Talk:Mount Peres

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

Categories[edit]

I have also removed Israeli and Syrian parent categories to avoid creating edit wars. The Israeli occupied territories category supercedes inclusion in parent categories. --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 22:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources wanted for Faras/Paras mountain name[edit]

I request that people ad sources about this mountain/hill, I'm looking for standardized, neutral, reliable sources to set its correct name.

I have so far gathered these sources all showing it by its arabic name, Faras:

  • Map at University of Texas at Austin: [1]
  • Google map: [3]

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant Source and JPost source not neutral reliable source because they from entity that occupy Golan and be hostile to Syria and legitimate inhabitent of Golan. All other use Arab name so that must be name use. Ani medjool (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as Mount Paras is the most commonly used name among English speakers, it should be used. Chesdovi (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please bring sources to show "Mount Paras" as the "most commonly used name among English speakers", as you claim. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where the Jerusalem Post or the Restaurant in Israel link reference Faras or Paras. The most commonly used English name is what we must base the article name off of, however, like with the other mountain names, there seems to be a lack of sources to definitively say what name it is, aside from passing mention. What we need is a source on the mountains themselves, not books that state a name in passing as part of a historical narritive.. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 02:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Jpost and israeli restaurant source say "Tel Fares" instead of "Tel Faras", as we can see from all (the only) sources presented is the overwhelmingly use of the arabic name. So that is what I'm gonna change the article to if no standardized reliable, neutral sources can be presented. So far you haven't even brought a non-reliable source using "Mount paras". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only once the RfC has been completed and closed, can any changes be made. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 10:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC will be completed when there is consensus, consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments and sources, not by counting votes, so far no sources has been presented for "Mount Paras". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and the decision regarding consensus is based on the closing Admin's opinion not the opinion of the editor who opened the RfC. Please keep that in mind. Anyhow, regardless, changes cannot be made until an admin has closed the RfC. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 10:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ill close it when the time is right and will carry out the change according to the standardized, neutral and reliable sources.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you cannot close it yourself, if other editors request that a third party neutral admin close it. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 20:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I read about this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its part of the RfC guidelines. Besides, any editor truly interested in the RfC reflecting the consensus of all editors involved, would not be opposed to a neutral third party Admin closing this RfC nor would they rush its closure. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 21:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Mount Peres – The original post doesn't seem to be all relevant. The sources specifically use the Arabic name Tal (al-)Faras, which is not English. The Hebrew and Arabic etymologies for the name differ; in Arabic, the mountain is called Tell of the Horse (Tal al-Faras), while in Hebrew it's called Mountain of the Bearded Vulture (Har Peres). We should be using the modern name, which is Mount Peres. Here is the article in the Ariel Encyclopedia, vol. 7, p. 6137 (translation mine):

A mountain in the southern part of the Golan, adjacent to the Syrian border. Its peak – 926 m above sea level. Volcano, on its peak the vent can be seen, and on its foothills – another vent. Named after the Peres [bearded vulture], a bird that can be found in Israel, and also by the Arabic name 'Tal al-Faras', which means Tell of the Horse, for its shape that's similar to a horse's back, similar to the name Susita – a Tell on the shore of the Kinneret [Sea of Galilee]. From the Quneitra–Hamat Gader road, there is a road that goes up to the peak of Mount Peres. Is found in a nature reserve. See also: Peres (I).

