Talk:Golan Heights

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Proposal: Update lead for administrative precision and structural clarity

Current text:

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

Proposed text:

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

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Rationale

- Administrative precision and lead clarity: The current opening sentence compresses physical geography, historical background, administrative control, and international legal status. This makes the first sentence not as clear as it could be. The lead sentence should identify the subject in a clear way, while still keeping the important legal and diplomatic context. The proposed wording separates two ideas more clearly: the present de facto administrative framework, and the continuing international dispute. This gives the reader a direct answer to how the territory is administered today, without removing the fact that the status is still internationally disputed.

- De facto administration and de jure dispute: The Israeli Golan Heights has been administered under Israeli law, jurisdiction, and civil institutions since the 1981 Golan Heights Law. The opening sentence would be clearer if this current administrative reality is stated directly, instead of defining the territory first mainly through legal-status wording. The proposed wording uses the administrative wording “administered by Israel as part of its Northern District” and then directly qualifies this by mentioning the continuing international claims. This keeps the difference between practical governance and legal recognition.

- Neutrality and proportional wording: The purpose of the proposed change is not to remove the international-status issue from the lead. The point is rather to avoid putting administration and legal classification into one sentence in a way that is less clear for the global reader. The proposed wording keeps both elements in the first sentence. This approach is consistent with WP:NPOV because it does not require the article to endorse either sovereignty claim in its own voice. It describes the actual administrative framework, while also acknowledging that the legal status is still disputed internationally.

- Proposed benefit: The revised sentence would improve readability, reduce the compression in the opening clause, and distinguish more clearly between de facto governance and de jure status. It would not remove the dispute from the lead, but would present the administrative reality and the still competing international claims in a more structured and encyclopedic way.

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

Both versions are fine with me. Please don't post AI-generated text on wiki. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The Golan Heights is occupied by Israel. It is part of the Israeli occupied territories. This is one of the most significant features and it should be presented to readers with absolute clarity. Any effort to obfuscate this important feature is, in my view, inconsistent with Wikimedia's Universal Code of Conduct, and Wikipedia policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

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

I think we should ensure the summary reflects the long standing administrative reality on the ground. While international legal consensus is crucial to document, Israeli civil law and administration have applied here since 1981, and countries like the U.S. recognize it as Israeli territory. To stay aligned with WP:NPOV, any short description or lead phrasing shouldn't erase this de facto status—it should clearly note that it is an Israeli-administered region subject to international dispute, rather than reducing it strictly to a generic physical landmark. --BananaNotes (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

RfC on the short description

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After a thorough reading of this RfC, it appears that there is consensus in favor of using option B as the article's short description. While both option A and option B received substantial support, the latter was generally preferred by editors, as it refers to both the region's geographical identification and political status. Option C received significant minority support, especially as a compromise, however editors criticized it as omitting the principal reason for the subject's notability. Options D and E were generally passed up by editors for drawing a false equivalency between territorial claims and failing to identify the subject as a place/region respectively. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 22:44, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

---

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

What should the short description be?

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

⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• B > A I find both acceptable, but I have a slight preference for option B over option A because the Golan Heights is not a purely politically defined territory, but also a geographical feature, and the fact that it is a plateau is a major factor in why it is occupied as it gives it strategic importance.

I'm opposed to option C because the political geography of the Golan Heights, rather than its natural geography, is the source of the vast majority of its notability. You don't hear it discussed by RS as a plateau, you almost exclusively hear it discussed for its political status.

To preface my opposition to options D and E: I have based my conclusion on a review of how solid scholarly sources that discuss the political geography of the Golan Heights describe their political status, limited to those published in the last 6 years as arguments for not calling it occupied territory have in part been based on the claim that a recent shift towards not calling it occupied has occurred, I find that a significant majority of them favour calling it a part of Syria occupied by Israel and a small minority other options.

I'm opposed to option E because it's going in the face of reliable sources and doesn't really make sense for a short description. It's just awkward and doesn't say what the Golan Heights is. We generally don't favour giving a partial list of the history of who controlled something over saying what that something is (territory, plateau) in the short description. We don't add to Alsace-Lorraine's article that it was controlled by Germany. The argument that it is different here because of the context doesn't make sense, as it isn't the fact that it was controlled by Syria that is relevant, but rather that it continues to be part of Syria under international law.

Option D is less bad than option E, and has been argued for because it is similar to the short descriptions for some of our articles on disputed territories (examples that have been brought up include the Spratly Islands and Kuril Islands). The reason this argument doesn't hold up is that the status of the Golan Heights is not comparable to those disputed territories, as there is an international consensus and a scholarly consensus that the territory is Syrian, which isn't the case for the other articles; there is no consensus for what their status is, so we simply note that they are disputed. Here, reliable sources clearly tell us that it is Syrian territory occupied by Israel, and it is WP:FALSEBALANCE for us to refuse to say that because a relatively small minority of reliable sources disagree with it.

Sources

⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment – In the eventuality of no consensus between between the options presented as a whole, I ask that the closer also consider whether there might still be a consensus on whether "territory" or "plateau" is preferable, as the status quo title is "Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967" (the removal of "since 1967", if a short description like that one (so, options A to D) was to be used, which is why that was removed from those options, but, as a lot of reverting had been taking place, the short description was left untouched pending the RfC in the interest of article stability). –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option B followed by Option A - The Golan Heights are internationally recognized as Syrian territory & should be referred to as such. I prefer Option B over A due to its specificity, satisfying the geographical aspect of the territory. I'm opposed to option C as it's overly vague, both due to the "South Levant" being territorially ill-defined & as it could easily be used to refer to several other places, including the Korazim Plateau or the Hauran.

I'm also opposed to option D, both due to my previous objections to the "South Levant" being vague, as well as it introducing a clear WP:FALSEBALANCE. To argue that we shouldn't refer to the Golan Heights as Syrian in the short description due to their being a territorial dispute, is to both dismiss the overwhelming international & scholarly consensus on the matter, as well as giving an inordinate amount of undue weight to Israel & the US' perspective. Option E is simply uninformative, focusing exclusively on the dispute to the detriment of all else, failing to even clearly define what the Golan Heights are to the average reader. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Saying a disputed territory is disputed is not FALSEBALANCE, unless you are arguing that Wikipedia must say "occupied" and not "disputed".

