Talk:Katzrin ancient village and synagogue

unreliable source

This has been discussed several times at the rs notice board and its clear that jvl is not a reliable source, [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

The problems here are the same with the Gamla article, it has an Israeli map for a place in Syria. I guess people object for using a map of Syria here also? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a neutral map: [2] its Israeli-centric and shows ceasefire line as the border with Syria. Look at the left map, the ceasefire line has the same color as with Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the Israel centric map with a zoomed in map of the Golan Heights since its internationally recognized as in Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a synagogue from long before the Arab Republic of Syria came to existence. It is in no way related to it. TFighterPilot (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the opinion voiced by User:TFighterPilot. In addition, the current map depiction has strong POV overtones and is a digitally altered and skewed map that reflects partisan opinions. The Golan Heights have been under Israeli civilian control for 44.5 years. They have been under Syrian control for only 21. I have compiled a number of maps from reliable sources (including National Geographic and United Press International) showing the Golan as belonging to neither Israel nor Syria. Please note the UPI map.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The Golan remains under defacto Israeli control and it’s disputed status should be reflected on corresponding maps. Moreover, Katzrin ancient village and synagogue is a tourist attraction and as such it's status should at the very least be shown to be within the area of the controlling sovereign so that the reader who wishes to visit the subject area knows where he/she is going. Accordingly, I have replaced the existing non-neutral, digitally altered, partisan map with a more neutral depiction.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This isnt a game where you can claim "my team had the ball longer than your team so we win". We make clear that it is in the territory held under occupation by Israel. We wont be making the laughable claim that it is actually in Israel. The map you placed puts a border between Syria and the Golan with no border between Israel and the Golan. That is a blatant attempt to impose a fringe sized POV over an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 15:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TFighterPilot & Jiujitsuguy - this is an article about an ancient place, and the map they propose is more good for such article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleeping Room VIP (talk • contribs) 00:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy. I noted nine sources that show a very different map depiction than the digitally altered one that you uploaded. Wikipedia is about reliable sources per WP:RS and verifiability per WP:V. Instead of countering with cogent, logical arguments, you attack the person making the argument. I am trying to engage you and discuss things rationally and you spit in my face.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Yes, Wikipedia is about reliable sources, and a substantial majority of reliable sources identify the Golan Heights as being Syrian territory occupied by Israel. A minority of sources disagree, for a variety of reasons. Wikipedia does not present minority views as though they were fact, which is what you are doing here. You are inserting into the article a map that places a boundary within Syrian territory but not between Syria and Israel. That is a blatant POV push that a handful of sources do not justify. You are well aware that there is a near consensus around the world that the Golan is not in Israel, yet you persist in inserting that fringe view as fact in encyclopedia articles. You presented 9 sources? So if I bring 10 sources does that mean you are wrong? This type of gaming in attempting to gradually apply a fringe expansionist POV as fact to articles wouldnt fly if you tried at the articles that have lots of people watching. But here you get a couple of sock/meatpuppets and away you go, forcing into encyclopedia articles tired hasbara. Ill bring 10 sources for you in a bit. Then we can see exactly how far your commitment to RS and V is. nableezy - 03:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There you go again with your personal attacks calling me "expansionist" with my "hasbara" team. I resent those characterizations and your stooping to pejoratives instead of arguing the merits. I won't indulge you in your attempts to bait me. So keep on hurling those invectives and show your true colors.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Claiming Syrian territory as being in Israel is objectively expansionist, and writing it as a fact in an encyclopedia article is objectively hasbara. I dont think I have ever hid my true colors, misrepresenting the truth is something I leave to others. nableezy - 05:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this.If there was a consensus we didn't had the conversation.Anyway if WP:RS say different thing we should include them both to be NPOV.--Shrike (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What does that even mean? nableezy - 14:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)