Talk:Mount Hermon/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Mount Hermon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why flag for the occupied region?

Why should there be a flag in the infobox of the country that occupies the region of southern Mount Hermon? The infobox asks about the location. The location of that area is still Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hertz1888, why are you adding an Israeli flag for the Golan Heights? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The question is, why did you remove it (without explanation)? I restored it to the article, where it had been long-term. Like it or not, it is the flag flown over the Golan portion of the mountain. There are three entities listed in the infobox. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I did explain above. As I said before, what flag the Israeli settlers wave has no relevance to where the mountain is located. American astronauts put an American flag on the moon, but still, the moon is not the United States. Golan is internationally recognized as in Syria, an Israeli flag can not represent the area, it is not Israel and by having an Israeli flag, it implys that Golan is Israel. Hermon is only located in two country's, Syria and Lebanon, the Golan "entity" in the infobox is the same as the rest of the mountain in Syria. If there should be any flag for Golan, its the Syrian flag as that is the country it is internationally recognized as being part of. Or Golan can be removed from the infobox as it is already represented with Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate edits by IP

IP 190.105.51.116 has removed the location map of a country Mount Hermon is located in, and replaced it with a map of a country it is not located it, furthermore it has also added in the location section, a country that it is not located in. Mount Hermon is only located in Syria and Lebanon and not in any other country, see this map:[1] this mean that the changes are inaccurate.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually since Israel is currently the governing entity over the area it is best that Israel not be deleted from the infobox. We don't want to mislead readers into thinking that Syria is currently the governing entity.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Israels occupation does not make it in Israel, location is therefor not Israel. We don't want to mislead readers into thinking its in Israel. "Israeli occupied Golan Heights" also makes it clear that Israel occupies it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is disputed as Israel annexed it.--Shrike (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire world say its part of Syria , Israel says its part of Israel, so how does this justify having a location map of Israel when the summit is between Syria and Lebanon and the entire mountain is in Syria and Lebanon? or an Israeli flag representing the GH?Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter as Israel control it. So its in Israeli territory we may add the UN/SYRIA pov about it. But Israel POV is notable too. So your edits is not acceptable.Please read carefully WP:NPOV before making futher edits.--Shrike (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It already says that Israel controls it. You have misunderstood the situation, Israeli occupation of Syria doesn't make it Israeli territory. Israeli pov is extreme minority and to present it as a fact violates npov. Please read carefully WP:NPOV before making further edits. You also removed the location map without explanation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

While this issue appears to be I/S and not not strictly I/P, still there is a central discussion about Infobox map, which clearly should burn in hell. According to this talk page, there is continuous disagreement and as result edit warring around silly and minor issue. Let's try no map compromise. And let's repeat it together: Mt. Hermon is partly on Syrian Land known as Golan Heights occupied by Israel since 1967. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That discussion is about East Jerusalem, not Mount Hermon which is a different situation. How is having a no map a comprise? Compromise for what? Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why I said this issue appears to be I/S and not not strictly I/P. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to reply to my above post or not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Your post at my talkpage is not an explanation for how having no map is a comprise for anything. The summit is between Syria and Lebanon. The entire mountain is in Syria and Lebanon, the southern slopes are in land internationally recognized as part of Syria occupied by Israel. How is removing a location map showing the summit a compromise? A compromise for what?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that the "no map" "compromise" always comes up when there is a stack of world view facts to telling us what the proper map to display is? The mountain is in occupied Syrian Territory and we cannot avoid putting a proper map just because Israel says its not. -asad (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The mountain is in Syria and Lebanon, the summit is between the two countries, a small portion of the southern slopes are in land internationally recognized as part of Syria occupied by Israel. No part of it is in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a georeferenced map available with the Golan Heights in the middle that could be used ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In the middle of what? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In the middle of the area of interest of the map as opposed to say the top corner of a map of whose AOI is Israel or the bottom corner of a map whose AOI is Syria. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The following are just a few of the sources that specifically put Mt Hermon in Israel:

172.190.55.84 (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If they put Hermon in Israel then they are following the Israeli pov, not the world pov. The popular mechanics article for example says: "The Hermon Ski Resort is in Israel's Golan Heights.", Golan heights is not Israels according to the entire world. Britannicas Hermon article puts it in Lebanon and Syria: [2]. We shouldn't cherry pick Israeli pov and inaccurate articles in Israeli websites or by journalists who are incapable of writing correct articles. See for example this article which appears to be a reliable source, the National Geographic, about an ancient chamber in the Israeli occupied West bank, was "Found in Israel" [3], this doesn't mean that we should say in the Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley article that its "in Israel", just because of bad journalism. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not bad journalism, that's fact. "West Bank" is an anti-Semitic term for Judea, a Jewish kingdom that existed long before Arabs invaded Palestine. Since Israel is the modern nation of the Jews, Judea and all of Palestine obviously belong to Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchtruth2 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Bring sources for everything of what you just said.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

We should present both POVs if they notable enough.