—Ynhockey (Talk) 21:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sources that I have found in the period of 2 minutes include: [4], [5] (need access, but you can see excerpts with a Google search), [6] (another academic source, search result here). —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ynhockey, the standardized sources decide what the modern name is, not you, and as can be seen in the acceptable sources, they use the arabic name, not israeli.
Now to the "sources" you have presented, Ariel Encyclopedia, not only is it non viewable, but its your own translation, but lets take a look at it "Ariel Encyclopedia" why don't you bring in Myths and Facts also? You said that the sources say: "adjacent to the Syrian border." which means that the sources sees the ceasefire line as a "Syrian border" which means that the sources sees the Golan heights as Israeli. Clearly unreliable.
Next, ISHS source doesn't show anything, the "Students" page looks like something from a power point presentation, filled with names of Israeli people and I don't see anything mentioning any mountain there either. Your wiley source( [7][8]) is from the Department of Geology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem and it doesn't say anything but mentions its Israeli name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - SD, what kind of sources do you consider valid for this article? In the recent discussion on renaming the Mount Yosifon article, you stated that sources from Israel or by Jews were not WP:RS for use in determining the name of the article[9]. Are you instituting those same standards for sources on this article? --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 20:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources for setting names are sources by a neutral third party organization or publication in newspapper or book, as they most likely would use standardized terms. And of course publications would most preferably be from authors who are neutral to the subject. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so if they are Israeli newspapers or books or newspapers or books written by Jews -- like Ynhockey introduced -- then would you object to their use? --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 21:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have given my answer to Ynhockeys "sources" above [10] Only one of them is a link where I can actually see the mountains name and that is from an Israeli university, all other links are to shady websites that lead to nothing, his non viewable "Ariel Encyclopedia" quote which would even embarrass the people at JVL and Myths and Fatcs basically said that the Golan heights is in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then its my understanding that the Israeli University source is admissible to this article because it is viewable by everyone and from a reputable institution of higher education. Yes? --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No because one biased non-neutral source, (Israeli university which of course would use the Israeli term about a mountain that the country of that university thinks the mountain belongs to it) doesn't beat third party sources like Map at University of Texas at Austin, [11] CIA map [12] Google map: [13] Published book: " From Saladin to the Mongols: the Ayyubids of Damascus, 1193-1260"Published book: "Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon" Published book: "International documents on Palestine" Published book: "The Israeli-Arab reader: a documentary history of the Middle East conflict" and even the Jerusalem Post. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness, if you have a problem with Israeli academic sources, please take it to WP:RSN. Israeli academic sources and major media outlets are all reliable sources. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "Israeli academic sources" ? The only one of the links you posted that mentioned a mountain was this: [14] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SD you argue that Israeli and Jewish sources are not neutral or reliable for this article -- one could also say that books, such as the "International documents on Palestine" is not neutral or reliable for this article because it is written by a person of Arab ancestry. I certainly don't feel that way, but others might. Excluding sources because of religion, ancestry or nationality is not-neutral and borders on censorship. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 21:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
nsaum75, why don't you stop focusing on a small part of what I said and start focusing on the bigger part of what I said and what the sources say, why aren't you questioning the reliability and neutrality of the Ariel "Encyclopedia" when it implys that the Golan Heights is in Israel? Or what these links: [15][16] are supposed to be a source for? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because your saying that a source isn't WP:RS or neutral based upon the country it was written in or based on the ethnicity/religion of the author(s), is a very serious issue that cannot be ignored. Besides, who knows, the Ariel Encyclopedia may be correct as it stands today. Wikipedia is not a not a crystal ball, we do not know if the Golan Heights will remain Israeli forever or if the Syrians or Lebanese will some day assume ownership & control over the land. What wikipedia can do is state the facts as they exist today. Just because the UN doesn't like something, or you personally don't like something, doesn't mean it can be excluded or "assumed" to be excluded. Time and time again, you have attempted to remove Israeli-related content from these articles and tried to change their names -- first collectively as a whole and then individually -- and time and time again the consensus has been to maintain them as they are. I'm not sure what other editors think, but to me it appears you are trying to game the system, hoping to find a way to force through your beliefs[17]. This is not constructive to building an encyclopedia and only frustrates all the editors involved. Please, take your past disputes to heart (ie:Asmahan) and try to work collectively with others, instead of pushing for a single POV at the expense of all others. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 01:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did not address the issue this RfC is about but attacked me instead in your post. What are these links Ynhocky added supposed to be source for? [18][19] what do those links say? and how are they reliable? You know very well that the (Israeli) Ariel Encyclopedia followed an Israeli pov (and clearly your own Israeli pov) against reality and world view by implying that the Golan heights is in Israel. So that proves that what ever terms or views that "Encyclopedia" has is an Israeli pov, not reality. The issue about Tel al Faras is not the same as the talks at the collective Golan mountains change, this RfC is only about this mountain and the sources presented here is only about this mountain and they are not the same sources as was presented for the collective Golan mountains change. That you claim that I in my "past dispute" did not work collectively with others, show you have no idea what went down there. I would appreciate it if you could stop with personal attacks and start focusing on the sources. and Btw your claim that "and time and time again the consensus has been to maintain them as they are." is false, there was never any consensus to keep the Israeli names. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common Ground? - SD, I would not support applying this interpretation to your source, but if we use the same logic that you present above - that because a source refers to the Golan as "Israeli" it is not reliable - then the some editors might say that the same applies to your source "International documents on Palestine By Muʼassasat al-Dirāsāt al-Filasṭīnīyah, Jāmiʻat al-Kuwayt", because that source does not acknowledge the existence of Israel but instead refers to it as Palestine. However, I don't see other editors trying to make this distinction to "invalidate" your sources, so I would hope you would meet us half-way and accept that reliable sources come in all forms, irrespective of nationality/religion/ethnicity of the publication or its authors. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 10:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Do you have any link to show that the book "International documents on Palestine" and its authors do not acknowledge the existence of Israel? And even if they did, it wouldn't have anything to do with this hill since its in Syria and not in Israel or Palestine. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They refer to Israel as the "Zionist Entity" in several places[20]. Some might consider this hostile terminology and rejection of Israel. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 10:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter if that author recognizes Israel or Palestine, this mountain is in neither, but in Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, and it doesn't matter if an author is outwardly hostile towards Israel, then why do you hold a different standard to authors/publications that are Jewish and/or Israeli (keeping in mind, not all Jews support Israel and not all Israelis support their government)?? --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 10:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed address this RfC, asking you to explain why you feel that we should exclude a source simply because of the country it was written in or the ethnicity/religion of the author. Especially since not all Jews support Israel and not all Israelis support the actions of their government. There seems to be a double standard at play. As for consensus with regards to the repeated attempts to change the mountain names, I guess you and I have different opinions as to what "consensus" means. In any case, I will not continue to argue the symantics of what is or is not consensus or WP:RS, but hopefully some other editors will join in and give some input. Eventually, when the time comes, an independent administrator will close this RfC, and hopefully by then everyone will agree what is and is not considered a reliable source and we can settle the question of what is the name of the mountain(s). Happy editing. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 10:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that we should exclude a source simply because of the country it was written in or the ethnicity/religion of the author. I said that one non-neutral source (an institution in a country that occupys the mountain which the entire world sees as Syria) doesn't beat several english third party sources from organs and publications that are using the standardized name. The fact that you have no problem with the Ariel Encyclopedia source when its a translation from hebrew (so of course the Hebrew name) and says Golan is Israel and that you have not answered what these links Ynhocky added are supposed to be sources for:[21][22] or what those links say and how they are reliable, shows that you have really no interest in discussing validity of any sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Ynhockey's sources[23], I add the following:


So we have one JP source using the Israeli name and one JP source using the standardized arabic name: Jerusalem Post: Shattered Heights that other source "The Soils of Israel by Arieh Singer" specifically calls the mountain "in northern Israel", that shows not by whom it is written by that its non-neutral and unreliable but the fact that he calls a mountain internationally recognized as part of Syria as "in Israel" that makes it unreliable in setting its name. Same thing with "Israel exploration journal, Volume 39" this "Israel exploration" crossed into Syria and that shows that the author of that book believes its in Israel. That makes it unreliable in setting its name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Arieh Singer - maybe in your opinion he is a unreliable source because he refers to the Golan as part of Israel (they do control the Golan after all), but you are only one editor. Lets get the opinion of others.--nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 11:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the "In addition to Ynhockey's sources" what sources are they? and what do they say? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The academic sources Ynhockey gives here[24]. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 17:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


As shown in my posts above almost all of the sources nsaum and ynhockey has posted are Israeli sources, some of them also claim that the Golan Heights is in Israel which makes them non neutral and Israeli pov sources.
  • I support rename to Tall al-Faras based on these standardized and more neutral sources, english maps, english university, english organs and several english authors. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SD, why is it if Yhockney, myself, or anyone else on the "other side" uses an Israeli source (and not all of mine are Israeli sources), you call "it unreliable, non neutral, non standard", but its OK for you to use an Israeli source like the Jerusalem Post or a Israeli food article? It seems that a double standard exists. Also remember, WP:COMMONNAME states we must use the most common English name, not the most common Arab (Faras) or Hebrew name (Paras). --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎

Almost all sources you and ynhocky posted are Israeli. As I have shown above the english maps, english university, english organs and several english authors uses Tal-al Faras so that shows its the most common English name. Jerusalem Post and the Israeli restaurant using the name is to show that even some Israeli sources uses the standardized name and not the Israeli. "Peres" is the hebrew name as you can see in the Ariel Encyclopedia segment Ynhockey posted and that you didn't question. Where did you get that "Paras" is the hebrew name from? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of my sources are Israeli and let me reiterate, not all Israelis support continued Israeli control of the Golan, nor do all Jews support Israel. So to say a source cannot be not neutral because its author is Israeli/Jewish is stereotyping. It would be similar to someone dismissing one of your sources because it was written by a person of Arab ancestry and hence "Anti-Israel" -- which would not only be wrong but an example of another unfair stereotype. Regards --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 21:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the majority of them are Israeli, and as I have shown above, several of them claim Golan is Israel = Non-neutral Israeli pov. and also WP:COMMONNAME states we must use the most common English name, and English sources is best suited for that, not sources from the country that occupys the mountain. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is POV, from one standpoint or another, that is why we look for "Consensus" among editors. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 21:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources given were English. You seem to be confused, Supreme Deliciousness. Breein1007 (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Supreme Deliciousness, your rejection of Israeli sources is irrelevant and offensive, please stop. As I said before, Israeli academic institutions and mainstream newspapers are WP:RS sources. If you believe otherwise, please spare us the drama and take the issue to WP:RSN where such a discussion would be appropriate. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The google map submitted by Supreme Deliciousness' "[25]", appears to be a user-made map -- its a red tick mark on an otherwise blank map, as if someone entered the coordinates and had the program plot it -- so its not an offical map, hence its WP:OR and not admissible. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 09:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It time this need be close no one be add new source in a while. How close it? Ani medjool (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope by close you mean remove the request for comments and leave the article alone. Because there is clearly no consensus to make the change requested, and you know better than to keep edit warring based on nationalistic hatred after being warned repeatedly not to, right? Breein1007 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was directed here by a note on WP:AN, where it was asked that an Admin close this RfC. I am going to make a few observations, in hope that it might direct all involved towards a consensus.

  1. The intent of the rule that the "most common form in English" be used to refer to geographical locations was to make it easier for our users to find them, not to help one political faction or another to score points.
  2. Out of curiosity, 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 this entry for a "Tall el Faras", with no significant alternate names. Make of this what you will.
  3. If this group wants to determine, in good faith, what actually is the "most common form in English", I would suggest finding material in sources which are considered properly representative of the usage of English speakers -- Time, Newsweek, the BBC website, New York Times, etc. -- which reports on events in the Middle East. (My objection to using the Jerusalem Post would not be due to any political bias, but because I doubt its editorial staff would know what native English speakers actually habitually call it: I would assume their native language is Hebrew.)
  4. And once this naming controversy is resolved, a redirect should be created for the alternative name. This is because, no matter which name is selected, there will be users who know it by the other one.)

