Talk:Majdal Shams

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 Wikipedia, 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 ^(Talk) 15:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: WP Israel has been notified of this discussion. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 18:59, 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 ^(Talk) 23:51, 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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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. Wikipedia'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)

Yes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't think I received an objection for this, so will carry it out. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE:COMMENTS REMOVED. SEE HERE.—Biosketch (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), I hope it's ok I've undone your blanking of the discussion above. I actually think the anonIP contributed some insightful input on the topic. I'll admit it's probably WP:OR, but it's at least a valid reason to ask you (or User:Ravpapa) to establish here the credibility of the author whose source is being cited for the etymology of Majdal Shams here. (If there's a policy allowing discussions involving socks to be stricken/deleted, please direct me to it, and then of course you're free to delete the other messages again. But I'll still insist on knowing the cited author's credentials.)—Biosketch (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a blocked user, blocked users are not allowed to make comments or edits at Wikipedia, please undo your edit immediately. The source is Arabic, The Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums of Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand it's a blocked user. I specifically requested a link to official policy, though. If you know of an Admin that's awake and can comment on this right now, perhaps you could leave him a message so I can hear it from someone authoritative. And thank you for elaborating on the author's background – that establishes him as a WP:RS.—Biosketch (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy "Blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since this is my last contribution to Wikipedia today, I've redeleted the comments, per your request. You should still try to link to a specific policy that allows deleting Discussion page comments or get an Admin to comment on this, though – otherwise I'll mostly likely just restore everything again tomorrow.—Biosketch (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a policy that says that admins blocking users is to prevent users from editing Wikipedia, so his edits are in violation of his block, so the removal of his edits are in accordance with policy.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, anonymous, or whatever, I believe his comment is correct. I hate to be in the uncomfortable position of arguing with as respectable a scholar as the Director general of antiquities, but "Majdal Shams" is definitely not Aramaic. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

How come its not that? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Because in Aramaic "tower of the sun" is "Magdla Shimsha" (מגדלא שימשא). Unkelus translation of the Bible. Majdal Shams has none of the structural characteristics of Aramaic. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The name "Majd al-Shams" has been used:[1], so considering the "al", its current form is obviously Arabic. So the Aramaic is most likely its origin that its descended from. Do you speak Aramaic or Judeo-Aramaic? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what Judeo-Aramaic is, I have never heard the term. I do not speak Aramaic (Ancient, Imperial, nor Middle Aramaic), nor does anyone else, aside from about 20,000 Assyrians who live on the border between Syria and Iraq. The differences between different dialects of Aramaic are much like the differences between British, American and Australian English. The basic structural elements of the language remain the same. Therefore, regardless of which dialect of Aramaic I may or may not know, the likelihood is infinitesimal that in some other dialect of Aramaic the expression "tower of the sun" is more similar to "Majdal Shams" than the one I know.

Your suggestion that the origin of the name is from the Arabic "Majd al-Shams" (Glory of the sun) is actually more likely. Al Shams is also the Arabic name for Damascus, so the name could also mean Glory of Damascus (especially since the town is on one of the main routes from Jerusalem to Damascus). On the other hand, there is considerable likelihood that the name is an Arabic corruption of the Hebrew "Migdal Shemesh", since the town, and the name, predate the predominance of spoken Arabic in the region.

In sum, the source currently quoted, while it may be generally very reliable, is in this case probably wrong. And without another source, every other possibility is pure speculation on our parts. We should take it out. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

But you said "Because in Aramaic "tower of the sun" is "Magdla Shimsha""... so if you don't speak any Aramaic language, how do you know this? I don't think so since the writing systems are so different between them, so there must be bigger difference then British, American, Australian English. "Majd al-Shams" is basically exact same as "Majdal Shams" only a (-) to separate a word, its used in modern sources for the town, so its basically the same modern name.. Where are you getting from that the name is an Arabic corruption of the Hebrew "Migdal Shemesh"? What is "Migdal Shemesh" ?, why would there be a considerable likelihood of this just because of if the town predated the predominance of spoken Arabic in the region? Well you need a justification for if that what the source says is "probably wrong" in this case, there is only unfounded speculation.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Migdal Shemesh is Hebrew for Tower of the Sun. In Syrian Arabic, that would be corrupted to "Majdal Shams", because the glottal "g" is often pronounced as a fricative "j" in Syrian dialect. And to claim that "Majdal Shams" means the same as "Majd al-Shams" is simply displaying your ignorance of Semitic languages. Majd means glory in Arabic. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ravpapa here. Majdal Shams indeed does not resemble Aramaic at all, and does not abide by the Aramaic word structure. Also, Majdal Shams and Majd al-Shams would certainly not be the same thing. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