There is only one nation saying its in Israel, the entire international community say its Syria. The Israeli pov is extreme minority and rejected by the IC. According to npov we should follow the world view.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, even though it was Jewish land long before Arabs invaded, Jews don't deserve to live there because they are infidels. Makes perfect sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchtruth2 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is about where it is located, not about who you claim it belonged to.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Location of mount Hermon

Since it appears it is not clear where mount Hermon is located, hope this Google maps link could help to solve the mystery. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? It is clear where it is located. That Google map also confirms for those who are unaware of the fact that the mountain is not in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess it is on the border between Syria and Lebanon. We have it sourced in the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox styling

Since it is clear that the mountain is on the border, and the flags only feeds nationalism I'm removing those elements. Whoever wants to yell The mountain is in country X, please look at the map, which we provide also in the body of the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not an explanation for your removal of the location map.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The explanation is pretty clear, I also communicated with you on your talk page. Let's see what the rest of the community thinks. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What is your explanation for removing the location map? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The explanation is here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats not an explanation for removing the location map.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What is not clear, SD? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That you have not provided a reason for removing the location map. The mountain is not on the border, its a mountain located in two countries, the summit is on the border. This is not a reason for removing a location map showing where its located. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat again, the mountain is on the border please look at the map. You can see the summit also here, on UNDOF zone map. Hope can you see that point... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The border is a couple meters longs, the mountian stretches on long areas in Syria and Lebanon not only the border, the summit is on the border, nether of this, even if you don't agree with them, is a reason to rmeove the location map. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, so the mountian stretches both in Syria and Lebanon. Moreover the summit ( point labelled 2814m, corresponding to the summit ) is technically in Lebanon. That's why we can not really use the Syria map. Why not Lebanon map? In order to avoid such silly questions, we can go without infobox map, since we provide explanation and maps in the body. Hope it explains to you, SD, why no map is required in the infobox. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A text explanation for where its located is not a reason for removing the location map.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? Why don't we use Lebanon map? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean what I said: "A text explanation for where its located is not a reason for removing the location map". The Syrian-Lebanese boundary is long, A map is needed to show where exactly the summit is located. Acme mapper puts the circle on the border, with the majority of it being in Lebanon, while the coordinates are on the Syrian side. These kinds of maps are not 100% accurate and I don't know if the coordinate are correct. I also don't know which country has the biggest part of the mountain. I'm thinking about creating a new separate location map for the mountain with Syria and Lebanon highlighted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right. A text explanation for where its located is not a reason for removing the location map. It is also not the reason that I gave. Please see above. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So the summit is in Lebanon, is not it? Why don't we use Lebanon map? Why do we prefer Syria instead? Is it neutral? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

[4]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So I'm confused, do you think that summit ( point labelled 2814m, corresponding to the summit ) is in Syria, despite the provided map? Please take a look. You also note that majority of the mountain slopes are in Lebanon. I'm still not clear why Syria is used and not Lebanon. Why do we prefer Syria instead? Is it neutral? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the ACME mapper puts it right between the two countries while the majority of it being in Lebanon. This source says Syria controls the summit: [5]. Looking at both the ACME map [6] and Google map [7], its hard to see where the mountain starts and ends. So no one can say where the majority of the mountain slopes are just looking at these maps. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with low resolution ACME map, where details are not clearly seen. However, given the contradiction between the book quote and the CIA map, used in Golan Heights article, ( point labelled 2814m, corresponding to the summit ). Both sources are reliable, I guess. Could you elaborate why do we prefer Syria? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be just Syria, the summit is on the border between two countries and its located in two countries. Both countries it is in should be highlighted and I have created a map for it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, missed it, my bad. Thank you for pointing it out, SD. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The flags represent the countries the mountain is in and should be kept. -asad (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat again, the flags only feeds nationalism and I might add disruption. Totally unnecessary, since we provide wikilinks to relevant entities. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So, you are proposing that we remove all icon flags from WP now because they are a form of nationalism? -asad (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, flags could be informational. However when flags feed nationalism and disruption, like in this case, constructive way to deal with it might be to remove the symbols. Since we do not loose information here, due to wikilinks, I see little problems here, if at all. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not buying that for one second. There are plenty of things controversial on WP, but their are sources to back it up. WP is about facts, not making everyone feel good. If it is a fact that this mountain is located partly in Syria, there should be a Syrian flag and if it is a FACT that part of the mountain is located in Lebanon, then there should be a Lebanese flag. I don't see any claims of "nationalism" or "disruption" except from you claiming that there is. The edit stands now as listing "Syria" and "Lebanon" as their location. And you are arguing not to put the flags of those countries that are already listed? That's pretty nuts. -asad (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, however disruptive editing exists, unfortunately. We should be aware of it. Hope you see what I mean. Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So the flags should be reinserted. -asad (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, though I would wait to comunity feedback here, since we do not loose information here, due to wikilinks, I see little problems here, if at all. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, you guys are still arguing about this? What about using

Than using the same logic we should insert Israel flag too as Israel controls part of the Hermon.Shrike (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