I fail to understand how not mentioning the territorial dispute gives undue weight to one side of the dispute. How can you give undue weight to one side of a dispute if the dispute isn't even mentioned? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• B, then A per Maltazarian (summoned by bot). It's a geographic feature and it's Syrian. Hard to make a more accurate and concise statement. TheSavageNorwegian 23:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option E followed by Option C, option E points readers the authority over the region in timelines without a biased signal and Option C, describes the rigion geographicaly than politically. Both way my point is that the short description will remain as most neutral as possible. And I suggest that the short description to stay blank till consensus is reached, it looks it is going to take some more time.Instant History (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• A or B. The area is internationally recognized as part of Syria including by the UN. C and D are inaccurate as the area is in the middle of the Levant, not the south. E is very non neutral as it presents Syrian control of its own territory in the exact same way as Israels occupation of Syrian territory. E also claims that it wasn't part of Syria before 1946 (it completely removes the regions ancient Syrian history) and that it isn't part of Syria today.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Please see Southern Levant Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• A or B, as accurately displaying the recognized country of ownership. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just because it's accurate does not mean it belongs in the short description. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option C is preferable. Scholarly archaeological literature treats the region between Mount Hermon and the Yarmuk River as Golan. The description should identify this while political disputes are better explained with context. Textcurator (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

To editor Textcurator: How do you respond to Supreme's point about the inaccuracy of "South Levant"? Tiamut (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

In archaeological and historical geography, the Golan Heights are treated as part of the Southern Levant.

• "Located on a basalt plateau in the central Golan Heights, Rujm el-Hiri is one of the most enigmatic archaeological monuments in the Southern Levant"
• "The study is based on a comparison of several fossil pollen records that span a north-south transect of 220 km along the southern Levant: Birkat Ram in the northern Golan Heights"
• "The Chalcolithic of the Golan Heights has only recently become well understood, in contrast to the other Southern Levantine regions."
• Etc.

Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Note to participants that Textcurator has been blocked for disruptive editing. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 07:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option E most clearly and succinctly describes the control of the Golan Heights from Syrian independence in 1946 and its control by Israel since 1967. Alansohn (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Syria controlled the region before 1946. Israels occupation of Syrian land is also not the same thing as Syria controlling its own territory, E presents them as the same. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option E is probably the most descriptive, neutral and least contentious of all options presented above. Option C is also fine by me, since its descriptive rather than dealing with political history, so it gives readers an idea of what it IS, rather than who controls/controlled it and/or claims its theirs. ScottyNolan (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm having some issues parsing your stated reasoning, so may I ask that you help clarify your perspective here for me?

  If you oppose the other options because they cover "who controls/controlled it and/or claims its theirs", why would you prefer Option E & refer to it as "the most descriptive", when it exclusively covers the matter of control, without describing anything else? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  My point wasn't that a short description should never mention control. Rather that per WP:SDPURPOSE and WP:SDCONTENT, it should identify the subject in the least contentious way possible. I support E because it describes verifiable facts without requiring Wikipedia to adopt a position on sovereignty unlike A, B and D that incorporate disputed characterizations.

  I also said I'd be fine with C because it follows the approach suggested at WP:SHORTDESC, which is to simply describe what the subject is. A geographic description avoids the sovereignty question entirely. So I see C as the most geographically descriptive option, but E as the most neutral of the options that address the political situation. ScottyNolan (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Except that E abrogates the entire purpose of a short description as it fails to even mention what the Golan Heights is. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: @ScottyNolan How is E "probably the most descriptive, neutral and least contentious of all options" when it doesn't even mention what the subject is about? It doesn't mention where its located, it inaccurately claims Syria didn't control it before 1946 and it presents Syria in the same position as Israel when all the sources do not. It also neglects Syria's ownership of it today and replaces it with Israels control. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

As I also voted for E, I think I can expalin this:

1. The most descriptive: because it tells whats happening in the region in the recent years, 1967 to now it is being controlled by Israel and the earlier 20 years by Syria.
2. Neutral: The statement does not give claim of ownership for any party.

Instant History (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Your post did not address that it puts Syria in the same position as Israel when the sources do not, and that Syria controlled it before 1946, so more than 20 years.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

But, the reliable sources claim France controlled the region before 1946. Instant History (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The French Mandate of Syria is Syria, not a separate entity. Which option E claims. Golan was part of Syria before 1946. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

E cannot be the most descriptive option if it doesn't even indicate that a region is a region. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option B: as I said during the workshop, a short description is meant to help readers identify the topic quickly, and the Golan Heights are not just any plateau in the South Levant. The Syrian status and Israeli occupation are defining characteristics, so B is the best way to help readers understand what they're looking at and quickly. Smallangryplanet (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  If it helps: I am also fine with A as it includes the status. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• D>E>C. It's not the only disputed territory that also corresponds to a geographical feature. Usually we, guided by RS, do not simply follow the official position of the majority of the UN members. Consider that Taiwan's short description is "a country in East Asia" rather than "an island province of China". Alaexis_¿question? 08:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The main argument in favour of A/B is RS, not what official positions UN member states have on something. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 09:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

See my question below on the source selection. Alaexis_¿question? 13:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• C > D > E. I think C is the most neutral of the options. D and E are clearly factual, and takes no sides on who the de jure claimant of the subject is. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option C - a short description is not intended to summarize the article but to identify the topic in a concise and neutral way. BTW, academic sources refer to it as Southern Levant more than South Levant Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option A or B as that is how reliable sources describe it and it's accurate and concise. Zalaraz (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• If it is for the sources there are bunch of reliable scholarly journals with archelogical investigations that can support Jewish ancestral, cultural, religious, and settlement history in the Golan region. Instant History (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't get it, why would we cherry pick Jewish history and how is that relevant to the short description of this article? Should we also cherry pick Islamic history in the short description of the Jerusalem article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

