Talk:Hamat Gader: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:52, 12 April 2016

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Syria Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Israel Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Borders

The coordinates puts the location southeast of Sea of Galilee, that would be close to the Syrian border. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

challenge sources

Hamat Gader in the 20th Century seems to fail WP:RS as a source of history. Maybe it is reliable as a source for the modern facilities. Counterarguments welcome. Zero^talk 08:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this web site is dubious also, so I challenge it too. Zero^talk 08:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for "El-Hamma El-Souriya"? I only find "El-Hamma". Zero^talk 12:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t see a source for "El-Hamma El-Souriya" either; but there might be some Arabic/Syrian sources
Also, it is onesided to write "allowing free access to Hamat Gader for Israelis" etc; as it would be equally right to say that from that time Syrian people have been denied access... And it was clearly a vacation-place for Syrians/Arabs before 1967; just see all the pictures that people have uploaded to the Pal.rem-site.
That web site is no longer used in the article, is it? I removed it from Al-Hamma Incident; Tripod.com is an anon, user-generated (free) web-site. Can´t get further from WP:RS, methinks. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be called El-Hamma El-Souriya when it was located within Mandate Palestine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.37.199 (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is genuine it would probably be older than the British Mandate. Zero^talk 12:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern history section

The section "Modern history" totally ignores that the Golan Heights is a part of the Israeli-occupied territories and therefore not under Israeli sovereignty. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DISCREPANCY!!!

The article on Hammat Gader uses the term "annexed by Israel" for the area of Hammat. However, the same article mentions the 1923 borders between the truncated Mandate of Palestine and Syria and Transjordan. These borders do include Hammat Gader as a part of the British Palestine (Cisjordan) and not Syria or the Transjordanian Palestine. Since the Jewish State in Palestine was outlined by the UN as including all the Western Galilee, one cannot use the word "annexed" since the land of Hammat Gader is a part of the Jewish Palestine according to the UN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinovy Vayman (talk • contribs)

The background it outlined here: Al-Hamma,_Tiberias#1948_and_aftermath. In short, Al-Hamma, including Hamat Gader, was part of the DMZ (demilitarised zone) between Syria and Israel after 1949 agreement. Israel did not keep this agreement, and eventually annexed the place. Huldra (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the place is to the east of the 1967 lines, which is thea area seen as occupied by Israel in the Six-Day War. As there is a dispute between the lines, it's wrong to say it's Israeli or in Israel just because Israel annexed it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not east of the 1967 line, nor was it "annexed: by Israel. It was part of the territory allotted to the Jewish state under the 1947 partition plan, and was never part of Syria. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of Syrias history.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:I invented "it's not you, it's me": Why don´t you read the link I gave you above? It was decided by the Israel–Syria Mixed Armistice Commission in 1949 that Hamat Gader was in the demilitarized zone between Israel and Syria. After 1949, the 1947 partition plan was simply not relevant to Hamat Gader anymore. (If you want to argue that it *was* relevant, well then Nazareth and all the other northern places which were supposed to be part of an Arab state (according to the 1947 plan) aren´t Israeli, either.) Huldra (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing ended in 1949, no sovereignty was determined and the 47-8 status is needed to understand later Israeli claims.^{[original research?]} I originally added Hamat Gaedr's area was annexed, which was a mistake. If you look at the Golan Heights Law [1] the enclave is not included. Yet the NYT source explains no Israeli government since 1967 would discuss it, and a minister is quoted "The area is part of the state of Israel from the British Mandate period. It is not Syrian and never was." trespassers william (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it in Israel? The description now is pretty good but the cats are wrong. As mentioned, the areas in the demilitarized zone was not Israeli and what we have today in the world is a consensus that the territory capture after lines are the occupied parts. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is within the international border separating Syria from (initially) the British Mandate and (subsequently) Israel. It was never Syrian, and is internationally recognized as part of Israel (see the NYT source in the article. ) The demilitarized Sinai is not a part of Israel just because Egypt agreed to demilitarize it. Nor is the former DMZ zone of Auja al-Hafir "Egyptian". Syria's fringe position that it is "no man's land" is just that - a fringe position, which we do not represent in this encyclopedia. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk)