the same map currently used in the Golan Heights article? If you look at that map closely, you can clearly see a point labelled 2814m, corresponding to the summit, on the border between Syria and Lebanon, in the UNDOF zone. Would that map be less contentious? ← George^talk 00:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Its difficult to see the location of the mountain in that map, you have to zoom in and search for it, while with the normal location map, you see it directly. I'm not even sure its possible to have an image in the infobox location, you would have to put it in the photo section replacing the image of the mountain. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I just meant to use it as the location map with the red triangle to show where Mount Hermon is. It would require someone go in and enter the latitude/longitude range that that map shows. I've done it before in the Lebanon article, but it's been quite a while. ← George^talk 19:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess George have meant UNIFIL zone, despite better visibility of the summit on UNDOF map. Is this GH map georeferenced map that could be used as location one in infobox? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone tried not highlighting/highlighting all of the surrounding nations? The highlighting only serves to emphasize nationality which is something already frowned upon in the manual of style for flags. This is a similar scenario. The highlighting is not what is important. The zoomed out view of the area for the reader to get a better understanding of where in the world the subject is should be the goal. It could even be zoomed out further to make it more clear. Highlighting certain nations along with the Golan Heights highlight only adds detail that is not possible to properly or clearly summarize in an infobox. This is counter to the intention of an infobox.Cptnono (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? Why would we not highlight the countries the mountain is located in and how is it not important? Thats how all mountain articles are like: Mount Ararat, Ismoil Somoni Peak, Mount Damavand, Belukha Mountain etc. The highlighting serves to show what country it is located, which is what an infobox map is supposed to do. There is no reason why this article should be different then other articles.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Current map depiction violates NPOV and is extremely misleading. Hermon borders all three nations. All three should be shaded. In the alternative, map should be removed until a suitable substitute, agreeable to all, can be found.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from others on the subject. In the interest of collaborative editing, I'm perfectly willing to self-revert if consensus establishes otherwise.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mount Hermon is only located in two countries, Syria and Lebanon, a part of it in Syria is also in the Golan Heights, it is not located in any "third" country. The location map you removed is following the international view, highlighting the two countries it is located in, this is in accordance with wikipedia policy npov. So how is it "violating NPOV and is extremely misleading" ? Do you have any policy based arguments that say that we should go against the international view? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cptnono, since the area is disputed (and some editors are very touchy about the portrayal of its status), we should refrain from highlighting all the surrounding countries and focus on just the Golan Heights -- which is what the article is about and therefore the most important part of the "map". By not highlighting any nations, we are not showing favor to any particular "side" or "POV". -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 21:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reality, not the personal feelings of "touchy" editors who do not like reality. The international community sees the Golan Heights as part of Syria, according to Wikipedia policy npov we should reflect the world view [8]. Why would we refrain from highlighting all the countries and focus on just the Golan Heights? The article is not about the Golan heights, its about Mount Hermon, the vast majority of it being elsewhere in Syria and in Lebanon. Doesn't make any sense. Do you have any policy based arguments that we should go against the world view and instead go by the personal feelings of Wikipedia editors? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur, plus we have this source from Popular Mechanics which clearly states that, "the Hermon Ski Resort is in Israel's Golan Heights."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please also note National Geographic's map placing Golan squarely within Israel's borders[9]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What you have done here is to pick a couple of sources following the Israeli view, while you have disregarded the international view. Here is a National Geographic source calling a place in the West bank "in Israel" [10], but its not in Israel. Other sources, the international view proves this. Wikipedia policy npov says we should follow the worldview: [11]. There isn't one single country that says that Golan is Israel. It is internationally recognized as part of Syria as can be seen here: "The international community maintains that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and without international legal effect" p 23, GA vote about "occupied Syrian Golan", 161-1 [12] "the United States considers the Golan Heights to be occupied territory subject to negotiation and Israeli withdrawal" p. 8. EU: [13]. Arab League:[14] Amnesty International: [15].--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else have input to provide on keeping "Israel" as part of the location? -asad (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides my overall dislike for flag use in the topic area based on MOS:FLAG and its clear mention of "Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride.", if we are going to use flags and mention the country's it is located in then Israel belongs. Slopes f it are in an area controlled by Israel. Israel law has been applied to the people there. Israel business have been opened and Israeli's live there. This very well might all be illegal but it is the way it is. The infobox is not the place for such details so I would scrap the parameter altogether but if we are going to name the two other countries then Israel should be in with a note.Cptnono (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course Israel should not be in this infobox as the mountain is not located in Israel. The same way we should not have Brazil or Indonesia in the infobox, as Mount Hermon is not located in those countries either. Israels occupation of a part of it doesn't mean that the area is part of Israel, this is rejected by the entire international community, see wiki policy npov that says we should follow the majority view. The infobox is indeed the place for details such as what countries the mountain is located, see all other mountain articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the location map, this map has all the countries it is located in, including the occupied lands it is located in, whether you believe Golan is a separate entity from Syria or not.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume I do not really need to explain the concerns with that map but let me know if you actually do want a response.Cptnono (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You had some comments above that I replied to, do you have any new concerns? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not have "new" concerns. I have already spelled them out and still disagree with you. Are you asking me to repeat the argument, expand on it, or summarize it? I don't see any reason to repeat myself or the arguments made by other people but if I need to filibuster and start wikilinking reasoning already provided by multiple editors I can do that if that is what you are looking for. Your repeated assertion that it is not in Israel has been addressed already. Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing of what you have said is based on policy. You have not replied to my replys of your comments above. In your latest post you state that Israel belongs in the infobox based on: "Slopes f it are in an area controlled by Israel. Israel law has been applied to the people there. Israel business have been opened and Israeli's live there.", but nothing of this means that the Golan Heights is part of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But it does. Sources verify it. Verification is policy and more than one editor has provided you with sources over the course of several discussions on multiple articles. Just because it is illegal does not mean that it is not a functioning part of Israel. So now we are just repeating ourselves. Cptnono (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because you can find sources supporting the POV of one country, does not mean we can disregard all other sources and the international view that shows it to be inaccurate. Here is a National Geographic source calling a place in the West bank "in Israel" [16], but its not in Israel. Other sources, the international view proves this. You just said at the npov noticeboard: "We should not take sides in the real age life debate here on Wikipedia.",[17] yet here, you now wants to the "side" of one country and present it as that the Golan Heights "is Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Keeping it in with a note (as I suggested) is not taking sides. If anything, it supports your view. Please do not manipulate my reasoning or use my comments out of context. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

How is it not "taking side" by stating that Israeli-occupied Mount Hermon (Golan heights) location is Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Try again.Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pov pushing/violation of npov