There are also sources discussing Christian, Muslim, Arab, Druze, and other historical and cultural ties to the region. What's relevant is how reliable sources describe the Golan Heights' modern political geography and status. That's A or B per Maltazarian. Zalaraz (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option A > Option B; both are acceptable, but A is preferred, as that is the most common description, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• B > A As I said in the workshop, these correctly says what the place is and why it is politically notable and fit what the sources say. R3YBOl (🌲) 09:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• C=D=E Since this is for the short description, I'm going to vote on what is acceptable to me, not what is best, since no option is all-encompassing. C is a neutral geographic descriptor, and the article has a geography section. D also discusses geography, the word disputed is used in sources, and it is objectively disputed. E is acceptable as no source disagrees that it is factually correct. The argument that it doesn't account for Syria before the modern state doesn't hold water, as it also doesn't account for Israel before the modern state. The political situation is too complex to fit in 40 characters so the best that can be done is find a single common denominator and give more info in the actual article. Slava570 (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

E is not "factually correct" in any way as the Golan Heights was part of Syria before 1946. Israel didn't exist before 1948.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• B per the arguments above (followed by A). "Syrian plateau occupied by Israel" is concise and balanced. It tells the reader both what the place is and its current political status. Dualpendel (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support E per Alansohn since it's the most historcally accurate descriptions of all the options— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnieszka653 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option A followed by Option B. The short description should state the most straightforward and relevant fact about the Golan Heights: that it is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Option B is an acceptable fallback because it still clearly identifies the area as Syrian and occupied, but the geographic label is ultimately less important than its legal and political status, which is what the region is notable for. Regarding C and D, these options are far too vague. Trying to frame an internationally recognized occupation as merely a "disputed" territory creates a clear WP:FALSEBALANCE. Scholarly and international consensus overwhelmingly recognizes the territory as Syrian, and the short description should reflect that reality rather than trying to sanitize it. As for E, it is incredibly awkward and structurally unfit for a short description and, as it has been pointed out, puts a legal sovereign state on equal footing with an occupying power. Paprikaiser (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  We should just avoid stating the sovereign status of the territory in the short description at all because the short description must use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional. (WP:SDNOTDEF)

  As an aside, you cannot cite FALSEBALANCE as a way of saying "enough sources state something, so it must be true", because FALSEBALANCE says We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against. FALSEBALANCE is not a "get out of neutrality free" card. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  But "must" is not quite what WP:SDNOTDEF says though, is it? It says As far as possible, it should, which is establishing a clear preference avoiding things that could be seen as controversial, judgemental or promotional, but does not mandate it as it can collide with the other points in that list, such as focusing on WP:SDPURPOSE, which includes giving a brief indication of the field covered. As the article is about a subject that is predominantly known for its political geography rather than its natural geography, and much of the article reflects that, it's hard to see how a short description framing the article as just being about a natural feature is fulfilling that purpose. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 18:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see a compelling reason why the political geography needs to be in the short description given that it's already prominently mentioned in the very first sentence. The short description is a navigation aid and a disambiguator, not a summary of the article. Disregarding any territorial claims/disputes, what is the Golan Heights? A plateau in the Southern Levant, and so that's what the short description should say. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  You are quoting the phrase we do not take a stand out of context. If you look at the full paragraph of WP:FALSEBALANCE, the policy explicitly states we must not present minority views as if they were of equal validity to commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. The policy is warning us against scrubbing or watering down established academic consensus just to appease a minority viewpoint. The overwhelming scholarly and international consensus is that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Omitting that reality from the short description to avoid "controversy" is the very definition of creating a false balance.

  WP:SDNOTDEF instructs us to start with the most important information because mobile apps truncate text. The Golan Heights is not encyclopedically notable merely for being a plateau; its defining characteristic is its political and legal status. Saying we should be disregarding the territorial dispute to define the region means stripping the subject down to an abstract, unhelpful version of itself just to avoid hard facts. Reducing the short description to a generic "plateau in the Southern Levant" or similar fails WP:SDPURPOSE because it strips away the exact context readers need to disambiguate this subject from any other geographical feature in the region. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  I will begin by saying that your hyperbole is not convincing. Why does this information have to be in the short description if it's already prominently stated in the first sentence?

  The overwhelming scholarly and international consensus is that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Correct, which is why it's stated as Syrian territory in the very first sentence.

  WP:SDNOTDEF instructs us to start with the most important information because mobile apps truncate text.

  You are leaving out the part of WP:SDNOTDEF that says use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional. Israel could theoretically withdraw from the Golan Heights at any time, so including "occupied by Israel" in the short description is inappropriate.

  Omitting that reality from the short description to avoid "controversy" is the very definition of creating a false balance. No. The definition of creating a false balance is saying something like "[Person X] says the Golan Heights belong to Syria, but [Person Y] disagrees".

  Reducing the short description to a generic "plateau in the Southern Levant" or similar fails WP:SDPURPOSE because it strips away the exact context readers need to disambiguate this subject from any other geographical feature in the region. I'm sorry, but no. You don't need that context to disambiguate this subject from any other geographical feature. All you need is a name and a region of the world: "the Golan Heights, a plateau in West Asia". That's it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Arguing that information shouldn't be in the short description because it is already in the lead sentence completely misunderstands its purpose. The short description is displayed in search results before a reader even clicks the article. Relying on the lead sentence to do the heavy lifting defeats the purpose of having a mobile search snippet. And claiming a nearly 60-year international legal consensus is subject to rapid change because a withdrawal could "theoretically" happen at any moment is a massive stretch. Geopolitical statuses are stable encyclopedic facts until they change; by this logic, we should never include a country's current government or a region's current borders in any short description.

  "A plateau in West Asia" is so incredibly broad that it fits dozens of completely unrelated geographic features. The legal status of the Golan Heights is its single most defining characteristic in secondary reliable sources. No one arguing to remove this fact has presented any source proving otherwise; the only justification seems to be a misguided definition of neutrality that would require us to ignore the mainstream consensus. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  by this logic, we should never include a country's current government or a region's current borders in any short description. Correct. The short description is not a summary of the article. A country's government and borders can change relatively quickly; in some cases, within days. Virtually all country articles have short descriptions of the form "Country in [region]", nothing more.

  the only justification seems to be a misguided definition of neutrality that would require us to ignore the mainstream consensus. Incorrect. I'm not arguing we should remove "occupied by Israel" or leave out the political status of the Golan Heights for neutrality reasons. I'm arguing we should leave out the political status from the short description because it is completely unnecessary to identify the subject of the article. Are there any other plateaus in West Asia named "Golan Heights"? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Virtually all country articles have short descriptions of the form "Country in [region]", nothing more but we are not talking about a country here, are we? Uncontested, sovereign nations like Germany or Japan have simple short descriptions like Country in [region] because their geopolitical status is legally settled and universally undisputed. The Golan Heights is not a sovereign country; it is an occupied territory.

