Talk:Kadisha Valley

Lebanon Mid‑importance

	Lebanon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scale of Map

The map would be much improved if it had a scale.Duncan.france (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ref

Plz cite refs Elie plus (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mythological feel to the article

I stumbled across this article a few days ago and was quite delighted by its content. It is certainly a nice start. However, the article has somewhat of a "mythological" feel to it and is difficult to understand for a person not familiar with Lebanon and this region. To remedy this, I am hoping to do some editing to make it feel more encyclopedic and to better introduce some elements in the article that seem to be considered by the original authors to be common knowledge. Just thought I would forewarn. Jhml (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see really what you call a mythological feel: style, choice of words, ideas, historical context ... Could you please specify for the non-expert reader what is your definition of mythology (illustrated possibly by examples)? Thank you.youcroft (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would hardly call my opinion expert, and I meant no offense in what I wrote earlier. I should have, in hindsight, qualified my use of the word "mythological", as there were really two instances (and not the entire article) that led me to use that word. I think it is a lack of explanation about the phrases/sentences concerned that gave me that "feeling" about them. The phrase and sentence concerned are these:

(under Description): "from its source in a cave a little way below the sacred cedars."

(under Holy Christian Site): "It is also here that the Holy River, Nahr Qadisha, flows, its source being in a sacred mountain celebrated in the Scriptures."

Now, I do not question the truth of these statements or of any of the information in the article, but the italicized sections of the above just felt like they didn't quite flow with the rest of the text. In the first case, a possible revision would be to replace "sacred cedars" with "Forest of the Cedars of God" (assuming those are the sacred cedars referred to). In the second sentence, specifying the mountain's name and perhaps even the place in the Holy Bible (assuming it is the Christian Scriptures referred to here, though I don't know what else is called by that name) that mentions that mountain would serve to clarify the sentence and remove some of what I thought was a "mythological" feeling. Jhml (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the article as a whole, I think the information contained is very good and the topic is interesting. I have the following (hopefully constructive) comments, however. There seems to be an amount of repetition (there are three places with information concerning the Forest of the Cedars of God or Cedars of Lebanon), and some themes (such as the valley's use as a shelter for Christian groups throughout the centuries and its importance as a stronghold of Christian monasticism) kind of sprang on me as I read, and I think they could have been (very) briefly introduced in the intro to the article. Jhml (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the article revised by you is clearer and sharper. Thank you Jhml for your very constructive contribution youcroft (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Risk of de-listing as Unesco World Heritage site?

I removed a claim that the site was at risk of being "radiated" from the Unesco list due to a variety of problems, because neither of the two references offered said that. --Slashme (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kadisha Valley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316025549/http://www.mountlebanon.org/historyoflebanon.html to http://www.mountlebanon.org/historyoflebanon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kadisha Valley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kadisha Valley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kadisha Valley → Holy Valley – Many sources prioritise this name for intelligibility reasons for English-speakers, and so ought Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose evidence? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pleae consider Internet search to see the evidence, if you don't mind. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:
- Holy Valley is a dab page now (I made it so)
- Evidence presented by the original proposer ("go look it up yourself" or something in that vein) unconvincing, to say the least.

I wouldn't oppose an early close for being moot now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have reverted Holy Valley to the redirect, as there is only one other article about a place called “Holy Valley”; I added a hatnote to this article. — Gorthian (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Kadisha Valley is not necessarily the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC for Holy Valley – depends on which part of the world, which religion, and which language: it is not WP:NPOV to pick one of these religions and say that one has dibs on the "primary topic" qualification. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Francis Schonken: Then, when this discussion is closed, start a new move discussion to gain consensus on whether it is the primary topic. Meanwhile, I have changed it back to the redirect. Please don’t change pages like that when they are still under discussion. — Gorthian (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no need to "wait" for whatever when implementing a sound solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, it is a redirect. Francis Schonken is blocked for several weeks on an unrelated matter. — Gorthian (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.