Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mount Hermon: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:55, 13 November 2011 editNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,155 edits →Hermon← Previous edit Revision as of 21:56, 13 November 2011 edit undoNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,155 edits →Protected for 3 daysNext edit →
Line 132: Line 132:


to allow this to be sorted out here, as setting aside the now blocked IP, we've got 3 editors going back and forth. ] (]) 21:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC) to allow this to be sorted out here, as setting aside the now blocked IP, we've got 3 editors going back and forth. ] (]) 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? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 21:56, 13 November 2011

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArab world
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJudaism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconVolcanoes
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMountains Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSyria Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLebanon Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration


Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


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 , 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages templates. One thing I can say for Peakbaggger: I dont suspect them to copy information or data from Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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--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 Misplaced Pages'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" Misplaced Pages 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)

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)
  1. ACME Mapper terrain display
Categories: