Revision as of 09:27, 21 May 2011 edit79.179.108.148 (talk) →Infobox← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:15, 22 May 2011 edit undoSupreme Deliciousness (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,598 edits rv sock http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#An_attempt_to_spy_on_meNext edit → | ||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
::::You're proposing to remove both flags?—] (]) 18:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC) | ::::You're proposing to remove both flags?—] (]) 18:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::::Yes. --] (]) 18:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC) | :::::Yes. --] (]) 18:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
Etymology - It is highly unlikely that "Majdal Shams" derived from Aramaic. The construction is not Aramaic. I think Aramaic would be "Migdala de'Shimsha", but I am not sure, but definitely not in the form suggested here. I saw somewhere a speculation that Majdal Shams is the northern Beit Shemesh mentioned in the Bible (there is also a southern city with the same name, also mentioned in the Bible). If someone have more details, it would be nice, but writing Aramaic is very wrong. | |||
Flags/Country - Majdal Shams is a local council in Israel. They work according to the Israeli law. The head of the local council is from the town, and he issues local orders and plans according to the Israeli law just like any other Israeli head of local council. They receive budget from the Israeli Interior Ministry when the local tax money is not enough. They have three school working according to the Israeli Education Ministry's Arabic-Druze plan of studies. ] (]) 07:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Thats your own original research, source says Aramaic. Nothing of what you said means its in Israel. The area is not internationally recognized as Israel, therefor it cant be described as being in Israel. --] (]) 08:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I am all for sources, when they are reliable. The source you've brought is nothing of the sort. For example, the name "sa'ar" is the Israeli name of the river known as "wadi hashabeh". "sa'ar" is a Hebrew word which means "storm". For some reason, the author translate it as "stream" without mentioning the Arabic name. Hula is misinterpreted as derived from "hol" (=sand) without any supportive evidence, and ignoring the fact that in the Talmud the former lake is mentioned by the name "Hilata" (among other names), which is similar to a name of a water plant "Hila". While "Za'ura" might have been derived from "Z'ira", it is unclear how the author came to the conclusion that "fit" is an Aramaic word that means "glory". ] (]) 09:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:15, 22 May 2011
Syria Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Useless to say it's an Israeli village
For one thing, it's not even 100% clear that the Golan heights were formally fully annexed by Israel in the first place (as opposed to Israeli law being extended to cover the Golan heights), and secondly, the inhabitants of Majdal Shams are uncontroversially NOT Israelis... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- The annexation is not relevant, and I was citing the Golan Heights Law because it grants Israeli citizenship to the Arab/Druze residents of the Golan Heights, therefore many of them are definitely Israelis, and NOT Syrians. Israeli law and jurisdiction also applies to the Golan Heights. In other words, after the law, Israel became not only the military controller of the area, but also the civilian controller. Combined with the de facto control of the heights, I can't see how they can be considered Syrian in any way. Because of international opinion, which figures into this, the area is disputed. Syrian national aspirations should not get in the way of factual accuracy on Misplaced Pages, which is actually what this was all about from the start. If you notice, the editor who originally changed the template to Syria was someone who did this for many articles (including in disputed areas between Lebanon and Syrian) and contributed little else to the project; almost all of his other edits in that area were reverted. -- Ynhockey 15:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: WP Israel has been notified of this discussion. -- Ynhockey 15:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with Ynhockey. Majdal Shams is a part of Israel, both de jure and de facto. There's no way it falls under the jurisdiction of the Quneitra Governorate. -- Nudve (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I see YNhockey you are talking about me when you mention adding the infobox settlements to the articles of Syrian cities. Well get your facts straight first. There is no disputed land between Syria and Lebanon, both lebanon and syria say that the chebaa is part of Lebanon. And NONE of my edits in this nature were ever reverted. You said it yourself that this land is disputed so why unceremoniously and a matter of factly place an Israeli map. Like you said[REDACTED] is place for facts only and the facts are de facto Israeli control and the refusal of over 90% of Syrian Golan residents to refer to themselves as Israeli and they have demonstrated this by organizing more than one Israeli identity card-burning sessions. If you go to majdal shams yourself YNhockey you will see the residents of majdal shams fly Syrian flags, right. Anyways I can go and on about this. Therefore in keeping with Misplaced Pages factual history we have to mention that the whole world , except the occupier