Brewcrewer, since you want the IP to explain the revert back to the neutral version of the article. Would you care to explain your pov pushing edit that violates npov? You are claiming that Mount Hermon is located in Israel, when its not, but only located in Syria and Lebanon, and part of it in Syria is in the Golan heights, which means that you are claiming the Golan Heights is Israel. You are also removing the location map showing all the countries it is located in, including occupied territories, whether you believe it is part of Syria or not, you are also removing that "Mount Hermon's summit straddles the border between Lebanon and Syria." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

ok, I am removing the map, following prior discussions. Maybe this way the nationalism troll will stay hungry. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the map is back in despite more than one user raising issues. I am tagging the article. Kind of quiet on this talk page since April. We have tried a centralized discussion that failed. SD and multiple other editors have been provided reasoning ans suggestions on how to address the issue but it has been ignored. I am tagging the article for now. Maybe we need to tag every single article in the Golan Heights until it is fixed. Shame since it is an easy fix.Cptnono (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The map is only violating an extreme minority point of view. Therefore removing the map to appease the minority POV would warrant the tag, not as it is now.asad (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Part of the mountain is occupied by Israel, and there is a numerous Israeli presence on its slopes. I think а map in this article will produce maximum encyclopedic value if it will show the relative positions of, at least, the following entities: Lebanon, Syria, occupied Golan heights, Israel. DMZ could nice too. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with using a map that contains such detail (for example this), is that it results in a map where the mountain is shown as a single point pretty far away from the occupied portion of the Heights. I think the one in the article now is as good as it gets. nableezy - 20:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about pushing the summit into the corner :) Wishfully thinking, a relief map showing the vicinity of the mountain and giving the idea of the current political situation would be the best. Sounds more like two maps, actually. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be completely fine with that ElC. I actually mentioned that on one of these article but it was rejected. So if showing the countries involved then we need to center the map on the mt and have dashed lines wherever there is a land dispute. I do like your idea a little bit better but so far only showing the countries involved has been the primary sticking point. If I recall, the argument was based on a zoomed in map not showing enough of the region. I think that is a bogus argument but was willing to go along with it if the country showing map was neutral. Unfortunately, we do not have a single neutral map in the topic area. SD almost made one but then he got caught up on what lines were to be dashed without dashing the Israeli side.Cptnono (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There are dashed lines on the edge of the Israeli-occupied territory. If you are talking about adding dashed lines to Syria's border with Israel than you are appeasing the minority point of view in the world (the minority being Israel against every country in the world). -asad (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And there is a difference between FRINGE and minority. To pretend that as soon as something gets below 50% it doesn't matter is just wrong. More importantly, to pretend that Israel does not control that area is wrong. It is a disservice to the reader. To make it worse, we can lay it out in prose so there is no confusion but a definitive statement in Wikipedia's voice is ambiguous. So opinion on how it should be vs how it really is. Who wins? It isn't our place to say. But if not being convoluted is the goal: No map at all (since it raises more questions than answers, let the prose do the work). So lets go, give me an honest answer as to why we should disregard reality.Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no reality disregarded. The map as it is now shows the international recognized border with Syria with dashed lines showing the edge of Israeli-occupied, or as you like to say Israeli-"run", territory. But I am glad you pointed the difference between fringe and minority. How long do you want to be standing behind this fringe POV Cptnono? -asad (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Asad112 (talk · contribs), I think you're misunderstanding the distinction between fringe and minority in this context. Cptnono (talk · contribs) wasn't defending a "fringe POV." A fringe POV would be if, say, I disputed a country's territorial sovereignty over a piece of turf, and the only ones who reported on my position were fringe news sources like personal blogs and local newspapers. That isn't the case here, though. Israel's claim to the Golan Heights, while not endorsed by reliable sources, is acknowledged by them. Do you see the difference?—Biosketch (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I view the Israeli MFA as fringe. -asad (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's ok, that's not a position you need to apologize to me for. But your comment does indicate that you've missed the point. The Israeli MFA is a party to the dispute, so obviously it doesn't get to determine whether Israel's position is considered fringe or not. On the other hand, if reliable and independent third-party sources mention Israel's annexation of the territory or any other kind of claim to sovereignty over it, that means they consider it notable. And if reliable sources – meaning The New York Times, BBC, Reuters, and so on – consider Israel's position notable, then you as an unbiased editor need to as well.—Biosketch (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, besides you thinking I don't understand "fringe", does what you just wrote draw any relevance to the issue at hand here? -asad (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

last edit

Much of the mountain is in the portion of the Golan that was returned to Syria. It is inaccurate to say that Golan as a whole is occupied by Israel, as a portion of that territory was returned to Syria and has UN peacekeepers in place. The actual summit of the Hermon is not in the Israeli-occupied portion. I have corrected a few confused sentences, if anybody has a problem with that let me know. nableezy - 14:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested wording for geographical status of ski resort

"Mount Hermon is the only ski resort within Israeli controlled territory. It includes…"

Surly this would be a non contentious, and accurate wording? Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It is of course contentious. It highlights the dispute. But it is accurate. If Israel ran the ski resort no change would be needed. But maybe "Israeli" ski resort since that could be read as "operated and owned by people who are Israeli" without being overly wordy. Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

@Cptnono- Would you not agree that where possible Wikipedia should strive to give accurate information on a subject? Would you also agree that we should avoid unnecessary ambiguity in articles? You appear to reject my wording because you say it is "contentious" (based on the fact that it reminds the reader of a real world dispute). Instead you suggested,-

"maybe "Israeli" ski resort since that could be read as "operated and owned by people who are Israeli"…"

By using the phrase "could be read" you are clearly acknowledging the ambiguity inherent in your version. To summarise, it seems to me that your remarks/suggestions entail the following. That: Wiki knowingly risks misleading the reader, by using avoidably ambiguous language, in order that readers not be reminded of a genuine real world dispute. For the sake of the article, I hope you will reconsider using my suggested wording Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Occupied/controlled

