Talk:First Battle of Mount Hermon

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 Wikipedia, 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:

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.
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 Wikipedia, 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!

Israel

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria 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.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

A fact from First Battle of Mount Hermon appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 656 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Mount Hermon was captured by Syria on the first day of the Yom Kippur War and recaptured by Israel fifteen days later?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/December.

Wikipedia

Copyedit

This article has many inaccuracies, contradictions and portions that are just plain daft. For example:

'Background'
para 4, the article states there were 60 men in the outpost; in para 5, there were only 55.
para 5, what is a 'routine raid'? Is there such a thing as a raid which is not routine?

'Prelude'
para 3, the article has a battalion being commanded by a lieutenant. Either the Syrian army works very differently to the rest of the world or the word 'colonel' has been omitted.
para 3, The battalion then turns into a company just one sentence on; that's why I haven't changed it'.
para 3, What is 'Kanji'?

'Syrian attack'
para 2, "Three Golani soldiers at the upper ski lift observation post saw the Syrian landing but failed to fire at them due to a sub-machine gun malfunction." When I carried a sub-machine gun, it was a one-man weapon. Maybe 'sub' should not be there. Even if that is the case, this whole sentence sounds rather dubious; surely if their machine gun had jammed, they would have cleared it?

'Aftermath'
In para 1, it says two Israelis were executed. In the 'Info' box, it also says two. In the 'Capture' section, para 1, it states two, but in para 4 of the 'Wadi Si'on' section it states that "A soldier from the Air Force unit in the outpost accidentally entered a 183rd Syrian Battalion position, deployed on high point 1614. He was caught and executed the next day", later in the same paragraph, it also states: "A badly wounded Golani soldier who fell behind was killed, his body left behind." If I've got it right, that makes four.

'Counterattack'
"The force left Rosh Pina at 07:01 and reached Neve Ativ at 04:01". It either means 'the force' travelled back in time or something is not quite right here. I would favour the latter.

Various
The word 'fighters' appears throughout the article. For most this word describes a type of aircraft from WW II. I have changed it to 'infantrymen' or 'soldiers'.

I doubt that I have caught all the mistakes. There is still plenty of room for improvement.

I've had a look at the articles for the 2nd and 3rd battles, they are equally confusing RASAM (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further rationale for revert

While the rationale is mostly the same as for the other two articles, I will clarify here anyway:

Reverted a case of replacing neutral term (captured) with non-neutral (occupied)
Reverted poorly-written (bad grammar) sentence change that also wrongly implied that the Israeli position was in the middle of Syrian or Syrian-controlled territory (surrounded on all sides)
Removed citation needed tag because a source for the paragraph appears at the bottom and there is no evidence that there is no source for the statement
Removed other unnecessary word additions

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ynhockey, please explain why you removed "the rest of" here: "a strategic flanking move toward the rest of Syria" and "manning the Hermon outpost could view the rest of the entire Syrian plain" your removal of the entire world view is a violation of npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained the reasoning above:

Reverted poorly-written (bad grammar) sentence change that also wrongly implied that the Israeli position was in the middle of Syrian or Syrian-controlled territory (surrounded on all sides)

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how its poor grammar or how it implys that the Israeli position was in the middle of Syrian-controlled territory. Adding "the rest of" has nothing to do with who controls the territory. t has to do with real international borders. As it is now, it implys that what the entire world sees as a region in Syria, is not, which is a violation of npov, Due weight. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall explain farther:

"manning the Hermon outpost could view the rest of the entire Syrian plain" quite simply doesn't make any sense. One can call it bad grammar, bad language, or simply something that doesn't make sense.
Both passages imply that the Golan = Syria. This does not take into account the true status of the Golan as territory de facto administered by Israel and claimed by Syria. It therefore does not comply with WP:NPOV.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "true status" as you call it, of Golan is that its Syrian land occupied by Israel, see the sources here:[1] Occupied doesn't mean that its part of Israel, we already know its occupied. The entire worldview is that its Syrian land occupied by Israel. So to imply that its not part of Syria is a violation of npov, Due weight --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Golan is disputed territory and the claim that it's in Syria is just as "valid" as the claim that it's in Israel. The sources you provided are nice, but this is a much bigger issue than this article and the issue is common probably to over 100 articles. If you really want to get into this argument, please open an RfC and notify WP Israel and WP Syria so that many users can voice their opinions. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Reading further into the discussion you linked to, it basically seems to be a slew of comments by yourself with a few interjections by other editors. There is no evidence for consensus there and so that page is completely irrelevant here. You need to attain consensus before making sweeping changes. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how "the claim that it's in Syria is just as "valid" as the claim that it's in Israel" when all countries on earth and major organs see it as a region in Syria and not in Israel? There has already been discussions before about occupied, see: [2] majority of editors there support "occupied". The discussion here is about the map: [3], I linked to it so you could see the worldview sources provided. Consensus is based on the arguments not on the votes, how are the arguments there for modifying a CIA map following the worldview stronger then the arguments who do not want to modify it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as this article is not following the worldview and not identifying a region internationally recognized as in Syria as being in Syria, this articles neutrality is disputed, so the tag should stay in the article until the neutrality problems in the article are fixed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold

As it has been two years almost to the day since my comments above ('Copyedit') and nothing has been done, I thought I would be bold and have added 'Colonel' after 'Lieutenant' in para 3 of the 'Prelude' section and deleted 'Sub' before 'machine gun' in para 2 of the 'Syrian attack' sub-section.

If it's wrong, it can always be reverted.

RASAM (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template Disputed has no guideline that says it should be removed before the problems are dealt with so Im adding it instead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates needed, in popular culture

Can someone who has access to the relevant sources please add the coordinates of some of the major positions mentioned such as: the outpost itself, the ski lift, tank curve, Hill 2071 etc. as its very difficult to conceptualize without them. How closely, if at all, does the Valley of Tears (TV series) correspond to the battle?