally imposed road signs in the same position as the indigenous Syrian population that speak Arabic.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

What does "international recognition" mean to you? And can you point to where in our WP:PG "international recognition", if such a thing could even clearly be demonstrated, is the determining factor for which language would appear first on this page (or any other for that matter)? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

International view: and . See also: . Based on that there is really no valid reason to put a different country's language before Syria's in the lead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

So you acknowledge the article has been WP:STABLE since 2009? JJNito197 (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted to the stable version. That article state is the proper context for discussion. Given that there is a decent chance the discussion will be targeted by accounts employing deception via sockpuppetry and accounts that are susceptible to off-wiki activism, and given that things like this are not really of interest to the wider community, it may not be possible to establish "a proper consensus". Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the old discussion linked above and I don't see any consensus established or any RFCs. The change seems to have started from this comment: "I want to change so the Arabic text and translation is before the Hebrew one." I don't see a "proper consensus". And WP:stable is an essay. And if we follow "stable," it says "Restoring the article to a stable version is not required, nor is it encouraged by any policy or guideline". Guz13 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you similarly explain the fundemental tenet WP:BRD and why by continuing to revert without discussion, you are acting in contravention of it? I have just restored to last stable due to this principle like others. Please discuss on talk and reach a consensus. If one hasn't been formed yet, there is no ground to stand on anyway. JJNito197 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

We are doing the discussion right now. And I stated that I don't see any consensus established and that "WP:STABLE" is not a policy. Guz13 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Having stable articles is something we as Wikipedians strive for; it's indicative of a good article (WP:GACR) foremostly, and when not evident and the article is unstable, it does not qualify to be a good article. Thus, if an article then becomes unstable it's indicative upon the party to explain why as a result of their actions we should not view their actions as dimming the integrity of the project at large, especially as principles which pleasant editors follow like WP:BRD are not acknowledged. JJNito197 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Instead of bickering about technicalities, lets consider the actual issue. There is interest in revisiting this issue, which it looks like everyone agrees is worth a discussion. As far as I can tell, there is no policy guidance on language order for these types of situations. I thought to look for examples as Qoan did. Regarding those, Mariupol is still fresh and the war is active, so its not odd that it retains its status. We are also a bit light on Russia-sympathetic editors who would advocate changing the order. Kyrenia and Famagusta do indeed have Greek first, which is surprising tbh.

• Meanwhile, Transnistria has Russian First.
• South Ossetia has Ossetian, Russian, then Georgian. But prior to the Russian occupation, the order was Ossetian, Georgian, Russian. Abkhazia has the same situation.
• The Kuril Islands, occupied since 1945, are Russian first, then Japanese.
• Crimea, occupied since 2014, is Russian, Ukrainian, then Tatar. Looks like it was Ukrainian first before the seizure.
• Donetsk Oblast, Kherson Oblast, and Luhansk Oblast are still Ukrainian first, but they were only recently occupied.
• Paektu Mountain is Korean first, altho it is split and not really disputed...except by South Korea kinda.
• Spratly Islands are probably the most fun. Filipino, Chinese, Malay, Vietnamese. I wonder what the logic is there. Going by total land area, it should be Filipino, Vietnamese, Chinese, Malay.
• Western Sahara is legally recognized by pretty much everyone as controlled by Spain, but Spain largely abandoned it in the 70s. Morocco partially occupies it. Arabic first, then Spanish. SADR is the same.
• Somali Region is Somali first, then Amharic.
• Ceuta is Spanish then Arabic.
• Melilla is Spanish then Tarifit.
• Kashmir has neither Hindi nor Urdu.
• And perhaps most relevant, Jerusalem is Hebrew then Arabic.

For the most part, it looks like if a territory is controlled for a substantial length of time, the controlling powers language is put first. More recent territorial changes retain the status quo. Its worth noting there is some talk on Mariupol about giving more acknowledgement of Russian control.

All in all, I think there is merit to putting Hebrew first. Israel has controlled the territory for nearly sixty years, has annexed it (unlike the West Bank), the US has recognized it (albeit recently), its unlikely Israel will ever relinquish it, the Druze residents are starting to change their loyalties, and the new Syrian government is supposedly somewhat open to ceasing their claim to it (see (rebels in 2014)). I found a few other sources and references, but couldnt trace them, which is infuriating.