So what is "Majdal Shams" in Aramaic? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't mean anything in Aramaic. I just looked at the Arabic source you linked to on my user talk, and while I have only rudimentary knowledge of the Arabic language, I can clearly understand that the source does not say that Majdal Shams is Aramaic. Like you wrote in the article (but contrary to what you said here on talk), the source says that the name derives from an Aramaic name, not that it's in Aramaic.

In regards to whether it derives from Aramaic: That's what the source indeed says. However, I think we should include this as one of several opinions and not as fact. For one, the source does not satisfy WP:RS criteria. Moreover, it provides very little information and does not actually give the etymology of the name: what Aramaic word is it based on? How do they know it's based on Aramaic? These basic facts about place names are provided in any geographic lexicon, which is what we should be consulting—and one such lexicon, the Ariel Encyclopedia, states that "the name is not mentioned in ancient literature", i.e. not mentioned in Aramaic literature.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums is a sufficient source. Tiamut said the source says its an Aramaic name, not that it originates from one. I'm googling for "Ariel Encyclopedia" and cant find any web site for what its about, in the past it has also been inaccurate.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

A simple google book search indicates that the Aramaic word for "tower" is mgdl. In the Arabic source SD provided, its transcribed as mjdl because there is no "g" in Arabic and "j" is used to represent that letter. The source she gave is clear in denoting the name mgdl shms or in English, Majdal Shams, as Aramaic. It gives the meaning of the name as "Tower of the Sun" (the Arabic provided being brj al shms or Burj al-Shams). The fact that some Arabic sources SD found give the name as mjd al shms (Arabic: "Glory of the sun") only proves the name in the source SD provided is denoting the original Aramaic name. Other Majdals can be seen on the Majdal page. For some, like Majd al-Krum, the old Aramaic form of the name (i.e. Majdal Krum) was used until some time arond the 16th century before being replaced by the Arabized form [2]. Majddoes indeed mean "glory" in Arabic which would change the current meaning of that eg. to "Glory of the vineyards" from its original Aramaic (or other Semitic predecessor) meaning "Tower of vineyards". Tiamut^talk 21:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a Syriac (neo-Aramic) dictionary entry of the word "mgdla". The word appears to have Akkadian origin as well. The letter "G" found in Semitic languages is usually turned "J" in Arabic, for example GML=JML, GLGTA=JLJTA, etc.--Rafy talk 22:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify my statements above. The root MGDL means tower, in a number of Semitic languages. The name Majdal Shams is likely from this same root - that is, if the origin of the name is not Majd al-Shams, which means something different. To say that the name derives from Aramaic, as opposed to Hebrew, Assyrian, or some other Semitic language, seems to me conjecture, and an unlikely conjecture at that. The reason that this conjecture is unlikely to me is that Aramaic, while it shares the MGDL root with other Semitic languages, is structurally different; for example, the word Magdla ends with an a, which is a typical Aramaic construct. Majdal Shams is more likely to be derived from the Hebrew (Migdal Shemesh), especially since many other Arabic place names containing Majdal are derived from the Hebrew place names as they appear in the Bible (for example, al-Majdal from Migdal, Majdal Asqelon from Migdal Ashkelon, Majdal krum from Migdal HaKerem, and so on). On the other hand, there is no Migdal Shemesh in the Bible. So this derivation is also questionable.