You are mixing up things. The sovereignty was disputed and they had a DMZ to calm the situation. Sinai is under Egyptian sovereignty, while Auja is under Israeli sovereignity, no matter if they had a deal on a DMZ. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:No, I am quoting you a reliable source , which says this is internationally recognized as Israeli- it has the EXACT same status (a DMZ ) as Auja - it is and was, under Israeli sovereignty, despite the fact that Syyria used force to briefly occupy it in the early 1950s, in violation of the 1949 Armistice. It is as much "Syrian" or "disputed" as the West Bank is "Israeli" or "disputed". Syria's fringe posiiton on this is just that - a fringe positionI invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that NY Times descibes it as inside the international borders but the question has not been resolved as the DMZ didn't solve the issue of sovereignty, also keeping in mind that the world wants Israel to withdraw to the 1967 lines, so there are different views. So no, it's not clear that it is in Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, but on this encyclopedia. we go by reliable sources. The DMZ was never part of Syria, and Syria's internationally recognized border is to the East of the DMZ. We're not going to give the fringe position any weight here, anymore than we're going to give weight to Israeli claims that the West Bank is "disputed"I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Israel was proclaimed on the land it occupied in the 1948 war, and internationally recognized on that area. The DMZ was not part of that. So I would say that its not clear at all that this place is in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my opinion, it's how it is described in the books etc. No where did I find that Israel has the sovereignty there and I have just checked even more on this. The DMZ was neither a part of Syria or Israel. They describe different claims - the internal border agreed between the French and the British, the 1949 lines and the 1967 lines, such as in this book. --IRISZOOM (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight, what is Israel proper is what was allocated to the Jewish state by the partition plan? Yall really want that the definition thats used? Cus that would make Sefa-Amr and Nazareth and Lydda and Ramle all outside of Israel. nableezy - 05:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the last international recognised decision about Hamat Gader placed it in equal Syrian and Israeli DMZ. If we have the israeli categories, should we not also have [[Category:Resorts in Syria]], [[Category:Roman sites in Syria]] and [[Category:Springs of Syria]] in the article? Huldra (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why just the Golan categories are not sufficient. But Danny lost, thats your third revert in an article with a 1RR. nableezy - 16:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry. I wouldn't mind adding Syrian cats. The GH cats are a bit of a stretch. It doesn't answer either of the definitions at Golan Heights: The site is in the valley that topographically defines The Golan Plain's southern border, about 450m bellow it. And legally it is not part of the area annexed by Israel. What's in common is that both are held by Israel since 1967. It's also a bit strange to call it a populated place. trespassers william (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That said, it is often discussed in works about the Golan, as it doesn't fit any more easily other regions. trespassers william (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious about it being in the Golan at all. For one thing it wasn't in the Syrian province of that name. For another, it was not included in the Golan Heights law of 1981. So I'd say it isn't in the Golan Heights by either Syrian or Israeli reckoning. It is a part of mandatory Palestine that Israel claims sovereignty over by bluff, similar to the Latrun Salient. Zero^talk 17:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you word its location? Im kind of at a loss myself. nableezy - 19:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And today it's in the admin. unit of "Natural region Kinerot", in subdistrict Kinneret (not in the adjacent subdistrict of Golan): [2], [3]. trespassers william (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 25 February 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reference is missing. Change no. 8 to:

{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/?id=uM_kFX6edX8C |first=Benny |last=Morris |authorlink=Benny Morris |year=2004 |title=The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited|isbn=978-0-521-00967-6 |publisher=Cambridge University Press}}. P. 513.

trespassers william (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{ARBPIA}}
+{{WikiProject Syria |class=Start |importance=Low}}
 {{WikiProject Israel |class=start |importance=mid}}