There are other sources that dispute this. And there are sources that say Assad quietly conceded it, rumors are a dirham a dozen in the Middle East. But I just cant see how it would ever be returned; its far too strategic. I think we are likely to see normalization in the next 5-10 years, and Syria will end up formally conceding the Golan. CRYSTALBALL perhaps, but if anyone can demonstrate an alternative scenario, Im all ears eyes. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

If Syria would cede the Golan in the future, then that is a discussion for the future, we cant make a change today about what might happen or not happen in the future. Just last month the UN ambassador thanked countries for "The broad support for Syria’s national position, particularly regarding its sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan" . Today the area is internationally recognized as part of Syria including by the United Nations. Syria's official language is arabic, not hebrew. It wouldn't be appropriate to have the language of an invading occupier before the native language of the sovereign nation being invaded.

And in regards to the other articles you mentioned, Ceuta for example, it is not internationally recognized as Moroccan, so you cant really compare it with the GH. Also, Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights all have hebrew first, see for example: Had Ness and Metzar. And Palestinians are only claiming East Jerusalem not west Jerusalem, and that article has arabic before hebrew.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

This isnt about what might or might not happen. Its the reality on the ground, an appraisal of the situation, and an analysis of analogous situations. If you can explain to me realistically how or why Israel would ever cede the Golan back to Syria, I would love to read it. If we are going by international recognition, then Western Sahara should be Spanish first. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are internationally recognized as part of Georgia, so that should be Georgian before Russian. Transnistria is internationally recognized as part of Moldova, so that should be Romanian before Russian etc. And fwiw, the Palestinians claim all of Jerusalem and all of Israel as Palestine, which is why the conflict has persisted for so long and the territory is disputed. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Is Western Sahara internationally recognized as Spanish? Is Spanish the indigenous language? Both SADR and Morocco have Arabic as first language, once again, your are comparing apples with oranges. Same thing with other cases above in your list like Kuril Islands, Paektu Mountain, Ceuta, Melilla. The Golan heights is internationally recognized as Syrian and these other articles you brought up have a different history and international recognition. In regards to Crimea, it was Russian before 1954 and according to its article: 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language, 3.3% Ukrainian., same thing here, very different history and demographics from GH. Maybe some in the Palestinian street claim all of Jerusalem but in UN resolutions it is always about East Jerusalem and 1967 line and that article has Arabic first. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so what about:

• Transnistria: "officially known as the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR) and locally as Pridnestrovie, is a landlocked breakaway state internationally recognised as part of Moldova." -- Russian is first.
• South Ossetia: "five members of the United Nations (UN) recognise South Ossetia as a sovereign state – Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Syria. The Georgian government and all other UN member states regard South Ossetia as sovereign territory of Georgia." -- Russian before Georgian.
• Abkhazia: "the remainder of the international community recognizes Abkhazia as de jure part of Georgia." -- Russian before Georgian again.
• Spratly Islands are disputed and controlled by five countries with four languages.
• Western Sahara: "In 1976, Spain withdrew from Western Sahara and informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations that it no longer considers itself responsible for the territory. Nonetheless, the criminal division of the Spanish National High Court ruled in 2014 that Spain remains as Western Sahara's de jure administering power. This position is shared by the United Nations, the African Union, and several legal jurists. Additionally, Spain continues to exert control over Western Saharan civilian air traffic." -- Despite this, Arabic is first. Also, if we are going with indigenous languages, perhaps it should be Aramaic or Circassian first for the Golan Heights?
• Somali Region is part of Ethiopia, but Somali first, then Amharic.

So on what basis are these the way they are, but this is somehow sui generis? And on what basis is international recognition of something prescribing the order of the languages? It looks to me like we go with the longtime controlling power.