itself, view the golan heights as occupied Syrian territory. So the map was placed to convey facts supported by every country on the face of this earth, once again except the occupier itself. so since this land is disputed, my suggestion is to keep both maps.George Al-Shami (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Although your current suggestion contradicts your actions in the article itself, I find it an acceptable compromise to list the town as both Israeli and Syrian, including both maps. For that purpose I suggest substing the infobox and customizing it so that it can include both versions. -- Ynhockey 17:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- ok I tried customizing it, but it hasn't worked. What I'm trying to do is put the maps side by side horizontally not vertically. If anybody else can't do it, then what about image, Golan 92.jpg..but the problem with this image is that it doesn't pinpoint Majdal Shams.George Al-Shami (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- The image is not acceptable anyway, as it defeats the very point of this discussion and defaults the Golan Heights to Syria. I'll work on a solution acceptable to both sides as soon as I have time. -- Ynhockey 18:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- ok I tried customizing it, but it hasn't worked. What I'm trying to do is put the maps side by side horizontally not vertically. If anybody else can't do it, then what about image, Golan 92.jpg..but the problem with this image is that it doesn't pinpoint Majdal Shams.George Al-Shami (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Although your current suggestion contradicts your actions in the article itself, I find it an acceptable compromise to list the town as both Israeli and Syrian, including both maps. For that purpose I suggest substing the infobox and customizing it so that it can include both versions. -- Ynhockey 17:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I see YNhockey you are talking about me when you mention adding the infobox settlements to the articles of Syrian cities. Well get your facts straight first. There is no disputed land between Syria and Lebanon, both lebanon and syria say that the chebaa is part of Lebanon. And NONE of my edits in this nature were ever reverted. You said it yourself that this land is disputed so why unceremoniously and a matter of factly place an Israeli map. Like you said[REDACTED] is place for facts only and the facts are de facto Israeli control and the refusal of over 90% of Syrian Golan residents to refer to themselves as Israeli and they have demonstrated this by organizing more than one Israeli identity card-burning sessions. If you go to majdal shams yourself YNhockey you will see the residents of majdal shams fly Syrian flags, right. Anyways I can go and on about this. Therefore in keeping with Misplaced Pages factual history we have to mention that the whole world , except the occupier itself, view the golan heights as occupied Syrian territory. So the map was placed to convey facts supported by every country on the face of this earth, once again except the occupier itself. so since this land is disputed, my suggestion is to keep both maps.George Al-Shami (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with Ynhockey. Majdal Shams is a part of Israel, both de jure and de facto. There's no way it falls under the jurisdiction of the Quneitra Governorate. -- Nudve (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's a village under Israeli administration and Israeli law, but it's extremely problematic to say that it's an "Israeli village"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Despite this, it's even more difficult to say that it's a Syrian village. The Golan Heights are about as Syrian as the Kuril Islands are Japanese, and the Quneitra Governorate today as the Syrians see it is mostly a fictitious entity similar to Greater Israel. Saying that any part of the heights is Syrian greatly misleads the uninitiated reader into thinking that Syria has any kind of control over the area. -- Ynhockey 23:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's a village under Israeli administration and Israeli law, but it's extremely problematic to say that it's an "Israeli village"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
How do people feel about this: User:Ravpapa/My Drafts? -- 09:02, 6 September 2008 Ravpapa
- The claim that Israel "annexed" the Golan heights (as opposed to extending Israeli law there) is itself somewhat controversial... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- What element of annexation do you think is missing from Israel's actions? It extended Israeli jurisdiction to the area, offered citizenship to its residents, and settled its own citizens in the territory. What else is there? I am perfectly willing to call it something else, if you can tell me what part of annexation is missing. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Later: I see your point, though. Official Israeli spokesmen assiduously avoid using the term "annexation" as a search of the Foreign Ministry website shows.
- How about: "Israel occupied the town in 1967, and extended Israeli law to it, but it is still claimed by Syria." --Ravpapa (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Two days later: If there are no more comments by this evening, I will make the change. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Supreme Deliciousness
Please read the preceding discussion before removing flags from this article. The current text and graphics are, as you can see, the result of some detailed discussion and consensus.
