Jump to content

Talk:Hamat Gader

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dimadick (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 1 August 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. Zerotalk 08:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

What is the source for "El-Hamma El-Souriya"? I only find "El-Hamma". Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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

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]

To whom it may concern: OTRS permission ticket number

I have received in an e-mail the OTRS permission ticket number for a photograph that I uploaded in the main article, but I am not qualified to add the ticket number to the template on the Talk-Page. If any volunteer is qualified to add it to the template, the ticket number is: 2017062410011105.---Davidbena (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hamat Gader. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hamat Gader. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Syrian Hamma"? When? Source!

In the lead, the Arabic name is given as "al-Hamma al-Souriya, meaning "the Syrian Hamma", and it's wikilinked to Al-Hamma, Tiberias. This name statement lacks a source.

When was it called this way? Was it official? Was "Al-Hamma, Tiberias" the official name during the Mandate, and only then? Is this an attempt at placing a territorial claim through the back door (Syrian, rather than Palestinian village)? Source! Arminden (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to verify "al-Hamma al-Souriya". That form of name is commonly used to disambiguate a place from somewhere with a similar name (think "Bethlehem of Galilee", whose actual name was just "Bethlehem"). "Al-Hamma, Tiberias" was never an official name, we only call our article that because there is already Al-Hamma. If the time period was before the Mandate, this locality would have been called Syria. However, without a source the Arabic can be reduced to "El-Hamma". Maybe Huldra knows better. Zerotalk 05:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Zero is probably correct here; it was named "Syrian Hamma" in order to distinguish it from the other Hammas. I cannot find it on any map I have, but then don't have any detailed maps over the region in the 1948-67 era, Huldra (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is just called "El Hamma", "El Hammeh" etc in the maps I have. I need to check if any of my Arabic maps include it but it is hard without being able to read Arabic. Zerotalk 01:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Hamat Gader

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hamat Gader's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Negev":

  • From Kedesh: Negev & Gibson, eds. (2001), p. 278.
  • From Nessana: Negev, Avraham; Gibson, Shimon (2001). Nessana; Auja el-Hafir. New York and London: Continuum. pp. 367–368. ISBN 0-8264-1316-1. Retrieved 25 July 2021. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  • From Achziv: Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson (2001). Achzib (b) A Canaanite city on the Mediterranean coast. New York and London: Continuum. p. 16. ISBN 0-8264-1316-1. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  • From Masada: Negev, Avraham; Gibson, Shimon, eds. (2001). 320-325 (snippet view). New York and London: Continuum. p. xxx. ISBN 0-8264-1316-1. Retrieved 26 July 2021. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  • From Tell (archaeology): Negev, Avraham; Gibson, Shimon, eds. (2001). Tell. New York and London: Continuum. p. 497. ISBN 0-8264-1316-1. Retrieved 9 October 2021. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) (Very limited snippet view).
  • From Beit She'arim necropolis: Negev & Gibson, eds. (2001)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT, hi and thanks for cleaning up after my mess :)) Yes, it is always the same source. It might be confusing for two reasons: a) Negev is the name of a large region in Israel, AND the surname of the main author of the encyclopedia; b) in some of the articles, there is a short reference in the form you found at "Kadesh" (Negev & Gibson, eds. (2001), p. xxx.) in the "References" section, followed by a "Bibliography" list, containing all the other source details. I have looked up all the articles in your list and there was one orphan (Hamat Gader) and one containing a couple of inaccuracies (Masada). So thanks again for drawing my attention!
Do you realise that you just replied to a computer program? Zerotalk 01:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, no. I asked myself and that's what I thought: I can call myself ArminBot if I choose to. Somebody has written that programme, and that somebody follows up trying to improve the bot. The formulation looks very polite; I react to politeness. What if the programmer chooses to write his own messages? When I link DAB pages, the messages drawing my attention are clearly from a programme - to those I don't answer :) Arminden (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see: "I am just a simple computer program". Obviously, I didn't read to the end. Comes from working "on autopilot", late at night, with the radio on. That explains other mistakes & issues as well, doesn't it? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arminden: In the next version of the Wikipedia software, bots will be able to answer back, run sock networks, report people to ANI, and all the things that we know and love. Zerotalk 00:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: I'm screwed. Or saved? As I'll always have A.I.ntelligent conlocutors on every and any topic :)) Arminden (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too little on archaeology, nothing on remains of Roman baths

The remains of the Roman baths are very impressive and have an illustrious history, but aren't mentioned. The other remains visible/accessible or not, are hardly touched upon. The poor state of consolidation and limited accessibility is not an excuse for an encyclopedic article. Arminden (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 4, 1951 incident and site status

The article explicitly states that

  • Al Hamma was part of the DMZ
  • Israeli soldiers were not allowed to enter the DMZ
  • Syrian soldiers were guarding the entrance.

Syrian soldiers? Was the DMZ regulation not prohibiting ALL soldiers from entering? If not, why; if yes, the text is strongly biased: Syrian soldiers are OK, Israeli ones are not. As of now, the text makes no sense (other than maybe of propaganda). Arminden (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all military forces were forbidden (which I just added), but the narrow entrance can be easily guarded from outside. There is nothing here to suggest that Syrian soldiers were stationed inside the DMZ. Zerotalk 03:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But that's a flagrant case of interpretation by editor (did you call it SYNTH)? And, until there's a source saying that they were outside the DMZ, by what authority were the Syrians "ordering" anything? Was the DMZ border at the entrance to Al Hamma? Seems unlikely. The bias appears to remain present in full blow. Both sides were actively breaking the clauses of a whole set of treaties, it makes little sense to take sides - on Wiki of all places. Arminden (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the SYNTH is on your part. "There is nothing here to suggest" means "We have no source that states", which is proper wiki-craft. Your assumption of something that is not stated is just your assumption and doesn't belong. I'm going to add a source and remove everything not in the source. What we have (from sources only!) is that Israel tried to violate the armistice and Syria violently repelled it. Zerotalk 12:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamat_Gader&oldid=1101733045"