As for Crimea, the Tatars were deported during Stalins rule, "[t]he peninsula was resettled with other peoples, mainly Russians and Ukrainians", "the government settled Russians and other Slavs in the region and promoted Tatarophobia amongst them", and "90% of toponyms were changed in 1944–1949 from mostly Crimean Tatar to Russian." This was of course long before 2014 to present, when Russia again deported people and replaced them with up to a million Russians. Not to mention you are arguing differently here. For the Golan Heights, you are saying it is internationally recognized as part of Syria. For Crimea, you are saying, despite being internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, because the (forced colonized) demographics of Crimea being supposedly majority Russian, Russian should be first there. Which is it? ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Transnistra, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are partially recognized states, so not the same situation as Golan Heights, SO also has Ossetian language first. Just because the UN views that Spain is the de jure administering power in Western Sahara, doesn't mean the territory belongs to Spain. Qoan brought several examples above: (Mariupol in occupied Ukraine, Kyrenia or Famagusta in occupied Northern Cyprus), all having the international recognized countries language before occupying power. Same as East Jerusalem and Shebaa Farms. Why should we cherry pick certain articles and then disregard others?

Keep in mind also that this Golan Heights article is not only about the two thirds of the GH that Israel occupied in 1967 and later annexed. Its also about the Golan Heights east of the ceasefire line where there are more then 100 000 Sunni Arabs living:. They only speak arabic, not hebrew. There are only Arab road signs there (that someone else cared about above). So Arabs are the vast majority of the population over the entire region, not (illegal) Israeli settlers. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The Golan is partially recognized as part of Israel as well. They still are largely recognized as part of Moldova and Georgia respectively, yet the administrating power is mentioned first. I already addressed Mariupol and similar. The conflict is still active, whereas other disputed territories have gone cold and we recognize the administrating power as predominant.

Well the dispute is about the two-thirds that Israel annexed. And the majority of the population isnt really material to anything. There are many examples of places where the majority speaks X and the article will favor Y. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Though it seems like there is at least rough consensus for Hebrew before Arabic in the most recent discussion, what does everyone think about potentially removing both the Hebrew and the Arabic from the lead and infobox? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 03:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

There is absolutely NOT "rough consensus for Hebrew before Arabic". Consensus is based on factual arguments, not votes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Youre both wrong. Consensus is what satisfies the largest number of people balanced with the least amount of dissatisfaction for the others. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

That is why I said "rough". Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 13:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I think your argument provides a very compelling case that the way this article is structured makes it an outlier on Wikipedia. We can debate on if consensus existed before but the fact remains that WP:CCC and the facts make it clear that the article in its current form is problematic. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really an outlier at all as the majority of cases he brought up in the list above are a very different situation than the Golan Heights, see my above posts.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It's only problematic if you view the position from the lens of Israel/USA. For the rest of the world this isn't an issue hence the resounding unanimous NO to the Golan being part of Israel, which is reflected here on this article. Not controversial and not problematic. JJNito197 (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Even if we would go by "longstanding administrative control." as you want, this article is also about the Golan Heights deeper into Syria, east of the ceasefire line, so not only about the two thirds of the GH that Israel occupied in 1967 and later annexed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This is shifting the goalposts. You are implicitly admitting that my arguments are correct, but we still should not car because another pile of rocks is also part of the territory, despite Israel not controlling until recently. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Your argument doesn't take into consideration that this Golan Heights article is not only about the two thirds of the GH that Israel occupied in 1967 and later annexed. Its also about the Golan Heights east of the ceasefire line, deeper into Syria where there are more then 100 000 Sunni Arabs living:. They only speak arabic, not hebrew.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The article is ambiguous: the lead defines the Golan Heights as the plateau as a whole, but several elements clearly center the Israeli-occupied area, including the main map, the population figure of about 55,000 split between Israeli settlers and Arabs, and the demographic discussion of Druze citizenship under Israeli rule, etc. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The population in the infobox used to also include the eastern Golan deeper into Syria, but someone removed it. The article is about the entire geographical region.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The short description is clear : Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967. This what this article is about. Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

As again, to repeat, the Golan Heights is internationally recognised as occupied Syrian terrority by every country worldwide, bar Israel/USA. As Israel does not use English as a language, and as this is English wikipedia, this article as it stands reflects the unanimous English-speaking worlds position on the matter. If you believe that Golan belongs to Israel, feel free to read the Hebrew Wikipedia page. Per MOS FL, a single closely related language goes next to English, this being Arabic. Whether Israel has 'control' over it is irrelevant, facts are facts. JJNito197 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hebrew does not make sense first, as the native population speaks Arabic, the area is internationally recognised as illegally occupied, and we don't place "Russian" as the first language in Russian occupied parts of Ukraine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

This argument is inconsistent: Wikipedia does not automatically order languages by indigenous status or by the legality of control. Otherwise, Algeria would list Berber before Arabic, which it does not; Crimea lists Russian before Ukrainian; and the Golan Heights today has a Hebrew-speaking majority overall, even though the Druze population remains primarily Arabic-speaking. Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I looked up photos of Golan Heights in the commons and the signs are all in Hebrew or English. I did see one sign that also has Arabic as a secondary language. It's pretty obvious the people living there speak Hebrew or English.

Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

Guz13 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Of course the settler signs are in English and Hebrew, I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. The settlers are themselves there illegally, so it is irrelevant whether they are the majority or not. Analogies with countries like Algeria whose current demographics were established centuries ago have nothing to do with illegal settlements put in place long after international law was formalised. Even Crimea has been majority Russian-speaking long before it was invaded. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Then the article should reflect the defacto control of the settlers. I don't see the point of a reader coming to this page and thinking people there primarily speak Arabic when that isn't true. Guz13 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

They are primarily speaking Arabic: , "By comparison, the WHO estimated the governorate’s population at 149 374.", this is not counting the Syrian Druze and Alawites in the Israeli occupied part of the GH. So arabic is used by about 180K Syrians on both sides of the ceasefire line. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Please read the short description. This article is not about Quneitra Governorate. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Please see the "2024 Israeli invasion of Syria" and "UNDOF supervision" sections which are exclusively about the GH deeper into Syria. There is also some info about Syrian villages east of the ceasefire line in the Syrian villages section. Yes, the majority of the article is about the two western thirds occupied by Israel in 1967 but its also about the entire GH region.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this article is a mess. Some of the information should not be there. It should be consistent with the short description. In addition, this is how UN defines the Golan now. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Because the one single user that added the short description decides the entire scope of the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

No, but the short description reflects a scope that is already widely used in reliable sources. There is already a separate article on Quneitra Governorate, so duplicating governorate-wide material here only creates confusion. Britannica gives the Golan Heights as about 1,150 km2, and Al Jazeera likewise describes it as a 1,150 sq km plateau.

Since you raise the point, the short description could indeed be changed to something more concise, such as "Golan Heights occupied by Israel" Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thats because the majority of sources focus on the Israeli occupation, but that doesn't mean that the area of the Golan not occupied by Israel in 1967 cant be mentioned here. The population in the Quneitra Governorate live in the Golan--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on recent reliable sources. The problem is not that sources focus on the occupied part, but that many of them define the Golan restrictively, not as Quneitra Governorate as a whole. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

"On the Syrian Golan Heights, Israel uses the same tools of repression as in the West Bank" , "State Department defends Israeli occupation of Syrian Golan Heights" , "Talks between Israel and Syria could change the reality in Syrian Golan Heights", , All of these sources are talking about the eastern Golan Heights deeper into Syria, not the part occupied by Israel in 1967. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Those examples are mostly journalistic shorthand and do not settle scope. Ray Murphy explicitly distinguishes between the broader geographic plateau and the usual political usage of the term: 'Reference to "the Golan Heights" has typically described the portion of the Syrian Golan that has been occupied by Israel since 1967.' Julian Cole Phillips uses the term in the same restrictive sense, writing that in 1967 Israel occupied '1,250 square kilometers of Syrian territory atop the Golan Heights.'Ray Murphy, Forgotten Rights: Consequences of the Israeli Occupation of the Golan HeightsJulian Cole Phillips, The Anti-Assad Campaign in the Occupied Golan Heights, 2011-2012 So this is not just about one editor or one short description: the academic sourcing already treat 'Golan Heights' primarily in the occupied-area sense. Even on this talk page, multiple editors - not just one - have discussed the article in those terms and supported a short description centered on the occupied territory. And to return to the original point, if that is the operative scope, then it is entirely normal to place first the language of the majority population within that scope. Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that "Golan Heights occupied by Israel" is a bit clunky and awkward, it is not generally a great idea to use the word you're defining in a definition, but "Territory occupied by Israel since 1967" is 39 characters, and works well while remaining inside the 40 character ideal short description length per WP:SDLENGTH. I updated that accordingly. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 23:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, your version doesn't mention where the area is located, this is highly important. Area is internationally recognized as part of Syria and it is completely absent.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Suggest a better shorter SD than. It is supposed to be "short". Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 17:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

How long does a population need to be primarily Hebrew-speaking before the order changes? Israel has maintained control of the Golan since 1967 (nearly 60 years), with Hebrew constituting the majority language in the region (31k Hebrew vs. 24k Arabic speakers). Roadsigns also reflect this with Hebrew being first per road signs in Israel. Is it 50 years? 75 years? 100 years? at what point does a de facto reality (i.e. stable majority and control) override pas demographics, absent a policy mandating international recognition for language order (which is not a policy i am aware of being in MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV or anywhere else).

Supreme Deliciousness failed to counter the majority of Metallurgist's examples. Transnistria has Russian first even though there is minimal recognition, Melilla also has Spanish before Arabic even though there are disputed claims and many other examples previously listed. Per WP:CCC and the examples mentioned, Hebrew>Arabic reflects the current de facto status and should be reflected as such. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

You aren't addressing that the "population" speaking hebrew are Israeli settlers who are regarded as illegal by the majority of the international community, so they are viewed as not having any right to be there. Hebrew is also not the majority language in the region as there are over 100K Syrians east of the ceasefire line: this region is also the Golan Heights as demonstrated above:. So the majority language in the GH region is arabic. I countered the majority of Metallurgists examples above, and frankly they weren't good arguments or similar to the Golan heights, same with your Melilla argument which is not viewed as Moroccan by the international community. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Melilla is recognised as Spanish by every single country on Earth apart from Morocco. And the second most spoken language is Tarifit, not Arabic. I wish people stopped comparing this article to others that have nothing to do with it; it is easy to find a lot of examples if you look at places that have full international recognition or where the current language was already the majority language before invasion/secession (ie Crimea or Transnistria). Qoan (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

And yet those article reflected a different order prior to their seizure by the current administrating power. SD hardly responded to what I said here. Happy to have someone else look at the examples and why this should be treated differently. Also, I ask again for an explanation of how the territory will ever be restored to Syrian control as the preponderance of indications suggests that is extremely unlikely. And since the beginning of this thread, Lebanon is now seeking a peace deal. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Why would the arabic translation for a geographical region inside an Arab country be removed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Judgement of Solomon ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

You want to bring up a discussion from 2009. The person that said "I don't see the point in doing so." Drork - is permanently blocked from Wikipedia for abusing sockpuppets in the A-I topic area, there are also two other joe job socks in that discussion, "Hamas4life" and "Freegolan". "There was an established order" Where? In 2006 it had arabic first: , where was the consensus for the change to hebrew then? Area is internationally recognized as part of Syria. Syria's official language is Arabic, not Hebrew. Those who speak hebrew are Israeli settlers who according to the vast majority of the international community shouldn't be there, they are not a legitimate population or legal residents in the region. The majority of people in the Golan Heights speak Arabic as there are around 150K Syrians east of the ceasefire line: this region is also the Golan Heights as demonstrated here:. Combined with the Syrians in the western Golan, Arabic speakers are around 180K.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Litigating the past either way is silly. We are here now. Lets work this out. Anyway, that is a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS argument. I refer again to my arguments above. I am genuinely curious the scenario under which Israel would return the Golan to Syria. Because thats pretty much a red line for them and strategic suicide. The Assad regime and Sharaa had and have essentially conceded that it will remain in Israeli possession in any peace deal (see links above). If you can explain to me how the territory would be restored to Syria, I am all eyes. I am fairly confident that there will be a peace deal by the end of 2030, altho I am not sure I would bet on it, but Ill leave this here and we can come back on January 1, 2031. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Could you please show the links that show that "The Assad regime and Sharaa had and have essentially conceded that it will remain in Israeli possession in any peace deal (see links above).", I have not seen such links posted here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The sentence "rich history of demographic transitions" is romanticised sophistry excusing and dismissing the actual modern reality, forced occupation. So are you saying that because the region has Hebrew speakers this is a prerequisite for a language change on Wikipedia? Can you show me where this is outlined on Wikipedia? Last time I checked, the Golan is internationally recognised as occupied territory, excusing the position held by Israel and USA. USA and her position is not the authority on the English Wikipedia, as such the article should reflect the English speaking worlds position on the matter (by whatever metric is suitable). See Hebrew Wikipedia and numerous topics inc West Bank and the Golan for reference. Or does that rule not apply to us? JJNito197 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I literally did that with Crimea, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Shall we go over there and restore Ukrainian and Georgian before Russian? Also, I dont think the English world has any preference of this or that language first. Its a Wikipedia editor decision. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It was pointed out to you above that the situation with Crimea, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are not the same as with the Golan Heights. Crimea was originally Russian before 1954 and according to its article: 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language. The Golan heights was always Syrian, not Israeli, and the majority including both sides of the ceasefire line speak arabic. The Russian speakers in Crimea are also not regarded as illegal settlers by the vast majority of the international community, unlike the Israeli settlers in the Golan Height, who are not legal residents. South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are two break away states and the language reflect that political entity's proclamation. Ossetion and Abkhaz are the first language in those articles, are those who speak it regarded as illegal settlers the same as the Israeli settlers in the Golan Heights? You are trying to compare these other articles to the Golan Heights, but the situation is very different in several ways. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

