I rolled back a change of one instance of "1981" in the text; if there's a reason to change it to 1967, let's do that throughout the text. If there's some sort of controversy or an idea that the 14 years' difference somehow validates the claim more than otherwise, let's drop the date exactly. Our job isn't to give information to a time-traveller visiting 1974. Let's not waste time arguing about history, but just give the traveller information necessary for visiting this part of the world. --(WT-en) Evan 23:25, 2 December 2006 (EST)
Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
Not to be all political, but shouldn't it better to associate this location with Israel, since all the "get in" information describes ways to go there only from Israel. As a matter of fact, ALL information in this page is about Israel and with no way to access this place from Syria, there is no point in putting it under Middle East or Syria (which is how i arrived to this article in the first place)
in the very least, separate it to Israeli side and Syrian side - they are very VERY distinct...
While on the matter it makes sense to break the link from the Syria page. Even if there were peace and an open border (which has never been), the article still fits under Israel
Ceever would like to change the hierarchy to fit this under Israel, however w:Golan_Heights makes it clear that 1/3 of the 'controlled' area is still in Syria (perhaps a relative term with regards to Syria, however Israel is not controlling it).
I think most people think of the Israeli controlled part of the Golan Heights when they hear the unqualified term. At any rate, this article seems to only deal with the Israeli controlled part, which means it should be breadcrumbed there. Now as for adding a disambiguation to the title, I am not sure whether that is necessary for the Israeli controlled part, but I don't think we should convert this guide into a disambig page - rather a new disambig page should be created, because as I said, this guide mostly deals with the Israeli controlled part. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hobbitschuster : If you read what I was asking, it was for an extra-region, not a disambiguation. Just because the Syrian part is a bit of a no-go zone, doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered surely? It can be under Hauran in our extremely undeveloped Syria articles. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Well given that the two sides have next to nothing in common the extraregion would not contain much more than a disambig. And given that this article on the Israeli controlled part is rather developed, I suggest moving this (if need be) and creating the disambig/extraregion from scratch rather than cutting down here and then re-expanding over at Golan Heights (Israel). Also the current name is uncontroversial, but having it say (Israel) is bound to draw the sorts of folks who think calling the site of the Jewish Temple the site of the Jewish Temple somehow constitutes racism against Arabs or the likes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
We'll deal with them the same way we've dealt with nationalists on both sides of the Kashmiri conflict: By reiterating the neutral Wikivoyage policy of simply accepting all faits accomplis, regardless of our personal likes or dislikes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Politics aside, we still have an article that covers significant (undisputed) territory within Syria proper. Surely that is an extra-region scenario? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Let's create an extraregion article for the Golan Heights, referring both to the Israeli controlled side (which remains bread-crumbed under Israel, so travellers can actually find it) and to the Syrian side. With the extraregion article concentration on the information that lies outside of relevance for Israel travellers. Would that be a solution? Ceever (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that's the whole solution. I think that the extraregion article has to point to both this article (edited to remove most of the info about the Syrian-controlled[?] side) and an article about the Syrian-controlled side, however brief it will be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I made the changes, which I hope are agreeable to everyone. It retains the predominant nature of Israeli control over the area, whilst acknowledging there is a Syrian region as well. There wasn't much content to merge over to the new Syria article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Not to start a political debate that is totally besides the point, but I have heard that people residing in the Golan Heights (in a similar situation to East Jerusalem) can apply for Israeli citizenship if they so chose, which is not the case for the West Bank or Gaza. Apparently many younger Druze are now taking advantage of that, some even giving up Syrian citizenship due to the recent political developments... Maybe (some of) this might be interesting background? If not, that's fine as well Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this has been reported by Times of Israel, for example. It could be worth mentioning, but most of the Druses in the Israel-ruled part of the Golan are still Syrian citizens. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion
Banner currently used in this articleSuggested new alternative banner