Asad112 (talk · contribs), regarding this edit, are you aware of the related discussion that took place here? As no one raised any objection to the last message there from over a week ago, it has the status of a centralized consensus and ought to apply here as well. Let me know if you feel otherwise, though, before I go ahead with a partial revert.—Biosketch (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, no. You cant just claim that a discussion has a certain "status". And even if it did, one user said he would be ok with changing a few, but no more, instances of "occupied" to "controlled". What exactly does that justify? nableezy - 14:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what you said it would: "changing a few, but no more, instances of 'occupied' to 'controlled'."—Biosketch (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Was there an official consensus established that was meant to apply to all articles relating to the Golan Heights? You can't just pull up a conversation on a Golan article and claim that it somehow has consensus (especially considering there is not even a consensus). That is pretty scandalous. -asad (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Define what's considered an official consensus. And look at the time stamp of my message. Nableezy (talk · contribs) replied at Talk:Golan Heights in response to my message here. Beyond that, there's nothing "scandalous" about making an inquiry on a Discussion page. That's what Discussion pages're for. Scandalous might be if I reverted you without endeavoring to discuss it. Now that you've been made aware of the centralized discussion at Talk:Golan Heights, though, please elaborate on any objections you have there, if you have any. And remember, you changed all the instances of "Israeli controlled" to "Israeli occupied." Technically that's fine, per WP:BEBOLD. But now your edit's being challenged with WP:RSes. So try to address the substance of the challenge.—Biosketch (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My objection is that the land is legally regarded as being occupied, not controlled. And there are hundreds of RS sources that will use that term when referencing the land. What is YOUR objection not saying occupied? -asad (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than have this be a dialog between you and me, go to Talk:Golan Heights, scroll down to the bottom, and read where I elaborate on just what you're asking.—Biosketch (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Which instances do you propose on changing? -asad (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see this edit, can we live with that? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced epithets

Regarding the epithets "snowy mountain," "gray-haired mountain" and "mountain of snow," are there RSes for any of these?—Biosketch (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Google says this, no idea how reliable this is. The "eyes of the nation" sounds strange too, never heard that. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Re "Eyes of the nation," see he:העיניים של המדינה. I'm going to move "snowy mountain" out of the lead and join it with the other two epithets, because it's not a translation of the Arabic name. Also, if there are no objections, the Hebrew name ought to appear first, given that the name in English is derived directly from it.—Biosketch (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is my ignorance, but is there a policy based on pushing a translation to the front if it more similar to the world in English? -asad (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I object, the mountain is in two countries that have Arabic as their official language. It is not in any country that has Hebrew as an official language. nableezy - 12:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

6 August revert

I've reverted this edit, which claims that "Israeli has several meanings, the most common being in Israel." Reliable sources confute that claim.

Random House Dictionary: of or pertaining to modern Israel or its inhabitants.
Collins English Dictionary: of, relating to, or characteristic of the state of Israel or its inhabitants.
Merriam-Webster: of or relating to the people or the republic of Israel.

None of the sources gives "in Israel" as a possible meaning, much less the most common one.—Biosketch (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you know, I made my revert before I even saw this. Next time, it might be better to open a discussion prior to reverting. -asad (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You made your revert after my comment here; my edit summary said "see Discussion"; you restored information without a source for saying Israel built the resort; and you have three reliable sources supporting my revert and disputing yours. Are you going to continue disregarding policy in an ARBPIA article or are you going to revert?—Biosketch (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me what you did first: create this talk page topic or revert? -asad (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't answer silly questions. You are in violation in WP:BOP and defending a revert in disregard of WP:RSes. Enjoy the rest of your day.—Biosketch (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Biosketch -- as much as you like to claim editors are in violation of something I am afraid that is not the case here. I saw your revert, with an edit summary of "see discussion". I went to the dicussion page, I saw nothing (I suppose in the four minutes it took me to do that you added this topic). I clicked on the "undo" button. Before clicking submit, I again checked over the entire talk page to be sure, there was nothing. Instead of creating problems like this next time, you should file the post on the talk page before you make the revert. Not six minutes afterwards. -asad (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Asad112 (talk · contribs), I'll accept your apology if you demonstrate that it's genuine and self-revert. As things stand, you come across as a trigger-happy undoer who won't even wait ten minutes for a Discussion page comment that the edit summary said was forthcoming. Do what you want. This is but another bad judgment call on your part in what is, I regret to say, becoming a pattern with you.—Biosketch (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"see Discussion for related" are your exact wrods --you made no mention that there was to be a "forthcoming" topic. In all honesty, I thought you were referring to an existing thread. It is not my job to determine your intentions. However, it is your job to make sure you have everything squared away before tell someone to refer to something that doesn't exist. And please comment on the content not the contributer as well. -asad (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, you know full well that claiming that this is an "Israeli ski resort" is ambiguous as it can mean it is "in Israel". The only reason to use a less precise formula for the caption is to push the idea that this place is in Israel. Why exactly do you object to "Israeli built"? Considering the first sentence of the article Mount Hermon ski resort calls it an Israeli-built ski resort situated on the south-eastern slopes of Mount Hermon, I dont think you have a leg to stand on and are instead trying to bully asad into undoing a justified revert on the basis of a misreading, intentional or otherwise, of the WP:V policy. We have had this same dispute at Ariel University Center, but you insist on playing the same game here. Places in territory that Israel occupies outside of Israel cannot simply be called "Israeli", it is a gross violation of NPOV for you to do so. A suitable replacement was found at the Ariel University Center article, how about instead of making us go through the motions of a petty argument that you already know you are on the losing side of, you suggest another formulation that takes into account the fact that this place is not in Israel. And of, relating to, or characteristic of the state of Israel or its inhabitants. pretty clearly says that "of the state of Israel" is a definition of Israeli. Lets not play these games here, mmkay? nableezy - 17:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The only reason that the first sentence of the article Mount Hermon ski resort calls it 'an Israeli-built ski resort' is that your fellow POV pusher, now topic banned, added that, w.o consensus with this diff [18], Lets not play these games here, mmkay? Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi obvious sock, you mean an editor made an edit while they were not banned 2 years ago' and that edit has stood for 2 years and because of that this means the edit is wrong? Sorry, but that is not how it works. But it is easier waiting for you to be blocked and then reverting your nonsense then it is to get dragged into an edit war with an obvious sock. Bye now. nableezy - 17:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this on that article's discussion page, which did not support the edit made by the now-topic-banned Delish. he may not have been topic banned 2 years ago, but he was banned for this same type of POV pushing. Anyway, I've fixed it for you - that article no longer says 'Israeli-built', either. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It also does not say Israeli. But thanks for playing, see you in another username. nableezy - 17:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That's right, 'cause I removed that, to accord with the consensus on the talk page. THAT's how it works. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And how charming, an obvious sock that has hounded me to several articles has now reverted for you. Ill wait until this account is blocked (soon) before restoring my edit. nableezy - 17:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by your edit summary asad. You say that s source needs to be introduced saying that it was not built by Israelis. How about instead you dind a source that says it was. And then compare it to the multiple sources that consider it an Israeli ski resort. It is operated by Israelis for tourists from or traveling in Israel. I know that it is hard to look past the territorial dispute but this really isn;t the place for it. We have articles and sections of this article where it is appropriate to detail the dispute. But nitpicking over such small wording only hampers NPOV and readability. The reader already knows there is a territorial dispute. Gumming up the wording throughout the article is not a benefit to the article. This is the second time this has been discussed recently and there is no consensus to warp the previous wording. And people should not be edit warring over something that most (even if you don't) would consider trivial. Cptnono (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), how about you stop treating this page like a South Park episode and address the three dictionary sources I cited above as though you were contributing to building an encyclopedia. You think you can do that? Yes, I'm aware of the sockpuppet. If it's the same sock whom I on two separate occasions wasted my time trying to guide as to the proper code of conduct here, then I have my own beef with him. And I'm rather more convinced it's me he's following around, not you. Anyway, don't associate me with him just because he's taken my side. You have your own cronies doing your bidding all over the place, whether you actually instruct them to or not.