This has remained intractable after a couple months. An RfC may be appropriate at this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Agree. The problem is also that some users engage in edit waring to forcibly get their way through wikipedia. Boutboul, where was the consensus for the change to remove the location of the Golan Heights in the description? Why did you revert me? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Time for the fill in the missing word game - "Following WP:BRD a contentious topic area is bad because...". Anyone want to give it a go? Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the previous wording was both more accurate & informative.

@Boutboul May you clarify where you believe consensus for the change in question was established? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

A short description should generally be under 40 characters, per WP:SDLENGTH. That’s all. Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Though I agree that WP:SDLENGTH is good to keep in mind, it's also not policy. The benefit of a short description is that concision forces editors to focus on the most notable details. As such, though concision remains important, we shouldn't prioritize it over the description's actual ability to inform the reader.

With this in mind, are there any outstanding objections to changing the description to "Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967"? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

So, if compression to < 40 chars is the objective, what are the arguments against ""Syrian territory occupied since 1967"", "Territory occupied since 1967", "Occupied territory" and so on? Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm good with "Syrian territory occupied since 1967". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a case for similar treatment as Jerusalem – City in the Southern Levant, ie "Plateau in the Southern Levant", which is 6 characters fewer than present, and decidedly neutral.

• Western Sahara – Disputed territory in north-western Africa
• Kashmir – Region in South Asia
• Aksai Chin – Part of Kashmir administered by China
• Arunachal Pradesh – State in northeast India
• Navassa Island – Caribbean island administered by the US, claimed by Haiti
• Abu Musa – Disputed island near the Strait of Hormuz
• Greater and Lesser Tunbs – Group of twin islands in the Strait of Hormuz administered by Iran
• Shebaa Farms – Disputed territory in the Levant (presents a very relevant example)

etc etc

It appears in most cases that if any country is mentioned, it is the administrative power. Thus, either the above or "Disputed territory administered by Israel". Mentioning Syria is without merit and there is no case for why this should be sui generis. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

"Mentioning Syria is without merit" - I click on your userpage and you have an Israeli flag.... Metallurgist are you here to contribute to an encyclopedia or for some other reason? How exactly is there no merit to mention the country it is part of according to the vast majority of the international community? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I have had an Israeli flag and a Ukraine flag and an American flag on my userpage about as long as youve had an account, and its never been an issue. Please cease WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS and stick to the merits of discussion here, else I would be happy to boomerang your large proportion of Syria-related edits.

Mentioning Syria is without merit because it is disputed and they dont administrate it. Other countrys opinions arent factual reality, this plays out across numerous articles. Also, I refer you to the other examples, few to none of which mention the claiming party. I think a neutral description mentioning neither Syria nor Israel is a fair compromise. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The idea that "Mentioning Syria is without merit" in regards to the description of Syrian territory, recognized as such by all but Israel & the US, is a bold claim & honestly, rather nonsensical. That other articles' descriptions are phrased differently is a poor justification for your change when there is no policy regarding a standardized wording. The context of each individual article should take priority when writing a description.

