Talk:Jebel Aqra

Mountains Mid‑importance

	Mountains portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Syria Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assyria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Phoenicia Mid‑importance

	Phoenicia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger with Hazzi

The Hazzi article currently has no sources, and all the sources I can find for it suggest that Hazzi was the Hurrian name for Mount Aqraa, not the name of the god associated with it, which was Teshub. As such, Hazzi should redirect here. Neelix (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: a search on Gbooks supports the nominator's conclusions. Yazan (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aqraaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Moooooooooooooove.

A well-intentioned but underinformed editor moved this page from Mount Aqraʿ to Mount Aqraa but (I) Wikipedia's romanization of Arabic is the ALA-LC format (WP:MOS-AR); (II) even bending the rules to avoid an unusual character in an article title, the loose form of ⟨ ʿ ⟩ is ⟨ ` ⟩ or possibly ⟨ ' ⟩, but never ⟨ a ⟩; (III) Syria officially uses Modern Standard Arabic, so any weirdness in Levantine Arabic doesn't get addressed here (not that ‘ayn seems to have turned into an A in any case); (IV) if we're bending the rules anyway, the usual treatment of ‘ayn is to drop it completely (as in the title and lead sentence of its own article); (V) the mountain is mostly on the Turkish side of the border anyway, as is its peak, so if we're not using the COMMON ENGLISH name, we should be using the Turkish one... (VI) in its more common English form that ignores the diacritics and odd form of I.

(For the curious, yes, this seems to have been completely WP:OR on the editor's part. Google vanilla isn't reliable for numbers but is displaying "5000ish" pages that have copied Wikipedia's version. There are precisely 4 actual books which use it: 2 because of optical reader mistakes, 1 because it's a cut-and-paste of Wikipedia articles, and the last because it was self-published in 2011 and the author was presumably cribbing this article. Google Scholar likewise has exactly 1 hit, from a 2013 article that was looking here.)

The usual policy is WP:USEENGLISH WP:COMMONNAMEs, but that doesn't seem to work here. "Mount Casius" gets the most hits at Books and Scholar^{[n 1]} (~400/299) but it's not really a name we'd use for the modern mountain any more^{[n 2]} and it includes hits on a classical mountain in Egypt. Taking those out gives numbers (~340/87) around "Mount Zaphon" (~290/"Mount+Zaphon"+-wikipedia 146) but some of those are just sources arguing that the Biblical mentions should be seen as allegoric references to Mount Zion. Obviously, those numbers are bigger than the modern results for pure Latin (~420/30), Greek (~190/4), anglicized Hurrian (~110/26), or anglicized Akkadian (~100/27) forms. Of the modern names, "Kel Dagi" picks up ~30 at Books but more than half of those are Turkish texts (all the Scholar articles are Turkish); there's ~20 for "Mount Kel" but most are OCR mistakes (5 English-language Scholar hits, though); "Cebel-i Akra" picks up ~10/28 (mostly Turkish); "Jebel Aqra" gets ~90/28; "Jebel al-Aqra" ~50/35; and "Jebel el-Aqra" ~70/45. "Mount Aqra" gets nothing at all on Scholar and only 5 hits on Books.

So even within Turkey, the Arabic name is quite common and some form of Jebel Aqra (not "Mount Aqra" or "Mount Kel") is more common in English. Ngram shows "Mount Casius" still crushing the modern names but "Jebel Aqra" tout suite as the most common of the remainder by far.

^ Google Books' initial numbers are less wrong than vanilla Google's but you still have to click over to the end of the list make it accurate. Scholar gives accurate numbers.
^ If someone finds the name being used in Lonely Planet or sth, then we should move it there but it doesn't seem like it's much of a tourist destination or gets much notice in the modern world.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LlywelynII (talk • contribs) UTC 23:38, 21 August 2015

Works for me. Paul August ☎ 13:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bad link

I don't know if this is vandalism or a typo, but at the bottom of the page, "Zaphon" is supposed to point to an external source and the rest of the text suggests that it's a book published by Eerdmans. The external link actually points to something in Chinese. Fix the link. 100.15.120.162 (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Google Books' initial numbers are less wrong than vanilla Google's but you still have to click over to the end of the list make it accurate. Scholar gives accurate numbers.

[2] If someone finds the name being used in Lonely Planet or sth, then we should move it there but it doesn't seem like it's much of a tourist destination or gets much notice in the modern world.

[n 1]

[n 2]