  For non-sovereign, occupied, or breakaway territories, standard Wikipedia practice is the exact opposite of what you claim. We routinely include their political status in the short description because it is the primary defining context. For example, Western Sahara is described as Disputed territory in north-western Africa; Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic are both described as Disputed Russian republic in eastern Ukraine; South Ossetia and Abkhazia are both described as Partially recognized state in the South Caucasus; Northern Cyprus is described as De facto state in West Asia and the Mediterranean Sea; the West Bank is described as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel (a stable description that you previously unilaterally changed without any discussion or consensus).

  Your assertion that we should exclude this context because it is completely unnecessary to identify the subject is a misunderstanding of how readers actually navigate and, as the examples above show, is not how we operate. The legal and political status of the Golan Heights, which is its status as Syrian territory occupied by Israel, is its single most defining characteristic in secondary reliable sources and the sole driver of its global notability. Paprikaiser (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Paprikaiser: Please do not revert my bold edits with no explanation other than "no consensus". That's stonewalling. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• C or D or E > F (none). I'm a bit late to this party, given the workshop above, but still - it's a shame that "Option F: None" was omitted from these options. Nonetheless, it seems to me that options C, D & E contain unambiguously factual information, while A & B are statements of opinion. They may be the majority opinion amongst states or even RS, but simply stating that a disputed territory belongs to one of the disputants is pretty much the opposite of WP:NPOV: Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. We can't describe that dispute in 40-60 characters, so we shouldn't attempt to do so in the short description.

A short description need not summarise any particular aspect of the topic, the lede or the article as a whole. It's there to help navigation and disambiguation. The only thing I think we're disambiguating from is Golan, whose short description is "Ancient city in the Golan Heights". C, D or E make clear that this is a modern region. Any of them are fine, though I'd probably do D. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I was under the impression based on this comment that F is a stopgap in the case we reach no consensus. Otherwise I would have argued for inclusion in the RFC... Slava570 (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• B or A - Both are good and backed by the sources, but I prefer B. The word "plateau" here works better than "territory" by also describing what the place is geographically. The fact that it's an elevated plateau is a big part of why it's been occupied in the first place. I strongly oppose C and D, as C strips out basically all the context that makes it notable, and option D using the word "disputed" introduces a false equivalence that the sources don't support. E is just awkward and, as others have pointed out, puts Syria's sovereignty over its own lands on the same level as an occupation, which creates a major framing problem.Tashmetu (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option E then Option D: Option E follows RS and Option D is more neutral. Guz13 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  What are the RS that support option E "Control by Syria (1946–67), Israel (67–)"? Dualpendel (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option E The de facto reality in the Golan Heights should be reflected in the short description rather than contested political framing. Option E ("Control by Syria (1946-67), Israel (67-)" is the best option that strikes the balance between having the article reflect the historical reality and not advantaging one side's legal claim in wikivoice. Many of the other options use the word "Syrian" and/or "Occupied" in the present tense, which goes to the heart to why we have been discussing this for months. The fact that this conversation has been going on for this long highlights that it is highly disputed and that wikivoice should not be used here to favor one side or the other. As @Metallurgist stated in a prior discussion above, Mount Paektu, Kuril Islands, and Crimea (just to name a few examples) all have neutral geographic descriptors. However, since we have seemed to be at an impasse in respect to the neutral geographic descriptors, I think that E is a good compromise that synthesizes the two main points of view that seem to be present on this page and it is probably easiest to obtain consensus around that option. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option A=Option B and both are the most appropriate. A is the most commonly used short description, as its political status as Syrian occupied territory is what most contemporary sources discussing it are concerned with. I like B too though because it imparts some information on its geological/geographical character and indeed sources discussing it outside of politics often use plateau, so well supported by the sources. C is euphemistic, inexact and skirts the whole political controversy by completely ignoring it. D is also euphemistic, its disputed because it is occupied by Israel in contravention of international law. E is something quite ridiculous as it does not even describe what it is that is under "control". Tiamut (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• B > A One of these is good but I prefer B. It highlights the geography. This remains the common way news agencies and the international community refer to it. --Rolluik (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option C (first choice; D or E ahead of A/B).

  A short description is a navigation aid, not a compressed lead (WP:SDNOTDEF); it only needs to distinguish this article from Golan ("Ancient city in the Golan Heights"), which C does. Sovereignty is already stated outright in the first sentence and the lead, where source weight decides it.

  C is not WP:FALSEBALANCE: false balance presents a minority viewpoint as equal to the majority, and C states no viewpoint at all, naming neither party and simply identifying the feature. D is weaker here, since "disputed" does characterise the sovereignty question, which is why I prefer C.

  The case for A/B is that a sovereignty consensus obliges the SD to state it. That is not how the SD is written for any comparable territory. I checked every occupied or annexed one I could find where sovereignty is internationally settled but the controller rejects it, and the pattern is nearly unbroken: a geographic descriptor naming neither party. The full survey is collapsed at the foot of this comment.

  Crimea is the exact parallel to C: consensus it is Ukrainian, rejected by Russia, yet its SD is "Peninsula in Europe", naming nobody. The point is sharpest in this topic area: East Jerusalem is occupied with its annexation internationally rejected, yet its SD stays geographic. As far as I can find, the only two articles on Wikipedia whose SD names the occupier are Golan Heights and West Bank.

  I cite these not as binding precedent (WP:OTHERCONTENT) but as evidence of the operative principle: if a sovereignty consensus truly compelled naming the occupier, eleven comparable articles would not do the reverse (the genuinely disputed cases like Kuril Islands are a separate class I am not relying on). If "South Levant" reads as imprecise, "Plateau in the Levant" fixes that.

  To be clear, I am not proposing to touch the lead, which should and does call the Golan Syrian territory occupied by Israel. This is only about holding the short description to the same neutral convention Wikipedia uses for every territory in the same situation.

