Talk:List of mountains in the Golan Heights

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk pages of merged articles[edit]

Names[edit]

Two things: 1) Why did you change "Mount" to "Har" in some cases but not others? Make up your mind... are we using the English names of the mountains or the Hebrew? 2) Put the ones with multiple names in alphabetical order please. Breein1007 (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are ignoring my concerns here, I will just have to wait until the article is created in main space and make changes accordingly myself. Breein1007 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are using the standardized names, but since you had a problem with that in the other articles, I also added the hebrew names with a (/). They don't have to be in alphabetic order, the most relevant name should be first. These mountains are all internationally recognized as in Syria, so that should be first. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you won't fool anyone like that. Just because we are creating a new article to combine the mountains does not mean that you get your way to evade consensus. There were long discussions with uninvolved editors and admins giving their opinions on the talk pages of the various hills, and your request to rename the articles to Arabic names instead of English names did not get support. I suggest that you don't start a new war with this here. Breein1007 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't any consensus to keep the Hebrew names, so there was talks about using both the standardized and hebrew with a (/), so that is what I have done here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic is not standardized. English is. This is English Wikipedia. Stop misrepresenting the conclusion of the discussion. Consensus is not needed to maintain the status quo; it is needed to make a change. Anyway, I'm not continuing this childishness now. As I already made clear, the names should be in alphabetical order so if you can't bring yourself to do that, I'll just do the honours when the article is created. Time for Shabbat. Good night, Breein1007 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion of the main discussion was to use standardized, what realiable English sources use. Do you have any sources that say that Tall Abu an Nada, Tall al Faras, Tal Al-Gharam, Tall al Ghassaniyah, Tall al Makhfi, Tall Wardah and Tall Yusuf are not standardized? because these English maps from CIA and American university's use them by these names: [1][2][3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note everyone editing this proposed article: the idea for the combining of the articles was to take articles with very little information and combine them into one article covering the mountains/hills in the Golan Heights. It was not intended to be used as a vehicle to skirt consensus on names at the individual articles. Doing so amounts to gaming the system (much like creating different categories w/ slightly different names, to avoid a CfD). --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 03:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "skirting consensus" about for example putting "Tall al Ghassaniyah" before "Mount Bnei Rasan" ?

These are comments from all uninvolved people, how many of them support the use of hebrew?:

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is skirting consensus because the current article is named Mount Bnei Rasan, and features that name before Tall al Ghassaniyah. An attempt was made by your fellow POV-pusher Ani Medjool to reverse that order , which did not achieve consensus - and here you are, trying to get to the same result through an end-around. I echo nsaum75's comments above, that here seems to be a pattern here. If we can't resolve it here, the next step will probably be at Arbitration. or AE. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just saying "no" look at the comments from the main discussion at the Golan page, look at the comments from all uninvolved people, what do they say? look at the sources that say "Tall al Ghassaniyah". Which uninvolved editor supported the hebrew name? And I haven't removed the hebrew, I use both. Concerning the "Mount Bnei Rasan" article, thats the name of the article that is first, as all articles. In the translation the standardized is before the Hebrew. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was never any consensus to change any of the articles names from their current name. Creating a new article is fine, but creating one and then using a choice of name that you support but that hasn't garnered consensus for change, is effectively skirting the issue. I commend you for trying to move forward and combine a number of short, poorly sourced articles into a new article; but there needs to consensus about their names before changing them (regardless of if its in a new article or the current individual articles). Furthermore, in regards to the map from the University of Texas website: None of the maps listed were made by the University and also do not "belong" to the university. UT is simply acting as a repository for various maps that exist (much like a library makes books available). --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 17:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed they're names, I have used both standardized and hebrew with (/). And if you look at the comments from all uninvolved people, what do they say? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you have, you have skirted the issue by placing your choice of name before the name that was used as the title of the articles you are merging. There was never any consensus for name change during the Golan Heights mountains RfC nor was there a consensus for change when you tried to individually rename the mountains (ie: RfC at Mount Peres and Mt. Yosifon). If we are going to merge the articles, the name of the original article should be the first name in the merged article, unless someone can garner consensus saying the reverse should exist. Otherwise what is occurring is gaming the system -- essentially re-writing an article to achieve a preconceived outcome.
Furthermore the standardized names were never determined to be Arabic or Hebrew or something else, while discussions about sources (news, academic etc) mentioning the mountains has revolved around whether or not a source is reliable just because the author is of a specific religion or nationality[4]. I appreciate your efforts in combining them, but the priority of their listing should reflect the original article names, not an individual editor's choice of names. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 10:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "my choice of name" ? Of the uninvolved comments I posted:

  • The first one supported arabic before hebrew,
  • Second supported english, (ok you have not accepted arabic as standardized english names)
  • Third one "English is the way to go and, as suggested, material produced either by international or standard Enclish-language physical geography texts should be preferred." (what do the maps use?)
  • Forth said: "I'd say English names or names most used in English WP:RS, but having the most reliable sources be International ones like UN, encyclopedias, truly neutral sources and not publications from Israel or Arab sources. If there is a fair equality in which is used, use both." (what do the maps use?)
  • Fifth: "I went to the GeoNames server -- which is a reasonable reliable source for the names actually used for towns, hills, mountains, lakes, etc. (It uses an extensive database compiled from a number of sources.) I was unable to find any elevation in Israel named "Paras", but I did find http://www.geonames.org/maps/google_32.958_35.862.html this entry for a "Tall el Faras",... My objection to using the Jerusalem Post"
What are the uninvolved users saying? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your argument, several RfCs have failed to find consensus among users to change the names, and it is a rehash of previous discussions. Your arguments above are intermixed with selectively chosen comments from RfCs, which you are using to paint the picture that there was some sort of consensus to change the names. However, admins at the RfCs either chose to close the RfC with no consensus or leave it open citing no consensus. I understand this situation frustrates you, but we cannot arbitrarily rewrite articles to fit whatever we think are "neutral" or "standarized" terms when doing would clearly circumvent RfCs that we may or may not disagree with. What I would suggest, is to rewrite your article using the current article names as the primary names. Then once the article is moved to mainspace, you could open another RfC to seek consensus on placing the Arabic names first and/or removing the Hebrew names. That would allow the current project to move forward while allowing you to bring this discussion into the open for everyone to contribute to. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 16:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all selectively chosen comments, these are from all uninvolved users, as I said above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not they are "uninvolved" or how it is determined that they are "uninvolved", it still does not change the outcome of multiple RfCs. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also think that either make this a proper list (With a lead, and a table with all the hills), or transform it completely into readable prose. Yazan (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean a list with only the names and heights? There is info now that is unsourced, that should be removed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, names, heights, coords, and a notes section. That should be more than enough. Yazan (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support removing everything unsourced. You can go ahead and edit it if you want. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a lot of text:[5] almost everything was unsourced and useless and the little that was sourced was also useless. What do you guys think? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete of page[edit]

The original article page on mountain need be delete now. Ani medjool (talk)

Which "original article page"? Could you be a little more specific? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the page on individual mountain Ani medjool (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of deleting them, they should all be redirected to this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of mountain[edit]

Mountain be in area that recognize by world as Syria land under occupy by "Israel". So what name of mountain should be correct? Arabic or hebrew? Ani medjool (talk)

  • Mountain name need be Arabic. Syria official language be Arabic, land only be under "Israel" occupy for 62 year while mountain exist under Syria and know by Arabic name for hundred of year. Ani medjool (talk)
Syria has been a country for hundreds of years? News to me. As we have been over many times in the past, reliable sources do not show consensus to change the names to Arabic. We go by reliable sources here. Breein1007 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation order[edit]