In sum, without archaeological or historical sources, the claim that the name comes from Aramaic, as opposed to Hebrew, Syriac or some other Semitic language, is pure conjecture. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You said you don't speak Aramaic, so you cant really comment on if its conjecture that the source says Aramaic and not other. You also said: "Majdal Shams is more likely to be derived from the Hebrew (Migdal Shemesh), especially since many other Arabic place names containing Majdal are derived from the Hebrew place names as they appear in the Bible (for example, al-Majdal from Migdal, Majdal Asqelon from Migdal Ashkelon, Majdal krum from Migdal HaKerem, and so on).", all of this that you said is unsourced and even if sources could be provided for that these Arab place names containing Majdal are derived from the Hebrew place names as they appear in the Bible, it would not support that Majdal Shams is not Aramaic but Hebrew. You also say that "Migdal Shemesh" is not even in the bible, which was part of your argument that those Arab names are derived from Hebrew names in the bible. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes the obtuseness of participants in these discussions surprises me. In my previous post I said I do not speak Aramaic because Aramaic is not a spoken language. Nobody speaks Aramaic, except for a small community of Assyrians on the border between Syria and Iraq. On the other hand, I can read and understand some Aramaic.

Nor am I attempting on this talk page to offer a documented encyclopedia article. I am simply pointing out that, based on information which is known to just about anyone who took an introductory course in Middle East or Biblical history, the claim that the name Majdal Shams derives from Aramaic should be treated with skepticism, regardless of the reliability of the source.

It appears to me from your impassioned defense of this statement about the origin of the name that you believe it to be of some great importance to the article - an importance that escapes me. But, if that is so, by all means leave it in. If it is wrong (and, as I have said repeatedly, I think it is), it certainly won't be the first wrong thing appearing in the Wikipedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Later: I looked at the source that Tiamut cited. The source compares the word Majdal to the Ugaritic "mgdl", suggesting (but not stating explicitly) that the origin is Ugaritic. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really get what's all the fuss about the name. The name appear to be Semitic in origin, which could be either Aramaic, Canaanite or even Ugharitic as stated above. As far as I know the region was never dominated by Hebrew speaking people. By the way, those "Biblical" towns mentioned above which appear to have the Migdal/Majdal prefix all lie on the coastal area which as we all know was never fully controlled by Israelites, so their names can't be Hebrew. --Rafy talk 12:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh one more thing, Names get corrupted by time, so MGDLA could be easily turned into MGDL, just as Hissna Keifa became Hasankeyf and DRMSQ became Dimashq.--Rafy talk 12:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the fuss is ridiculous. On the other hand, your contention that the towns I mentioned all lie in the coastal plain is incorrect, and also your assumption that if the area was not entirely controlled by Israelites, the origin of the name could not be Hebrew. Majdal Askelon is indeed on the coastal plain and was a Philistine stronghold. But the Philistines probably did not speak a Semitic language (there is some disagreement about this), yet the name is undoubtedly from the Semitic root. El-Majdal is near Tiberias (not on the coastal plain), which was a Jewish center through the Mishnaic period. Majdal Krum is in the upper Galilee, which was also largely Jewish during the Biblical and Mishnaic periods.

The Golan, by the same token, had a large Jewish population through the Mishnaic period, and there are many archaeological and Biblical references to the area. Biblical Bashan, which was the center of settlement for the Menassah tribe, refers to the Golan, and there are extensive remains of Jewish settlement including Golan, Gamla, Susita. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that those jews who returned from the Babylonian captivity were Aramaic speaking. Anyway I was WP:BOLD and I rephrased the sentence in question so that it refers to Northwest Semitic languages, which include Aramaic, Ugharitic and Canaanites (which Hebrew is one of).--Rafy talk 18:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nakba Day 2011 Infiltration

Hi can we get a (please God, I beg you!) decent and objective section on the Syrio-Palestinian border run on "Nakba day" 2011? here are some links http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=220641 http://idfspokesperson.com/2011/05/15/rioters-reach-village-of-majdal-shams/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyp (talk • contribs) 02:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1810 mention?

