Talk:Shouting Hill

message: Some things in the article implied that Golan is in Israel, I made it more neutral, according to worldview, also re added the tags since its unreferenced/unreliable sources and the "Syria-geo-stub" since its in Syria:  --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Golan is actually partly in Isreal now, Israel having annexed it and applied its law there. It's really no different than Tibet being in China now.  Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

text: And, If you're going to be adding the Syria-geo-stub, please also add the Isreal-geo-stub, as is the norm for the articles dealing with the Golan. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Golan is not part of Israel, the entire world sees it as part of Syria occupied by Israel, the article implys in many ways that Golan is part of Israel, and that is the israeli pov, undue weight and non neutral. And the discussion here also clearly shows that: and why would I ad a Israel geo stub when the Shouting hill is in Syria and not in Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The global consensus is that the annexation is null and void, the only country which recognizes the annexation is Israel - constituting an extreme minority view. Unomi (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus does not change reality - and the reality is that Israel controls the area, annexed it and applied its laws there. It is thus currently a part of Israel. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is where you are wrong, it is not recognized as being a part of Israel by anyone but Israel. Please do join WP:IPCOLL and join the discussion at article issues. Unomi (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply asserting I am wrong is unlikely to convince me, especially when I have presented arguments to the contrary, that you have not addressed. And please don't order me around. I'll join whatever discussions I choose.
If you would please take the time to look at that discussion then you might find that your concerns have been addressed, and if you feel that they have not then you should likely voice them to a wider audience. That Israel claims that it is a part of Israel means about as much as me claiming that I can stop the tides. Kind Regards, Unomi (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

text: No, this is where my comment regarding reality comes into play. Israel does not just "claim" the Golan is part of its territory - it actually controls that territory, and has applied its laws there. So if you want to visit Shouting Hill, you apply for an Israeli visa at your nearby Israeli consulate or embassy, fly into an Israeli airport, or cross an Israeli border crossing. If you  are caught speeding on your way to the hill, an Israeli police oficer will cite you, and you will pay your fine at an Israeli post office or go to trial in an Israeli traffic court in front of an Israeli judge. In other words, reality is that it is a part of Israel. In contrast, your ability to stop the tides is on par with the "consensus" that it is not part of Israel - a nice statement, not backed up by anything  real Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree that Israel exerts control over the area, but this control is one generally recognized to be that of an occupying force. This is made abundantly clear to be the position of the UN, the US, the UK, and the 161 nations who voted to declare the annexation null and void. Indicating anything else but that in our articles fails WP:GEVAL. Unomi (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again , political statements ('It is an occupation") are one thing, reality is quite another. Reread what I wrote above: Israel applied its law there- you are not subject to the authority of a military force (as you would be in the West bank) but to a civilain authority. In reality, the Golan is today a part of Israel whether the "consensus" choose to accept it or not. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#General_discussion_on_Israeli-occupied_territories and join in the discussion there if you disagree with the consensus there. Failing to give proper indication to the reader that this is occupied territory is a violation of WP:GEVAL and WP:NPOV in general. Unomi (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Equally, glossing over the differnces between the status of this territory and other territories is a is a violation of WP:GEVAL and WP:NPOV in general. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That Israel in a widely condemned move unilaterally annexed the territory?  I am fine with adding that if you wish. Unomi (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to revert back to my version, with a statement that says something along the lines of "Shouting Hill is a place in the Golan, which is part of Israel, susbsequent to a widely condemned unilaterl annexation", I don't think I would challenge that. Alternatively, we could avoid politicizing yet another article, by simply stating it is in the Golan. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

text: That it is "it is not currently recognized as being part of Israel by anyone" is clearly false, and Wikipedia should simply state facts as they are: It was captured by ISrael, Israel annexed it and applied its law there, and considers it part of its territory, but this has not been recognized by the international community. All the recent formulations ("the rest of Syria") are POV-pushing. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the be reveal of truth not POV push. To say it be "Israeli" when no country in entire world say it belong to "israel" be POV push. Ani medjool (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: non-Recognition and condemantion do not change reality. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It defines the reality Nick, wikipedia cannot be written from the POV of the Government of Israel, it is written from the POV of the mainstream consensus. I am open to leaving words to the effect that the GOI sees it otherwise, but we absolutely cannot write their, widely condemned, pov as fact. Unomi (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many post-moderinsts like to think so , but no. Declarations/recognitions and condemnations do not change reality. The UNGA could unanimously vote today that the sun revolves around the earth, and the UNSC may condemn nations that refuse to accept that the Earth is flat, but in reality, the Earth would still revolve around the sun as a spherical body. The reality is that Israel both claims the territory, controls it, and exercises its civil legal system there. It is therefore a part of Israel. That is not a 'POV', but a fact. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