Survey of comparable short descriptions, each checked live 20 June 2026

• Sovereignty settled internationally, control by another party widely rejected:
  

  Crimea: "Peninsula in Europe"
  

  Sevastopol: "Largest city on the Crimean peninsula"
  

  Donetsk Oblast: "Administrative division of Ukraine"
  

  Luhansk Oblast: "Administrative region of Ukraine"
  

  Zaporizhzhia Oblast: "Oblast (region) of Ukraine"
  

  Kherson Oblast: "Oblast (region) of Ukraine"
  

  East Jerusalem: "Section of Jerusalem in the West Bank"
  

  Northern Cyprus: "De facto state in West Asia and the Mediterranean Sea"
  

  Abkhazia: "Partially recognised state in the South Caucasus"
  

  South Ossetia: "Partially recognised state in the South Caucasus"
  

  Transnistria: "Unrecognized state in Eastern Europe"
  

  Genuinely disputed sovereignty (a separate class, which I am not relying on):
  

  Kuril Islands: "Island chain in Northeast Asia"
  

  Spratly Islands: "Disputed archipelago in the South China Sea"
  

  Western Sahara: "Disputed territory in north-western Africa"
  

  Taiwan: "Country in East Asia"
  

  The two outliers:
  

  Golan Heights: "Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967"
  

  West Bank: "Palestinian territory occupied by Israel"

SeriousZ (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@SeriousZ: That survey does not establish the convention you claim, and it misses counterexamples. Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara has the short description UN non-self-governing territory occupied by Morocco, while the West Bank is described as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh is described as Formerly occupied territories of Azerbaijan. There are also numerous historical territorial articles using the same language, including German military administration in occupied France during World War II (German-occupied France from 1940 to 1944), the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (Region of German-occupied Yugoslavia (1941-1944)), the Italian governorate of Montenegro (1941-1943 Italian-occupied area of Yugoslavia), and Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories (Part of Yugoslavia occupied then annexed by Hungary). Together these examples disprove any supposed general convention against naming an occupation in a short description. The closest current territory-level comparators, the West Bank and Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara, both do exactly that.

The other examples in your survey are also not comparable. The Crimea article covers a peninsula as a broad geographic and historical region, the oblast articles concern entire Ukrainian administrative divisions rather than only their occupied portions, and Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria are articles framed around de facto or partially recognized states. Selecting articles with materially different scopes and then treating their wording as a uniform convention does not establish an operative principle.

WP:SDNOTDEF also does not say that short descriptions should be stripped down to generic physical geography. It expressly says there is no objection to a suitable description that also works as a definition. WP:SDPURPOSE lists annotation and a brief indication of the field covered alongside disambiguation, so distinguishing this from the ancient city of Golan is not the sole test. More importantly, WP:SDCONTENT says that a short description is article content and remains subject to the normal content rules, including WP:V and WP:NPOV. This requires content to be accurately represented per reliable secondary sourcing. It does not require us to omit a well-established characterization whenever one party objects to it. Doing so is itself a violation of NPOV.

The advice to avoid potentially controversial wording is qualified by as far as possible, and cannot override NPOV and WP:DUE. Here, the sources presented overwhelmingly describe the area as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. A/B gives readers both the type of place and the central fact by which contemporary sources identify it. C/D/E removes the main reason the subject is internationally notable per the sources. Lf8u2 (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option E: Adding "Syrian" and "occupied" into the short description as a settled fact is taking a side while neglecting other perspectives that challenge it. E avoids that by sticking to what is verifiable and undisputed, like who controlled it and when, without making a legal call. Other similarly contested regions like Kuril Islands and Crimea get neutral descriptions and Golan Heights should follow the suit. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• B > A > D > C >> E: B reflects reliable sources and is more precise than A, D acknowledges the dispute, and C at least tells you what it is. Strong oppose E: this fails to tell you what Golan Heights is, the best you can say is "Golan Heights is a thing that can be controlled by different countries," and while this is probably a place, it could be an organisation/gemstone/turncoat military unit/etc. Danski454 (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option E: The purpose of a short description is to help readers identify the topic; it should not begin with a controversy that should instead be discussed in the article. Option E gives readers the key modern control history without bias: Syria controlled the area after independence until 1967, and Israel has controlled it since 1967. This option avoids legal framing; A/B use terms such as “Syrian” and “occupied” directly in the short description, which is too small to explain the full historical, legal, and political context. The lead and body can properly explain international law, UN positions, Israeli control, annexation, and opposing views with due weight. The short description should not be burdened with doing all of that work.Xcccccccc123 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  But option E doesn't identify the topic. It only identifies who controls it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option E is the best choice available. It presents verifiable facts by stating who administered or controlled the region and when, without making a political judgment. I believe Options A and B take a political position, and their neutrality is therefore questionable. Option C is also closer to neutrality because it focuses on the geographical description, so it could be considered the second-best option in this case. In my view, Options C and E share the same core principle: they remain neutral by neither endorsing Syrian ownership nor legitimizing Israeli control. They simply describe the factual reality. Lone Wolf ^howl 09:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Option A then B Every relevant source states that the Golan Heights are occupied territory. Not a single source has been presented that says otherwise. Removing this constitutes a blatant violation of NPOV, and the presentation of that option as the actual NPOV and neutral option is very strange. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Option B. Option E makes no sense as a short description and is in fact actively detrimental to a reader. Short descriptions are supposed to aid readers in distinguishing between articles with similar titles to ensure they are going to the right article. Option E doesn't even tell you what the Golan Heights is. Katzrockso (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  No issue with option F, per @SuperPianoMan9167. Katzrockso (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option F: Use Option C, but say "West Asia" instead of "South Levant". That's what the article is about: a plateau in West Asia. Everyone can agree that the Golan Heights is a plateau in West Asia, because such a statement makes no claims about ownership/occupation. Making statements about ownership/occupation is not fundamentally necessary to identify the subject of the article. Options A and B are inappropriate because WP:SDNOTDEF says use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional. Option E makes no sense to me. I agree with Katzrockso; Option E fails the most important purpose of a short description, which is to indicate what the article is about. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with you on the substance but not sure why you prefer "west Asia" over "Southern Levant"? Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't really have a strong preference between "West Asia" and "Southern Levant", and I'm fine with "Southern Levant", but "West Asia" is slightly shorter and more clear to those who don't know what the Levant is. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Also I support "west Asia" because some editors objected to "Southern Levant", in an attempt to find a short description that is acceptable to the greatest number of editors. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• B > A: Both are concise, accurate, informative and policy compliant. I wasn't going to !vote but I was just reminded by an event in my watchlist that directed degradation of information quality related to occupied territories is a weirdly long running process in Wikipedia and that energy needs to be expended to prevent normalization and obfuscation that leaves readers poorly served. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• E > C > D I have read through the different arguments my fellow editors have made and while I don't think that any of these options are perfect, I think that A and B are inappropriate to state in Wikivoice. My understanding (though imperfect) is that Israel captured the territory in 1967 and annexed it officially in 1981 , so the Golan Heights are now a part of the state of Israel, not a part of the state of Syria. Whether my fellow editors think this is good, bad, unjust, or that the land is rightfully Syrian or not has nothing to do with the question at hand. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  So your argument is that we should omit what RS say about it being occupied territory because Israel annexed it and when Israel annexes territory that automatically makes it theirs? Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option E - When a page is under WP:CT status, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT becomes the most important aspect. Option E is factual and neutral. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
• A or B. Both options reflect how the Golan Heights is routinely described by reliable secondary sources. The other options either omit or blur the central fact, as determined by reliable sources, that the territory is Syrian and under Israeli occupation. Furthermore, as noted in this reply, there is no general Wikipedia convention against identifying an occupation in a short description. The closest current territory-level comparators do exactly that: the West Bank is described as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel, while Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara is described as UN non-self-governing territory occupied by Morocco. Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh likewise uses Formerly occupied territories of Azerbaijan.