I think this is the village "Medjel" visited by Burckhardt in 1810 (Travels in Syria, 1822, p45). Burckhardt says he reached it from Banias in 45 minutes, which is about right (by horseback). "El-Medjel" is marked on the Zimmerman map of the 1850s in the right place. The spelling Medjel is not unusual (eg. Medjel esh Shems in PEF-07). Or is there another nearby place with this name? Zero^talk 15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks right to me. The nearest place with a similar name (Majdal, or modern-day Migdal) is on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee and would be at least a day's ride on 1810-quality roads. Ravpapa (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Reading more closely, it is even on the correct road (the road from Banias to Damascus). So it is the right one for sure. It is perhaps notable that the few pre-1850s mentions I can find name it without the "Shams". This supports the theory that the name just means Majdal of Damascus. Zero^talk 10:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Majdal Shams. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714132252/http://en.climate-data.org/location/503151/ to http://en.climate-data.org/location/503151/

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) 13:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hezbollah denied any responsibility regarding the recent (Jul 27, 2024) attack. The responsible party has yet to be known for sure. 102.52.50.239 (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The chairman of the Druze initiative, Ghaleb Seif, is stating that the blast was an Israeli iron dome missile that misfired and hit civilians. He also said that it's a regular occurrence. I expect the article to reflect this now. 67.68.90.67 (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2024

Change "effectively annexing the territory in a move that has been officially recognized only by the United States, which did so by through a March 2019 presidential proclamation."

To "effectively annexing the territory in a move that has been officially recognized only by the United States, which did so through a March 2019 presidential proclamation." 138.88.171.103 (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Syrian activism, at "Cuisine" and elsewhere

The REFERENCE used as SOURCE says DRUZE. Bring another source if you find a relevant one, and then you can add [[Syrian cuisine |Syrian]], leading to [[Syrian cuisine |Syrian]] [[Druze cuisine]]. Keeping existing ref and changing the text (removing "Druze" and replacing it with "Syrian"), is POV and prohibited; removing reliable source also. Please keep activism for private life and out of Wiki. Arminden (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Demography

This source is probably reliable for population and citizenship, and is more recent than what's in the article. Zero^talk 08:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Who attacked Majdal Shams?

I can see that it is the vilage is occupied by Israel, but I don't understand from the article who attaked it on On 27 July 2024, killed 12 childeren and injured at least 34 more. One can think It was Israel, but I belive it's not true. Nizzan Cohen (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

UFOs. Or Israel, have your pick. Arminden (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@האופה: Since when do we have demographic information in the ledes of cities and towns? Is Tel Aviv described as a Jewish majority city in ints opening sentence? And why did you remove the fact that the Golan Heights is occupied by Israel? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This town being specifically Druze is a notable aspect in this instance. Think of it like one might describe a minority neighborhood in a city. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: It might be notable for the opening paragraph, but I think that's too much for the opening sentence, having checked Brooklyn and Neukölln.Makeandtoss (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That's true. It's probably second or third sentence material. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

TLV

@האופה: Will we ever see you use the talk page instead of edit warring disputed content? [3] [4] Makeandtoss (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What a few kids nickname a street is apparently now encyclopedic content that deserves to be in the lead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate indeed, now perhaps we should nickname Amman and Beirut as big Tel Avivs because they have numerous pubs. I mean if they can argue for it, be my guest; but there is not even an effort to engage in the talk page, a consistent behaviour it seems across multiple pages over disputed content. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You're fundamentally wrong. Not the editor created the nickname, but the M.Sh. locals. They know & use Tel Aviv as their point of reference, not New York, Sweifieh or Ramallah. And that's precisely what bugs the anti-Israel camp. But this is an objective fact. Decry it as an unfortunate development or rejoice seeing it as a happy one, but that's each editor's POV and totally irrelevant. It reflects the evolution of the locals' attitude and is highly pertinent in this regard. Time & pragmatism are powerful factors, the savagery of the civil war parties, Assad's and his allies' up there with ISIS', did the rest. I recommend reading this excellent article. Circumstances will keep on changing and the attitudes & nickname will eventually change as well, but that's in the future. Arminden (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