In short, this RfC can't be closed because there is no consensus to be found here. Both sides are deeply entrenched, & are at odds over even what should be accepted as a "reliable source" to determine the proper answer. And seeing how there is no pressing need to settle this matter, the best solution is to leave all of you to discuss this matter further, & see if cooler heads will eventually prevail. -- llywrch (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find any elevation in Israel named "Paras"
That's because the dispute is between Tall al-Faras and Mount Peres. Those are the only two names used anywhere, except this article. —Ynhockey (Talk) 08:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for "Peres" in GeoNames didn't find that prominence either. In any case, my research with this site was shared with the provisio "Make of this what you will." -- llywrch (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then why on Earth are we using a combination of the two to make some made up name? Could somebody with intestinal fortitude move this to either the Arabic or Hebrew name, I dont care which. What I do care about is using a made up collection of letters and saying that it means something. If this is supposed to be titled after a Hebrew translation then let's do that, if it is supposed to be titled after an Arabic translation let's do that. Let's not just make a name up. nableezy - 23:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I move base on Nableezy comment. No source exist for "Paras" but uncontroverse source exist for Tel Faras, so until this settle it better to have name with uncontroverse source than no source at all. Ani medjool (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But none of list source by Nsaum user that say "Peres" be reliable english article like Llywrch suggest. They all be by editor who native language most like be Hebrew because they be in "Israel". But many source present by Supreme Deliciousness be by native englich speak person. You think person at University of Texas map place speak Hebrew or Arab? No they speek english. Ani medjool (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How know we that they no speek arab? It not for us to make guess like this because we no have reliable source to inform about this. So then we must to assume yes they speek arab. Breein1007 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Breen user, please stop personal attack of me by patronize me bad english, as this be disruptive edit too. This be discuss of article, not "make fun of Ani Medjools english". Thank you. Ani medjool (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: llywrchs comments:

  • 1. "most common form in English" - And the best sources for most common form in English are english organs and publications. The Texas University maps, CIA maps and English books I have posted above. Almost all sources presented at this rfc by the other side are Israeli sources.
  • 2. "GeoNames" uses Tal al-Faras, not the hebrew "paras" or hebrew "peres"
  • 3. "material in sources which are considered properly representative of the usage of English speakers" same as nr 1, University of Texas maps and CIA maps, several English books, while almost all books presented at this rfc by the other side are Israeli sources. "(My objection to using the Jerusalem Post would not be due to any political bias, but because I doubt its editorial staff would know what native English speakers actually habitually call it: I would assume their native language is Hebrew.)" Same thing would apply to all those Israeli sources.
If the other side cant present anything new, then "Tall al-Faras" is what the article should be renamed to. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not taking sides here, but I thought I'd point out that two of the sources cited by Supreme Deliciousness—International Documents on Palestine and The Israeli-Arab Reader—reprint the same document. Each book is a collection of source documents, but both include the same document. They shouldn't be counted as two sources, but as one. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To see the two sources side by side, copy and paste this URL: http://www.google.com/search?q="and other villages and positions in the Golan"&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the fact that there is not a a lot written about this (and other Golani mountains) in English, there is bound to be some overlap in sources (on both sides); this further complicates the issue. In speaking of the Golan mountains as a whole, most of the articles are extremely short and lack much in way of sourcing. One option that might be considered is instead of having lots of short mountain articles with none/few sources, maybe combining some/most of them into a more substantial article on Mountains in the Golan Heights would be better. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 06:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the best suggestion I've heard here. It will solve the naming issues, and I doubt really that all of these "hills" are notable anyway. Yazan (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SD, while I appreciate being considered an authority in something here on Wikipedia, I need to point out that GeoNames is only one possible source. Did you -- or anyone -- look at the other sources I mentioned? That is, Time, Newsweek, BBC, & so forth? The wider the net one casts, the more accurate will be the final decison. -- llywrch (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Llywrch, I have looked up those three sources and havent find anyhting. Its now my collected evidence consisting mostly of english sources against the other side which consists mostly of Israeli sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Journal of African earth sciences is not Israeli nor is Chemical abstracts, Volumes 1-135; Volumes 138-139 By American Chemical Society... The soils of Israel By Arieh Singer was published in New York, USA by an American publishing company[26]. Furthermore I think Prof. Singer's Cirriculum_Vitae, including his Professional Activities and memberships abroad, shows he has a command of the English Language. Rafid on the Golan was published by the British Archaeological Report[27], so while it may have been written by an Israeli citizen, it was published (and presumed reviewed) by a British publisher.
Also, The google maps source[28] is a user-created map, and the name does not actually appear on the Google Map. Anyhow, I reiterate my earlier comment about perhaps most of these extremely short and questionably sourced mountain articles should be merged into an article titled Mountains of the Golan Heights or Mountains in the Golan Heights. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 03:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