When you changed Ariel University Center of Samaria, you left the prose intact and we only fiddled with the wikilinks. That isn't the case here. If you want to pipe "Israeli" to something other than State of Israel, you can propose an alternative and I'll consider it. But here "Israeli" wasn't wikilinked to anything. As my sources show, by far the most salient reading of Israeli is "of or pertaining to the State of Israel." What's wrong with that? You edited the caption with the summary "rv pov-push in caption, Israeli has several meanings, the most common being in Israel." I've shown that to be nothing more than your own personal opinion, with no basis in reality.—Biosketch (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"of or pertaining to the State of Israel." Was the best way to sum it up ever. I would add "and/or Israeli people" just to make it perfect but in all reality "...Israeli..." is an issue only because editors chose to read it one way or they assume the reader needs to be hammered with the reminder that there is a territorial dispute. It isn't an issue but editors are making it an issue. So a couple quick notes before I am off to bed:

Just change the caption altogether. Stop worrying about it and change the context completely. This will not fix the concern since the prose of this and other articles will still be debated but it is an easy fix for this issue.oh snap this was actually done.
Strike out "cronies" in your comment. I agree that editors are either asked to jump in or do it on their own but use of the word will only serve to piss people off and be an excuse to go to AE again.

Overall this is a worthless discussion since it highlights how any single line anywhere on any given article can be poked at to make a point. Cptnono (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Worthless or not, you're the only one continuing to dispute my argument. Or are you? I'm not sure where you stand, because you struck part of your comment. The business of "Israeli-built" is out of the caption. Do you object to restoring "Israeli" to it, on the basis of reliable sources indicating that "in Israel" is not a common denotation of Israeli?—Biosketch (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe changing the caption to not mention it at all is an easy way out of an unneeded conflict. "Israeli built" in the prose is silly to me still. It is "Israeli" by enough of a definition and the reader already knows there is a territorial dispute without clarifying every single possible word in a never ending circle of ambiguity (was it state built? was it built by people from Israel? Were all of the workers Israeli or were some of the contractors from somewhere else?). Basically, I completely agree with you Bio but am fine with the caption being reworked as it was.Cptnono (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate where you're coming from, but when you consider that this is already the second or third time (at least as far as I know) that this debate has taken place in the past couple of weeks, there's the danger of it serving as a precedent to a systematic campaign to remove the adjective Israeli from similar articles when underlyingly there's no policy-based reason to. Here and in the previous case, its removal was clearly effected in order to satisfy the misconception of one or two editors. That's just a bad reason to compromise on article content.—Biosketch (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And I fully agree that article content should not be fiddled with to the point that "Israeli" can be removed. If editors want to start debating prose then lets go. I would never condone the proposed wording by those disagreeing with you as an acceptable solution to a nonexistent problem in the prose. For the caption I am happy to concede that we have an easy solution. And since editors shy away from precedent setting discussions in the topic area I am not worried that anything more will come of this. But yeah: Go and start a centralized discussion if you have the collaborative spirit guys.Cptnono (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, in each of the definitions above "of Israel" is the primary definition. This is only "of Israel" if what Israel holds under belligerent occupation is "of Israel". You are effectively trying to stake a flag in the ground and claim the occupied territories as belonging to Israel. They dont, and in doing so you are, to use a phrase you appear to have grown fond of, "POV-pushing", in fact, minority POV-pushing. nableezy - 14:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Your mistake is that you're conflating two distinct English prepositions, in and of, and assigning them the same denotation. In English each of these prepositions has its own function. Note that we have an article Districts of Israel. If we were to say "Districts in Israel," that would be a problem for you, wouldn't it? There you have a perfect illustration of how of and in aren't equivalent. I think this is a case of poor linguistic competence on your part more than anything else, because I'm not trying to stake a territorial claim or anything like that. I'm trying to embody the association between Israel and the ski resort in linguistic form. The ski resort is operated as an Israeli facility. Whether it is in Israel or not, it is an Israeli facility. Israeli military installations in the West Bank are still Israeli, just as American air bases in the Gulf are American. They are not in America, because the preposition in isn't entailed by the modifier American, but they are still American by association, and that's exactly the function of the preposition of.—Biosketch (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is beginning to get tedious. America never claimed any area of the Persian Gulf as being American territory, so there is not any ambiguity on what is meant by American. However, there are Israeli officials that make such proclamations on the territory that it occupies, and they use terms like "Israeli villages" for their colonies to try to stake such a claim of ownership. You know this very well, and are attempting to play on that ambiguity where it suits you. nableezy - 17:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is getting tedious, so let's cut to the chase, shall we? Do you know what it's called when an editor has an opinion that cannot be verified by reliable sources? It's called original research. Do you know what this Project's policy is regarding original research? It's that it has no place anywhere in it. And do you know what it's called when an editor repeatedly demands that his fringe unverifiable POV determine article content? See your edit summary from 5 August if you're not sure of the answer.