your Israeli source is talking about what a few kids have nicknamed a street. Not all locals. Iranian officials call Israel 'Satan'. Should that name also be in the lead of the Israel article? I would say that would be more relevant as its government officials and not a few kids.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree wtih Arminden. @Supreme Deliciousness, @Makeandtoss, please restore the bit about "Little Tel Aviv", it comes from Globes, a leading economic newspaper in Israel comparable to the Economist, and says something important, as Arminden vividly explains, about recent developments in Majdal Shams. Sure more relevant to the lead compared to the strange, very general, "The US recognition was lobbied by Israeli officials,", that belongs to Golan Heights and is not relevant here. We're supposed to be neutral and balanced after all, and the recent additions and reverts certainly do not help. HaOfa (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If this article should mention the US recognition in the lead, then it should also mention the Israeli lobbying that led to the US recognition. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize again that this is a term used by local youth, the future leaders of Majdal Shams, to describe their beloved hometown. Removing this is not only hurting neutrality but going against terminology used by locals (not very different from deleting nicknames such as The Big Apple, The City That Never Sleeps from the article on New York City). Restore it, please. HaOfa (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Editor pushing over-the-top Syrian agenda

@Supreme Deliciousness:

Breaking Wiki rules. Not applying logic or good will. Enough of it.

The only source quoted says "Druze cuisine", which btw exists as such. NOT "Syrian cuisine". Discussion closed.

Lebanon became independent in 1945/46. In 45-67 it was NOT yet "another part of Syria". Discussion closed.

Please stop the edit war. Arminden (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The source in the cuisine section [5] says: "The Druze of the Golan, for instance, cook Syrian food" and "Druze cuisine is basically Arab and Middle Eastern cuisine", so why are you claiming "You're not allowed to "put words into the ref's mouth"."[6] ? This isn't my words, this is the sources words.

Concerning your other edit:[7] Your version is straight out claiming Majdal Shams as being separate from Syria. We can change it to "other parts of Syria and Lebanon" this would not confuse anyone into thinking Lebanon as part of Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi.

1. There's no need for a discussion on this point. The source is called, as I pointed out in my initial revert, "The Taste of Druze Cuisine". The term "Druze Cuisine" is also used within the article. Your quote is a weak attempt at pulling things out of context. The full passage reads "Druze cuisine is basically Arab and Middle Eastern cuisine, with local varieties depending on local produce and customs. The Druze of the Golan, for instance, cook Syrian food with a local twist, by using plants that grow in their area, such as Tournefort’s gundelia." Following your logic, there's no Lebanese, Palestinian or Jordanian cuisine. Try to sell that to them. "Similar" is not "the same as", and explicit statements can't be ignored based on explanatory comparisons.

2. Sure, if that particular "Greater Syria"-type misrepresentation is avoided, no problem.

In both cases: "Greater Syria" is indeed a concept, but not a current reality. The reality of this historical moment rather goes in the other direction. Wiki is not the place to wag that dog by its tail. Furthermore, cuisine is not a flag with its details set in stone by the constitution; it's a continuum with constantly changing variations. Arminden (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in your post or quote that says they arent cooking Syrian cuisine, it says that they are. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, compare Israeli cuisine where the suspicions of national-appropriative POV pushing are registered. Persian or Turkish food prepared by Jews is never described as such, but rather as 'Iranian cuisine from Persian Jews and Turkish cuisine from Turkish Jews', i.e. suggesting by analogy Druze cuisine at Majdal Shams from Syrian/Lebanese Druze. Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Technically: bring sources stating this and it's all fine. Can't use a source supporting the opposite and just edit away the terms it uses.

Substance: whatabout is not a point.

Ideologically: see my wag the dog argument.

In general: Levantine cuisine is a can of worms, ask the Greeks & Turks, not worth going into it. Arminden (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

How is: "The Druze of the Golan, for instance, cook Syrian food"...the opposite of "The druze of the Golan Heights cook Syrian cuisine" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Coming from a place where witchetty, bardi grubs and bogong moths are a delicacy, and having scrounged many a grub from under eucalyptus bark to eat as a boy, I object to calling any form of cuisine a 'can of worms', as if there were something negative about skolexophagy.:)Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A family

@Arminden I would agree with you but everywhere I look for this quote it includes the a. If you can find the original, and if it is in Hebrew and can reasonably be translated without the a, great. But I think either drop the quote or accurately include it. nableezy - 12:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy Note that the source quotes it in the headline without "a" and in the body with "a". Usually we prefer the version in the body, but maybe this is an IAR situation?? Zero^talk 14:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi nableezy. I think this is below you.

