Talk:Hamat Gader

message: 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)
thread_title:  Borders 

message: 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)
replies: text:  If the name is genuine it would probably be older than the British Mandate. Zerotalk 12:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  challenge sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Modern history section 

message: Reference is missing. Change no. 8 to:
. P. 513.
trespassers william (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 25 February 2015 

message: 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)
thread_title:  To whom it may concern: OTRS permission ticket number 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20060212230721/http://www.hamat-gader.com/hamatInfo.php?subjId=history&linkOrder=9&subLink=18 to http://www.hamat-gader.com/hamatInfo.php?subjId=history&linkOrder=9&subLink=18
*Added  tag to http://www.hamat-gader.com/hamatInfo.php?subjId=todayProfile&linkOrder=9&subLink=20
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726121056/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E845CA0B92BE4E3485256442007901CC to https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E845CA0B92BE4E3485256442007901CC
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  knows better. Zerotalk 05:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  hi. It's been almost 2 years of silence. It's unsourced, don't know who put it in here and where they had it from. The name is used for any place with hot springs, it led to the NT mess with Emmaus (Hebrew Hammat, Greek/Latin Emmaūs, Arabic el-Hamma), too many places by this name to identify the correct biblical one. There's another Hamma (actually Himma; wonder if it's dialect?) a very short distance away, in Jordan, a couple of km up the Yarmouk. Don't know if that one is an old village or just a recent, post-'48 replacement, created once the springs used ever since the Romans fell out of reach from Jordan. Google Maps has it as "Al-Himmah Al-Ordonyah, Jordan", so for us maybe "al-Himma(h) al-Urdunniya". Is this proof that "al-Hamma al-Souriya" is a recent, at least post-colonial name? I'd say yes. And it only made sense for a very short period of time, if any, as DMZ isn't the same as Syria. I'll take it out, and maybe Makeandtoss can figure out if and where to reintroduce and explain it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As you mentioned Jordanian Hamma is in Jordan on southern Jordan River bank. The Syrian Hamma is a few hundred meters south on the northern shore of the Jordan River in an area under Mandatory Palestine according to 1923 British-French demarcation but was held by Syria in 1948, considered as DMZ in 1949 armistice agreement, and occupied by Israel in 1967; per this Economist article . Syrian Hamma seems like a common Arabic name, a quick google search shows no indication of its origin, but given the above information I would assume it became called that post-1948 given the Syrian control. Most detailed article is this : “known as Hammeh but widely called Syrian Hammeh..”. Arabic sources often call both the spring and the village as Al_Hammah Al-Souriyeh. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this evidence of Makeandtoss is sufficient to keep the expanded name. Zerotalk 00:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Syrian Hamma"? When? Source! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too little on archaeology, nothing on remains of Roman baths 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  April 4, 1951 incident and site status