This description is also supported not only by the scholarly sources cited by Maltazarian, but consistently by some of the highest-quality reliable news sources available:

The New York Times (1, 2, 3)

Reuters (1, 2, 3, 4)

AP (1, 2, 3, 4)

BBC (1, 2, 3, 4)

CNN (1, 2, 3, 4).

A or B therefore follows both the overwhelming weight of reliable sourcing and established short-description practice for comparable occupied territories. Reading over this talk page, I also agree with Sean.hoyland that it is notable how several accounts with little or no prior participation on this page have suddenly entered the RfC to support the same option without substantively engaging with the extensive sourcing presented. That does not by itself establish canvassing, but it makes it particularly important that the closer apply WP:DETCON and assess the policy and sourcing basis of the !votes rather than treating the discussion as a numerical count. Lf8u2 (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Both options reflect how the Golan Heights is routinely described by reliable secondary sources, that is not the purpose of a Short Description. Please read WP:SD: « The short description of a Wikipedia page is a brief phrase intended to , particularly in contexts where this is seen in isolation from the page itself. » Michael Boutboul (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

@Maltazarian, thanks for sharing the list of sources. What were your selection criteria? E.g., why Regional identity and the sense of political belonging in a disputed land: the Golan Trail as symbolic socio-political initiative didn't make it to the list? It was published less than 6 years ago in the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies ("the internationally and locally disputed land of the Golan Heights"). Also, I suppose that a single source may use both "controlled" and "occupied" since they don't contradict each other. Alaexis_¿question? 13:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The simple answer is "I didn't check every single paper made in the past 6 years". It's primarily going off what shows up (so favouring works with larger numbers of citations) first on Google Scholar, although I did some of the searching for sources a month ago in the failed RfC via my University's search tool for literature, and that's how I found the three works in there that don't have "Golan Heights" in their title (Pinfold, Braverman, Kheir). I also found Alkhalili et al., Eiran & Pressman and Dajani & Eldin via that original search, but those can also be found via Google Scholar fairly quickly.

As for selection criteria it was really just excluding entirely natural scientific papers and stuff that hasn't been peer-reviewed or published as a book. The reason I didn't include the one you cite is simply because I didn't find it, and that is likely due to being deprioritized in the search results on Google Scholar for not having the string "Golan Heights" in its title. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 05:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, in that case we can't be sure that this sample is representative which weakens your case considerably. Alaexis_¿question? 08:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It is inherent to sampling that one can almost never be sure a sample is representative. That said, I don't think that having a bias towards the most impactful and scrutinized sources in the sampling is something that weakens my case considerably, and I'm not sure what else could be construed to be doing so. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 09:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I've just realized that another thing that I suppose could be thought of as weakening the case is that some articles get deprioritized due to not having "Golan Heights" in their titles, but that doesn't seem to me like a bias in the sampling that would naturally favour one view over the other. That said, I will look into providing a larger sample later if people want that. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 09:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

If you don't believe their supplied sources are representative, then it falls on you to supply sources showing as such.

A source referring to the Golan Heights as disputed does not prove that there is a meaningful dispute among academics, only that there is a territorial dispute at all, which I don't believe anyone here to be questioning. There being a territorial dispute however doesn't mean the territory isn't widely considered Syrian, so I'm unsure how your given citation is supposed to demonstrate otherwise.

Instead, as Maltazarian has already gone through the effort of finding sources referring to it as Syrian territory (alongside the absolute cornucopia of search results on Google scholar regarding the Golan Heights occupation practically being enough to be considered its own field of study) may I ask you to provide some reliable sources that refer to it as Israeli territory in their own words?

As for the "Golan Heights occupation" Google scholar search I mentioned, I'm fully willing to comb through for relevant quotes if requested, but as Maltazarian has already supplied quality sources, of which no one opposing their position has materially engaged with, I don't currently see much benefit in doing such a deep dive. (I've just recently done a similarly prolonged search for meaningful quotes, only for seemingly no one to've read them, so I'm apprehensive of undergoing such an endeavor again so soon) Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

International recognition

This article doesn't appear to list which countries explicitly recognize the Golan Heights as part of Syria versus which countries haven't expressed a stance on it. Compare to other articles on disputed territories like International recognition of Taiwan which do fully show every country's position. Is there a reason why this article doesn't do so? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a good point. It violates WP:NPOV to automatically assume that any country that hasn't taken a stance on Golan Heights recognition must agree with Syria. If someone can provide a source that has every single country's stance, I'd be happy to add it to this article. ProudNewEnglander (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The footnote in the infobox states In 2008, a plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly voted by 161–1 in favour of a motion on the "occupied Syrian Golan" that reaffirmed support for UN Resolution 497.- not sure if there are any more recent sources. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 08:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

There are regular GA votes. Here is one from 2025. Zero^talk 09:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. So we have a list of 156 countries which we can report as supporting the Syrian stance.