Now, I'm just as eager as you to be done with this charade already. And so I'll ask you a very simple question: do you or don't you have a reliable source to base your edit summary from 5 August on? If you do, kindly submit it for the editing community's evaluation. If you don't, I advise you to yield to the reliable sources already provided here and move on to the next article you're interested in contributing to. It's that simple.—Biosketch (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Late August edits clarification

I'm not sure if I can be of much help here, but since the latest issue seems to have started after my latest revision, I feel I should at least try to see if I can do some good and maybe help straighten this out.

I'm having a little difficulty figuring out what Im looking at in the ACME map ref. Also while I can tell there is a problem here in the lead, I'm not sure what others here interpreting as the real problem. So if someone can help me out and clarify a few things, we can get on the same page here.

1) The ACME Map. I'm not sure of what Im seeing on this map exactly. In the area around the peak, where is Syria, Lebanon and the Golan Heights? Where are their borders exactly? Are there any other regions indicated on this map?

2) The pinpoint location. Does the problem here have anything to do with the precise pinpoint location of the peak on this map? If so this could be just inaccuracies in the coords being used. Or maybe something else.

3) The grammar in the lead. One thing I can point out now: In my August 28 edit, I think I left a period in the middle of a sentence, right before the map citation. If this is the problem than surely thats an easy fix. Does the problem have anything to do with the statement "highest point in Syria"? If this peak's high point lies any part of the Syrian border, it is in fact the highest point in Syria. At least I think I ran across that fact somewhere.

4) Does the problem stem mostly from the Golan Heights, or other disputed regions?

Anyway, if someone can bring me up to speed on all this (and I'm talking mainly to user Biosketch, but anyone else is more than welcome to chime in) I will do my best to help out if I can. --Racerx11 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Part of the southern side of the mountain forms part of the Golan Heights area that is Israeli controlled and claimed by Israel to be an integral part of Israel. Their claim is not supported by the international community. The 2814 metre summit is neither within nor on the border of the Golan heights, and is neither controlled nor claimed by Israel. Viewfinder (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My position is as User:Viewfinder's. But to that I'll add that (a) the lead needs a source for the claim that Mt. Hermon is the highest peak in Syria, and (b) the leads needs to conform to the conventions of formal English requiring new sentences to begin with a capital letter and preferably not with and or but. In addition, for NPOV's sake, if the article's going to highlight in the lead the observation that the Hermon is the highest peak in Syria, the same ought to be done with respect to the corresponding fact that's already mentioned in the "Arab-Israeli conflict" section – "Its adjacent peak, at 2,236 m, is the highest elevation [in] Israeli controlled territory."—Biosketch (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I follow you. Thanks people. I will start to work on it as I get some time. The NPOV you mention may be a little dicey, but I will look into it.--Racerx11 (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I found a source for "highest point in Syria" claim. Couldn't find anything reliable under Mt Hermon, but Peakbagger [19] had it under its alternate name, Jabal ash Shaykh. I'm not the biggest fan of Peakbagger as far as an all-purpose source for mountain data, but I think its good and it is used very often in mountain articles. Actually, I have used it before myself several times. It is even included as one of the mountain related Wikipedia templates. One thing I can say for Peakbaggger: I dont suspect them to copy information or data from Wikipedia, like many other websites do. Bottom line, I think its a good source and I'm using it to cite the statement now.--Racerx11 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Now as for your NPOV issue: I moved some text around and tried to clarify that last sentence. Hope this is all a little better now.--Racerx11 (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

One more note. It appears someone went ahead and fixed my gammar/punctuation error from my August 28 edit. My eyesight is going bad and that little period was hiding in front of the citation when I proofread my edit. I wanted it read like this:

"Its summit straddles the border between Syria and Lebanon^[1] and at 2,814 m (9,232 ft) above sea level, it is the highest point in Syria."