I have previously created an alternative banner for this article (which was initially created for the parallel article at the Hebrew Wikivoyage, but I decided to suggest we'll use it here at the English Wikivoyage article as well). Which banner do you prefer that we'll use on the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I expect that the current one is more representative of the region as a whole, but I like the playfulness of a skiing scene in the Middle East. If it's good enough for Hebvoy, then bring on the new one.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
We ended up choosing this banner for the Golan Heights article at Hebvoy as the ski resort of the Hermon mountain is definitely the most popular tourist attraction at the Golan Heights. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Interesting. It doesn't look much different from other ski resorts, and I don't know if the current banner looks much different from other areas. I would certainly respect the views of Hebvoy users on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
While Israeli readers would go to the Golan Heights principally for skiing, is the same true for foreign visitors. When I saw the heights from Jordan in October, skiing didn't occur to me. Ground Zero (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
October is way too early for skiing, even in the Alps. If the choice is between the current amorphous "anywhere in the world" landscape, and the skiing image, I definitely pick the latter.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
That banner is actually already used in the Golan Trail article - both on Engvoy and Hebvoy (should we use the same banners over several articles?). Either way, in my opinion it would still be preferable to use a banner that shows the most popular tourist destination in the Golan Heights, even though a picture that has a lot of snow is less colorful than the current suggested alternatives. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I am against #2. The Hermon site in ski season is very unrepresentative of the Golan as a whole. Snow is almost never seen in the Golan except on the Hermon, and even the Hermon has no snow for more than half the year. As for visits, the ski site is very popular for a few months in winter, but the hiking trails are popular all year long. As the page says, "Hiking is the activity of choice in the Golan Heights." And the ski site is not really special as far as ski sites go, it is only popular because Israelis have no other domestic ski options. In short I think the banner should be some kind of green landscape, perhaps with a snowy Hermon in the background. Ar2332 (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
My preference is for the current banner, which reminds me of the Golan Heights. I visited in December several years ago and didn't see snow. And it makes sense to me that skiing would be more of an activity for Israelis than for international travelers. The third banner is lovely, but as noted above, it's already used. —Granger (talk·contribs) 08:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The other destinations are all identified as moshavim shitufiim, and thereby communities, so I think they don't belong in "Other destinations", but they could be given their own (sub)category, with a brief explanation of what a moshav shitufi is (much shorter than the short Wikipedia article about them, just a sentence or so). Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
A subcategory would be the most normal thing to do. I don't think it's essential to have an "Other destinations" section, but I would think Mt. Hermon would be in one. and maybe some waterfalls and so forth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure why this is in the page at all. We are talking about small residential communities of no particular interest to travelers, as far as I can tell. Some of them happen to contain attractions (like "Robotic dairy farm" in Avnei Eitan) but those attractions are already listed separately. Ar2332 (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago19 comments5 people in discussion
Per this edit: which map is more detailed and useful for travelers? Whether we "endorse" the annexation is not an issue; we recognize Israeli control over most of the Golan in the interest of travelers and have a disclaimer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think both maps are useful in different ways. The static map is useful for highlighting the cities, but the dynamic for everything else. Re the annexation: agreed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta)08:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I would prefer a map where neither "Israel" nor "Syria" were written on the highlighted area. I didn't find such a map, and I am not going to make one. I assume we usually try to keep to internationally recognised borders, except for the practical issues. Thus we need to keep to facts on the ground for the Get in while I don't think we should tone down the controversy by having the map show the area as part of Israel. –LPfi (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's well established that we recognize well-established de facto borders everywhere, including the Line of Control in Kashmir and the Chinese control of Aksai Chin. For the purposes of WV:Be fair#Political disputes, the Israeli-controlled part of the Golan and all of Jerusalem are Israel, period. We add a disclaimer because in recognizing what is, we don't advocate for it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think putting either country's name over the Golan is asking for unnecessary flamewars. We can use a map where neither name is over the Golan, and elsewhere in the article clarify that the Golan is in Israel for purposes of travel. Ar2332 (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Do you feel the same way about Kashmir, parts of Guyana and everywhere else where there are competing claims? We have instead done our best to get rid of cross-hatching in maps of India and Pakistan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