Ani medjool moved this article without consensus this evening, and he was blocked for it. Please don't start revert warring over the article's name. Leave it be until consensus is reached about a name, or I will move-protect the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus on a name has yet been reached, so shouldn't the article name be reverted to the "original" name until such a decision is reached? As it stands now, the article has one name, but all the references in it have another. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 01:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Go ahead, but if the article gets moved again I'm going to move-protect it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted it to the original article name, Mount Paras, per the conversation above -- pending final consensus among editors. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 02:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isnt a real name, at least move it to Mount Peres. So what happens if it stays at this name and there is "no consensus", do we keep an incorrect name? I understand that we have a "original name" and there are these "rules" about "consensus", but we cant seriously consider leaving an article at a name that nobody uses, can we? nableezy - 04:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Mount Peres" is not agreed upon, the rfc admin, although what he said was that there was no consensus, what he said shows the sources are leaning more for "Tal al-Faras" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is the problem. Neither one of the names is "agreed upon" so we use a bogus name. This article was initially titled after what was thought to be the transliteration of the Hebrew name (the article originally had that as Har Paras). We now know that transliteration was incorrect. So we are now stuck with an incorrect name because nobody agrees with anybody else. I suppose this is the Wikipedia way, but it is just plain dumb. nableezy - 17:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rfc admin has made his position clear about the Jerusalem post, the same reasoning can disqualify all Israeli sources the other side brought. The GeoNames site uses Tal al-Faras. We are now at a point where if the other side doesn't accept Tal al-Faras they are just saying "no", without anything to back it up. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, you cannot assume that a writer does not have a firm grasp of English or that English wasn't his first tongue. Many Israelis moved to Israel from the United States and have English as their first language, and many academics at Israeli Universities spent time at US Institutions -- and presumably learned English. Also, who is to say that the author of the topographic maps didn't have some other language as their first language, especially since they aren't credited? When you boil everything down, you cannot disqualify sources based upon what might or might not be the original language of the author for the same reason you cannot eliminate a source based upon the assumed nationality or religion of the author/publication. Maybe this is a shortcoming of WP:RS, but as the policy currently stands all the Israeli/Jewish sources given so far are just as WP:RS as any other source given -- even if individual editors disagree on it. Of course, the alternative is to change WP:RS policy, which each editor is entitled to initiate. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nr 3: [29] you are basically just saying "no". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you choose to dismiss my arguments and/or my sources doesn't mean I am just saying "No". Thats the beauty of Wikipedia, everyone is entitled to an opinion. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 20:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just I that dismissed it, the neutral admin who came here to close the rfc objected to it. Imagine if he had sided against my sources instead and I said "no", What would you have done? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: I wasn't speaking as an Admin about the Jerusalem Post. I was only sharing my initial impression, as just a run-of-the-mill, uninvolved, editor. I could be wrong about the quality of English used by the staff of the Jerusalem Post -- or how they came to settle on what name to use for this hill/mount. Or I could be right. But don't use something I wrote after a few minutes of thought as received truth. -- llywrch (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a short-term solution, but at least it doesn't favor either side in the disagreement. Some sort of compromise will have to be agreed upon, hopefully soon. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know where you're coming from Malik Shabazz, but, this makes no sense, IMHO. This is not a "neutral name", this is simply a non-existent name. And the way things are looking, this RfC is going to drag on. I honestly think this article should be moved to either "Tall al-Faras" or "Mount Peres". Yazan (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mountains in the Golan Heights[edit]

As suggested by some above I have started a draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Supreme_Deliciousness/Mountains_in_the_Golan_Heights feel free to edit it or comment. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pre-1967 name?[edit]

Just a question; which name was used in Israeli maps prior to occupation? --Soman (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Peres&oldid=1208305121"