This isn't to say that the consensus can't change. But the way for that to happen is to discuss it, not to just go ahead and change it.
Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Ravpapa, just because Israel occupies the Syrian town Majdal Shams, doesn't mean it is a part of Israel, therefore the Israeli flagicon should be removed while the text describing the situation should stay.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I really have no opinion one way or the other. I added the flag in one of (I am proud to say) the very few successful efforts to peacefully end an escalating and increasingly viscious edit war. If you want to reopen the debate, we will need to call back in the attack dogs from both sides (actually, they will smell the blood and come on their own). So you need to decide if the flag icon is worth it. It's up to you. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The Quneitra district edit war
Don't you think this edit war is a little idiotic? Both Supreme Deliciousness and Fipplet have violated the 3RR and are candidates for blocks. Let's just hope an administrator doesn't take a look in this direction.
And over what? A category. Geez, Fipplet, if there is such a category as the Quneitra district, why shouldn't a reader be allowed to know that? As absurd as you or I might think such a category, somewhere out there there might be a reader who wants to find the towns in the Syrian Quneitra district, and deleting the category is just doing him a disservice. And all this flak doesn't make one whit of difference as to who collects the taxes in Majdal Shams. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hold on, I never violated 3rr, 1 edit 20, 1 edit 27, 1 edit 30, 1 edit 1. Majdal Shams and all Of Golan falls within the Quneitra Governorate, this is recognized by every country on earth and the UN. Any attempt of removing it is an attempt of removing neutrality from the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Now I have compromised, both categories are there. And mr Deliciousness since when is an opinion a fact? Fipplet (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. SupDel? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not perfect, still feel Districts of Syria should be first considering, WPs rules of majority viewpoints and history, but I will accept it as it is now.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Note about navboxes
I basically undid the edit by Freegolan which did not follow any consensus. The reason is that at this point the Israeli template should come first is because it is actually relevant to Majdal Shams (contains other same-tier localities), while the Syrian template does not contain same-tier localities and is therefore not directly related. If this is changed in the future, I'll gladly discuss this issue. —Ynhockey 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing my mistake. Either I flipped the order twice, or I never got to it with the rest of my reformatting. I restored the hidden "order" comment, and linked directly to the last rev of the order discussion, in case this page gets a lot more after it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The map is completely off
It shows the town in the middle of the Golan when actually it's in the north most part of it. The problem seems to be with the map's border's coordinateness which I tried to fix but it changed nothing. Would someone who knows how it works please help? TFighterPilot (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Infobox
I want to remove the flag of Israel from the infobox, since its not located in that country, per that certain editors who always edit Misplaced Pages according to the views of one country will most likely revert it or remove Syria, then the infobox should only say: "Golan heights, internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel". I also want to remove the Cats: "Local councils in Israel" and "Druze localities in Israel" per that its not a local council in Israel and its not a Druze locality in Israel. I also want to remove the cat: "Districts of Quneitra Governorate" since its not a district and replace it with "Populated places in Quneitra Governorate". I want to do this also at the other articles about Syrian villages occupied by Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am pleased to see Supreme Deliciousness bring this to the talk page. As you can see from the discussions above on this talk page, the current version of the infobox is a compromise that has held up since September 2008. As such, I think it may well be the longest standing compromise on an IP issue in the history of Misplaced Pages.
- While I am doubtful that a reopening of the edit warring and endless arguing over this issue will bring about any change, I am sure that the adrenalin rush that the two sides will get from the dispute will be enjoyed by all.
- I should add that, personally, I have no opinion one way or the other. Misplaced Pages's coverage of IP issue is already so discredited, that I hardly think this could make any difference. So, gang, have at it! --Ravpapa (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- What does "IP" mean? If "Israeli-Palestinian", then it's unfortunately quite irrelevant. AnonMoos (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ravpapa (talk · contribs), did I understand you correctly that will have no objection to Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) removing the Israeli flag from the infobox but leaving the Syrian on there? I think that's what he meant.—Biosketch (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, no flag. See suggestion above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're proposing to remove both flags?—Biosketch (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, no flag. See suggestion above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ravpapa (talk · contribs), did I understand you correctly that will have no objection to Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) removing the Israeli flag from the infobox but leaving the Syrian on there? I think that's what he meant.—Biosketch (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)