If making a list, perhaps a distinction should also be drawn between "recognizes the pre-1967 border as the Syria-Israel border" and "does not recognize the existence of Israel as a country at all", too, as those are significantly different stances to each other. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Just because a country doesn't vote for a UN resolution or against doesn't mean they reject everything in it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree, we should create a status section explaining that. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Colombia's recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel

Adding this here to hopefully get additional constructive feedback on it. This is also on the talk page of WikiProject:Israel.

As I'm sure we all know by now, Colombia has recently become the third country (after Israel itself, and the United States) to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. My question is, which articles do we feel need to be updated to reflect this new reality?

I believe the articles for towns and villages in the Golan that say "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this" (here's one example) should be updated, because that phraseology gives the impression that every country in the world except for Israel still considers Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights illegal, however that is not the case anymore due to America's and Colombia's recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan. I therefore suggest that the phraseology be changed to "Most of the international community considers Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights illegal under international law, but the governments of Israel, the United States, and Colombia dispute this." That sentence would, of course, include links to articles about most countries' views, as well as to news articles about the American and Colombian announcements.

Does anyone have other suggestions for how to update the above sentence? What other pages do we as a community feel should be updated to reflect this news? ProudNewEnglander (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, "The international community" doesn't mean 100%, it means the vast majority which is still true, and US and Colombia doesnt need mention in all these settlements articles, its irrelevant and completely undue weight. Also the sources talk about US and Colombia recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the GH, they don't mention legality of Israeli settlement at all, so you are making an assumption that the sources does not say. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Also you only made a post at WikiProject:Israel, not Wikiproject Syria. That is inviting only one side to the conversation and leads to a slanted outcome. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources begin changing their wording on the international community to make a caveat for Colombia, we should not be giving Colombia’s recognition so much weight. 296cherry (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what specific "reliable sources" you are referring to? Thanks. ProudNewEnglander (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

None specifically, I’m just generally referring to academic sources talking about the Golan Heights that aren’t specifically covering Colombia’s recognition. 296cherry (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, but wouldn't you say it's a bit disingenuous for various sources, whether academic or here on WP, to claim that "the international community", as a single entity, still considers Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights illegal under international law when two members of it (the U.S. and Colombia) disagree? I think it's important to emphasize that the "international community" is not unanimous on this issue.

That's why I suggested changing the wording to "most of the international community" or even "most members of the international community". Do you (or anyone else reading this) have any ideas for how to clarify that the international community's stance on this issue is not unanimous? Thanks. ProudNewEnglander (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I don’t believe clarification to be necessary. Two countries out of almost 200 worldwide is an extremely small portion.

If, at some point in the future, secondary sources start to add caveats when discussing the international community’s opinion on the legality of Israel’s Golan occupation, it would be fair to alter how we discuss the topic. Otherwise, changing the existing wording is putting too much weight on what is, at least right now, a quite minor change.

By the way, I do sympathize with your reasoning. I understand feeling that claiming that the international community holds a certain opinion might imply too much unanimity. But, we ultimately rely on how secondary sources cover this. 296cherry (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: I really just mean that this is undue for the lead. I could see a caveat being appropriate in the article body in sections where it makes the most sense. 296cherry (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I see what you mean with regard to lead vs. body. Perhaps we could agree on a compromise where the lead stays the same (for the time being, unless more countries also start to recognize Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights), but a new section is added in the body of the article called "Status" (or something like that), which would look pretty much like this previous revision here. I think that would be a reasonable compromise.

Regarding the lead sentence, I was thinking that maybe we could decide on a certain number of countries that have to recognize Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights before the lead sentence is changed. What are your thoughts on that idea? ProudNewEnglander (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I have no real opinion on what number of countries have to recognize the Israeli claim to the Golan Heights for us to change the lead; to me, it’s more about how secondary sources describe it. 296cherry (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The phrase "the international community" certainly does not imply every single country in the world. It only implies the international consensus, which for this issue is very clear. Anyway, for quite a while the lead has said "international community largely". In my opinion that is too weak. "Overwhelmingly" would be closer to the truth. Zero^talk 09:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Where do you see anything that says "largely"? Choosing one Golan Heights town at random, the article for Geshur says "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." That seems to be the standard phraseology for all of them.

I saw "largely" on this page, right there in the lead. As to the boilerplate on articles on locations,

And your claimed definition of "international community" is quite different from the one on the WP page for that exact term. The WP page claims it refers to either the G10, the Western world, or the U.S. and its allies. In any of those cases, using "international community" in the context of the above statements about the Golan Heights would be incorrect, since the U.S. is a major part of all of those groupings and recognizes Israeli sovereignty over the Golan.

Though then again, when you search for "international community" on WP, the brief description that comes up says that it is an "imprecise geopolitical term". So considering its imprecision, maybe it isn't the best term to use in this context. It could be replaced by "most countries", or some other word with a fairly similar meaning to "most" could be used. ProudNewEnglander (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I saw "largely" on this page, right there in the lead. As to the boilerplate on articles on locations, you aren't going to change a long-standing consensus by making the same arguments over and over. Zero^talk 07:38, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

That statement was added all the way back in 2011 (for both settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights), well before first America (in 2019) and then Colombia (in 2026) recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan. Since circumstances have changed, that boilerplate statement needs to change as well. ProudNewEnglander (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking at examples of other disputed regions- Kyrenia, Kerch, Akhalgori, and Proteagailovca deal with the territorial dispute by noting de facto vs de jure status in the infobox, whereas Burao doesn't even mention the dispute or mention that it is internationally recognized as Somalia. Usually the territorial dispute is not discussed in detail in the individual city article ledes. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Those are interesting examples, but the cities in Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, and South Ossetia aren't really the best comparisons since those places all claim to be independent themselves, while no one on either side of the Golan dispute wants the Golan to be an independent country.

Burao is the best example here, since the government of Somaliland administers it and considers it an equal part of its territory, and therefore its country is given in both the lead and the infobox as Somaliland. This is despite the fact that the "international community" (a term I hesitate to use because of how vague and imprecise it is) still largely considers it part of Somalia. If the articles about the Golan towns were consistent with the Burao article, their leads and infoboxes would say that they are in Israel, while the dispute with Syria would be mentioned further down, maybe in the history section (or, as I mentioned in a previous comment, a new "Status" section could be created).