In Kashmir the country names are outside the region, and actual control is given for the subregions, in the subregion descriptions. I think that's a good solution. In the main maps in India and Pakistan the regions under actual control are included as regions and shown as such. No problem there either, I think. I don't see why we need to have "Israel" (or "Syria") written on Golan, instead of in the neighbouring regions of those countries – other than that we don't have a good such map, that I could find. In the same way we should avoid talking about the contested region as part of either country in the text, other than to the extent we need to do so to avoid awkward wording or to otherwise serve the traveller. –LPfi (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I would support using that map, perhaps with some more of Syria cropped away and the legend moved accordingly (those modifications seem to be quite easy to do). The map is in jpeg format, which isn't ideal, but I assume the current map is just a recoded jpg (it seems based on the same jpg original, like the former map). As to the question of which map is most useful, I cannot see any relevant differences in the base map. Highlighting of highway 98 or of Majdal Shams seems unnecessary clutter in this context. –LPfi (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Osiris' map is better than one that misleadingly shows the name "Syria" over the Israeli-annexed part of the Golan Heights, which is opposed to Wikivoyage policy. I also object to the crosshatching over the Golan and Jerusalem in the map in the Israel article - again, not because I have an opinion about the rightness or wrongness of the Israeli annexation, but because it is inconsistent with how we treat every other country in the world. See India and Pakistan for two relevant examples. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cropped version I cropped that map not to show so much of Syria. The name "Syria" was lost (hard to copy letters in a jpg without copying the background), but I assume it is known and thus implicit; better of course if somebody finds the font and adds the name. Would this map by OK? –LPfi (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Please add it if you can. I don't have any convenient means of getting those letters from the cropped-off area or from somewhere else. –LPfi (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is a jpeg (no structure, just groups of pixels), so one cannot just change the position of the text, one has to cut out a piece of the photo and replace it with another, or overlay some part of the map with suitable pixels. I assume a text could be reasonably easily overlaid with Imagemagick (or Photoshop or whatever), if a suitable font is available in the program. I haven't worked with fonts, so I would probably choose one that isn't close to that of the other country names. –LPfi (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago10 comments3 people in discussion
I'd say, unambiguously, in "Cities"; see West Bank for an example. "Other destinations" are not for any kind of village or settlement, unless we're talking about something like a ski resort (so maybe Neve Ativ). But the thing is, unless we have articles for these settlements - or, for that matter, Ghajar - why do we want to list any of them? "Other destinations" is not a required section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
So that's two votes to remove the section. Except: Right now, there is only one blue-linked city. Should we merge Katzrin here, and therefore merely list cities as useful to travelers but not have articles for them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think Katzrin is too big to merge. (I think this is one of many cases on Wikivoyage where a strict hierarchy based model does not work well, and where it should be permissible to put detailed entries on the region article if it has no subentries except for a small number of cities, but maybe that is a topic for another time.) Ar2332 (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
(To elaborate: currently we have 2 articles - Golan Heights and Katzrin - each of which is a coherent topic with a full set of information. If we did a strict hierarchy then there would be 3 articles - Golan Heights, Katzrin, and "Golan except for Katzrin" - the last of those is not a coherent topic, while the first would be mostly either empty or duplicate.) Ar2332 (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've moved a couple listings that should be on Katzrin. But now, thinking it over, I guess I am more amenable to merging the articles. Ar2332 (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Ikan Kekek, Ar2332: having a region article with only one city article doesn't work very well. I agree with IK's suggestion to merge Katzrin into the GH article with listings broken up by sub-headings by location, Ground Zero (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This website uses the Wikivoyage API to get and display all the information you see. This is the MediaWiki API, which is a general API for accessing data from Wikimedia projects. You can find information about it here: MediaWiki API.
.jpg)
.jpg)