Apart from writing "2" twice, my edit summary was more than sufficient:

"1. The only way it makes sense [is family, not a family].

2. JP in Eng is always plagued by typos.

3. See both the title and the full quote, the typo is [just] one out of three quotes.

1+2+3 => family, not a family."

Did you check the JPost source?

A. Title:

"'We see the Druze as family': Jewish orgs. announce emergency aid for Majdal Shams"

B. A short exerpt from the letter containing this obvious typo:

" “We see the Druze community as a family,” reads the letter sent by the heads of the three organizations: Chairman ..."

C. Full quote, w/o the typo:

" “We share in your grief and sorrow, and hope that you will find the strength to deal with the pain and loss. We see the Druze community as family, a community that is so committed to the State of Israel, and our hearts go out to you at this time.” "

That is all you or anyone else can reasonably ask for.

Of course, if you insist, we can all waste our time and dig deeper, finding for instance this posting on the website of the Jewish Federation of Cape Cod, most likely a member of The Jewish Federations of North America:

"Emergency Aid Sent to Majdal Shams After Terror Attack

.... We see the Druze community as family...."

I would have fully agreed that while the financial support is a sign of genuine solidarity, the letter is full of... it, making no distinction between the Druze of M. Shams, who until recently were very careful at distancing themselves from Israel (although far, far less lately), and the fully integrated Galilee and Carmel Druze. That is a real point one can make. This typo isn't, and making a fuss over it is yet another clear sign of how activism bleeds into Wiki editing.

Have a nice weekend. Arminden (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It isnt just JPost. And headlines are not usable as reliable sources. Whatever I dont really care, but if we are including something in quotes it should be a replica of what we are quoting. nableezy - 15:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realise the JP article had two versions in the body. The full version in the body ticks enough boxes. Zero^talk 02:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to change the infobox

Currently, for the "Country" entry, the infobox says "Israeli-occupied Syrian territory (Golan Heights)." This is not correct. The country is Syria. Taking inspiration from Luhansk, which lists the Country as "Ukraine (de jure) Russia (de facto)," I'm going to change the infobox of this article to be similar:

Syria (de jure) Israel (de facto).

If anyone has concerns about this change, please present them here. JasonMacker (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Another article has no bearing on this. The current entry is factually correct and well supported by reliable sources. nableezy - 21:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. The user is better served by the current wording. Arminden (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

JasonMacker, hi. Either you ask, or you don't ask. Asking and not waiting at all for an answer, or ignoring the answers, is not OK - offline, online, anywhere. Arminden (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, what was the point of this section if you’re asking for objections and then ignoring them? nableezy - 21:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I made this section at 21:14. You responded at 21:16. And now you're making this new comment at 21:42. In other words, not even an hour has passed and you're accusing me of "ignoring" objections? Don't be ridiculous. Let's try to WP:AGF here, which in this case is the reality that I made the edit and then went and did other things, and checked back about 45 minutes later to see who has responded. JasonMacker (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Uh you made the change at 21:20. That’s after I objected. nableezy - 21:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see your objection because as soon as I made this section, I went to edit the article, and it took me a few minutes to look up the flag template and previewed my edit multiple times to make sure that it was displaying correctly.