That's why that sentence started with "and". Sorry 'bout that one. --Racerx11 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Me, I'm delighted with you edits.—Biosketch (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch's reversion

What does anything in the lead have to do with with a sentence in the second to the last sentence of the article? -asad (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That edit first happened here. It was made without any discussion and pretends that both of these are simply just "communities". I am restoring the accurate description as it had been. nableezy - 14:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If Neve Ativ is an Israeli settlement, why can't we state this? Viewfinder (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely appropriate to mention it. -asad (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Viewfinder (talk · contribs), there's no reason not to state that Neve Ativ is an Israeli settlement. The point is, though, it's also not incorrect to call it a moshav, since it's that too. It's a question of which aspect of the village the editing community prefers to highlight. The editor whose edit I reverted left a misleading summary indicating, as it were, that not specifying that Neve Ativ is an Israeli settlement or that Majdal Shams is a Druze village is incorrect. It was a mendacious edit summary, and that's why I reverted it. For future reference, by the way, it's spelled "Israeli settlement," not "Israeli Settlement."—Biosketch (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, your pettiness is quite breathtaking. You, apparently, seem to have no problem with the edit as it stands now, but you decided to revert because you didn't like what the edit summary said. Please inform us of that next time you decide to make such a revert so we don't waste our time opening up needless talk page sections. -asad (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment on edits, Asad, not on editors. And next time don't leave edit summaries that conceal the true nature of your edits with minor-sounding language like "Corrected wording." Then I won't revert you and we won't have to waste our time with these needless discussions.—Biosketch (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, the pettiness of your editing. There was nothing being concealed with my edit summary -- and I don't appreciate the accusation. I corrected the wording to the standard way most articles are on the subject are written across Wikipedia. I didn't mark the edit as minor or anything. The fact remains, you looked at the edit summary, saw at the diff, didn't object the content that I changed, and reverted anyways because of my edit summary. Total waste of time. -asad (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hermon

Current map depiction does not reflect reality and is a blatant attempt to eviscerate defacto Israeli control of the area. One can certainly consider these RS[20][21][22][23]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please also take note of this map from National Geographic that places Hermon within Israel. I have now noted several reliable sources both at talk and in the article which place Hermon in Israel. Israel maintains defacto control of the area and has maintained control for more than double the amount of time it was in Syrian hands. In any event, the refs speak for themselves.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

National Geographic's map policy is not Wikipedia's. There are several sources that make clear that the Hermon straddles the border between Syria and Lebanon and the only Israeli controlled area that the Hermon is near is the Israeli occupied portion. Your rather blatant POV push to claim occupied territory as being in Israel is not in keeping with the policies of this website. nableezy - 15:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I’m a long time listener. Don’t edit much and try to stay clear of the controversial stuff, especially I-P. Tried it once before and ran like hell. I’ve been watching these back and forth Golan Heights shenanigans with some interest and, amusement. I’m interested because I like history. I’m amused because I like to watch this editor called nableezy try to distort history and quite cleverly. I don’t have a dog in this fight but I have to say that JJG (wont bother with spelling it) has presented a very compelling and persuasive argument. Against my better judgment, I’m taking sides (always dangerous when dealing with I-P) but nableezy’s argument is rather poor. What’s more, his tone is rather shrill and it’s as though he’s trying to bully his views on to everyone else. I don’t like bullies and sooner or later, they end up on the receiving end of the paddle. My advice to Nableezu, lighten up, don’t take yourself so seriously. This is supposed to be fun. --Ericsmeer (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

How is this for an argument, look at the map. Where "in Israel" does the Hermon show? In the Golan? By saying that the Hermon is "in Israel" Wikipedia takes the ludicrous position that the Golan is Israeli territory. This is a blatant NPOV violation as it presents as fact an extreme fringe opinion. nableezy - 21:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 13 November 2011

Null edit to purge cache and to remove page/file from the view of Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Protected for 3 days

to allow this to be sorted out here, as setting aside the now blocked IP, we've got 3 editors going back and forth. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, if the article is to remain with the asinine assertion that the Golan Heights are "in Israel" could you please add a NPOV tag? nableezy - 21:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:WRONG--Shrike (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And the point of that link was? nableezy - 14:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In Syria?

For encyclopedia purposes:

The highest summit (2814 m) is on the border of the UNDOF zone and Lebanon, slightly into the later territory, according to UN published map here. It was discussed previously, search archives for 2814.
The peakbagger source appears dubious on this particular point, so I'm going to tag " the highest point in Syria".

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The summit is right on the border. See for yourself on the map. Lebanon has a higher peak elsewhere, but Syria does not. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The most accurate maps I can find without going to a library show the peak a tiny bit on the northern (Lebanon) side of the Syria-Lebanon border. However, an underlying problem is that the Syria-Lebanon boundary was never officially demarcated. Zero^talk 09:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Zero, I think what Hertz1888 had in mind was that "highest point in Syria" is near the summit anyway, since Lebanon has higher summits elsewhere, even considering that Hermon's summit technically might be slightly into the Lebanon territory. That's why dubious tag might be out of place. Generally mountain ranges serve as international boundaries all over the world, this is pretty common, so I don't have problems imagining that the abstract summit point is exactly on the border. That does not matter. It is like saying that during Big Bang there was no past, only future, like geographically there is only North direction from th[e South pole. ... for neutrality symmetrically there is only South direction if you are exactly on the North pole ... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

From the CIA World Fact Book entry for Syria: highest point: Mount Hermon 2,814 m. nableezy - 03:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a UNDOF post on top of the mountain nicknamed "Hermon Hotel". One would assume that the UNDOF literature mentions which side of the border it is on, but damned if I can find it. Zero^talk 09:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if the summit is on the Lebanese side I think the highest point of the mountain that is in Syria will still be the highest point in the country. But as you wrote above, the border with Lebanon has never been officially demarcated and until there is a border treaty between the two I dont know what else we can say. nableezy - 15:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

^ ACME Mapper terrain display

[1] ACME Mapper terrain display

[1]