text: It is a fact that Israel controls the territory, claims it, and has applied its law there. It is also a fact that this has been condemned by the international community, and not recognized by the community. This is where the facts stop, and interpretations begin - you are pushing for an interpretation that says a territory is part of a state if it is recognized as such by the international community. I am pushing for a differnt interpretation, which does not place the same authority on the declaraions of international bodies, and far from being a "tiny minority" position - it is one that is shared not only by Israel, but by Turkey (as it relates to Northern Cyprus), by China (as it relates to Tibet), by Taiwan (as it relates to the PRC) etc... Theere is no need to get into all of this in this article - the proper place to describe the different opinions about the Golan is in Golan Heights - here we could do jsut as well with the neutrally worded lead, asi ti was before SD and you started your POV pushing on it. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fact that its an occupation of southwestern Syria, this is the entire worldview, your edits implys that Golan is Israel which is the the extreme minority Israeli pov, your edits are in violation of npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Nick, you are comparing oranges to apples here, and it is not particularly helpful. I can only restate that the only country, as far as I am aware, that does not recognize Israel as being an occupying force in the area that we are discussing is Israel itself. The international community does in fact represent the mainstream view that we as wikipedians are charged with reflecting in our articles. If you wish that we write articles from a fringe pov then I would suggest that you take it up on the village pump or take it upon yourself to edit WP:NPOV. Using words like controlling for both the Syrian and Israeli occupied areas may be factual in a very narrow sense, but is in fact a violation of WP:GEVAL as the only country that sees any kind of equivalence between the legality or validity of such control is one with a fringe pov on the matter. You know this, yet you continue to try to impose this pov on our articles, why? Unomi (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believ I am doing any of the things you accuse me of. Turkey is in an identical situation to Israel as far as weighing what teh international community says about thier occupation of Northern Cyprus - there is not a single country in the world that recognizes it. The article's lead is both factual and neutral, and there's no need to introduce the clumsily worded "rest of Syria" version SD and you favor, to stress that the international comuunity sees the Golan as occupied. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about Turkey or Cyprus, if you are interested in that topic, go and edit those articles, The article version you reverted to is not factual, you are removing the entire worldview and inserting the minority Israeli pov, "gained control of" is not neutral when talking about a war, "communication between two countries" and "border" implys that Golan is Israel, saying that one is the "Syrian side" implys that the other is not, the same thing for your removal of the Syria geo stub. "occupied" is also the neutral term as all the sources show in the discussion here:  --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thsi article is not about Turkey or about Cyprus, or about the legal status  of the Golan in International law. It is about a hill situated on the Golan, and anyone interested in the specifics of claims can click on that link. teh counter to your argument is that syaing the "other side of Syria" implies ity is not in Isrfael, which is a POV that can't be stated in wp's neutral voice. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly people can click on the Golan link and read about it, but just because they can do that doesn't mean that the info in this article must be factually incorrect and not neutral and state that Golan is Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the current language implies that it is not Syrian territory, which is a fringe view. That is what cannot be stated in wiki's voice. nableezy - 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it implies that at all. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral 

message: I thought that Shouting Hill was on the Israeli controlled side of the Golan, not on the Syrian side. The whole idea, I thought, was that the Druze on the Israeli side can't visit their relatives on the Syrian side, so they go to this hill to shout across the border fence. Am I wrong about this? --Ravpapa (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong, the hill is on the Syrian controlled side.   --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Then this New York Times article is wrong too, and the location shown on Google Maps (follow this link) is also wrong. Very mysterious. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe its not on the Syrian controlled side, but the Israeli-occupied side, maybe both, will look closer into it later. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are sources for that its on both sides: "The shouting hill is on the Syrian side of the ceasefire line in the Golan and overlooks the village of Majdal Shams on the Is raeli occupied side."--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Years gone by, I think it is generally understood that Shouting Hill is in Syria, in the Syria-controlled part of Golan Heights. But I can't really make sense of the following: "The shouting point is 3 km away from the nearest homes of Majdal Shams and 2.5 km away from the border line.". From the location of Shouting hill indicated by this article, and the photos as well, it sure looks like there are only a few houndred meters to the town of Majdal Shams, with homes, shops etc. Quite (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently that line has been there for years, but it is plain wrong. I'm just going to remove it.Quite (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I would have, if I would have been an extended confirmed user...Quite (talk) 12:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Shouting Hill?