Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Katzrin


My edit

Its an Israeli settlement according to worldview, so that should be before "town", and its also in the Israeli-occupied territories. [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is your POV. The place is above all a municipality the size of a town where people live, learn, and work. After that, other political labels can be added. This has been discussed in multiple discussions, and the consensus is to keep the status quo on all articles until a general discussion can be had for the whole project. There is simply no reason to edit war on this on every article and they are split about half-half now. The cat for this is Golan Heights which is a sub cat to Territorial disputes of Israel. --Shuki (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not his pov, or my pov, it is the world pov. There is a discussion, you can join it at WP:IPCOLL under the current article issues talkpage. Unomi (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your POV. That cat is virtually empty and you are reverting another change as well. Please get a consensus before starting a new convention. Weird how you used to be a non I-P editor and now you only do I-P. --Shuki (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a category,[2] but a link to the Israeli occupied territories article and it should be in the article since this settlement is there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Supreme Deliciousness the entire article should be crossed out with a CAPTION OCCUPIED, and then it'll be ok. Amoruso (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules, due and undue weight is clear: [3] "It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views", "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." so if we are also gonna have the tiny minority it should at the very least be after the most used term. It is also more correct to call it the "administrative center" of the Golan Regional Council, instead of the Golan Heights, as parts of the Golan Heights are not occupied by Israel. [4]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are going back to this discussion which affects about two hundred localities (and many other articles) that was never finalized anywhere. I suggested a status quo ceasefire since the alternating wording ratio seems half:half until such a consensus can be reached across the I-P project. Current the issue is not about weight, but whether the political term is used before the municipal description. I'm sorry that Nableezy has come out of his topic ban swinging wildly and potentially dragging us all into another round certainly affecting you and me too. --Shuki (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"ceasefire" ? .. consensus is based on arguments. Wikipedia rules are clear, a neutral pov, due and undue weight, clearly shows us what these places should be called first. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Im sorry that while I was topic banned you took it upon yourself to restore fringe terminology ahead of international standards. nableezy - 21:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert that lie and go check again. This article was not edited as you allege during your topic ban. And I am still waiting for the policies, not your OR. --Shuki (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is NPOV, specifically WEIGHT. And this article was not edited, others were. nableezy - 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to revert, strikeout or apologize for the lie you made about me editing in your absence.
It really isn't about NPOV since both terms are included ( and in the past, you eventually had to accept that it is legitimate to include the municipal status in the lead). UNDUE is not about counting how many newspaper articles say this or that. I'm still waiting for the policy about your refusal to allow 'Israel' to be wikilinked here. --Shuki (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Due weight is a part of NPOV. You are placing minority views ahead of majority ones. And you introduced your favored POV into a number of articles while I was away, such as this, this, and this. Please stop saying I am lying, I am clearly not. And I did not say Israel can not be wikilinked here. nableezy - 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You see how you 'continue to lie and mislead people. In all three of those edits, I was not introducing any material but reverting problematic POV. Do proper research before making baseless claims. --Shuki (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you reverted a super-majority view on the status of the territory and removing international standards in language, such as saying "occupied territory". What you think is "problematic POV" has repeatedly proven to be what only a tiny fringe minority, even in Israel, believes. Dont call me a liar again or you may see me return the favor of lobbying for a topic ban. Stop acting like a child, and deal with the actual issues. Im past dealing with your nonsense, an RFC was opened about this very topic, and at the end we will see where consensus is on this issue. nableezy - 20:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If yall want to make an argument that town should come first make that argument, but completely removing the most common description in sources is completely unacceptable. nableezy - 22:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

legality

Per WP:Legality of Israeli settlements I added the line in the lead that has consensus for all articles on Israeli settlements. This was removed as "blatant bias". This should be restored. Further removals may result in reports to AE. nableezy - 21:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not conducive to collaborative editing when you threaten editors who disagree with your application of a guideline. Substance wise, Jews living in the Golan Heights are not typically badged as settlers because there is less of a religious angle to the Golan Heights. For these reasons, I agree with the edit at issue. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where on Earth did you pull Jews living in the Golan Heights are not typically badged as settlers because there is less of a religious angle to the Golan Heights? Katzrin is in fact called a settlement. WP:Legality of Israeli settlements is very clear on this point, and you are well aware of the bans that have been handed out as a result of editing against the consensus established there. The line should be returned to the article. If nobody else does so I will in the near future. nableezy - 23:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the line in the lead, further removals may be reported. nableezy - 22:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Time magazine Israeli army tanks advance on the firing range during a training exercise, May 21, 2008, on the outskirts of the Israeli city of Katzrin in the Golan Heights. emphasis added. An equally if not greater persuasive argument can be made for calling it a town or city.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

earthquake date

There is disagreement over the date of the earthquake that destroyed Kasrin in the 8th century. I gave a source for 746–747 and one for 749. The reasons for the disagreement are explained in N. N. Ambraseys, The seismic activity in Syria and Palestine during the middle of the 8th century; an amalgamation of historical earthquakes, Journal of Seismology (2005) 9: 115–125. The date 18 January 749 given in some sources is derived from a Christian source that gives 18 January and a Jewish source that gives 23rd Shevat. These two dates corresponded in 749 and not in the other possible years. However, it isn't as conclusive as it sounds since the Jewish source also says it was a sabbatical year and that year wasn't. Ambraseys thinks the various reports were actually of three separate earthquakes. Zerotalk 09:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The world turns

The lead has been copyedited for repetition of the same terminology and phrases used over and over, and new sources have been added to supplement old, outdated sources. As in all settlements, villages, towns and cities, populations increase/decrease, institutions and services are introduced/close down; and culture evolves. Articles about them need to reflect this.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"largest town"

Majdal Shams is the largest town in the Golan Heights, as even the Israeli CBS census data shows (see here). Majdal Shams is more than 30% larger. nableezy - 13:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a more recent source puts Majdal Shams population at 11000 (see here). nableezy - 13:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current data is based on reliable and current sources that include the New York Times and the English language paper of Lebanon, which even describes Katzrin as a city. Your claims are original research - there is no such comparison made anywhere - and you are citing 2008 census data. The JP article you cite specifically describes Majdal as the largest Druze town. --Geewhiz (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The JPost article also says that population of Majdal Shams is 11000, a number that I dont think any source has claimed Katzrin approaches. Gila, news reports can contain errors, and an insistence on repeating those errors despite the evidence is not what one expects from a serious editor. The last official data from the state says Katzrin is more than 30% smaller than Majdal Shams. A recent news report gives Majdal Shams a population of over 3000 more than what this article says Katzrin is. Yet this article makes the claim that Katzrin is the largest city in the Golan, a demonstrably false claim. nableezy - 14:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And more recent census data (here). As of the end of 2009, Katzrin had a population of 6500 and Majdal Shams had a population of 9600. nableezy - 15:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also about twice the growth rate. The CBS table also has provisional mid-2010 figures, which is only about a month before the Haaretz article cited as saying that Katzrin is the largest. In the case of conflicting sources, we either expose the discrepancy between them in the article or we go with the most reliable source. I can't imagine how a travel writers in newspapers can compete in reliability with the CBS, so we should take the second option here. Zerotalk 05:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should note that while it is the second largest town it is also the largest settlement. Anybody have a reason why we should not? nableezy - 19:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your point? Read the first sentence of the article which you skillfully inserted and have defended since last summer.--Shuki (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, what? My "point" is that the article should note that Katzrin is the largest settlement in the Golan. It does not currently do that. Is there a reason we should not? nableezy - 21:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"district town"

Apparently, once upon a time (1991), a single news report called Katzrin a "district town". That is now apparently enough of a reason to say that Katzrin is described as a "district town" in the lead of the article. Can somebody explain to me a. what exactly is a "district town", and b. why should this single twenty year old news report be included in the lead? nableezy - 14:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the Israeli government classify localities as "city", "town", etc? How does it classify Katzrin? Zerotalk 05:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
according to the official israel 'central bureau of statistics', katzrin is a 'yishuv', translated as 'town'. here is the link to the pdf, in hebrew, which gives all of the demographic data and how it is classified. Soosim (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But does district town mean anything? nableezy - 19:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Town is a general description of a mid-sized populated place not yet a city. A more accurate municipal status is Local council (Israel). Perhaps district was an attempted English translation of that or of the fact that Katzrin is considered the administrative centre of the Golan Heights. --Shuki (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So is Katzrin a local council? nableezy - 21:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Town redux