I'm going to go to class now and I'll be away from here for a few hours. I'm not ignoring you. I have a life to attend to. JasonMacker (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The prior entry (what it was before I edited it) was not factually correct. The infobox was asking for "country", not territory. I edited it to (1) make the entry in the infobox be in line with what the infobox is specifically asking for. When you say the entry is "factually correct and well supported by reliable sources", you're not addressing what I've brought up. Imagine if it the infobox had asked for "Planet" or "Continent" or "Galaxy". Those have specific correct answers ("Earth", "Asia", "Milky Way"). In the same way that "Israeli-occupied Syrian territory" is not an answer to any of those prompts, it's also not an answer to "Country." What I replaced it with is directly supported by reliable sources. As the article explains, the city of Majdal Shams is de jure Syria, but de facto controlled by Israel. And sadly, this article actually does not mention that Israel's occupation of Majdal Shams and all of the Golan Heights is illegal under international law. JasonMacker (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The country is Syria, but as it is Israeli occupied that also needs to be specified. It is not de facto in Israel, it is not in Israel. It is is Israeli occupied. nableezy - 21:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If anything, that's an argument to just list Syria as the country. I'm perfectly fine with that. Because, again, "Israeli-occupied Syrian territory (Golan Heights)" is not a country. It doesn't belong in the country entry of the infobox. JasonMacker (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I changed country to territory as the label. nableezy - 22:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

JasonMacker: please don't even think about changing anything in the user-box on a controversial subjects such as this, without first gaining consensus for it on the talk-page. Thank you, Huldra (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Inconvenient truth

Hi Nableezy. The figures are correct. Electoral officials are referenced hundreds of times by Huldra when it comes to Arab Palestinian villages of the Mandate period, but nobody thought to remove them as OR. As always, if a source seems insufficiently reliable, the only ethically and intelkectually correct approach is to check if better sources exist and if they back up the info. If data looks inconvenient to one's pov, rather than just unreliable, one is more likely to go ahead an remove, blank, revert.

A quick search brought up this result:

"Of the 21,000 Druze who live in four towns in the Israeli Golan, Interior Ministry figures show that some 4,300 are Israeli citizens, including some who inherited the status from parents who previously accepted citizenship." From: Fadi Amun in partnership with Shomrim, "As ties to Syria fade, Golan Druze increasingly turning to Israel for citizenship: After years of eschewing offers, record numbers of Druze are quietly applying to become Israeli, motivated not by newfound Zionism, but convenience and a drift away from Damascus", ToI, 3 Sep 2022.

Fadi Amun is a journalist working for Haaretz (see there) and Shomrim (see https://www.shomrim.news/eng-authors/fadi-amun), mostly on social issues relating to the Arab Israeli society. Hardly non-RS. 4,300 out of 21,000 = c. 20.5% in 2022, tendency growing, so "By 2024, the percentage of Majdal Shams residents who took Israeli citizenship climbed to 25%" looks perfectly credible. But fine, leave out Cox and replace his "blog entry" with the 2022 Fadi Amun article, which in short says that "a good 20% of the Golan Druze had Israeli citizenship in 2022, tendency rising." And either bring back in the electoral figures you removed, or agree with Huldra on removing all those older ones too. Kidding of course, I wouldn't bet a single cent on it happening. Nor would I wish for any solid, trustworthy official data, old or new, to be taken out. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see how a difference of 20 to 25% really makes a difference to my supposed POV (and if you looked at the article and not just the diff of what was removed you’ll see 20% remains in the article), I just saw an unreliable source for a claim that didn’t have any other sourcing. Feel free to include whatever you have that *is* sourced to a reliable source. As far as electoral results, I don’t really think we would include how any other city voted or how many of them did so, and I don’t think referencing the poll results to make that point is appropriate either. If this is something that secondary sources think matters to the topic of Majdal Shams then add those sources. nableezy - 22:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. I did only look at what you removed, my mistake.

Re. voting: it actually goes the other way, as very few chose to. And that does matter, it indicates a certain attitude.

There was one reality among the old generation. Another one had already set in as the Syrian Civil War raged across the de facto border and focused the minds. And I'm sure the current war has its own impact, which goes in multiple directions. Tough times for the Golan Druze, like for everyone else, and the more aspects we have, the better we can grasp how complex a situation they are in. Arminden (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

yeah but that would belong in an article on the Golan Druze, not really in the article on any particular city. But my main objection here was that it was OR to use raw voting totals as a way of rebutting or buttressing some other point in the article. nableezy - 23:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)