In the original articles the Arabic translation was first: [6] The change to Hebrew first has no consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that was a mistake. If we are listing the Hebrew name before Arabic in the title, it makes no sense to have Arabic and then Hebrew later. This will only stand to confuse readers. Breein1007 (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said here that the names were English:[7] You had no right to change it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't determine what my rights are. I have explained myself very clearly both here and on the other pages where you are trying to spread this drama. Now that you are copying/pasting your comments from other pages to here, I won't appease you by responding AGAIN. Breein1007 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I wanted to change from the hebrew I needed consensus, the same thing apply here, you had no consensus for the change, respect the consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I revert POV change against concensus[8]. Ani medjool (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous articles that were merged to this one had the Hebrew names, Mount Hermon was never part of those mountains that were merged to this one, the chronology of the translation for Hermon here were changed without agreement, therefor I'm changing it back. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full protected for 3 days[edit]

I have full protected the article for 3 days due to edit warring. Please, everyone, knock this off. You all know better. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew first[edit]

The Bible was written in Hebrew, and the Bible pre-dates the Koran which was written in Arabic, so the Hebrew name comes first. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the matter whatsoever, and I could care less. But the above is ridiculous, and it's not how wikipedia works. Yazan (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the fact that shards of ancient pottery containing ancient Hebrew script are more common than those containing Arabic script? Chesdovi (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion isn't solving anything, it only pokes at already-raw nerves. If there's nothing constructive to add to the discussion, then please refrain. The article is already locked down, further provocation will only serve to add to article instability and incite future edit warring. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 13:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A review of the sources showed that Arabic names were more commonly used in English language maps. When one includes names of different languages in parantheses after the English, it might be wise, however, to list the different languages alphabetically. In this case, Arabic would precede Hebrew. Tiamuttalk 13:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Hebrew the word for Arabic, ערבית is alphabetically after the word עברית, Hebrew for Hebrew. The same probably in Arabic. So Hebrew should be first. Chesdovi (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Breein edit warred his own pov into the article by adding the hebrew translation first, he had no consensus for it, it will be changed back to arabic first. If you or him wants to ad the hebrew translation first you can not do it again without consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikiproject[edit]

Whole world recognize that Golan Height be sovern syria land that be occupy by force by "Israel". It never legal part of Israel not now or in past. So do wikiproject israel belong in article? Ani medjool (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed WP Palestine since these mountains are not in Palestine. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli sources "Tel Faress"[edit]

Here are two new Israeli sources calling one of the mountains "Tel Faress" israelnationalnews.com The heights of courage: a tank leader's war on the Golan --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both names with (/)[edit]

Hope&Act3!, I and many others talked about this over several articles before, and it took a lot of time. And it was suggested to have both names with (/) so please do not make pov edits by removing the Arabic names about mountains that are internationally recognized as being in an Arabic country. Those two links to Hebrew and Russian Wikipedia are also about single mountains, not a list, so its not the same articles as this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the Golan-(Garu), EA letter 256[edit]

Amarna letter, EA 256, (1350 BC), Oaths and denials, a letter from Mutbaal lists some towns in Garu, the Golan Heights. I'm adding this to the Mutbaal article:

(EA 256 is about Mutbaal, and Pella-(Pihilu); a list of cities in the letter, in the Golan Heights=(Garu)—Udumu, Aduru, Araru, Mešta-(Meshta), Magdalu, Heni-anabi-(Kheni-anabi), Sarqu, Hayyunu, & Yabiluma)....Mmcannis (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old sources use "Tell Faras"[edit]

I have found two old sources that use the name: "Tell Faras" for one of the mountains.

This book is from 1822: Travels in Syria and the Holy Land By John Servis Burckhardt [9]

Map from 1847: [10]

These two sources show that the real name for the mountain is "Faras", and based on that it should be the first one in the order. Does anyone object to this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

This list would be better if a column for photos was incorporated in the table. Does anyone know how to do that?--Geewhiz (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_mountains_in_the_Golan_Heights&oldid=1208269597"