Currently, the lede contains erroneous information in that it classifies Katzrin as the second largest town in the Golan. The cited refernce does not explicitly say this but we're supposed to make the inference based on the population numbers presented. First, making that inference is Original Research. If we're going to make the assertion that Katzrin is the second largest town in the Golan, we should find a specific refernce that makes that explicit assertion. Second, when we say largest town, are we referring to population or geographical space? I pose this question to highlight the absurdity of drawing inferences based on WP:OR. Moreover, I have five reliable sources that explicitly classify Katzrin as the largest town/city on the Golan Heights. From Fox News Israel National News Haaretz AFP and The New York Times. I was previously berated from some quarters for suggesting otherwise and would like some thoughts on the issue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CBS shouws that Katzrin is not the largest town in the Golan. If you want to continue claiming that a town several thousand people smaller than the largest town in the Golan is actually the largest town in the Golan you can do that, but try it on your blog. There is no inference drawn from the CBS data, it clearly and unequivocally shows that Katzrin is smaller than Majdal Shams. nableezy - 19:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, we can remove that it is the second largest town, but claiming it is the largest when we know for a fact that it is not is just silly. nableezy - 19:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've just disregarded Five sources that say otherwise and in typical fashion you've disparaged me in the process by gratuitously adding "but try it on your blog." I ask you to restrain yourself and kindly refrain from attcking me personally.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not disregard anything, I said that the CBS data conclusively and unequivocally shows that Katzrin is several thousand people smaller than Majdal Shams. Insisting on including material that you know is false is disruptive. You know that Majdal Shams is larger than Katzrin. The official data from the state conclusively shows this fact. Yet you want to bring sources that are clearly incorrect to insert a factual error into the article. Do you actually dispute that Katzrin is smaller than Majdal Shams? Do you dispute that the CBS is by far more reliable than a collection of news reports for the size of the cities, villages, towns, settlements, localities, whatever in the Golan? If not, why are you deliberately wasting our time? If so, on what basis do you argue that a news report is of greater reliability than official census data? nableezy - 19:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, please do not refer to my attempts at making an article right "disruptive." This is again a personal attack that I do not appreciate. Second, in Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources and what they actually say and not what we may infer. The five sources that I've provided are considederd RS and all say that it is the largest town/city. Are you seriously going to tell me that Fox News, Haaretz, AFP, The New York Times and Israel National News are all wrong and unreliable?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we rely on reliable sources, and the most reliable source here is the CBS. When source of greater reliability shows that news reports are wrong, demanding that we ignore the evidence that the news reports are wrong is in fact disruptive. There is no inference in citing the CBS data to show that Majdal Shams is larger than Katzrin. You havent answered my questions, so Ill repeat them now. Do you actually dispute that Katzrin is smaller than Majdal Shams? Do you dispute that the CBS is by far more reliable than a collection of news reports for the size of the cities, villages, towns, settlements, localities, whatever in the Golan? If not, why are you deliberately wasting our time? If so, on what basis do you argue that a news report is of greater reliability than official census data? nableezy - 19:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the issue to the RS/N. See here. nableezy - 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wasting our time?" A third personal attack. You certainly are on your best behavior today. I never realized that a discussion concerning making the lede more factually accurate constitutes "wasting our time." You have not answered my question. We have five reliable sources that state unequivocally that Katzrin is the largest city/town on the Golan vs a census where we're required to draw inferences. Are you saying that all of the noted sources, NYT, Fox, INN, AFP and Haaretz, are wrong?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except you arent trying to make it more factually accurate, you are attempting to make it less so, and knowingly so. You have yet to answer any of my questions. One more time, do you actually dispute that Katzrin is smaller than Majdal Shams? Do you dispute that the CBS is by far more reliable than a collection of news reports for the size of the cities, villages, towns, settlements, localities, whatever in the Golan? If not, why are you deliberately wasting our time? If so, on what basis do you argue that a news report is of greater reliability than official census data? nableezy - 20:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again you refer to my discussion at the talk pages and the listing of reliable sources as "wasting our time." A fourth personal attack. Please stick to the discussion at hand and avoid attacking me personally.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep claiming that all I am doing is personally attacking you, or you can actually respond to the simple questions asked. Your choice, though I doubt youll surprise me by actually answering the questions. nableezy - 20:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, since when are those news sources not a RS? Maybe they also cannot be depended on to declare something occupied? Maybe the CBS is politically slanted? --Shuki (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really dont understand what you wrote. Are you seriously claiming that the CBS is politically slanted by publishing data that shows Katzrin is several thousand people smaller than Majdal Shams? It isnt that the NYTimes or Haaretz or AFP isnot nominally a reliable source. It is that we have a much more reliable source that directly refutes what those news reporters write. Is anybody seriously claiming that any of the news sources are more reliable than the CBS for the size of Katzrin and the size of Majdal Shams? If so, on what basis? nableezy - 20:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis that five reliable sources say explicitly so. As opposed to your source that requires us to draw inferences.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not answered my questions. Do you actually dispute that Katzrin is smaller than Majdal Shams? Do you dispute that the CBS is by far more reliable than a collection of news reports for the size of the cities, villages, towns, settlements, localities, whatever in the Golan? If not, why are you deliberately wasting our time? If so, on what basis do you argue that a news report is of greater reliability than official census data? nableezy - 22:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i wholeheartedly agree that RS should be used and the ones listed here above seem quite reliable. not sure why nableezy is so opposed to it. nableezy - do you have a source for MS being the largest? i see the journal quoted and CBS. but then we flow into OR. i also see that the MS page needs work, then. over there, it says that MS is the largest of 4 druze villages on the golan, but not the largest 'city' (or whatever you want to call it). so, i think we need to get back to basics and stick to RS. Soosim (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CBS gives the population of each place, and Majdal Shams is bigger. It is not OR to compare two numbers and say which is bigger. Actually it is a good example of WP:CALC. Zerotalk 09:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nice idea zero. what if we say (and make it longer but much more clear) something like "MS is the largest Druze village, while Katzrin is the largest non-Druze city in the Golan" and we could even give the numbers so people can see it. Soosim (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

