Talk:Northern District (Israel)

Caesarea
I don't know how to change it, but Cesarea isn't in the northern district, I don't think...


 * You need to click 'Edit this page' and then remove it. I've already done it though. Not only is Caesarea in the Haifa district, it's not even a city. On a side note, you might want to register an account and sign your name -- Ynhockey 19:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Golan Heights
Dude, the way you have this page set up now, you're completely ignoring the difference between the Golan Heights and Israel (though Israel conspicuously did NOT claim to annex the Golan Heights, but only to "extend Israeli laws" there). I'm sorry, but that's either ideologically slanted or just plain stupid. AnonMoos 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all I copied the list of local municipalities from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, and official government organization which considers the Golan Heights as part of Israel. And in Wikipedia we generally take government agencies' info for town statistics and such so this accords to policy pretty well. I really don't see why it's such a big deal ideologically as this is simply a list of towns in an Israeli district, many of which are Jewish Israeli towns. If you felt it so important to separate, you could've at least formatted the list right. Also please refrain from calling me 'ideologically slanted' and whatever else. -- Ynhockey 19:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sorry if you feel falsely insulted, but I really found it quite incomprehensible (not to mention rather annoying) that you deleted a simple unobtrusive link to "Golan Heights". AnonMoos 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about that, it's not a really big deal. I'll add it back (although I don't feel it's important). No need to throw insults into the air. -- Ynhockey 09:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the map should just show the Golan Heights as part of the Northern District with no distinction from the part in Israel proper. I also find problematic the current discussion. Whatever the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics may say, Israel specifically never annexed the Golan Heights, and that should be mentioned here. Yes, they administer the Golan Heights as though it is part of Israel. But it is not the same thing as what was done with East Jerusalem, which actually *was* annexed. john k 11:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This article (as it should, IMO) basically treats the north district as a local administrative region inside a country, rather thana a universal geographical region. In other words, this article is, by default, about a region as it is viewed by a certain administration. Yes, it is worth noting that its status is disputed internationally, but putting too much emphasis on it will detract from the article's purpose of explaining what is the north district of Israel. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

But even Israel doesn't exactly consider the Golan Heights to be part of Israel. My basic view is that the map ought to show a line between the main part of the North District and the Golan Heights. john k 11:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This entry deals with an administrive disrict in Israel. Its ramifications are entirely internal; not international or political. On such level, in what way doesn't Israel " exactly consider the Golan Heights to be part of Israel"? Shilonite 11:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Israel never officially annexed the Golan Heights (as it did, East Jerusalem, for instance). Instead, it passed a law saying that the Golan would be administered as though it was part of Israel (or something along those lines).  The Golan Heights are administered as though they are in Israel, but they have never been formally annexed. john k 15:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's exactly my point! the annexation of the Golan is irrelevant for this article. it should appear- elsewhere. the topic of this entry deals with the internal administration of an Israeli district. there are many other such similar cases (of discrepancies in Israel between the administrative and political planes), but a clear distinction should be made between the internal administrative level and the international - political level. separate articles should deal with each aspect, albeit with 'links' to each other. Shilonite 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Southern Lebanon/Northern Israel
Southern Lebanon and Northern Israel were indeed affected by the 2006 Conflict, but I don't think that's relevant to this article. Any objections if I remove it?? Cheers AWN AWN2 01:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Shagor"
Actually, the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics lists it as "Shaghor", not "Shagor" --Doron 00:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's strange, here it's Shagor. I think this is an interesting discovery (that CBS is inconsistent), we should investigate. As for this particular case, I don't mind moving the article to Shaghur. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it's an Arab city, I suppose "Shaghor", which is based on the transliteration of the Arabic name, is more likely to be correct.--Doron 07:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the table needed?
The table is nice but is just duplicating information already provided in the navbox? I thinks it should be removed. Chesdovi 11:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look so nice to me - it's lopsided. I don't object to its removal. On another note, I think the name of this page is wrong. It should be Northern District (Israel).--Gilabrand 12:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

de jure
de jure means "concerning law", as opposed to "de facto" - describing facts or practices which may not have law behind them. The Northern District's jurisdiction over the Golan was done in accordance with  to Israeli law, which means it is a de jure application of Israeli law. This doesn't mean such application of Israeli law was recognized by the international community, and that fact is also stated in the  article. If you have a policy based reason for why we shouldn't describe it as "de jure' - let's hear it. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Israeli law is invalid in Syria, therefor its not "de jure". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Israeli law is valid in the Golan. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No its not, it has been declared null and void by the internationell community.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; is right. From de jure: " It is possible to have multiple simultaneous conflicting (de jure) legalities, possibly none of which is in force (de facto)." That means any law can define a status "in law". So, if the Syrian parliament had enacted a law the the sea of galilee is yellow, then The Syrian "de jure" color of the sea is yellow. Also "de jure" and "de facto" don't exclude each other - the golan is also "de facto" controled by ISrael (The West Bank - held de facto but not de jure). That's the (internal) legal basis to adding it to the N district.


 * User:Supreme Deliciousness, understand that you are being disruptive. Here you go into an edit war, add a tag that says "dubious - discuss", and don't bother to discuss. At Hamat Gader you revert something out of the article's status quo, while a constructive discussion is taking place, and don't contribute to it. Apparently you don't read definitions you are questioning either. Take your time. trespassers william (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Israel its laws applies there, according to the rest of the planet it doesn't. We cant follow an extreme minority pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The phrase is not even needed. "although its annexation" is enough. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It can be avoided. But the UN res referes specifically to "the decision", not to practical steps, which should be clearer using the word "law" instead of annexation. Done. trespassers william (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even with the sock stricken, it looks like SupremeDeliciousess was in the minority opinion. No big deal since consensus isn;t a "vote" (er.. well so we say) but I like the simpler version recently presented.04:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)