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://en.wikipedia.org/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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)