86.** IP has hit the nail on the head with this comment and I could not have said it better myself. It's possible for Katzrin to be considered the largest city without being the most populous area if, for example, Majdal Shams is not considered a city (for instance, it's a farming area with little governmental infrastructure), or if the borders or count are done differently between sources. It may even have to do with non-population factors, like area (this is less likely) or economics. For this reason, we need to use reliable sources and cite what they actually say and not what we think they say. The census may be integrated as well, I have no objection to that. But clearly, it has to be undrestood that reliable sources classify Katzrin as the largest city on the Golan. I'll start working on something.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have formulated a sentence that I think works well. According to various media reports, it is the region’s largest city though a census suggests that, in terms of population, it is the second largest.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That wasnt the only uninvolved comment at RS/N. I am most partial to Let me be clear -- any argument that old, non-specific newspaper articles (in that they aren't in-depth explorations of "Which town is bigger") are preferred, or equal too, the census data is pure horseshit nableezy - 19:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, your argument can be virtually copy&pasted to the discussion about settlement legality in which you strongly argued against this exact claim of mine. The old, non-specific newspaper articles (in that they aren't in-depth explorations of "each specific settlement" are pure horseshit (in your language). --Shuki (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt true. There were several high quality sources that said that the settlements are illegal, and many of the news articles were specific to the settlement in question, and unlike here there was not a single high quality source disputing that. Additionally, this is a matter of factual accuracy. Does anybody actually dispute that Majdal Shams is larger than Katzrin? So far nobody has been willing to make the obviously false statement that they do. So why are we being forced to waste such time? nableezy - 20:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very few of those several high quality sources mention the specific settlements, while these RS do mention Katzrin explicitly. --Shuki (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shuki, can you please answer this basic question? Is Katzrin larger than Majdal Shams? And can you please recognize that a source may not be reliable for everything, and we are charged with looking at the best sources and not just the ones that agree with us. I honestly cannot believe that this argument is even being had. Official census data conclusively shows that Katzrin has ~3000 less people than Majdal Shams. I know this, you know this, everybody here knows this. But for some reason, and I honestly cannot figure out what it is, that is being completely ignored. Who actually thinks that Katzrin is larger than Majdal Shams? And how on earth is a place with a population of 6600 larger than a place with a population of 9600? nableezy - 21:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here from RS/N, the current wording of the lead seems OK and Jiujitsuguy's suggestion gives a false impression of the reality. Dingo1729 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Reliable sources differ. I have removed all references and comparisons to size of respective cities/towns on the recommendation of Ed Johnston--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, okay. The most reliable source here was clear, but Im fine with removing the comparison to Majdal Shams so long as we arent making knowingly false statements. What I am not fine with though is the removal of it being the largest settlement. Explain that please, because as far as I know nobody disputes that Katzrin is the largest settlement in the Golan. But thanks for making clear your objective here. nableezy - 21:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that measures of largeness other than population size exist, such as area, but without a reliable source that explicitly states that an alternative measure is being used it would be OR to write the article as if we know that it is. Between y'all and myself, look at the aerial photos in Google maps to see that Majdal Shams has a much larger built-up area than Katzrin (at least 50%). So the area theory doesn't look good. Anyway, I'll be happy to write that the Katzrin is the "second most populous" if more precision is desirable. Zerotalk 23:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quirky. Having parsed through the RS/N discussion and the above, my view is that we should (as always) reflect what the RSs say. To the extent that the RSs conflict (I just faced such a conflict in a baseball article), reflect what the conflicting RSs say (which is what I just did there).