But Wikipedia needs to be consistent on whether it follows the opinion of the "international community" or not - it shouldn't be picking and choosing (i.e. it shouldn't blindly parrot the "international community" for articles about the Golan Heights, but at the same time ignore the "international community" for articles about Somaliland). Personally, I favor more of a facts-on-the-ground approach, since Wikipedia is not the UN nor should it be. ProudNewEnglander (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

It's dirt easy to find a considerable number of sources that use "the international community" in relation to the Golan Heights. Likewise, there are many that make unequivocal assertions about international law, which we would be justified in quoting. If you don't like the wording of articles on other topics, go there to argue. Zero^talk 07:51, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I support changing the standard wording to "Most of the international community considers Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights illegal under international law". This still clearly reflects the overwhelming international position without implying complete unanimity.

Reliable secondary sources published after Colombia's decision already use this qualified wording. Reuters states that Israel's annexation is "not recognized by most of the international community", while AlJazeera similarly says that it was "rejected by most of the international community". Therefore, this is not giving Colombia undue weight or departing from the sources; it is following the wording now used by the sources.

I would also support a short "Status" section mentioning that the United States and Colombia recognize Israeli sovereignty. I do not think we should set an arbitrary numerical threshold for changing the lead. The wording should depend on how RS describe the situation. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable compromise, and support this. ProudNewEnglander (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

No, that gives it too much weight. 2 countries represent ~ 1% of the countries in UN; I suggest we put those two countries in a footnote: "... the international community <footnote: with the exception og the US and Colombia <end footnote> reject this". The present lead gives far, far too much weight to those two countries, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

That's one option, but I would argue that while Colombia is fairly close to the median country in terms of population and (more importantly) international influence, the United States is one of the largest countries in the world, and one of the most influential in world affairs (arguably the most influential). Therefore, America plays a much larger role in the "international community" than some random small country in Europe, Africa, or Asia, so its position should be given much more weight than one. This is why the weight given to it in Michael Boutboul's proposal is perfectly justified.

I'd be interested to hear the opinions of @296cherry and @Chessrat about the above proposals. ProudNewEnglander (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Trying to gauge how much we should mention countries based on their size and “influence” is WP:OR. What matters is how reliable sources word it. 296cherry (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

+1 Michael Boutboul (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I think putting it in a footnote goes against H:EFN- explanatory footnotes are to be used sparingly and it's preferable to include information in prose wherever possible for accessibility reasons- not reading a footnote shouldn't meaningfully change the meaning of a sentence. So it shouldn't be the case that if a reader doesn't look at the footnote they are misled into thinking no country recognizes Israel's claim.

I'd suggest something like "Most countries recognize the Golan Heights as part of Syria, whilst two countries<footnote>the US and Colombia</footnote> support Israel's sovereignty claim."

That way the sentence still has its meaning if people don't look at the footnote to see which two countries. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point to keep in mind, thanks.

The existing sentence is "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights illegal under international law, while the Israeli government disputes this." If we use your suggestion, that would get changed to "Most countries consider Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights illegal under international law, while the Israeli government and two other countries <footnote>the US and Colombia</footnote> dispute this."

Or the second half of that sentence could be changed to what you wrote, which would make it "Most countries consider Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights illegal under international law, whilst two countries<footnote>the US and Colombia</footnote> support Israel's sovereignty claim."

Are either of those what you had in mind? ProudNewEnglander (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Something along those lines works. Albeit for the individual settlement articles, I would even consider replacing it with a simple sentence "The legality of Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights is disputed." and then explain the situation in more detail in a dedicated article, because otherwise we're left with the current situation in which any update to recognition means that literally every individual town/village article has to be updated- would be easier for readers to just have a dedicated article on it perhaps? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:04, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

What source says: "The legality of Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights is disputed." ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I think "The legality of Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights is disputed." is a complex sentence rather than a simple sentence. There is complexity encoded in that sentence. An example of a simple sentence for me is the BBC's sentence in reference to the West Bank today, "Settlements are illegal under international law, ...", a simple statement of fact that makes things very clear to readers. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I think @Chessrat's solution makes sense. We can't just say "Settlements are illegal under international law,", because, as the currently-used sentence makes clear, the Israeli government disputes that. And the American and Colombian governments do as well, and the whole point of this discussion is to figure out how to add that information to the articles. Just claiming "Settlements are illegal under international law", without any qualifier, would violate WP:NPOV.

In the dedicated article that Chessrat proposes, we could add "According to the BBC, settlements are illegal under international law." ProudNewEnglander (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Its not BBCs view that they are illegal, it the international community's. The source says: "It is widely accepted that under international law, the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are illegal. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war states: "The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies." Within the international community the overwhelming view is that Article 49 is applicable to the occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Another simple sentence would be "Settlements are legal under Israeli law", but that also wouldn't fully summarize the situation. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:03, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

The sentence says: "but the Israeli government disputes this", so the Israeli pov is already included.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit request - First line

Hi, I propose slightly editing the first line, which is currently "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a basaltic plateau...", to "The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan or the Syrian Golan, is a basaltic plateau...". Maybe you don't need all these quotes, just added a few to show there are thousands of them, from different countries and sources. Munter He (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, because the "Golan Heights" and the "Syrian Golan" are not necessarily the same thing. The article mentions that the Golan Heights, as administered by Israel, is not the entire geographic/geologic region called "Golan Heights" - a portion of the geographic/geologic region is still controlled by Syria, and I've seen articles that refer to just that section as the "Syrian Golan". ProudNewEnglander (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

In fact, your first source (from the Times of Israel) is exactly what I'm talking about. The "Syrian Golan" mentioned in that article is only the portion of the whole Golan Heights that is still controlled by Syria. ProudNewEnglander (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

You are wrong. Israelis and Israeli media refer to the eastern portion of the Golan as the Syrian Golan, but the entire international community and the UN refer to the entire Golan Heights as the occupied Syrian Golan, this includes the area Israel has occupied since 1967. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

False, the term "occupied Syrian Golan" is not used in mainstream media in the United States, only in sources that are already slanted to begin with. And the United States is obviously a very important member of the international community - its view cannot be discounted like you are attempting to do.

And Wikipedia is very much not the UN. ProudNewEnglander (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

References