That you knew there was a dispute over the description & disregarded it in favor of your own preferred wording is uncollaborative. I find your wording of "Plateau in the Southern Levant" overly vague to the point of being rather unhelpful. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It is hardly at all for the reasons I stated. The only thing we have to go on is other examples in light of no policy and local consensus. I felt this to be a fair and neutral compromise between those who want it to say Syria and those who want it to say Israel. It is no more vague than "Jerusalem – City in the Southern Levant", which was developed via consensus years ago as that is an unresolvable dispute. Admittedly, some might say this is more the Northern Levant or Central, but according to Southern Levant, some do include sothern Syria.

Alternatively: "Disputed plateau between Israel and Syria", if we can fall back on alphabetics in MOS or wherever, I cant find the policy, without fussing over that. But even this isnt good because Lebanon claims Shebaa Farms, so some form of "Disputed plateau/territory in the (Southern) Levant" is actually the best short description. Short descriptions are supposed to advance the title a bit to help disambiguate or give a hint of what the topic is. Being vague isnt a problem, altho I would disagree that it is vague. There are plenty of SDs that say "Country in West Asia" or something. Thats even more vague. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Article content should be decided by the preponderance of reliable sources & should avoid creating a false balance. When the majority recognize it as Syrian territory, abstaining from mentioning that fact, as if the 2 parties have equal claim, is non-neutral. In fact, treating Shebaa Farms as part of the Golan Heights is in itself privileging Israel's perspective in the dispute as I don't believe Syria nor Lebanon treat the 2 territories as the same.

Unlike the Golan Heights where the overall international perspective is rather clear, Jerusalem carries a significant amount of technicalities & minutiae that can't be adequately summarized by a short description (Besides the issue of conflicting territorial claims & status as a capital, there's also the need to delineate between East & West Jerusalem). So in that situation, such a vague description was appropriate & a necessary compromise. Another reason I'm against using "Southern Levant" is, as you touched on yourself, the term is imprecise in nature due to ill-defined borders. If the term itself doesn't have a precise definition, it won't be as helpful making an accurate description.

Regarding short descriptions as a whole, I believe they should be meaningfully descriptive, both to be as informative as possible within the limited space & to help differentiate between articles. The fact that other articles fail to do this when better alternatives are available, is not an argument in favor of more vague descriptions. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The dominant international position is clear, but it is simply false that reliable sources use only one formula. For example, the American Journal of International Law calls the Golan Heights "another disputed territory", a Taylor & Francis article refers to "the disputed Golan Heights", and Eurasia Border Review speaks of "the territorial dispute between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights". It is a fair reflection of the fact that serious sources do not all frame the issue identically.^[1][2][3].

I would suggest : "Plateau in the Levant occupied by Israel". Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

What Metallurgist is suggesting here is the most consistent suggestion per the examples he gave of other pages. We generally choose as editors to use the administrating power in control of a given area or a neutral geographic descriptor when it comes to adding short descriptions of places. Therefore here, a geographically neutral description such as "Plateau in the Southern Levant" is the most consistent to how we generally handle these per above. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Metallurgist on this one. Per WP:SHORTDESC, this should be a simple, neutral identifier. Terms like “disputed” or “occupied” are interpretive and need context, discussion, etc., which a short description can’t give readers.Including such terms in the short description also risks giving UNDUE weight to just one aspect. I think that a straightforward geographic description like "Plateau in the Southern Levant" better fits policy. ScottyNolan (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Southern Levant is not the correct, as it is not concisely defined. It's a vague unhelpful term, in a similar vein to the antiquated 'Middle East'. Of course Israel would call it part of the Southern Levant, however others would define it as Levant proper. JJNito197 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Plateau in the Southern Levant" basically says nothing; it could be the description any number of places: pretty meaningless. "Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967". is concise, and factual. (or does anyone dispute this?, if so, please give arguments.) I suggest we return to that. Do I need to start an official WP:RfC? Huldra (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  Support רמרום (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  Support Huldras version. More informative than current one that was changed with force. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  This is not consistent with your argument on "MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV discussion". Either you accept that the article is about the occupied part or a broader definition of the Plateau but it can't be both. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)