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there was an actual dispute (for example, a reliable source stated that the Central Bureau of Statistics was wrong about which place was bigger) then we would definitely need to report it. However, in this case what we have is an authoritative source that gives some data meticulously compiled by experts, and some other sources (reliable for things like news but with no expertise or investigative resources on demographics) that got it wrong. We don't need to report that. Given the power of Google, we can find "reliable sources" making incorrect statements on almost anything. NPOV is about reporting both sides of genuine disputes, not about compiling all the versions of each fact that someone has proposed. Zerotalk 08:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke not of a "dispute", but of "conflict" between what the RSs say. That is the case here, and is the case in the baseball article I mentioned (neither RS there said the other was wrong; they just reported different information, as to the same fact -- as here). We have two reliable sources here, and as you know wp often leans away from primary sources and leans in favor of non-primary-source RSs. See WP:Primary. But I would be in favor of reflecting both, though I'm sure some editors I've met who hate primary sources would suggest only reflecting the non-primary-source. I've even had this discussion, curiously, with regard to census data a year or two ago. Report what each RS said, give in-text attribution, and let the reader draw their own conclusion. That's what I did in the baseball article, and what I would suggest be done here -- it takes the editors out of the middle, and avoids any appearance of possible POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not POV to seek out the best sources and report what they say. It is good editing. Otherwise we would have to provide multiple versions of nearly every claim and articles would become uselessly confusing. We should only report conflicting reports if (a) it is not completely obvious that one source is more reliable than the other, or (b) the lesser source states explicitly that the main source is wrong, or (c) the fact of the conflict is somehow notable of itself. Similar examples would be a news report of an earthquake when the US Geological Survey says there was none, reporting that the Higgs boson had been found (as several news sources did recently) when the report by the experimenters only said that a promising indication had been seen, or reporting the death of someone who appeared on TV later. We should separate the wheat from the chaff, that's our job. Incidentally, it is easy to find newspaper stories saying that Majdal Shams is the largest. NYT, 17 Jan 2000: "Majdal Shams...is the largest community in the Golan." Associated Press, 17 Apr 2005: "Majdal Shams, Golan's largest village". I found about six. I don't propose citing them, because we have the CBS to tell us what the truth is and we don't have anyone disputing their pre-eminent authority in demographic statistics. Zerotalk 10:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I believe that it would be a good idea to say that Katzrin is the largest Jewish town in the Golan Heights. It is not as large as Majdal Shams, and neither of them are cities, but Katzrin is an urban settlement while Majdal Shams is a rural settlement. As far as I know, Katzrin is not only the largest urban settlement in the Golan Heights, it is the only urban settlement there. Still, as far as the article goes, the important fact is IMO that it's the largest Jewish locality. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do say that, well not exactly that, but we say it is the largest settlement in the Golan. nableezy - 01:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is wrong though. It's hard to call Majdal Shams a town when it's a village. Also settlement in the way it's used in the sentence can be interpreted in more than one way and lead to confusion. I will change accordingly. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if there is any official meaning of "village", "town" and "city"? Looking at city, it seems that both Katzrin and Majdal Shams are on the boundary of what may or may not be called a city by international standards. Calling a place with this many people a "village" doesn't seem right, how do you come to that? It is easy to find "reliable sources" using each of village, town and city for Majdal Shams, so that doesn't help much. Zerotalk 15:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Israeli Ministry of Interior usually gives city status to urban localities over 30 000, though there are several exceptions which have been given city status with much lower populations like Beit Shean and Ariel. So in any case, Katzrin and MShams do not have Israeli city status, rather 'local council'. It would be most accurate if we did refer to these localities as local councils. But nonetheless, from my knowledge about geography, town is a somewhat vague description that also includes cities around the world with tens of thousands of residents. I agree with the assenssment above about Katzrin being an urban town and MShams rural village albeit a large one with local council status. I'm not sure what international standards Zero is talking about but given that, I'd be interested if someone can add info here about how the Syrian government classifies this. Is MShams a city of town or village? --Shuki (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If one goes to the Wikipedia homepage and types in "Katzrin", the link that appears with the photo is captioned "Katzrin human settlement". The labeling is odd, and potentially should be corrected.One-Off Contributor (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katzrin