Talk:Kursi, Sea of Galilee

Gergesa
I'm not sure but it seems that Kursi is the same location as Gergesa. Should the two articles possibly be merged? --PiMaster3 talk 01:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the map on the Gergesa page, the location seems completely different, but the map is not clear (Gergesa = Gerasa?) I have no personal knowledge on the subject to verify this. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 02:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Coords
The given coords put it inside the Armistice line on the Syrian side. Yazan (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Since its east of the Sea of Galilee, its in Golan, so that would not be Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fipplest edit
Fipplet, you added the Israel geo data here saying:"It's a disputed territory, either use both countries or none."

But the area is internationally recognized as part of Syria, and not of Israel, so you are putting the view of one country in the same position as the view of the international community.

I previously brought up that you arent applying the exact same reasoning to other articles: where you aren't putting Palestine in the same position as Israel for other disputed territories. You claimed that you: "don't have the time", days later you created an article about a place in a disputed area,, and in this article you are stating that its located in Israel. So you obviously had the time to create that article, and you even had the time to ad that its located in Israel despite the dispute about the location being Palestine. So are you going to apply the same reasoning to that article as you have done here or not? "It's a disputed territory, either use both countries or none." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kursi, Golan Heights. 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/20070625225412/http://www.parks.org.il/ParksENG/company_card.php3?CNumber=336752 to http://www.parks.org.il/ParksENG/company_card.php3?CNumber=336752
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202065414/http://www.bibleinterp.com/excavations/kursi_2001.htm to http://www.bibleinterp.com/excavations/kursi_2001.htm

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) 14:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved from "Kursi, Golan Heights" to "Kursi, Sea of Galilee"
It simply is not in the Golan Heights, at most at the foot of its western slopes, but it is indeed an ancient port city on the Sea of Galilee. I have no intention to go into politics, it's just plain physical geography. If anyone wants to, you can argue for "Kursi, Syria" for all I care, but that would make very little sense. Please mind that the ancient village or town had a large port on the lake. The History paragraph doesn't mention Arab (or any other) population beyond the 9th century, but Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab–Israeli conflict does mention a "Kursi" - is it this one? Any additional info would be welcome. Arminden (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Map
same story again as at Caesarea Philippi, except that here it's even trickier: the 3 red dots can hardly be distinguished from the grey armistice line. 80-90% of the 2 maps show unrelated territory in monotonous single-colour featurelessness. Please, see if that regional "Golan Heights" map can be modified, whoever wrote "disputed" can write "occupied", or someone else can. (Now I see it was .) is our King of the Maps, if not himself, I'm sure he knows who's good with writing stuff on existing maps. That one has the site in the centre, with many more details (of Syria too), the West Bank is separated by the same type of line as Lebanon or Jordan, so it's a good map for everybody, except for that stupid word. One intervention and the compromise is perfect. What do you say? I didn't "hound" you, I arrived here from the national parks list, but now I guess I know what your escalating conflict with is all about. Again, I don't care much about that aspect, but I hate to see a useful map replaced by a completely useless one, just in order to satisfy some I/P foo-fighter's crusading ambitions. So replace that word! (Sounds like a Trumpian slogan, I apologise for that :) Don't build that wall. Go with Reagan, tear down that wall.) Arminden (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A, I cant replace the word, the way the map is created makes that impossible. b. our pushpin maps are almost never relief maps. Arminden, I would never think you were attempting to purposely antagonize me by hounding me, so dont worry about that at all. But the relief map is not a good pushpin map, regardless of the word on it.  nableezy  - 13:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I could replace the word, but point b needs to be settled. This relief map is not as cluttered and noisy as many, so it wouldn't be a disaster to use it. It would be non-standard though, as Nab is right that we usually use plain outline maps. The main problem is that the technical folks have still not implemented pushpin maps properly. As soon as you click on it to get a better view, the pin vanishes. It drives me bonkers. Zerotalk 13:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Like always, I don't give a damn on "standards". Most maps look like a 12-years-old had painted them in class, quick before the teacher checks the homework: blotches of strong colour, as if clear borders had been there forever, and the historical ones more often than not in the wrong place.
 * Again: what is Wiki for? Information for the user. This topografic map is excellent, you see the relief, various important features, the borders and armistice lines - EXACTLY what the user needs. Form meets purpose. Why then even start a discussion about "standards"? They're changing constantly anyway. It's about time for a change in the right direction.

Yes, this map covers two needs: location/overview, and detail. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Think a bit outside the box. Boxes are square... Having one good map instead of two poor ones - what's wrong with that? Wiki is a work in progress, and we make the progress happen - or stall. Arminden (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Arminden, you see those same lines on the syria golan map. The relief map, as a theoretical exercise, would be fine for some natural thing like mount hermon I suppose, where it's place in the topography matters.  nableezy  - 15:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

But Zero, if you can replace the word my objections are lessened to the point I will not care anymore.  nableezy  - 15:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The map Nableezy placed here is misleading and does not convey the location here in a good manner. Free1Soul (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC) sock
 * In what way is it misleading?  nableezy  - 16:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You can not reach Kursi from Syria, only from Israel. It is controlled and annexed by Israel. Free1Soul (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC) sock
 * Nobody said you can. But as the article Golan Heights makes fairly clear, the view of the international community is that the Golan Heights, including Kursi, is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Those dashes lines represent the armistice lines. We can use some sort of hatched shade to distinguish the Golan from the rest of Syria, but this location very much is within Syria, though it is occupied by Israel. This article also makes that clear. Having a map that is a NPOV violation by pushing a minority view of this as "disputed territory" is what is misleading.  nableezy  - 16:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Would be fine using this map (which is in the infobox of Golan Heights) if Zero can give coords to plug in the template.  nableezy  - 16:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I made a new template that highlights the golan and only the golan. Is there any objection to what is now in the article?  nableezy  - 16:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The topograpgy ALWAYS matters, and here even more than elsewhere. Kursi is all about a place with caves where swine allegedly leaped from a cliff or hill into the lake. All of this is nowadays a bit hard to visualise. Historically it's also about a port, but the waterline has shifted. It can't get more topograpgy-driven than that. Arminden (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, but if the topography matters can insert a relief map in the article. The pushpin map though should be easier to read than that.  nableezy  - 00:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, with all due respect, but how can you say that?
 * Have you visited the site?
 * Have you read about the site?
 * What is the reason we have an article about it?
 * Where is it located, physically, i.e. in the landscape?
 * This is all rhetorical, 'cause I'm giving up, I've removed the article from my watchlist. Not everything in the region is about politics, even though one can always find a political aspect to everything. Have a nice day, Arminden (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Arminden, my disagreement is on using a relief map in the infobox. We dont do this across the encyclopedia. That has nothing to do with the politics. See for example Masada, Belvoir Castle (Israel) or Gezer or any number of pages. That is not a political issue. We have a fairly uniform infobox and map setup. The relief map is not that. Yes, the politics make it so that if we are showing something in the Golan it should not be shown as though it were in a "disputed territory" or "in Israel", but that isnt even what your objection seems to be in this now.  nableezy  - 11:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)